RebelYell
Arch Winning (36)
Sigh
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Sigh
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
She was appointed in December 2017 and started in January 2018. Thats a lot closer to two years than one.
JOC (James O'Connor) wanted those clauses put in his contract though. It wasn't at the behest of RA/Qld Reds.
I highly doubt the public opinion of Raelene Castle would be better if she'd come out and announced that Israel Folau would no longer be playing rugby in Australia because he refused to accept contract conditions that didn't apply to anyone else and therefore they had decided not to offer him another contract.
RebelYell
Arch Winning (36)
I also think the chance of Folau successfully suing Rugby Australia would be way higher if this had happened. I am not a lawyer but I would think Folau would have had a strong case for constructive dismissal. RA has taken their highest profile player who has had a minor disciplinary issue (the first post and apology) and as a result you've decided that the only way they can continue their employment is by accepting employment conditions that apply to no one else.
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
It would be super bizarre to fire Castle at this point. Like, have-you-run-a-business-before? bizarre.
She inherited a mess and appears to be trying to correct it. They didn't have the money to pay a new coach for the 2018 and 2019 periods. Johnson was very clearly hired to run the post Cheika era.
She handled Folau in the way that several other players should have been handled but were not.
I can't help but think that if Kearns had got the job and made the identical moves that Castle did, the very people that want Castle gone would be going into bat for Kearns. Just a hunch.
She inherited a mess and appears to be trying to correct it. They didn't have the money to pay a new coach for the 2018 and 2019 periods. Johnson was very clearly hired to run the post Cheika era.
She handled Folau in the way that several other players should have been handled but were not.
I can't help but think that if Kearns had got the job and made the identical moves that Castle did, the very people that want Castle gone would be going into bat for Kearns. Just a hunch.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
The week keeps getting better!
I wanted a complete clean out, but two out of three aint bad, in the immortal words of the big 'Loaf.
I wanted a complete clean out, but two out of three aint bad, in the immortal words of the big 'Loaf.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Indeed. And this is the heart of problem/matter.
Over many years the ARU as it was gradually yet unrelentingly agreed more and more absolute and consultative rights to RUPA that would make even the CFMEU green with envy. Many were reckless and strategically irresponsible in the interests of the code and the ARU itself over time.
One of the most egregious and extraordinary is the process the ARU/RA had/has to use to not sack but ultimately just wrist-slap Beale in 2014 (when the ARU wanted to sack him) and then sack Folau in 2019. Namely, to even potentially sack or seriously discipline a player, the ARU/RA legally must establish a totally independent quasi-legal panel to assess whether or not it can even do that and that panel has absolute judgement rights on such matters. (And thus btw RA must spend large $ sums on just paying this panel to make that independent assessment, no matter what the result.)
What responsible employer permits such a process whereby it cannot dismiss or on its own account and need discipline its employees as it sees right and necessary?
This same type of RUPA-controlled constriction applied to the types of clauses - such as social media clauses - that the ARU could if it wished insert into player contracts. RUPA possesses major controls and veto rights over the nature and fine print of these clauses. Again, for highly paid employees, this is extraordinary and virtually unprecedented.
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Nah.
Constructive dismissal is essentially this: an employer unilaterally and without proper consultation and without proper agreement with a worker, places that worker into a new job or role position that is (a) materially of lesser responsibility or (b) renown where renown matters (this is more complex though) or (c) of a type the worker could not reasonably and objectively perform and/or (d) of lesser remuneration (broadly defined). Or the equivalent thereof. In such an outcome, the worker can credibly allege to have been 'effectively dismissed by the unilateral construction of another party'.
This further relates to the core legal principle that no party can either de facto or de jure unilaterally alter the terms of a properly pre-agreed contract (in whatever form that contract exists as an enforceable instrument) without the knowing consent of any other party to it.
RA could not have unilaterally altered Folau's contract without potential material legal risk, I am sure it would not have tried to do so. They could only do so with his consent as in fact they did when in (IIRC) in late 2018 they agreed a (fabulous for Folau) new contract with him.
The exposed Incompetent ARU/RA Act No 3,098 was that they first sent a new contract to IF to sign, then after he had signed and returned it to RA, RA then said 'oh, IF, we'd really now after you have agreed and signed that new contract like to add an additional social media clause to that contract if you don't mind' and IF not unreasonably in those circumstances refused to sign any new additions to the one he had just agreed to with RA. RA should have proposed such material additions at or near the outset of the original new contract negotiations, this is the normal and correct (and obvious) practice in dealing with high-value contracts.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
And that JC is of course the telling and typical (re RA's MO) point.
By any normal standard of board conduct, after the multiple debacles under his watch and finally capped off by the awful RWC outcome (and more ugly media stuff later with public CEO and HC brawling) via a coach he was happy to have appointed over many years, Clyne should have simply resigned and apologised to the Australian rugby public in recent days and if he did not, the RA board should have asked him to.
Instead he has leaked to the media essentially that:
- he will go at a time convenient to himself and of his own choosing in 2020, at least some 6 months hence
- he will be involved in choosing new RA directors and his Chairman successor
- he will only leave when 'a new successor is settled in'.
- by omission of any statement re recent outcomes, he 'has nothing to apologise for'
This is 100% pure classic RA board conduct and micro-culture. In perfect rendition.
- 'I don't really take responsibility or accountability today for any for my RA oversight or history'
- 'We still want the board to be as we the board want it to be and we will control that'
- 'I can go essentially when I feel ready in 2020 after I have chosen my successor'
Is it any wonder that with this type of self-pleased, self-referencing micro-culture and conduct-led-by-non-example that RA has grossly mis-governed our code in this country for at least 10-15 years?(Btw, ask any knowledgeable ex or current NAB senior banker what they think of Clyne's period there, and shall I just say with suitable tact: 'you're in for an education'.)
BrutalTruth
Bob McCowan (2)
Petition to kick Raelene Castle out? Who can start this.
You can, Alan.
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
I agree. What we can judge Raelene on will only become more apparent over the next couple of years. She has a SANZAAR Super Rugby negotiation to undertake, a new national coach to appoint and underperforming Super Rugby Franchises to deal with before we can evaluate her success. I think some of this inability to judge her also extends to some of the positves as well, whilst I believe some of the changes made to the pathways back in 2018 and the tweaks done to our approach to U18's and U20's this year were beneficial, I think some of our recent success in those areas might be hard to fully seperate from the Pulver era initiatives around the pathways for our juniors. So on all fronts I just think it is too early to say how she is doing in the role.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I think it is a very pertinent comment that somebody who proved faithless and conspired with a rebel entity to sign a number of other players whilst in a leadership position with the ARU, is not a suitable candidate to now lead the organisation.
