The Israel Folau saga

[Rugbynutter39]

I hope so.

I hope he also deletes all his social media accounts and shuts the fuck up.

Nope RA for what little credibility they have will have to dig in and never allow Folau to play for Waratahs and wallabies again. To my mind this is heading to a settlement.

For me Folau has left RA with no choice after blatantly ignoring what he agreed with RA and castle to not make these sort of posts. But no winners with any of this but I wish we could not have to talk about Folau as he is not contributing to or will be allowed to contribute to oz rugby as that all ended when he pressed send for that last post on Instagram.

 

[KOB1987]

You genuinely think hooper wanted to come out and shit can a team mate off his own bat?

Did he actually even shit can him though?

The harshest thing I saw Hooper say in the published interview was that it was ‘difficult to be standing here talking about it’. He also said that he had been checking in with Folau via text message. Hardly lambasting him.

It’s on the link below, you can also see the context of Cheika saying he wouldn’t be able to select him, although i have seen an article with a more detailed account of the interview.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...y/news-story/cca44a27bc6fc4556d81ab474918315f

 

[Quick Hands]

Nope RA for what little credibility they have will have to dig in and never allow Folau to play for Waratahs and wallabies again. To my mind this is heading to a settlement.

For me Folau has left RA with no choice after blatantly ignoring what he agreed with RA and castle to not make these sort of posts. But no winners with any of this but I wish we could not have to talk about Folau as he is not contributing to or will be allowed to contribute to oz rugby as that all ended when he pressed send for that last post on Instagram.

But you see, as far back as April 2018, Folau publicly disputed any such such commitment to Castle.

A fortnight ago, Folau responded to a question on his Instagram account asking about God’s plan for gay people, replying “Hell, unless they repent their sins and turn to God”.
His comments sparked widespread criticism and he was called to a meeting with Castle and Waratahs boss Andrew Hore.
“During the meeting I told them it was never my intention to hurt anyone with the Instagram comment, but that I could never shy away from who I am, or what I believe,” Folau wrote.
“They explained their position and talked about external pressure from the media, sponsors and different parts of the community, which I understand.”
Folau says he told Castle “if she felt the situation had become untenable — that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn’t be worked through — I would walk away from my contract, immediately”.
But when he went home and turned on the TV after the meeting, he “was really disappointed with some of the things that were said in the press conference”.

Folau wrote: “I felt Raelene misrepresented my position and my comments, and did so to appease other people, which is an issue I need to discuss with her and others at Rugby Australia.”
He denies he was trying to get out of his ARU contract to play league.

Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...d-to-quit-the-game-2018-4#zJvKg7LdLBdKhVu3.99

 

[gel]

^^^° the problem is that many people read that article as if it in reference to what is happening now.

It clearly was written in reference to the specific meeting that took place last year.

RA continued to sign him after that article and despite him saying hes going to continue posting on his faith.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

But you see, as far back as April 2018, Folau publicly disputed any such such commitment to Castle.

A fortnight ago, Folau responded to a question on his Instagram account asking about God’s plan for gay people, replying “Hell, unless they repent their sins and turn to God”.
His comments sparked widespread criticism and he was called to a meeting with Castle and Waratahs boss Andrew Hore.
“During the meeting I told them it was never my intention to hurt anyone with the Instagram comment, but that I could never shy away from who I am, or what I believe,” Folau wrote.
“They explained their position and talked about external pressure from the media, sponsors and different parts of the community, which I understand.”
Folau says he told Castle “if she felt the situation had become untenable — that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn’t be worked through — I would walk away from my contract, immediately”.
But when he went home and turned on the TV after the meeting, he “was really disappointed with some of the things that were said in the press conference”.

Folau wrote: “I felt Raelene misrepresented my position and my comments, and did so to appease other people, which is an issue I need to discuss with her and others at Rugby Australia.”
He denies he was trying to get out of his ARU contract to play league.

Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...d-to-quit-the-game-2018-4#zJvKg7LdLBdKhVu3.99

Yep and on players voice yes he made it clear he would walk away if things became ‘untenable’ - So anyone care to think things are not ‘untenable’ at this point?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The irony is if RA did not sign him an NRL club would have as i think most would have thought Israel would not risk a $4m contract by posting content that fell outside of what RA and Castle had clearly communicated was not acceptable to them.

Israel made it clear that view was wrong with his recent posts so nrl dodged a bullet while RA inherited a costly timebomb that has exploded in their face and that is and can continue to cause ongoing collateral damage.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yep and on players voice yes he made it clear he would walk away if things became ‘untenable’ - So anyone care to think things are not ‘untenable’ at this point?

He made that comment prior to signing his current contract. RA decided to sign him anyway, with their eyes wide open to his beliefs and without any specific clause in his contract (which may or may not have been legal anyway).

He could well argue that they should have said at the time, yes your beliefs don't accord with our values so it would be best if you walk away. That would have enabled him to find alternative employment while his value as a signing was at its highest value. Now, his opportunities are far less. RA can certainly pay him out on his contract and thus both parties walk away, but that's not what they've chosen to do. They've chosen to try to terminate the contract with zero payout to him.

On top of which we saw a parade of players and coaches making public comments prior to any hearing in full knowledge that the issues would be heading to tribunals and courts. Law 101 - don't make any public comment about matters about to go to court because anything you say can be used against you.

 

[Dan54]

No I don’t know

But I can’t imagine too many people would be willing to come out and say what he said about a current team mate without a bit of a push

Yep but like I say ,there is an awful lot of speculation with no real idea what the truth is. I have seen nothing at all to assume RA pushed him with that comment, see sometimes I think players will actually say what they thinking.

 

[Dan54]

Of course I say as far as I know. I assume that any comments that you make are based on your own knowledge as far as you know?

You seem to be losing the plot totally.

You don't get it do you QH, all I saying is most arguments on here are awful hard to take too seriously because none of us really know, when I say as far as you know is not a criticism of you, but merely saying you don't know probably anymore than me , so I just wondering if you have more facts than me so I can agree with your points and understand them more.

 

[gel]

Yep and on players voice yes he made it clear he would walk away if things became ‘untenable’ - So anyone care to think things are not ‘untenable’ at this point?

No he didn't.

Read it again - he said he would walk away at the time of the meeting with RA last year if things were untenable then.

He made no commitment for future instances.

That's not clutching at straws - it's using the rules of the English language on what he had written in that article.

I don't know any of these people involved so i can't use "vibes", "oh he really meant", or anything else to try to figure out what they have said.

 

[wamberal]

To get a bit theological, it is kind of ironic that Sunday 12th May (the fourth Sunday in the season of Easter) is known as "Good Shepherd Sunday".

Psalm 23 is read. I wonder whether Izzy and his ilk will read it?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Well I do agree at least this has become a complete clusterfuck trainwreck that ain’t go to help our game. Time for me to disappear from this thread again as I am more disappointed that we are spending time discussing this sort of stuff as Israel won’t be playing rugby again for Waratahs or wallabies and just going to keep a negative vibe around with all the discuusion of this

 

[KOB1987]

Sounds like Folau rejected a $1m peace offering to walk away from the game. Here are the links if anyone can get through the paywall.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...a/news-story/6392a5efadf4eb5351cc1a723fca3923

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...s/news-story/6ef3164081e11e96efbbd729c3984f94

 

[Ignoto]

Interesting article by Andrew Webster on this whole saga - https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...act-it-has-is-undeniable-20190502-p51j8i.html

 

[Dctarget]

Interesting article by Andrew Webster on this whole saga - https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...act-it-has-is-undeniable-20190502-p51j8i.html

well said and reasoned. I think a lot of people from both sides have been obfuscating the problem to push their own agenda (and have one of their favourite arguments). Webster strips it back nicely.

 

[Forcefield]

No he didn't.

Read it again - he said he would walk away at the time of the meeting with RA last year if things were untenable then.

He made no commitment for future instances.

That's not clutching at straws - it's using the rules of the English language on what he had written in that article.

I don't know any of these people involved so i can't use "vibes", "oh he really meant", or anything else to try to figure out what they have said.

Absolutely. Technically quite correct.

It is possible that there are circumstances that make these two instances quite different, but none that have been reported on. People have criticised Folau's honour (i.e. that he is a liar/disingenuous) because of the inconsistency between the two situations. Being technically correct is the politicians corner. I think (hope) most of us operate under a code of honour where we (a) act in a way that is consistent with what we say/have said unless we clarify why not and (b) not enter into a contract with the intent to continue behaviour that your employer has very clearly stated is unacceptable. Against that code, without clarification from Folau on his case, he is dishonourable. He isn't legally bound by what he said in the past, but I'd say he is morally bound.

None of this means to say RA is not also responsible for not being boneheads.

 

[sidelineview]

Interesting, intelligent article by Webster but the "ugly divisive debate" Folau supposedly set alight has been going on since the online debate started leading up to the SSM vote.

It was not uncommon for supporters of the NO vote to be vilified and labelled homophobes and bigots.

Christians in particular copped it for believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman as per their beliefs.
Margaret Court copped it both barrels.
It didnt mean anybody hated people in the LGBT community or didnt support same sex couples having equal rights under the law, but didnt agree with marriage being redefined.

Other NO voters knew our society would be changed significantly as has happened. The introduction of the safe schools programs and unisex toilets are examples that has caused divisive debate.

There was only one side of the debate that was socially acceptable: the one RA supported.
There "inclusive" policy is suspect.

It's interesting that Cheika and some players were allowed to air their views about the incident even though it was headed to a hearing. That's as RA employees but what if any other employees publically supported Folau's right to air his beliefs on social media?

Kerevi felt "obliged" to apologize for his Christian views. Did he get a tap on the shoulder?

It's obvious many people within our society empathize with the struggles of young gay people and dont want to see them vilified and tormented, and I'm one of them.

However, I also believe the balance of power and reason has been tipped too far. The tolerant society became intolerant of anyone with differing opinions.
Being labelled a homophobe and bigot for no good reason except that one has a differing opinion has certainly been divisive, and ugly at times.

There's two sides to this debate regarding people being vilified.

And as far as Folau and his religious beliefs are concerned, there's no nice way he could state "homosexuality is a sin" and not cause an uproar.

Anyone who thinks the major sponsor and its CEO isnt heavily involved in this is naive.

 

[Sully]

You genuinely think hooper wanted to come out and shit can a team mate off his own bat?

You think Hooper is gutless enough to fold to pressure from RA?

 

[gel]

Absolutely. Technically quite correct.

It is possible that there are circumstances that make these two instances quite different, but none that have been reported on. People have criticised Folau's honour (i.e. that he is a liar/disingenuous) because of the inconsistency between the two situations. Being technically correct is the politicians corner. I think (hope) most of us operate under a code of honour where we (a) act in a way that is consistent with what we say/have said unless we clarify why not and (b) not enter into a contract with the intent to continue behaviour that your employer has very clearly stated is unacceptable. Against that code, without clarification from Folau on his case, he is dishonourable. He isn't legally bound by what he said in the past, but I'd say he is morally bound.

None of this means to say RA is not also responsible for not being boneheads.

Being technically correct is the logical and scientific corner.

It is not the politicians corner.

You are judging someone based on your own value system - you're worse than he is.

 

[Ignoto]

It was not uncommon for supporters of the NO vote to be vilified and labelled homophobes and bigots.

Christians in particular copped it for believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman as per their beliefs.

Anecdotally speaking, I didn't see this vilification at all. Where people said they believe marriage is between a man and a women and left it at that, the pro vote left it there. I think the real issues arose when guys like Barnaby Joyce started trotting out the lines of the sanctity of marriage but we all saw how little he cared for that.

I no doubt realise there will be examples you can point me to where the Pro SSM side did call those opposing them as homophones and bigots.

The tolerant society became intolerant of anyone with differing opinions.

Funny thing is, I see the complete opposite. Folau's religion constantly preaches about how they should take the higher road and be tolerant and accept those who chose to sin. However, when people call them out for not following by these lessons, somehow they're the ones not being tolerant?

From the outside, it looks like Israel's intolerance for others has to be tolerated by everyone else otherwise they're labelled as 'Freedom of Speech' killers.

Kerevi felt "obliged" to apologize for his Christian views. Did he get a tap on the shoulder?

I don't think so at all. I believe in the Reds 2019 thread, it was fairly well believed that some absolute idiots came down on Kerevi's positive message about his religion.