The Israel Folau saga

[The Honey Badger]

I think there wasn't really a viable alternative here.

Not offering Folau a new contract would have been even worse. How would you sell the fact that you haven't offered your highest profile player a new contract because you were worried he might make objectionable social media posts again in the future?

I would also wonder whether RA would be more likely to get sued successfully over that than the position they find themselves in now.

Its a mess,

In hindsight, RA could have distanced themselves. They could have come out and strongly disagreed with the posts.

But at the same time make the point that Israel is entitled to hold religious views and its not really in the realm of Sports administration to make rulings on such matters. They could have stood Israel down while they consulted with various authorities including those with work place industrial relations expertise. They could have surveyed various clubs and players to see that they were in step with the thinking of the Rugby community.

They could have bought some time without escalating it. Then, they may have been able to say, we dont agree with Israel but actually cant stop him from making religious posts on social media. It would be wrong for us to terminate him on these grounds. Lets all move on.

 

[James Pettifer]

Its a mess,

In hindsight, RA could have distanced themselves. They could have come out and strongly disagreed with the posts.

But at the same time make the point that Israel is entitled to hold religious views and its not really in the realm of Sports administration to make rulings on such matters. They could have stood Israel down while they consulted with various authorities including those with work place industrial relations expertise. They could have surveyed various clubs and players to see that they were in step with the thinking of the Rugby community.

They could have bought some time without escalating it. Then, they may have been able to say, we dont agree with Israel but actually cant stop him from making religious posts on social media. It would be wrong for us to terminate him on these grounds. Lets all move on.

Sounds good in theory, but to have your highest profile player saying things that are in conflict with both the organisational and sponsors beliefs is a pretty difficult path to follow.


He wouldn't be the first figure of profile in an organisation to lose his job across the world for saying being gay is a sin on social media. It has happened more than people appear to think.

 

[KOB1987]

They could have bought some time without escalating it. Then, they may have been able to say, we dont agree with Israel but actually cant stop him from making religious posts on social media. It would be wrong for us to terminate him on these grounds. Lets all move on.

But then you'd have all the loonies set up up alerts and over monitor all his social media accounts just so they can make a fuss every time he posts something they don't agree with.

Whilst I agree there should have been some middle ground with regards to the initial post, his blatant disregard for the process and his teammates since has made the situation, in his words, untenable. As I said earlier I just feel sorry for him now, he's caught up in this sect or whatever it is way too deep to see through their brainwashing.

He did make the inference in his address to the church on the weekend that he was willing to walk away from it. If he doesn't and it keeps getting hauled through the courts I actually think it will be the legals trying to get their mitts on their share of $4m, not him.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Its a mess,

In hindsight, RA could have distanced themselves. They could have come out and strongly disagreed with the posts.

But at the same time make the point that Israel is entitled to hold religious views and its not really in the realm of Sports administration to make rulings on such matters. They could have stood Israel down while they consulted with various authorities including those with work place industrial relations expertise. They could have surveyed various clubs and players to see that they were in step with the thinking of the Rugby community.

They could have bought some time without escalating it. Then, they may have been able to say, we dont agree with Israel but actually cant stop him from making religious posts on social media. It would be wrong for us to terminate him on these grounds. Lets all move on.

And then they could start planning on how they were going to operate without their major sponsor's money, and the board of directors could have a nice meetup with their NSWRU counterparts and exchange stories as to how they sent their organisations into insolvency.

 

[formerflanker]

And then they could start planning on how they were going to operate without their major sponsor's money, and the board of directors could have a nice meetup with their NSWRU counterparts and exchange stories as to how they sent their organisations into insolvency.

I'm glad someone has stated categorically that sponsors dictate the sport's strategic direction.
Like Buildcorp forcing sponsorship funds only go to clubs which support womens' rugby.
Or a pub insisting that the team they sponsor must have after game drinks at their pub.
The sport loses its autonomy when it agrees to bow to sponsors dictates.
Some directions will be small issues of no importance, but the Folau saga sees sponsors exercising the power of their dollars to force all of Australian rugby into their corporate mindset.
Whether we agree with that mindset or not, I fear for our game when it effectively sells its soul in return for big dollars.
The question we should be asking is whether Rugby should be apolitical, non judgemental, and open to all manner of people; or beholden to the viewpoint of the sponsor of the day. In RA's case, we see Qantas using RA to promote SSM and gay rights.

