drewprint
Dick Tooth (41)
I can’t read it either as I’d rather drink rat poison than pay for a subscription to that rag-for-the-brainwashed, but yep.
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
I can’t read it either as I’d rather drink rat poison than pay for a subscription to that rag-for-the-brainwashed, but yep.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Interesting article from Wayne Barnes in weekend Australian suggesting castle achieved better pay out then what board limits were.
Rugby has a lot of challenges at this point but probably still too early for me to say whether castle should stay or go. But I probably sway more with Barnes then rent a mindless Alan Jones rant.
Rugby has a lot of challenges at this point but probably still too early for me to say whether castle should stay or go. But I probably sway more with Barnes then rent a mindless Alan Jones rant.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
I read Alan Jones articles as an emotional outburst, I cant take them seriously. Even if there were elements of truth to parts of what he says, its overshadowed by his own clouded opinion on the subject.
Rebelsfan
Billy Sheehan (19)
Wayne Smith - and its good to know that Wayne is back on the RA payroll
Is he though? Or he just doesn't work for Newscorp?
Rebelsfan
Billy Sheehan (19)
Well apparently a Director spoke to him and him alone and revealed the truth about the payout.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
So journalist doing basic journalist work and talking to his sources and checking facts is considered “being on the payroll”
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
I reckon cashed-up Izzy's next religious challenge should be converting the North Sentinelese from their heathenous godless ways: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...d-isolated-indian-tribe-north-sentinel-island
I can put him in touch with some accommodation brokers: http://gunstontravelnorthsentinels.angelfire.com/index.html
I can put him in touch with some accommodation brokers: http://gunstontravelnorthsentinels.angelfire.com/index.html
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/ben-fordham-highlights/id415808156?mt=2
So clyne went on the radio yesterday. I've never heard of ben fordham before but he sounds like yet another league centric shock jock (stopped watching the wallabies a long time ago, he says) that sees the quickest path to making news as shitting on RA as much as possible. I couldn't listen to all of it because he's just another hack.
We could do with some balance in this area but the sport is so niche that no one in traditional media really knows anything about it
So clyne went on the radio yesterday. I've never heard of ben fordham before but he sounds like yet another league centric shock jock (stopped watching the wallabies a long time ago, he says) that sees the quickest path to making news as shitting on RA as much as possible. I couldn't listen to all of it because he's just another hack.
We could do with some balance in this area but the sport is so niche that no one in traditional media really knows anything about it
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/ben-fordham-highlights/id415808156?mt=2
So clyne went on the radio yesterday. I've never heard of ben fordham before but he sounds like yet another league centric shock jock (stopped watching the wallabies a long time ago, he says) that sees the quickest path to making news as shitting on RA as much as possible. I couldn't listen to all of it because he's just another hack.
We could do with some balance in this area but the sport is so niche that no one in traditional media really knows anything about it
Thanks for posting that link.
I listened to Clyne and the other podcast involving 2Gb sports reporter James Willis.
Willis categorically stated Castle's job will be on the line at Monday's board meeting.
Clyne was equally adamant it won't be an agenda item.
We wait with bated breath.
Interestingly, Willis said the board of RA wasn't aware of the upcoming payout to Israel, whereas Clyne said both RA and NSW boards were kept fully informed all the way through the unfolding drama. Only one can be telling the truth.
I can see a book on this in the near future.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
James Willis is Alan Jones’ producer...
They’re all a bunch of lying, anti-science scumbags.
Anyways, transcript of Clyne’s serve...
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...hange-over-castle-future-20191207-p53hrg.html
Key points - the RA and NSW boards were fully involved and supportive of the entire process, and it was cheaper to payout Folau than to continue paying court costs.
They’re all a bunch of lying, anti-science scumbags.
Anyways, transcript of Clyne’s serve...
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...hange-over-castle-future-20191207-p53hrg.html
Key points - the RA and NSW boards were fully involved and supportive of the entire process, and it was cheaper to payout Folau than to continue paying court costs.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Man if she gets sacked because of Folau, in the middle of assembly the best fucking coaching team weve probably had in the better part of a decade at least, i will be very very disappointed.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
I don't see it that way. If RA was so certain about its legal position, it would have kept going. The Federal Court would have ruled in their favour, Israel would have had costs awarded against him, and rugby in Australia would not be hamstrung by a large payout nor future increased insurance premiums.
I see the negotiated settlement as a cave in by RA in the face of a legal loss, the fear of an even higher payout, and the embarrassment of witnesses appearing before the Federal court.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
Can we not do this any more, please? This has been done to death. Slim was just saying what clyne said. It's impossible to discuss anything else in here. Everyone he is acutely aware of your views on this matter, i can assure you. Clyne is actually the chairman of the board, so he probably has some idea of what happened?
For the 100th and final time, its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to judge the merits of a settlement without knowing the PRECISE terms of the settlement and the estimated costs to come. To me it seems pretty fucking unlikely that legal experts that advised RA 8 months ago and subsequently had that advice affirmed by an independent panel of senior fucking counsels suddenly turned around and advised RA that they were staring down the barrel of a fatal loss, but who knows? Maybe we are actually living in an episode of Suits and everything changed in the space of half an hour?
None of us know the details of the settlement and likely never will. Everyone has had dozens of posts to interpret the outcome and we have gotten no closer to actually knowing anything.
