-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Seems a lot of the current orthadoxy is based more on emotion than rationalism. The sooner organisations realise that the cultish 8% of twitter users (and the media who amplify it) that drive online discourse are not actually representative of normal every-day folk the better.
FWIW, most of the people I speak to in the Aussie rugby community are supportive of RA in this.
These aren't twitter people, they are blokes on the sidelines of rugby matches in suburban Sydney.
I'd actually guess in this case it's the pro-Folau crowd who have been overestimated in their size, due to a few mouthpieces in the Murdoch press and on talkback radio.
-
@barbarian I have no doubt that's true about the rugby community. I also have no doubt that they are just normal folk who don't follow politics, want to live their lives in peace and enjoy the game they love. They are not part of the 8% but will be victims of them.
The orthodoxy I'm referring to is that of corporations who back AR. Corporations are influenced by twitter extremists and in turn put pressure on organisations they sponsor to follow the same orthodoxy without question. "Believe this as gospel or we take away your funding". Its this almost religious fanaticism which resulted in Cheika and others jumping the gun in trying to out-virtue each other publicly instead of following due process and contract law.
It didn't need to go down this way.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Seems a lot of the current orthadoxy is based more on emotion than rationalism. The sooner organisations realise that the cultish 8% of twitter users (and the media who amplify it) that drive online discourse are not actually representative of normal every-day folk the better.
FWIW, most of the people I speak to in the Aussie rugby community are supportive of RA in this.
These aren't twitter people, they are blokes on the sidelines of rugby matches in suburban Sydney.
I'd actually guess in this case it's the pro-Folau crowd who have been overestimated in their size, due to a few mouthpieces in the Murdoch press and on talkback radio.
Or they are guys just towing the accepted line. Do you really want to be the guy that takes Fellows side? He has acted like a farkwit, but that isnt mutually exclusive with ARU and QANTAS acting like farwits... or the threat of complete and utter tram;ling on freedom of speech
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Seems a lot of the current orthadoxy is based more on emotion than rationalism. The sooner organisations realise that the cultish 8% of twitter users (and the media who amplify it) that drive online discourse are not actually representative of normal every-day folk the better.
FWIW, most of the people I speak to in the Aussie rugby community are supportive of RA in this.
These aren't twitter people, they are blokes on the sidelines of rugby matches in suburban Sydney.
I'd actually guess in this case it's the pro-Folau crowd who have been overestimated in their size, due to a few mouthpieces in the Murdoch press and on talkback radio.
I would agree with that, but you don't have to be pro-Phonehow or a bible basher to be a little uneasy about how this has been handled.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
Or they are guys just towing the accepted line. Do you really want to be the guy that takes Fellows side?
I don't think people are afraid to support Folau here (btw I reckon we can move on from the mis-spelling joke now), or more to the point people are certainly unafraid to beat up Rugby Australia about all manner of things.
My feeling is that RA has the broad support of the rugby community here in the way they have acted, and they don't have that on many issues these days.
Certainly there are people who disagree, but in his actions post-sanction Folau has erased the small amount of goodwill he had left I reckon.
-
@Nevorian said in The Folau Factor:
Foohau is being a bit hypocritical if he is going to screw the ARU for his 4$mill isn't he? Supreme court action wouldn't happen overnight, more likely after the world cup ayway. Maybe they should have reinstated him but not selected him?
That certainly could have been one option they could have taken, but only if they hadn't immediately gone public.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
Or they are guys just towing the accepted line. Do you really want to be the guy that takes Fellows side?
I don't think people are afraid to support Folau here (btw I reckon we can move on from the mis-spelling joke now), or more to the point people are certainly unafraid to beat up Rugby Australia about all manner of things.
My feeling is that RA has the broad support of the rugby community here in the way they have acted, and they don't have that on many issues these days.
Certainly there are people who disagree, but in his actions post-sanction Folau has erased the small amount of goodwill he had left I reckon.
I think people are pleased that RA showed some balls when it was perceived that they caved to Fongchow last year. But I'm not sure that goodwill will last if it ends up bankrupting the sport. RA will try and spin it as them having been willing to risk everything to stand up to Fullplow's bigotry, but I don't think that will be sufficient to hide their idocy and complete incompetence.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
I think people are pleased that RA showed some balls when it was perceived that they caved to Fongchow last year. But I'm not sure that goodwill will last if it ends up bankrupting the sport. RA will try and spin it as them having been willing to risk everything to stand up to Fullplow's bigotry, but I don't think that will be sufficient to hide their idocy and complete incompetence.
There's something funny about mis-spelling the word 'idiocy' but let's put that to one side.
I'm not sure I agree with you. I think the public may actually rally behind RA, if Folau insists on dragging the them to the High Court. It shows no regard for the sport, the jersey, his team-mates and the fans.
Essentially he is draining the code's finances to fight a personal battle over religion. Why should regular fans be supporting that? RA might be seen to be doing all they could, against a litigious player who refused to compromise at every step.