RA will have egg on its face if we lose Qantas and another sponsor comes on board with different priorities.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think there wasn't really a viable alternative here.

Not offering Folau a new contract would have been even worse. How would you sell the fact that you haven't offered your highest profile player a new contract because you were worried he might make objectionable social media posts again in the future?

I would also wonder whether RA would be more likely to get sued successfully over that than the position they find themselves in now.

There's probably quite a bit in your logic BH, but the situation could perhaps have been better managed by offering a one ot two year contract rather than four years.

 

[gel]

I think there wasn't really a viable alternative here.

Yes there was. Don't sign a contract you aren't happy with.

Not offering Folau a new contract would have been even worse

This is incorrect because the situation is now worse.

How would you sell the fact that you haven't offered your highest profile player a new contract because you were worried he might make objectionable social media posts again in the future?

You say "We couldn't sign a contract with him because we were worried about social media posts that he might make in the future and we have no guarantees from him that he would stop" and ALL of YOU would clearly support that decision 100% for the same reasons you are posting in this thread. And all of the sponsors too - for the same reasons.

I would also wonder whether RA would be more likely to get sued successfully over that than the position they find themselves in now.

How? His contract was up and they just didn't have to sign him up to a new one. You just don't sign the new one. Completely different now that they are trying to terminate a guy under a contract.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm glad someone has stated categorically that sponsors dictate the sport's strategic direction.
Like Buildcorp forcing sponsorship funds only go to clubs which support womens' rugby.
Or a pub insisting that the team they sponsor must have after game drinks at their pub.
The sport loses its autonomy when it agrees to bow to sponsors dictates.
Some directions will be small issues of no importance, but the Folau saga sees sponsors exercising the power of their dollars to force all of Australian rugby into their corporate mindset.
Whether we agree with that mindset or not, I fear for our game when it effectively sells its soul in return for big dollars.
The question we should be asking is whether Rugby should be apolitical, non judgemental, and open to all manner of people; or beholden to the viewpoint of the sponsor of the day. In RA's case, we see Qantas using RA to promote SSM and gay rights.

RA will have egg on its face if we lose Qantas and another sponsor comes on board with different priorities.

The alternative is going back to being a largely amateur sport. If you're not relying on broadcasters and sponsors you can do what you like.

I don't think you can be apolitical. Doing that is effectively taking a position each time an issue comes up that you then have to avoid because you're saying you're not taking a position on it.

I also think that they're taking a pretty safe position being supportive of marriage equality etc. Every major sport in Australia supported it.

I also think they're highly unlikely to find a future sponsor who is unhappy they aren't more bigoted and racist.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Its a mess,

In hindsight, RA could have distanced themselves. They could have come out and strongly disagreed with the posts.

But at the same time make the point that Israel is entitled to hold religious views and its not really in the realm of Sports administration to make rulings on such matters. They could have stood Israel down while they consulted with various authorities including those with work place industrial relations expertise. They could have surveyed various clubs and players to see that they were in step with the thinking of the Rugby community.

They could have bought some time without escalating it. Then, they may have been able to say, we dont agree with Israel but actually cant stop him from making religious posts on social media. It would be wrong for us to terminate him on these grounds. Lets all move on.

I am sure thay would have consulted their sponsors and had a very clear idea of the consequences of not taking more direct action. The fact that a couple, or more, of Izzy's own sponsors have pulled out is a fair indication of what might have happened in your scenario.

 

[Tex]

The moral of this sorry story is pretty clear to me.

Never, ever tweet/gram.

 

[Derpus]

There's probably quite a bit in your logic BH, but the situation could perhaps have been better managed by offering a one ot two year contract rather than four years.

I'm guessing offering him four years probably had a lot to do with enticing him to sign in the first place.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I am sure thay would have consulted their sponsors and had a very clear idea of the consequences of not taking more direct action. The fact that a couple, or more, of Izzy's own sponsors have pulled out is a fair indication of what might have happened in your scenario.

If there are literally thousands of PI players (40 + %) many of whom are also deeply religious, we are yet to see what consequence might follow of a termination.

 

[Braveheart81]

If there are literally thousands of PI players (40 + %) many of whom are also deeply religious, we are yet to see what consequence might follow of a termination.

Yes, but we have a whole host of highly paid contracted Wallabies who are deeply religious and none of them have managed to make homophobic comments on social media, let alone doing it a second time after being disciplined the first time and then refusing to take it down.

I think the point that Folau has made dozens of overtly religious posts on social media in the last year and it is only two that have caused any issue whatsoever is the critical point here.

I don't think anyone else holds the view that every religious post is exactly the same.

 

[Gnostic]

Honestly if the sponsor in question was to pull out over the posts they stood to lose a lot. Not in terms of exposure that they get in Australia from Rugby, we are a dwindling sport professionally, watched by a handful at the field and a few more on the box.

RA would not have done it but I would guarantee that a vast number of people would have been publicising the hypocrisy of their business dealings with the moralistic stance that has been widely alleged over this matter. People despise hypocrisy, and Folau himself has been rightly called out for it as well.

As for Rugby going back to being amateur, IMHO it is a matter of time I think. I would like to see the amateur game split off the Pro game in terms of admin and funding, that way when RA and the state unions go under it doesn't interfere with Insurance arrangements and other funding. That can be affiliated by at arms length.

 

[ShtinaTina]

Totai doesn't know the rules. He's ineligible to play for any other country for life as a capped 15's player. I think there's an exclusion for 7s at the Olympics, but only the Olympics, not the World Series. I haven't read the article but that could be what he is referring to.

yeh I thought that was the deal too, kinda undermines any other suggestion that's been posed too

 

[Adam84]

RA will have egg on its face if we lose Qantas and another sponsor comes on board with different priorities.

Brunei Airlines?

 

[Adam84]

Its a mess,

In hindsight, RA could have distanced themselves. They could have come out and strongly disagreed with the posts.

But at the same time make the point that Israel is entitled to hold religious views and its not really in the realm of Sports administration to make rulings on such matters. They could have stood Israel down while they consulted with various authorities including those with work place industrial relations expertise. They could have surveyed various clubs and players to see that they were in step with the thinking of the Rugby community.

They could have bought some time without escalating it. Then, they may have been able to say, we dont agree with Israel but actually cant stop him from making religious posts on social media. It would be wrong for us to terminate him on these grounds. Lets all move on.

Cheika tried calling, Raelene tried calling, Gibson tried calling, Rugby Australian sent two welfare officers around to his house and he refused to talk to any of them, and now it's emerged that even through his agent he wouldn't discuss it.

He pushed them into a very awkward position by doing something extremely controversial and then blocking them all out, and I think they took what steps they believed to be necessary at the time.

 

[Quick Hands]

But then you'd have all the loonies set up up alerts and over monitor all his social media accounts just so they can make a fuss every time he posts something they don't agree with.

Although I tend to think that 99% of people who read his posts are either committed followers of his church group or people monitoring trying to catch him out.

I can't honestly imagine any of the groups mentioned in the post in question following him. I'm not on twitter, but from what other posters here have said and reproduced, it's nearly all overtly religious in nature.

From what he said on the weekend, it's now a matter of God's will and divine destiny and he's not about to retract. If anything he's hardened his position because he sees it as part of God's plan for him.

I don't agree with his methods, nor to I agree with the way in which he expressed his beliefs but I certainly respect his faith and his commitment to what he believes is the right thing to do. Many of us (most of us?) would have blinked before now and taken the pragmatic option. He has a higher calling and it seems that that is the path he is going to follow. I suspect that this is going to go all the way through the courts, possibly to the High Court as he would view anything else as weakness and lack of faith on his part.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Cheika tried calling, Raelene tried calling, Gibson tried calling, Rugby Australian sent two welfare officers around to his house and he refused to talk to any of them, and now it's emerged that even through his agent he wouldn't discuss it.

He pushed them into a very awkward position by doing something extremely controversial and then blocking them all out, and I think they took what steps they believed to be necessary at the time.

Which makes me think there is nothing rational about this.

He has been brainwashed. I suspect he is in a dark place and quite unwell mentally.

Its an impossible situation. He believes he is right at all cost. He is disturbed and will probably be terminated and never play again because of a mental illness. (Not that I am any Doctor, but I can see no other logical explanation of such an irrational stance)

 

[The Honey Badger]

Brunei Airlines?

I was thinking it would be worth hitting up the Giddeons , discussed earlier in the thread