Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
'Love'
The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Again, he was punted because when it was pointed out how offensive it was to some, he both refused to take it down, or give an undertaking not to repeat it.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I like to tell my wife and kids that hell awaits them just before bed every night
Samson
Chris McKivat (8)
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
Just like to congratulate Todd Sampson as a Director of Fairfax, and Fairfax being the ultimate parent company of radio station 2GB, on the successful signing of Alan Jones to a 2 year contract.
Needless to say Alan Jones is probably the most highest profile supporter of Israel Folau.
Interestingly the other public company Directorship, Todd Sampson holds is Qantas.
Delicious irony anyone?
Needless to say Alan Jones is probably the most highest profile supporter of Israel Folau.
Interestingly the other public company Directorship, Todd Sampson holds is Qantas.
Delicious irony anyone?
Samson
Chris McKivat (8)
No. Everyone I know including me is on that list. I do not know anyone that took offence including the Homosexual and lesbians within the family.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Irrespective of our personal differences in analysing what Izzy wrote or meant, my main concern is that a sporting organisation can fire a player for having a Christian point of view.
It's not as if the "values" of RA were open for discussion to the wider rugby community before implementation.
The diversity and inclusion that RA expects only extends as far as they define those terms, and it is quite possible that many in the rugby community don't agree with the interpretation taken by the board.
It's quite clear that the gay lobby and their supporters are pulling the strings of RA, and therefore Izzy's rugby career has been terminated because of a difference of opinion.
I don't believe that is the Australian way.
It's not as if the "values" of RA were open for discussion to the wider rugby community before implementation.
The diversity and inclusion that RA expects only extends as far as they define those terms, and it is quite possible that many in the rugby community don't agree with the interpretation taken by the board.
It's quite clear that the gay lobby and their supporters are pulling the strings of RA, and therefore Izzy's rugby career has been terminated because of a difference of opinion.
I don't believe that is the Australian way.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Forgetting the opinions of what Folau posted, whether it amounts to offensive material or not or anything else.
The impact on the game has the potential to be defining in the history of the game in Australia. Anybody who thinks this is an open and shut case has never spent much time in a court room. If RA decides on some basis of their new found ethical/moral conscience that this matter needs to be fought to the bitter end the fees alone will put strain on an already strained bottom line. To say if they win its OK they will seek costs, well then they have to win those costs firstly, then they must actually collect on the order though Id expect a bankruptcy would swiftly follow a loss. So we come back to the fees causing a solvency problem.
That is even without considering the strong possibility that he could actually win. To my recollection this would have to be the first termination of a person on a "Code of Conduct" matter that did not amount to a criminal offence, reported as such or not. Putting aside the precedent set by the Beale matter under this same CoC, I look at breaches of the NSW Police CoC that have resulted in termination under the legislated process termed "Commissioner's Confidence - s181D NSW Police Act" many of which have involved criminal or traffic offences which on appeal such as this have resulted in re-instatement and compensation in some cases. Reagrdless of opinion on the matter such an outcome must be considered and planned for, however the problem for RA and NSWRU is they have really nailed their colours to the mast and Folau could well say the position is untenable, if my appeal is upheld can I actually go back, even with some goodwill from some players, look at what the coach, captain and management have all said in interviews, not in a by line that may have been misquoted. This is why I cannot accept the mismanagement of the situation by RA, making statements, pronouncing a position BEFORE any process had been under taken. Just stupid.
I care nothing for RA, or to be honest NSWRU, both bodies have mismanaged and in some cases serious questions about money have been obfuscated and managed away for many years. I would not be unhappy to see them fall.
What I truly worry about, as I said on another thread is that the fall of RA and associated Unions by default given they are dependant for the majority of their funding to stay afloat, will impact on the true grass roots of the game, that the kids and not so little kids, the burgeoning women's game and other grades will all be put at risk as they cannot be underwritten for insurance, they lose the authority from World Rugby, all the structural requirements to allow the game to happen at the lower levels. Can anybody honestly and with certainty say that these worries of mine are an illusion and if RA disappears we can still play on the weekend.
The impact on the game has the potential to be defining in the history of the game in Australia. Anybody who thinks this is an open and shut case has never spent much time in a court room. If RA decides on some basis of their new found ethical/moral conscience that this matter needs to be fought to the bitter end the fees alone will put strain on an already strained bottom line. To say if they win its OK they will seek costs, well then they have to win those costs firstly, then they must actually collect on the order though Id expect a bankruptcy would swiftly follow a loss. So we come back to the fees causing a solvency problem.
That is even without considering the strong possibility that he could actually win. To my recollection this would have to be the first termination of a person on a "Code of Conduct" matter that did not amount to a criminal offence, reported as such or not. Putting aside the precedent set by the Beale matter under this same CoC, I look at breaches of the NSW Police CoC that have resulted in termination under the legislated process termed "Commissioner's Confidence - s181D NSW Police Act" many of which have involved criminal or traffic offences which on appeal such as this have resulted in re-instatement and compensation in some cases. Reagrdless of opinion on the matter such an outcome must be considered and planned for, however the problem for RA and NSWRU is they have really nailed their colours to the mast and Folau could well say the position is untenable, if my appeal is upheld can I actually go back, even with some goodwill from some players, look at what the coach, captain and management have all said in interviews, not in a by line that may have been misquoted. This is why I cannot accept the mismanagement of the situation by RA, making statements, pronouncing a position BEFORE any process had been under taken. Just stupid.
I care nothing for RA, or to be honest NSWRU, both bodies have mismanaged and in some cases serious questions about money have been obfuscated and managed away for many years. I would not be unhappy to see them fall.
What I truly worry about, as I said on another thread is that the fall of RA and associated Unions by default given they are dependant for the majority of their funding to stay afloat, will impact on the true grass roots of the game, that the kids and not so little kids, the burgeoning women's game and other grades will all be put at risk as they cannot be underwritten for insurance, they lose the authority from World Rugby, all the structural requirements to allow the game to happen at the lower levels. Can anybody honestly and with certainty say that these worries of mine are an illusion and if RA disappears we can still play on the weekend.
Aurelius
Ted Thorn (20)
Well, I hadn't really intended to say anything more about this myself but that was before Peter Beattie beclowned himself this week.
I don't know if anyone caught it but he was interviewed by Chris Kenny on Wednsday and, in reference to rumours that Folau was interested in returning to Rugby League, said that League was an inclusive sport and said that there wasn't any room for anyone who "wants to exclude" others (presumably homosexuals). I thought there were several things wrong with this.
First of all, I've never seen any hint that Folau wants to exclude gay people from the football field or from society in general. Implying that he does is flat-out character assassination and just adds insult to injury. Second of all, to the extent that his statement "excluded" homosexuals, it excluded them from heaven, along with plenty of other types of apparent sinner. If Peter Beattie thinks that sentiment runs contrary to the values of his league, surely his beef is with the Bible rather than someone merely quoting it. Thirdly, Peter Beattie is absolutely kidding himself if he doesn't think that there are hundreds - thousands - of league footballers, especially from Pacific Islander backgrounds, at all levels of the code in Australia who don't share Folau's interpretation of Christianity. It seems especially unfair to even consider allowing Folau a comeback for expressing something that plenty of Leaguies already believe.
Yes, I know what some of you are going to say. "He should just take it down and there'd be no issue, yadda yadda yadda." Well, apart from forcing a player to act against his conscience, what would it actually change? Absolutley nothing. Everyone in Australia knows Folau's beliefs. They'd be aware of them regardless of whether he kept his post up or not. Pandora's Box is open. The cat is out of the proverbial bag. Which is why the "take it down" argument is nothing more than a fig leaf. Israel Folau's participation in Australian rugby makes some people in power uncomfortable. Demanding that he do something they know he won't gives them an out so they can plausibly refuse to hire him, nothing more, nothing less.
What do I conclude from Beattie's intervention this week? Two things. First of all, that sports in Australia, like so many other industries, is dominated by virtue-signalling grandstanders with more piety than business sense. Second, that politics is a profession that you can succeed in without being terribly bright. And as I said what feels like a thousand years ago back in this thread, after his performance as head of the Commonwealth Games it staggers me that Peter Beattie can get any sort of job in sports administration higher than an amateur marbles league.
I don't know if anyone caught it but he was interviewed by Chris Kenny on Wednsday and, in reference to rumours that Folau was interested in returning to Rugby League, said that League was an inclusive sport and said that there wasn't any room for anyone who "wants to exclude" others (presumably homosexuals). I thought there were several things wrong with this.
First of all, I've never seen any hint that Folau wants to exclude gay people from the football field or from society in general. Implying that he does is flat-out character assassination and just adds insult to injury. Second of all, to the extent that his statement "excluded" homosexuals, it excluded them from heaven, along with plenty of other types of apparent sinner. If Peter Beattie thinks that sentiment runs contrary to the values of his league, surely his beef is with the Bible rather than someone merely quoting it. Thirdly, Peter Beattie is absolutely kidding himself if he doesn't think that there are hundreds - thousands - of league footballers, especially from Pacific Islander backgrounds, at all levels of the code in Australia who don't share Folau's interpretation of Christianity. It seems especially unfair to even consider allowing Folau a comeback for expressing something that plenty of Leaguies already believe.
Yes, I know what some of you are going to say. "He should just take it down and there'd be no issue, yadda yadda yadda." Well, apart from forcing a player to act against his conscience, what would it actually change? Absolutley nothing. Everyone in Australia knows Folau's beliefs. They'd be aware of them regardless of whether he kept his post up or not. Pandora's Box is open. The cat is out of the proverbial bag. Which is why the "take it down" argument is nothing more than a fig leaf. Israel Folau's participation in Australian rugby makes some people in power uncomfortable. Demanding that he do something they know he won't gives them an out so they can plausibly refuse to hire him, nothing more, nothing less.
What do I conclude from Beattie's intervention this week? Two things. First of all, that sports in Australia, like so many other industries, is dominated by virtue-signalling grandstanders with more piety than business sense. Second, that politics is a profession that you can succeed in without being terribly bright. And as I said what feels like a thousand years ago back in this thread, after his performance as head of the Commonwealth Games it staggers me that Peter Beattie can get any sort of job in sports administration higher than an amateur marbles league.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
As this is the more appropriate place for it, the comments of an Australian lawyer on the legalities of the case:
https://old.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion..._takes_fight_against_rugby_australia/eq59dz2/
Seems pretty good from RA's perspective, less so for Folau.
https://old.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion..._takes_fight_against_rugby_australia/eq59dz2/
Seems pretty good from RA's perspective, less so for Folau.
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
Curious Gnostic, why is this simply RA's fault and not Israel's or what is appearing more and more clearer by the day, Folau Senior who is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
One for the legal experts.
Sonny Bill Williams refuses to wear a banks logo/name on his Auckland Blues jersey, because charging interest under the Muslim religion is not allowed. (Don't quiet understand how he is happy to wear the AIG logo on his All Blacks jersey, they are a money lender as well but that is another issue all together.)
Say he played for the Waratahs and that was a contracted Code of Conduct requirement to wear appareal with sponsors logos and he refused because one sponsor was a bank. He was contracted to do so and dismissed, how would this go down at Fairwork Australia.
Sonny Bill Williams refuses to wear a banks logo/name on his Auckland Blues jersey, because charging interest under the Muslim religion is not allowed. (Don't quiet understand how he is happy to wear the AIG logo on his All Blacks jersey, they are a money lender as well but that is another issue all together.)
Say he played for the Waratahs and that was a contracted Code of Conduct requirement to wear appareal with sponsors logos and he refused because one sponsor was a bank. He was contracted to do so and dismissed, how would this go down at Fairwork Australia.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
I don't have a legal background - although my old man was a solicitor - so I'm just going to assume that the lawyer quoted (from Reddit) above is correct with his assessment of the situation in the absence of information that refutes his assumptions. However I'm also going to assume that he has no idea what arguments Folau's lawyers are actually going to use.
Forcefield
Ken Catchpole (46)
Not going to claim to be a legal expert but...
Common sense says that if you hold strong principles about particular issues such as what you wear, playing on Sundays, etc, etc, you have a bit of a responsibility to do some research into the team/company/whatever you are signing up for and maybe talk to them about it first. If you haven't done that or if a new sponsor is added and it becomes a big issue, ask for sponsorship to change or ask for a release. There isn't really any entitlement.
Back in the day, Euan Murray (Scottish Tighthead) didn't want to play on Sundays for religious reasons. Probably a lot of others fit that boat. I respect that, but that is his choice. His team might turn around and say: "He's such a great player, we'll sign him to a big, full contract anyway and respect his needs.". His team might also turn around and say: "Okay, if you miss 30% of the games, we'll pay you 30% of your worth.". He wouldn't be entitled to sign a standard contract to a sport where you can reasonably expect to play to play on Sundays and then just declare himself ineligible. There needs to be some negotiation.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
How often have you heard a broadcaster say tonight """Football was the Winner""" in this case no matter what happens Rugby is the loser..
Spent the first 20 years or so of my career in construction building large scale infrastructure projects like power stations, alumina smelters, petrochemical refinery's etc, always on the commercial / finance / contracts side of the business.
My experience from these times pertaining to contract law is that if a contract does not met what was called the six essential elements and or was illegal it was unenforceable. Anywho a simple example say I had a contract with Sully to steal a car. I stole the car and Sully refused to pay me, I could not sue Sully as stealing a car is illegal meaning that part of our contract was unenforceable. [PS sorry Sully just using you as an example I assume you are an honest guy]
IMO very humble opinion Folua's lawyers will say one of the reasons the players code of conduct can't be enforced in this instance is because RA cannot have a clause in their "Code of Conduct" that over rules religious freedoms in existing acts of parliament.
Spent the first 20 years or so of my career in construction building large scale infrastructure projects like power stations, alumina smelters, petrochemical refinery's etc, always on the commercial / finance / contracts side of the business.
My experience from these times pertaining to contract law is that if a contract does not met what was called the six essential elements and or was illegal it was unenforceable. Anywho a simple example say I had a contract with Sully to steal a car. I stole the car and Sully refused to pay me, I could not sue Sully as stealing a car is illegal meaning that part of our contract was unenforceable. [PS sorry Sully just using you as an example I assume you are an honest guy]
IMO very humble opinion Folua's lawyers will say one of the reasons the players code of conduct can't be enforced in this instance is because RA cannot have a clause in their "Code of Conduct" that over rules religious freedoms in existing acts of parliament.
S
sidelineview
Guest
As stated earlier this will no doubt be a landmark case in Australia's history.
This dilemma is in keeping with what's happened in our 'progressive' society. There have been many changes in a relatively short period of time since the SSM issue.
This will be a test case.
IMO it's important Folau wins this impending legal battle because corporations sponsoring sport hold too much sway in our society.
In essence he should be allowed to refer to the Bible and express his beliefs on social media in his own time. Whether it is in fact a breach of contract or whether his basic rights trump the contract is all above my head but will be argued by the lawyers.
When the RL Super League/South Sydney issue was going on, it was basically about a multinational corporation in News Ltd exercising an aggressive corporate takeover of the game of Rugby League in Australia.
This was for the purpose of gaining content for their cable TV business.
News Ltd supported some Clubs financially and condemned others to suit their business plan. The supposed criteria that Clubs had to meet was a rort.
When South Sydney won the court case News Ltd lost their teeth and $750 mill to boot.
It put the stoppers on corporations acting like bullies in our society purely for commercial reasons.
This Folau case is similar and is just as significant.
This dilemma is in keeping with what's happened in our 'progressive' society. There have been many changes in a relatively short period of time since the SSM issue.
This will be a test case.
IMO it's important Folau wins this impending legal battle because corporations sponsoring sport hold too much sway in our society.
In essence he should be allowed to refer to the Bible and express his beliefs on social media in his own time. Whether it is in fact a breach of contract or whether his basic rights trump the contract is all above my head but will be argued by the lawyers.
When the RL Super League/South Sydney issue was going on, it was basically about a multinational corporation in News Ltd exercising an aggressive corporate takeover of the game of Rugby League in Australia.
This was for the purpose of gaining content for their cable TV business.
News Ltd supported some Clubs financially and condemned others to suit their business plan. The supposed criteria that Clubs had to meet was a rort.
When South Sydney won the court case News Ltd lost their teeth and $750 mill to boot.
It put the stoppers on corporations acting like bullies in our society purely for commercial reasons.