-
@barbarian if you think we can just move on from the mis-spelling joke then you are grossly underestimating the number of cringe-worthy Dads that post here.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
Or they are guys just towing the accepted line. Do you really want to be the guy that takes Fellows side?
I don't think people are afraid to support Folau here (btw I reckon we can move on from the mis-spelling joke now), or more to the point people are certainly unafraid to beat up Rugby Australia about all manner of things.
My feeling is that RA has the broad support of the rugby community here in the way they have acted, and they don't have that on many issues these days.
Certainly there are people who disagree, but in his actions post-sanction Folau has erased the small amount of goodwill he had left I reckon.
Good luck with that, it’ll be years before people get sick of this. Some jokes having been going for 13 years here.
-
@taniwharugby said in The Folau Factor:
Heads at the top of AR need to roll if they are just sticking to thier guns and sacking him on principle as opposed to what they are able to do legally.
Well they aren't sacking him 'on principle' as such. He has been judged by an independent panel to have breached the code of conduct.
If he does end up winning in court I'd imagine it may have ramifications for every sport, who to my eyes operate in a very similar manner to RA on these issues.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
I think people are pleased that RA showed some balls when it was perceived that they caved to Fongchow last year. But I'm not sure that goodwill will last if it ends up bankrupting the sport. RA will try and spin it as them having been willing to risk everything to stand up to Fullplow's bigotry, but I don't think that will be sufficient to hide their idocy and complete incompetence.
There's something funny about mis-spelling the word 'idiocy' but let's put that to one side.
I'm not sure I agree with you. I think the public may actually rally behind RA, if Folau insists on dragging the them to the High Court. It shows no regard for the sport, the jersey, his team-mates and the fans.
Essentially he is draining the code's finances to fight a personal battle over religion. Why should regular fans be supporting that? RA might be seen to be doing all they could, against a litigious player who refused to compromise at every step.
Yes, because a misspelt word in a post typed on a phone is in the same league as a sporting organisation being so incompetent that it faces the prospect of financial ruin. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Why would fans rally behind RA? If they cared so much about this matter then why was Foongcha happily welcomed back into the fold last year? Irrespective of how morally repugnant his tweet may have been, it was RA who allowed this mess to happen and I don't think the majority of fans will be happy to see the game go down the gurgler over a bloody tweet.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Why would fans rally behind RA? If they cared so much about this matter then why was Foongcha happily welcomed back into the fold last year?
Because he apologised, said he wouldn't do it again. People took him at face value and assumed he'd learnt his lesson.
Not only has he done it again, he's doubled down. He's refused to compromise, he's blocking calls from the coach, he's not answering his door when RA staff come to his house.
A section of the public may still be angry at RA, but I think there would be plenty of fans who would think that RA has taken a logical course of action given Folau's behaviour throughout this process.
-
@barbarian but again, surely they should have also obtained indpendent opinions about the likelyhood of him winning a legal challenge due to wrongful dismissal.
I know that panel were supposedly independent legal persons, but what have the been instructed to look at? Solely if he has breached code of conduct or that and the wider issue of his right to express himself?
There are some things that you put into a contract that are all but worthless, they are just empty threats for employers to hold over the employee (restraint of trade clauses for example)
-
@taniwharugby Well I don't know the answers to those questions.
I will say that IF Folau takes RA to court and wins then certainly Castle's position is incredibly tenuous.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Why would fans rally behind RA? If they cared so much about this matter then why was Foongcha happily welcomed back into the fold last year?
Because he apologised, said he wouldn't do it again. People took him at face value and assumed he'd learnt his lesson.
Not only has he done it again, he's doubled down. He's refused to compromise, he's blocking calls from the coach, he's not answering his door when RA staff come to his house.
A section of the public may still be angry at RA, but I think there would be plenty of fans who would think that RA has taken a logical course of action given Folau's behaviour throughout this process.
Did he apologise? I can't recall him walking back any of those comments. I don't think he budged an inch. Anybody who took him at face value and didn't insert the necessary legal clauses has rocks in their head.
Why would fans support RA leading the game into financial ruin? It makes no sense. Fine if they support them wanting to axe Phonemau for being a homophobe, but who's going to support them for not ensuring they had legal coverage to do so? And, as has been mentioned multiple times, they're the ones who made the decision to sign the guy for 4 years despite knowing full well what his views were.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel the Australian law around this is pretty ambiguous so not sure that something could be inserted into a contract to prevent this and actually stand up under current laws.
My crystal ball is if there is an appeal and even if it goes to a Full Court or to the High Court, there will be calls for legislative change. I do agree with Raelene in one regard, this is a test case.
For what it’s worth and as a spectator in all this I certainly don’t have any qualms with how things transpired last year - contract and dealing with social media issue - my only criticism of RA has been how they went public so early and so hard. I don’t think it was necessary.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel seems there were differing reports on whether he apologised to Castle or not, and whether he committed to no further posts of that nature. But one thing I reckon they should have caught is his increasing devotion to his church and faith. Sure he was already strong on that around the time of the first contentious post, but now he's actively preaching and surely will go on to be a minister or something.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions