The Israel Folau saga

[Quick Hands]

Also doubt a judge would let the case get anywhere near the high court. It'd be thrown out well before then.

That's not how courts work. The only people who can stop matters going to the High Court are the Justices of the High Court. Judges in lower courts can't stop people exercising their rights of appeal.

Noting that the Code of Conduct Tribunal isn't a court as such (not meant as any criticism of the people or the process, just that it's a sports tribunal not a court), so the next court hearing (should there be one) will be the first actual court hearing. Equity Division of the Supreme Court in NSW usually handle contract law, so that would be the place of hearing. The NSW Court of Appeal hear appeals from there and the High Court hear appeals from the C of A.

 

[formerflanker]

What? Returning to work with the employer that terminated you, when you are suing them for unfair dismissal, is usually not realistic. For reasons that ought to be obvious.

As for Israel's opportunities elsewhere: if RA hasn't acted reasonably (as some contend), why will no one else give him a job?

Apart from the scandal plagued Peter Beatie's League, has any other sporting body expressly declined to look at having him play for them?

 

[Lorenzo]

Apart from the scandal plagued Peter Beatie's League, has any other sporting body expressly declined to look at having him play for them?

I should have said "if no one else will hire him, why won't they?"

 

[Derpus]

I dare say that is posturing. Most unfair dismissal cases have an applicant that is ready, willing and able to return to work. It is a key aspect of demonstrating that you were unfairly dismissed.

In reality, most termination circumstances make actually returning to work unviable.

Yeah okay so i think taking a contract elsewhere might impact the "ready, willing and able' bit.

 

[Dctarget]

That's not how courts work. The only people who can stop matters going to the High Court are the Justices of the High Court. Judges in lower courts can't stop people exercising their rights of appeal.

Noting that the Code of Conduct Tribunal isn't a court as such (not meant as any criticism of the people or the process, just that it's a sports tribunal not a court), so the next court hearing (should there be one) will be the first actual court hearing. Equity Division of the Supreme Court in NSW usually handle contract law, so that would be the place of hearing. The NSW Court of Appeal hear appeals from there and the High Court hear appeals from the C of A.

What issue of law do you think they will appeal on? I can't see any issue that will cause the NSWCA to grant leave to appeal to the HC.

 

[Dctarget]

Also, if you think that England, France or Japan won't touch him - you're kidding yourself. He'll be able to find work elsewhere very easily.

 

[Joe Blow]

He hasn't been dismissed yet.

They had stated earlier that it was their intention to cancel his contract........and he had said he was willing to walk away from the game.
Let’s see who is true to their word. My money is on RA. Surely God will instruct Izzy to go after cash.

 

[Strewthcobber]

"After we'd all talked, I told Raelene 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." - Israel Folau

https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/

I have this hope that Izzy will accept these findings and walk away, hopefully to a high paying contract in Japan or similar, so we can all move on and not have this define rugby for the next couple of years. Please Izzy.

 

[sidelineview]

They had stated earlier that it was their intention to cancel his contract....and he had said he was willing to walk away from the game.
Let’s see who is true to their word. My money is on RA. Surely God will instruct Izzy to go after cash.

There's conjecture over whether he actually said that.
Your other comment is in poor taste and mocks his faith.
Its a poor reflection on you more than him.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I hope RA rethink that position and agree to a lesser (but still severe) penalty.

Maybe 50% of 1 years pay as a fine. $500K and 6 months on the sidelines, Plus lots of community work.

And Izzy gets to play again for Tahs and Wobs.

 

[Joe Blow]

There's conjecture over whether he actually said that.
Your other comment is in poor taste and mocks his faith.
Its a poor reflection on you more than him.

I’m sorry if that offends you but we are at the point where we will find out how much his religion really means to him. He has publicly stated that he will walk away if his position becomes untenable and that his religious beliefs are of far greater importance to him than the game.
Time to anti up.

 

[Merrow]

I hope RA rethink that position and agree to a lesser (but still severe) penalty.

Maybe 50% of 1 years pay as a fine. $500K and 6 months on the sidelines, Plus lots of community work.

And Izzy gets to play again for Tahs and Wobs.

I hope not. My hope is that the wallabies learn to not rely on one player like they have done since he came to union.

 

[sidelineview]

I’m sorry if that offends you but we are at the point where we will find out how much his religion really means to him. He has publicly stated that he will walk away if his position becomes untenable and that his religious beliefs are of far greater importance to him than the game.
Time to anti up.

Read the whole article. He said he watched TV later and felt disappointed that Raelene had misrepresented his position and comments and had done so to appease other people.
No, it wouldn't be God instructing him to take the cash.
No one from his church believes it's about cash.
Do yourself a favour and read the whole article.

 

[Joe Blow]

Read the whole article. He said he watched TV later and felt disappointed that Raelene had misrepresented his position and comments.
No, it wouldn't be God instructing him to take the cash.
No one from his church believes it's about cash.
Do yourself a favour and read the whole article.

There are multiple articles and opinions, many of which are valid. Trust me, it now becomes about the cash for him. The other battle is lost and he can no longer return to playing pro rugby in Australia.

 

[sidelineview]

There are multiple articles and opinions, many of which are valid. Trust me, it now becomes about the cash for him. The other battle is lost and he can no longer return to playing pro rugby in Australia.

The article mentioned was written by him.
Read it in its entirety.
Other than that no more comment.

 

[louie]

I hope RA rethink that position and agree to a lesser (but still severe) penalty.

Maybe 50% of 1 years pay as a fine. $500K and 6 months on the sidelines, Plus lots of community work.

And Izzy gets to play again for Tahs and Wobs.

This would be the worst outcome. Many fans, die hards included, won’t watch him again.

 

[Kenny Powers]

So if Folau goes does that make David Pocock the #1 superstar in Australian Rugby?

He has a previous formal warning from Rugby Australia for being arrested at a mine protest, also a code of conduct breach.

What if he decides to protest again and gets arrested, will his contract be torn up?

https://www.couriermail.com.au/spor...t/news-story/fdecf88cf3e8e785603c9b89bc9e5752

Of all the problems that other sports have of drinking, drugs, assaults, domestic violence etc, Rugby has made its problem children a enviromentalist and evangelical christian.

 

[The Honey Badger]

This would be the worst outcome. Many fans, die hards included, w
on’t watch him again.

Are you oblivious to the surveys and partitions doing the rounds. Some may choose that course, I don't agree with your use of the word "many".

 

[Joe Blow]

Read the whole article. He said he watched TV later and felt disappointed that Raelene had misrepresented his position and comments.
No, it wouldn't be God instructing him to take the cash.
No one from his church believes it's about cash.
Do yourself a favour and read the whole article.

I have read it in its entirety again and it does not alter my opinion. That is the side of the story he chooses to project and quite possibly believes. There is a lot more to it than that, or actually less depending on which way you look at it.
He had recently been rapped on the knuckles for a similar social media post and is/was well aware of the consequences of a repeat offence. In the mean time he had signed a very generous new contract offered by RA, at which time his responsibilities to the code and his employers had been discussed once more. I'm thinking that it is painfully clear to him and everyone involved what his parameters are in this area moving forward.
Then the post in question. This is 100% on him and has nothing to do with his beliefs. No post no problem. Its as simple as that. If he did not agree with the RA requirements then he never should have signed the contract.

 

[dru]

Then the post in question. This is 100% on him and has nothing to do with his beliefs. No post no problem. Its as simple as that. If he did not agree with the RA requirements then he never should have signed the contract.

It seems likely this opinion will be tested in court.

All we have so far is a self affirmation from internal process. To be fair this would support the view that RA have followed their procedures. I’d also think that a court would take time to understand the outcome of the hearing. There is some reasonable legal brain power in the panel. A court won’t just ignore it.

It wouldn’t surprise me to see the decision held in NSW court. Any high court call would however be interesting.