• 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

James Pettifer

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
Derpus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’ll add that once IF provided a number to settle at, most insurers have a clause which limits the payout to that level. So any upside risk is taken by RA. Not settling would be extremely bizarre.
 
mst

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
Derpus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I cannot like this post enough!!!!!!
 
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
mst said:
RA and NSWRU could have just conceded the battle to win the war and taken the tried and tested "Cooper" path.
Click to expand...
It was a more difficult case than Cooper's. Plenty of good points in your post but just sitting Folau out would not have been without problems.

A difference with the Quade case was QC (Quade Cooper)'s stand down being legitimately (or at least credibly) a decision based around on-field team performance. Cooper isn't the player he once was and his mercurial form just didn't knock down the door to unequivocally demand selection.

Now, of the posters on this forum, I probably rate Folau as less of a complete player than most. However, it can't be denied that he makes the Wallaby squad on playing ability - and ditto for the Tahs.

So there's no hiding from RA's action being solely about disassociating themselves from Israel's statements. But if they keep him on:
  • He posts about gays going to hell via insta on RA's dime.
  • RA sends him to the corner and he keeps on spruiking about gays going to hell on RA's full dime.
  • What are they gonna do - sack him?
They're supporting him as an employee on the payroll while he publicises those views.
 
mst

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
kiap said:
It was a more difficult case than Cooper's. Plenty of good points in your post but just sitting Folau out would not have been without problems.

A difference with the Quade case was QC (Quade Cooper)'s stand down being legitimately (or at least credibly) a decision based around on-field team performance. Cooper isn't the player he once was and his mercurial form just didn't knock down the door to unequivocally demand selection.

Now, of the posters on this forum, I probably rate Folau as less of a complete player than most. However, it can't be denied that he makes the Wallaby squad on playing ability - and ditto for the Tahs.

So there's no hiding from RA's action being solely about disassociating themselves from Israel's statements. But if they keep him on:
  • He posts about gays going to hell via insta on RA's dime.
  • RA sends him to the corner and he keeps on spruiking about gays going to hell on RA's full dime.
  • What are they gonna do - sack him?
They're supporting him as an employee on the payroll while he publicises those views.
Click to expand...
Thanks Kiap. I agree that it would have been problematic but it was an available option that could have "capped" the cost. Your post highlights the problems RA faced trying to deal with him and I believe why they chose the path they did.

Although, I would say that the disharmony and distraction, as well as potential personality clashes and brand damage had he continued in the squad would be enough justification to move hie out of the Wallabies and Tah's mix and sit him in the corner legitimately (Cooper him). As for him saying / posting more, we can see he was certain doing himself no favours s time want on which may have helped RA take more decisive action. I am glad that didn't take this approach as IMHO it would have allowed the game suffer further damage .


Like you. I rated him as less complete.;)
 
formerflanker

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Derpus, I disagree with most of your comment but will vacate the field now.
From mst - 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.
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
While I am not happy Folau got any money out of this (personal view on the case /position than the person as don’t think Izzy bad person but just think he deserved to be sacked) in understanding the realities and implications I think the settlement if reported around $3m is good outcome given risks going to court, damage to the game in dragging on and cashflow implications court costs that would have impacted on RA finances.
 
Lindommer

Lindommer

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
I like to watch

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
James Pettifer said:
I’ll add that once IF provided a number to settle at, most insurers have a clause which limits the payout to that level. So any upside risk is taken by RA. Not settling would be extremely bizarre.
Click to expand...
Also, RA would be liable for IFs legal costs on an indemnity basis, not just the scale in the event he was awarded more than his Calderbank offer.
Which is a significant additional risk
 
half

half

Dick Tooth (41)
Cameron is coming to the end of his time and from what I have read he is not going to stand again or is not allowed to stand again I am not sure which.

Can someone explain how or what the procedure is to elect a new chair.

What are the governance procedures and who gets to vote.

Thanks in advance I have a vague but not detailed understanding and would appreciate having a better understanding of the process.
 
Dave Beat

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
I'm interested if Izzy is going to donate his GoFundMeMoney to a great cause?
Have some good come out of this for a needy cause!!!
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
It was never Izzy's money. It went into a trust fund with the remainder being refunded.

Just for the record, another book of faith that could be referred to by a high profile rugby player on his private social media page is the Quran.

And exactly the same thing could happen but then it wouldn't be about Christianity, it'd be about Islam.

But it still wouldn't be about either.

It would still be about citizens (in any walk of life) having the freedom to express their religious beliefs.
As long as it doesn't promote hatred or violence it is a basic right that shouldn't be denied.

Have a look at history and see what countries have suppressed freedom of religion.
 
Brumbieman

Brumbieman

Dick Tooth (41)
Can we all just shut the fuck up about this fluffybunny?

He's gorne, the settlement bullsht is done and dusted. I'd be happy if RA DID pay 8 milion to get him to just fuck off and let us move on from the last 4 years of garbage we've waded through.


Our' U20's and schoolboys are rinsing NZ, we've just poached their best coach and got rid of our petulant child of a former coach, we've got a beast of a forward pack to work with and a lot of freakish young backs coming through and most of them are signed on long term deals at the two best talent conveyor belts in Australia.

Let's move on from the hypocrite and stop giving him more airtime, let him just fade away into obscurity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top