And by the way, you ought to brush up on your litigation knowledge if you think getting a ruling in your favour automatically means getting all of your costs back.
Interesting that some on here were very quick to accept what turns out to be a completely made-up number of $8 million, and yet someone reporting a much lower number, who has some inside knowledge, is dismissed as a stooge. Given that probably nobody posting in this thread truly knows, it strikes me as an odd counterpoint. But then again, not.
There is a clear agenda in the mainstream media being whipped up by the usual suspects to give it to Castle.
Personally, I find it contemptible.
There is a clear agenda in the mainstream media being whipped up by the usual suspects to give it to Castle.
Personally, I find it contemptible.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Yeh they read like someone over emotional having a dummy spit and more so seeking to just criticise then applying any logical thought.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
This is objectively false.
1) Settlements are almost always the best way to resolve disputes in Court (I'm a lawyer - i settle everything i can. A smaller win with some compromise is a better result than walking away empty handed. It's almost never worth the risk of a contested hearing - particularly because judges are wildly unpredictable).
2) They were insured for a payout but not legal fees. His claim was greater than their insurance. So, as stated above, settling for anything less than their insurance cover made the most financial sense. Upping the claim was most likely a ploy from IF's lawyers to maneuver RA into settlement.
3) it was never RA's intention to go on some noble crusade - that was IF's stated purpose. They wanted a divisive figure damaging their brand fired as quickly and simply as possible. So again, as stated above, settling made the most sense.
IF is the hypocrite here. He's repeatedly gone against his word AND has taken thousands of Christians for a ride while he sought to gouge as much cash as possible. There is simply no way of getting past the fact that he had to agree to the settlement and that by agreeing he has clearly demonstrated that it was never about the principle.
I guess it must suck, thinking that you had a public figure fighting for your beliefs when really all they were doing was grandstanding to get some cash after they goofed.
Although, it's hard to be too sympathetic when the substance of those beliefs is bigotry.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
I am curious to know if I have misjudged or was a variable potential resolution that was available to RA been overlooked in all the reporting? If I am correct, I think it could be a clear marker of the actual "high water" mark for the settlement.
I believe that at any point RA and NSWRU could have just conceded the battle to win the war and taken the tried and tested "Cooper" path. This was always an available option. Simply reinstate the contract and get him to sit in the corner for the duration at cost of less than $5million. If he uses enough rope while sitting around its a bonus.
In business terms and for the sake of the game the Folau show needed to be closed. The matter had been perverted in to vehicle to suit many political. social and personal agendas. From religion, to freedom of speech, RA bashing to the personal attacks.
For those who deal with legal system there is no such thing as a sure thing when it come to courts. Many cases are determined not by the legislation, but by the cost. Even in the criminal matters it's common to get bizarre outcomes that fall short of what we expected. RA would be criticised more if they had consumed even more funds to prove the point than settle and exit for a lower cost.
As for the perversion of this matter in to a politicised and immature debate about the non-existent freedom of speech laws in the country, people need to consider what freedoms they are wanting. When you are concerned about some angry bloke raving and rating as he sermoises a crowd at you local shops and is handing out free "martyr" backpacks or other similar "religious tokens" that look like weapons to enable people to express themselves and do some "god's" work; don't get upset when it the freedoms of religions expression (speech) you ask for protects him and prevents authorities stopping him.
The reality is the above words have very little to do with the game of rugby. As that's the issue. We need to be focused on the game. Not human rights, how courts work or legal tactics.
When he posted his post it cost the game. Act or not act Izzy was going to cost the game either through reputation, image and sponsors damage or via the enviable payoff. The irony of this tale is RA is merely the firefighter in this. Izzy was the fire and was going to burn until he wanted to stop or could be stopped.
I believe that at any point RA and NSWRU could have just conceded the battle to win the war and taken the tried and tested "Cooper" path. This was always an available option. Simply reinstate the contract and get him to sit in the corner for the duration at cost of less than $5million. If he uses enough rope while sitting around its a bonus.
In business terms and for the sake of the game the Folau show needed to be closed. The matter had been perverted in to vehicle to suit many political. social and personal agendas. From religion, to freedom of speech, RA bashing to the personal attacks.
For those who deal with legal system there is no such thing as a sure thing when it come to courts. Many cases are determined not by the legislation, but by the cost. Even in the criminal matters it's common to get bizarre outcomes that fall short of what we expected. RA would be criticised more if they had consumed even more funds to prove the point than settle and exit for a lower cost.
As for the perversion of this matter in to a politicised and immature debate about the non-existent freedom of speech laws in the country, people need to consider what freedoms they are wanting. When you are concerned about some angry bloke raving and rating as he sermoises a crowd at you local shops and is handing out free "martyr" backpacks or other similar "religious tokens" that look like weapons to enable people to express themselves and do some "god's" work; don't get upset when it the freedoms of religions expression (speech) you ask for protects him and prevents authorities stopping him.
The reality is the above words have very little to do with the game of rugby. As that's the issue. We need to be focused on the game. Not human rights, how courts work or legal tactics.
When he posted his post it cost the game. Act or not act Izzy was going to cost the game either through reputation, image and sponsors damage or via the enviable payoff. The irony of this tale is RA is merely the firefighter in this. Izzy was the fire and was going to burn until he wanted to stop or could be stopped.