• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

Dismal Pillock

Michael Lynagh (62)
A couple of days ago. Mostly to help clean up spam posts.

Without wanting to sound like a suck-up, B.Ravesheart is an excellent choice of moderator. So much common sense. I can only marvel at the sensical brain machinations involved in weighing reason and sense to conjure posts that result in some sort of miracle of rationale and reason and common sense and wft the other things I don't understand
 

oztimmay

Tony Shaw (54)
Staff member
Without wanting to sound like a suck-up, B.Ravesheart is an excellent choice of moderator. So much common sense. I can only marvel at the sensical brain machinations involved in weighing reason and sense to conjure posts that result in some sort of miracle of rationale and reason and common sense and wft the other things I don't understand

Would you like a straw with that?
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
FWIW, I don't really intend to participate in the conversation too much but I think the Folau thread should be reopened given this new development so people can vent there rather than pollute other threads with it

Completely- I think if the thread is locked these posts should simply be removed. Otherwise reopen it and get it on the one thread.
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I cant see how they are liable for anymore than their share of his salary.
They were liable for that before this blew up.
It’s RA that have terminated him, it’s they that would be liable for any damages he might be awarded for his loss of income from other sources.
Company directors can be liable for debts or tax obligations if they knowingly allow the company to continue 'trading' while insolvent.

I have no idea whether RA are close to insolvency or not. Seems unlikely though.
 

Torpedo Punt

Herbert Moran (7)
Can we reopen the Folau thread ? Why cant we discuss it ? I know I have employees who have the same views as Israel and some dont , nobody lost their job, no clients walked away, we all get along.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Company directors can be liable for debts or tax obligations if they knowingly allow the company to continue 'trading' while insolvent.

I have no idea whether RA are close to insolvency or not. Seems unlikely though.
I was responding to a post suggesting that might be a risk that Tahs not RA directors might be facing.
Pretty sure Tahs would have a RA reliance clause in their annual accounts as well.
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
Can we reopen the Folau thread ? Why cant we discuss it ? I know I have employees who have the same views as Israel and some dont , nobody lost their job, no clients walked away, we all get along.

Probably because it is boring and we will just repeat the same stuff over and over again.

And there is nothing wrong with having different views. It is communicating those views when you are representing your employer. Check out Angela Williamson, Scott McIntyre and Michaela Banerji as other examples in Australia. Of course all situations have their own quirks.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Can we reopen the Folau thread ? Why cant we discuss it ? I know I have employees who have the same views as Israel and some dont , nobody lost their job, no clients walked away, we all get along.


Are your employees famous? Are they nationally known figures? Are they, or have they ever been, the most important feature of your promotions? And, finally, have they been asked to refrain from this sort of use of social media?
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
Yes interesting that. Though such people have always had flexible ethics and integrity.
This is actually a very good example of my objection to the Folau saga. I don't give a shit about what Folau posted. I actually don't care about what Derpus posted above beyond its ability to convey the very point I was making in my whole stance on this matter. The ability to be offended and achieve sanction against the offender is obviously now restricted to "abuse" directed at approved minority groups. The problem then becomes who approves what is offensive and who can be offended.
Much better if as Haidt has says we become resilient and learn to live outside.

Thanks for that Gnostic, I’m Bout half way through and will get back to it tonight. Thought provoking and I have already learned some things.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Im sorry I thought all humans were equal


Circumstances alter cases, my friend. Nobody except you cares what your employees do, as long as they do not break the law.


A lot of people (including his former employer) cared a lot what Folau said on social media.
 

sunnyboys

Bob Loudon (25)
All people are created equally but not all are treated equally.

Gay people have been singled out - not by them - but by the majority. The way they express their love was singled out as a criminal offence. Their desire to express their love via marriage singled out as illegal. They’ve been singled out when bashed and bullied and treated second class. And suicide rates amongst young gay people singles itself out.

Society has now decided its time to stop singling them out. It’s now those that seek to declare them ‘different’ who are being singled out.

And as far as building ‘resilience’, tell that to parents of gay people who have ended their own lives.

How about the self declared normal ones show some resilience by learning to moderate their unkind and unsolicited actions and words.


Rant done.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to Jonathan Haidt given I quoted only that line of your post.



Your are 100% correct that I know nothing about you which is why my post was not in reference to you personally in any way.



I'm sorry if you thought I was commenting about you specifically. I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't.



Anyway, nice rant with a few attempts at insults directed at me.

If this post was the first time that you had posted those exact same words I could perhaps accept your defence, it is however not the first time and not in response to Haidt. It was however a nice attempt to try and recover from being called out on your falsehoods.
And the insults were not insults, just facts as far as I am concerned, others can have a different opinion, I expect that is the case and others have expressed such, that is fine, the beauty of real debate.
 

Kenny Powers

Ron Walden (29)
I was responding to a post suggesting that might be a risk that Tahs not RA directors might be facing.
Pretty sure Tahs would have a RA reliance clause in their annual accounts as well.

Couldn’t find any clause disclosed in their annual accounts. A six figure liability will likely render them insolvent so the Tahs survival is dependent on Rugby Australia’s support. Whether that support is there cannot be determined.
 
Top