Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Yep, fully entitled. But as Raelene implied, he's a bit of a knob for doing so.
The Israel Folau saga
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Fortunately the law only judges cases on their merits, rather than whether one of the parties is nicer than the other.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I thought we were talking about Raelene's hutzpah not the law.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
We were, but then you seemed to imply that people should consider the other sides costs when deciding whether or not to take court action.
If you and Ralene are correct and RA are right in what they've done, then it won't cost them anything as Folau and his supporters would most likely have to pay their costs
louie
Desmond Connor (43)
Of course he’s entitled? Is he a man of his word? He’ll no. It’s amazing how he takes us a moral high ground using the words of other but can’t back up his own
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
If she is in any way involved in the defence, we may as well start pulling the goalposts down now.
notapatrioticboneinme
Sydney Middleton (9)
Hmmmm...
he giggles into his evening beverage... soy, chai (either vanilla or spice, doesn't matter), decaf, FLAT!
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
If the quotes attributed to him are accurate, he’s a grade one hypocrite.
But that’s a big if.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
https://www.playersvoice.com.au/israel-folau-im-a-sinner-too/
Have a read mate. Izzy wrote that article himself.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Cost orders never cover the full costs incurred by the successful party. Just how it is.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
On the cost issue, RA may be able to dig into the deep pockets of Qantas and other members of the "big end of town" who don't want their power of contractural supremacy threatened.
This is a deeply disturbing day for rugby lovers who enjoyed watching Izzy play, for supporters of free speech, and for anyone who wanted RA to voluntarily negotiate a sensible compromise. Sacking your top player means ever single rugby player now must conform to the morals and stated values of the unrepresentative Board, on pain of dismissal. What a diabolical situation for a sport in a free country to be in.
Any professional player with a different view to the Board and CEO is now at risk of termination. This is a dictatorship by the elites.
Any CEO worth their salt would have publicly argued the issue of sinner repentance, and let the players get on with playing. But no. We have a CEO with a track record of two serious mistakes in previous employment making the running that drags the sport deep into the mire of ongoing law fare.
It would have been wonderful for RA to debate Izzy's biblical quotes and let him keep playing. That would have been a strong example of the "inclusivity" Castle keeps dishonestly referring to. It would have shown Australia that it is possible to have a cohesive rugby team made up of people with many differences. A public debate or just a distancing from Izzy's views would have sent the message that the game of Rugby accepted not just different sizes but different religions and philosophies.
RA has won this round but has lost the hearts and minds of far too many rugby lovers. This contract termination has hastened the slide of rugby in Australia. Izzy is not the cause. He was just the flashpoint.
This is a deeply disturbing day for rugby lovers who enjoyed watching Izzy play, for supporters of free speech, and for anyone who wanted RA to voluntarily negotiate a sensible compromise. Sacking your top player means ever single rugby player now must conform to the morals and stated values of the unrepresentative Board, on pain of dismissal. What a diabolical situation for a sport in a free country to be in.
Any professional player with a different view to the Board and CEO is now at risk of termination. This is a dictatorship by the elites.
Any CEO worth their salt would have publicly argued the issue of sinner repentance, and let the players get on with playing. But no. We have a CEO with a track record of two serious mistakes in previous employment making the running that drags the sport deep into the mire of ongoing law fare.
It would have been wonderful for RA to debate Izzy's biblical quotes and let him keep playing. That would have been a strong example of the "inclusivity" Castle keeps dishonestly referring to. It would have shown Australia that it is possible to have a cohesive rugby team made up of people with many differences. A public debate or just a distancing from Izzy's views would have sent the message that the game of Rugby accepted not just different sizes but different religions and philosophies.
RA has won this round but has lost the hearts and minds of far too many rugby lovers. This contract termination has hastened the slide of rugby in Australia. Izzy is not the cause. He was just the flashpoint.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Again: point out where - at any point - Folau's right to free speech has been denied.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
No if there.
Wonder how he can reconcile that?
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
RA never had the hearts and minds of 'rugby lovers'. Rugby lovers love the sport, and will continue to do so at every possible level this weekend and next. The national administrator has been a laughing stock for decades so if a bunch of people pile on in the rare instance where they get it right (this instance), who gives a shit? Haters gonna hate and all that.
In 4 months time this will be a distant memory, even if he sues. Its not like we were red hot favorites for the cup. Pick a guy that actually wants to be there and let's all enjoy some rugby.
In 4 months time this will be a distant memory, even if he sues. Its not like we were red hot favorites for the cup. Pick a guy that actually wants to be there and let's all enjoy some rugby.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
This thread is a great example of why I gave up on social media pretty much, most here including the mods speak (post) and will only agree with the echos.
I have personally never rated Folau as highly as some as a Fullback, a player unparalleled at taking the ball in the, possible the best ever, a very good runner, one of the best in broken field, but has not developed at all in terms of skill, passing remains pretty ordinary and whilst he has executed a few kicks recently the technique is poor for rugby and results are not Pro standard.
I point this out because I am not unhappy that his contractual payments can now be wasted by RA in some other way. Maybe they can use the savings to validate some form of executive bonus.
My fundamental objections to this whole situation are:-
1) RA basically, as they did with the Force pre-decided and advertised the outcome before the process even started. It is poor management and speaks to weak/un-real processes.
2) The free speech aspect. I really don't give a shit if people want to be offended by words which are not defamatory, personal vilification or inciting to deleterious action others in the community. If they can be offended by such their life will be miserable and no doubt they are "victims' of just about everything that has ever happened. How about shrugging and saying well Israel, I'm not a member of your church and I will never be a member so I don't care what your personal beliefs are.
3) The fact that a few years ago Beale sends some offensive text messages (which can actually be a criminal offence) which results in the resignation of a coach and his complete separation from the game despite having up to that point having had a lifelong involvement and then incurring significant sums in payments to an employee as a direct result. Yet despite having a number of prior court appearances and a disciplinary record he gets a short suspension and a fine. Is this (the Folau matter) an equitable and just when compared to the precedent set by the direct vilification of another employee which the Beale was?
I have personally never rated Folau as highly as some as a Fullback, a player unparalleled at taking the ball in the, possible the best ever, a very good runner, one of the best in broken field, but has not developed at all in terms of skill, passing remains pretty ordinary and whilst he has executed a few kicks recently the technique is poor for rugby and results are not Pro standard.
I point this out because I am not unhappy that his contractual payments can now be wasted by RA in some other way. Maybe they can use the savings to validate some form of executive bonus.
My fundamental objections to this whole situation are:-
1) RA basically, as they did with the Force pre-decided and advertised the outcome before the process even started. It is poor management and speaks to weak/un-real processes.
2) The free speech aspect. I really don't give a shit if people want to be offended by words which are not defamatory, personal vilification or inciting to deleterious action others in the community. If they can be offended by such their life will be miserable and no doubt they are "victims' of just about everything that has ever happened. How about shrugging and saying well Israel, I'm not a member of your church and I will never be a member so I don't care what your personal beliefs are.
3) The fact that a few years ago Beale sends some offensive text messages (which can actually be a criminal offence) which results in the resignation of a coach and his complete separation from the game despite having up to that point having had a lifelong involvement and then incurring significant sums in payments to an employee as a direct result. Yet despite having a number of prior court appearances and a disciplinary record he gets a short suspension and a fine. Is this (the Folau matter) an equitable and just when compared to the precedent set by the direct vilification of another employee which the Beale was?
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Anecdotal. There are also (anecdotally) many people who have applauded RA for finally getting something right in terms of sticking by a decision; for holding onto a principle.
Well, if we were relying on one player, we were stuffed anyway.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
He has been sacked for what he said in an instagram post.
As Raelene so eloquently put it:
"It is certainly not ideal," she said. "But Mr Folau knew when he pressed that button there were the implications that post was going to have."
I reckon that being dismissed for what he said in a post is most certainly a denial of free speech.
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
Beale should have been let go. Permanently. He was saved by the advocacy of Cheika, who had Pulver over a barrel. Amusingly, Beale will survive both Pulver and Cheika.
But we shouldnt use the 'precedent' excuse when the precedent is bad law. Let's not be wrong in perpetuity simply because it makes us consistent.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
The problem Raylene now has to deal with is she will be going to court with a party that is not interested in settling. For Israel and his supporters its the principal not the dollars. A negotiated out of court settlement is not an option it is winning or nothing.
- Status