This Folau case is similar and is just as significant.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
Im going to avoid discussing the actual topic that Folau spoke of because it's clear people have strong different points of views on this.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from repercussions, professional athletes now get paid for the brand they represent on and off the field, and they get paid quite well do to exactly that. Whether some see that as a burden or a reward is up to the individual, some players leverage that increased exposure for their own benefit, some resent the fact that their off-field behaviour is held to account against what they do on the field. But at the end of the day, its what they all sign up to and agree to.
No one is forcing these players to become professional athletes, if they have philosophical disagreements with the encroachment the governing bodies rule over their social media then they simply don't have to sign the contract. This isn't news to Folau, he was aware of the social media implications and interpretations when he signed his last contract barely 8 months ago. He chose to re-sign completely aware of RAs stance towards his social media use after been held to account about similar comments made in the months prior.
A lot of fingers have been pointed at the QANTAS CEO, a convenient scapegoat perhaps, but I will point out again that ASICS and Land Rover both dropped their direct sponsorship of Folau and Foxtel removed his poster from their HQ, Alan Joyce wasn't the only sponsor to express his disappointment in the Wallaby brand been dragged into controversy, across these 4 sponsors you're probably looking at half of RA's annual budget. Targeting and blaming these sponsor is misguided, they simply don't want their brand associated with controversy, the cause of that controversy for the most part is irrelevant, anything which reflects poorly on the sponsor is a negative outcome, if society didn't care about Folau's comments then neither would the sponsors.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from repercussions, professional athletes now get paid for the brand they represent on and off the field, and they get paid quite well do to exactly that. Whether some see that as a burden or a reward is up to the individual, some players leverage that increased exposure for their own benefit, some resent the fact that their off-field behaviour is held to account against what they do on the field. But at the end of the day, its what they all sign up to and agree to.
No one is forcing these players to become professional athletes, if they have philosophical disagreements with the encroachment the governing bodies rule over their social media then they simply don't have to sign the contract. This isn't news to Folau, he was aware of the social media implications and interpretations when he signed his last contract barely 8 months ago. He chose to re-sign completely aware of RAs stance towards his social media use after been held to account about similar comments made in the months prior.
A lot of fingers have been pointed at the QANTAS CEO, a convenient scapegoat perhaps, but I will point out again that ASICS and Land Rover both dropped their direct sponsorship of Folau and Foxtel removed his poster from their HQ, Alan Joyce wasn't the only sponsor to express his disappointment in the Wallaby brand been dragged into controversy, across these 4 sponsors you're probably looking at half of RA's annual budget. Targeting and blaming these sponsor is misguided, they simply don't want their brand associated with controversy, the cause of that controversy for the most part is irrelevant, anything which reflects poorly on the sponsor is a negative outcome, if society didn't care about Folau's comments then neither would the sponsors.
S
Show-n-go
Guest
I think people that are on the side of the fence with Folau are pissed at Joyce and QANTAS because
1) if all what has been said is true about Joyce, people seem to be pissy at him because he dictated terms about another organisation and a player, ASICS and Landrover just said “we don’t like what’s happened we’re out” fair enough. The dislike from Joyce comes from him holding AR over the proverbial barrel and essentially demanding change because it didn’t align with his personal beliefs.....again this is all if the whole Joyce actually did intervene is true
2) Following the above Joyce seems to by highly hypocritical because he’s taken such a stance here but his company is more than willing to be associated with Emirates and other such airlines....which understandably rubs people up the wrong way. If you’re gonna have strong convictions and really push them then do it consistently and not just when it’s convenient
That’s why no one is going at ASICS or Landrover
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Adam
There was a time when media companies said they would publish against anyone as no one was big enough to effect our position an values.
When you posted it might upset sponsors I found that very sad that today more an more corporate needs are more important than people's needs.
I also find more than sad the view not that there should be no consequences but that degree of the punishment is IMO well outside the crime committed if that is a correct term.
Finally by saying a code of conduct has been broken can lead to sacking opens up a corporation sacking people for minor breaches.
There was a time when media companies said they would publish against anyone as no one was big enough to effect our position an values.
When you posted it might upset sponsors I found that very sad that today more an more corporate needs are more important than people's needs.
I also find more than sad the view not that there should be no consequences but that degree of the punishment is IMO well outside the crime committed if that is a correct term.
Finally by saying a code of conduct has been broken can lead to sacking opens up a corporation sacking people for minor breaches.
- Status