-
-
@No-Quarter said in The Folau Factor:
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
I think he's made a bit of a mis-step by asking for $10m though. Is this about religion or about money?
He's suing the game that has given him millions/fame/fortune/opportunity, with the potential to bankrupt it completely.
Not sure how much public sympathy he will have in this fight, or support outside of the religious/libertarian community.
They always go in super high. Even if he wins he won't get close to $10m.
Yeah there is always a fair amount of ambit when a party first files. When it comes to awarding damages the courts have some fairly well established precedent and principles.
There is a compulsory conciliation process with the Commission that must play out and if not settled then is referred to the Federal Court. Most unlawful termination applications are resolved at that stage. Given both sides will be heavily lawyered up, it is doubtful it will be sorted then.
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
He is suing the ARU, not the NRL or AFL. Don't get it twisted as to what the ARU/Folau relationship was. The ARU gave him money in exchange for his profile, that's it.
I'd suggest the ARU and rugby more broadly gave Folau access to money and opportunity he never could have gained in the NRL or AFL.
His profile has grown exponentially around the world since he moved to rugby.
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
If the court sees this as a freedom of speech issue the ARU are poked. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of rights, regardless of how distasteful his words were
Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
Well that's my argument farked then isn't it! I see they have a constitution. Does it protect freedom of speech?
No. There's a limited form of free speech implied but that's political, not religious.
Folau's legal team have made the smart move in framing this in the Federal Court as an unfair termination. That's the primary issue for the court to decide on given religion is a protected attribute.
I expect that the Federal Court will determine the extent of this protection, i.e. whether identifying as Christian, Buddhist, etc. prevents you from being fired or actually exercising your religion to the extent of preaching. And if you can preach, is this restricted to your own time etc.
-
@pakman said in The Folau Factor:
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
one of your products is alienating and turning away your subscribers
I suppose one question is whether or not because of his comments anyone has declined to watch a game IF is playing in?
I could only assume if RA did nothing and allowed all their players to say whatever they wanted, be it homophobic, sexist or racist comments it would soon have an impact. However maybe Christians will now boycott because IF is not playing.
-
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
@pakman said in The Folau Factor:
@chimoaus said in The Folau Factor:
one of your products is alienating and turning away your subscribers
I suppose one question is whether or not because of his comments anyone has declined to watch a game IF is playing in?
I could only assume if RA did nothing and allowed all their players to say whatever they wanted, be it homophobic, sexist or racist comments it would soon have an impact. However maybe Christians will now boycott because IF is not playing.
"Christians" is a pretty broad brush. I'd assume that there's a hell of a lot more Christians that disagree with Folau than do.
-
Worth posting this from a lawyer on Reddit:
Without seeing the application I would assume he'll likely claim unfair dismissal or alternatively workplace discrimination. Lots of problems will arise in him proving this including that he already admitted to a high level breach of contract for his use of social media and the numerous other religious posts on his public social media that did not cause issue with RA. Dismissal law doesn't require a pattern of behaviour for the termination to be unlawful, only the singular act of termination is relevant. The downfall is that he admitted to breaching his contract and the expert panel concluded that was the basis for termination of his agreement. The FWC doesn't operate under the same laws of evidence as proper Courts do so they'll definitely take that into account despite it being a private dispute resolution procedure (normally findings in those kinds of things are not admissible evidence). I don't see the FWC reaching a decision too different to what the panel did. Discrimination is a harder ground to assess as it's much more open in what the Commission can consider. I still think he's got nothing as RA can demonstrate the numerous posts by both him and other players that didn't cause any issue. He'll be arguing that RA have breached the prohibition in s 772(1)(f). Technically this part is just an addition to the unfair dismissal laws in part 3-2 of the Fair Work Act. The important part for Folau's argument is that under this section RA could have followed proper procedure in terminating his employment but if the primary motivating factor for the termination is deemed to be his religion then it's unlawful under this provision. He'll still run into the above issues: he has many other religious posts on social media that weren't an issue, he was made aware of what kinds of posts were not allowable, RA hasn't shown any discriminatory behaviour in regard to their treatment of him.
-
The downfall is that he admitted to breaching his contract and the expert panel concluded that was the basis for termination of his agreement.
Where did this information come from?
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
The downfall is that he admitted to breaching his contract and the expert panel concluded that was the basis for termination of his agreement.
Where did this information come from?
I read this article that infers RA asked him to delete the offending post and he refused as his Dad told him he would go to hell if he did. Maybe that is his admission?
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
If the court sees this as a freedom of speech issue the ARU are poked. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of rights, regardless of how distasteful his words were
Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
Well that's my argument farked then isn't it! I see they have a constitution. Does it protect freedom of speech?
No. There's a limited form of free speech implied but that's political, not religious.
Folau's legal team have made the smart move in framing this in the Federal Court as an unfair termination. That's the primary issue for the court to decide on given religion is a protected attribute.
I expect that the Federal Court will determine the extent of this protection, i.e. whether identifying as Christian, Buddhist, etc. prevents you from being fired or actually exercising your religion to the extent of preaching. And if you can preach, is this restricted to your own time etc.
So do you reckon the content of his tweets has any bearing?
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
Where did this information come from?
It is in this article here: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby/inside-the-hearing-the-fatal-mistake-that-crucified-israel-folau/news-story/17236a1054b653d8b51a9a92c00afdab
The key paragraphs:
Under intense cross examination from top lawyer Justin Gleeson SC on the first day of his code of conduct hearing, Folau made the fatal acknowledgment. Asked if he understood that his social media posts could offend people, Folau, who had been expertly manoeuvring around the admission by repeatedly pointing back to the words being from the Bible, finally said he did. The next morning, a Sunday, Folau’s lawyers walked into the hearing and stunned Rugby Australia’s silks by admitting to a low-level breach of the player’s code of conduct. Gleeson then continued to grill Folau over the remaining two days as to whether, having admitted to the breach, he could take his post down and guarantee he would not make a similar post in future. Folau, already believing he would go to hell if he deleted his post, could guarantee neither. He admitted guilt to an offence, but would not take steps to rectify that offence, and gave no promises he would not commit another offence. The case was done at that moment.
-
@barbarian I don't get the DT. I had hoped that RA had released the panel's finding in a report rather than a sports journalists writing hearsay, however accurate it may be.
-
@antipodean I believe they did release the finding (essentially he was guilty of the breach), but I can understand why they didn't release the back-and-forth of the hearing itself.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean I believe they did release the finding (essentially he was guilty of the breach), but I can understand why they didn't release the back-and-forth of the hearing itself.
What could be an interesting legal argument if the ARU seek to use the transcript of the CoC proceeding is procedural fairness. Whilst not the place of the Fair Work Commission to determine but if Folau says that he was not afforded procedural fairness given the public comments of the ARU prior to the CoC hearing (eg we are moving to terminate Folau’s contract), then it might weigh on the admissibility of that evidence.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
I'd suggest the ARU and rugby more broadly gave Folau access to money and opportunity he never could have gained in the NRL or AFL.
His profile has grown exponentially around the world since he moved to rugby.
Given his AFL contract was reported as being $6 million over 4 years, signing for $5 million over 4 years seems like a step down now, no? Also for every contract he has signed with the ARU there has been an equal or better contract elsewhere, mostly in France.
The profile question is more arguable. With SBW, not unlike Izzy, sure he has better name recognition in rugby playing nations since the code switch but in terms of where his profile drives revenue in both cases I would say it is equal or has waned somewhat since the code switch. Regardless, in both cases they had sufficient a profile in league to command big bucks in France straight out of league in the late 00's as did Hunt and to a lesser extent Gasnier.
Like SBW and the NZRU to argue the Folau and ARU was nothing but a transactional relationship is the type of fanciful thinking that has got the ARU where they now are.
-
AR have had an appalling record with highly paid poached leagies. Sailor and KHunt done for cocaine, Walker had all kinds of discretions, and Tiquri also got the arse for disciplinary reasons. And now of course we have Finugen potentially bringing Aus rugby to the point of bankruptcy. Here's an idea, don't spend millions on league stars. Idiots.
-
The connection between League and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 escapes me.
Brad Thorn and Sonny Bill came from that same professional culture, and neither has been a detriment to the AB culture, indeed I think they’ve both contributed positively to the culture, especially in regards to training, discipline, work ethic, keeping their noses clean, etc. Both are fairly religious too.
-
Jesus, the Waratahs are soft. Several years back the Crusaders went through an earthquake, played rejigged match fixtures all over the place and made the final. Israel Folau tweets Corinthians and the Waratahs need mommy to tuck them into bed.
Wounded Wallaby: Waratahs blame Folau for wrecking their season
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12238866
-
A bit simplistic. They lost their best player and most prolific tryscorer in a very public and disruptive way.
The comparison to the Saders is unfair. Teams can 'bind together' in hardship (where everyone is equally affected), but this was different. One player just walked out mid-season, and took a few blokes with him. It undoubtedly divided the dressing room, and I'm not surprised it had a detrimental effect on performance.
-
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions