-
Am I the only one surprised the Folau hasn't had multiple offers from qualified lawyers to take this on pro-bono simply due to the profile of the case? Surely the Venn diagram between rugby enthusiast and conservatives sympathetic to Folau's views (or at least his right to express them) converge enough for a couple of dozen?
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
Am I the only one surprised the Folau hasn't had multiple offers from qualified lawyers to take this on pro-bono simply due to the profile of the case? Surely the Venn diagram between rugby enthusiast and conservatives sympathetic to Folau's views (or at least his right to express them) converge enough for a couple of dozen?
Interesting point as if he does win then this would potentially open the floodgates for more litigation and $$$$ for the lawyers.
-
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
@taniwharugby said in The Folau Factor:
isnt Folau suing because he was sacked due to his Religious beliefs rather than free speech, because IMO there is a big difference.
I'm not sure quite what his defence is but that would seem the logical avenue. To me the whole thing is quite simple and can be boiled down to;-
-
Is what he tweeted a dick thing to have said?
I think in this day and age, many people would say yes. -
Should he be able to articulate such views?
Absolutely. -
Did he violate an agreement between himself and the ARU?
Well they say yes. -
If the answer to 3 is yes does that trump his right to freedom of expression and/or his religious beliefs?
I'd guess that is what will be decided by the legal process and is really what separates most opinions on this thread. For me, the agreement (if it properly exists), trumps all.
I guess we'll see in due course.
The other point is that if he says the agreement was outside of his legal rights , did he ever make that view clear to his employer BEFORE ignoring it?
There was nothing stopping him declaring that they can't stop him making religious statements and therefore he would do so. If they want to challenge that view they can do so in employment court. ie turn the tables.
Crying after agreeing to follow an agreement is weak. -
-
This guy has been on multi million dollar contracts, has an extensive property portfolio, and sets up a go fund me to get 3 million to try and win 10 million.
Oh, and this is the disclaimer on the page: "In making this contribution I acknowledge that my contributions are made freely as a gift on the basis previously affirmed and that there will be no obligations on Israel Folau to do anything for me in recognition of the gift or to apply the funds in any particular way with respect to his legal action, and that I hold no expectation to receive anything in return for my contribution."
Giant. Farking. Turd.
-
@Damo said in The Folau Factor:
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@Damo yep, same here.
I just can't be fucked judging someone breaking no laws, who I've never met. I don't know his set up
I do find corporate ARU more culpable for escalating this mess, their hurried first response bordered on hysterical. Should have been negotiated privately like any "family" disputeI disagree. My understanding is that RA made their position clear about the conduct they expected from Folau. Folau showed he did not agree to abide by that conduct. Folau made it clear he was unrepentant and would carry on posting as he chose - even going so far as to refuse to remove the offending post. I don't see there was any room for negotiation or settlement under these circumstances. Settlement requires will from both sides, which was not present here.
My only criticism of RA was the early statement that they would most likely terminate the contract. They should have said that they would commission an inquiry to determine sanction. I think that was a little naive.
I have no problem judging Folau. If he wants to be thought of as a martyr then he should be a martyr and fund his own legal battles, particularly given if he wins he stands to make millions.
Solid position mate.
My version differs because I assign the ARU less authority over Folau's behaviour and life. The "obey ARU" consideration relies on Folau's unconditional obediance, and subsequent fear (like nearly all of us) of job termination, yet he's trangressed no crown laws.
If we're to advance the ARU wide reaching, non rugby related, authority then it's fair to expect some high standards of governance and self awareness.
Upon issuing the "most likely" to terminate statement, not one person in the meeting asked:
"What if he sues us?"
Another might muse:
"What? A millionaire being willing and able to sue us because we've decided, to terminate his world cup aspirations and deny him more millions of dollars. Do you think that might cost us a bit in legal fees"Presumably no one in the meeting was personally close enough to Israel to suggest he have a word in private? No, an ultimatum was publically issued, that enters the oz rugby public consciousness and now we're a million miles away from the World Cup Rugby pitch, and about to spend double that on this nonsense.
There's apparently fark all money in Aus rugby and to enter into such a frivolous spat with a millionaire does not suggest even a modicum of rational decision making. No alternative strategy? No one thought this through?
It's almost as if someone spooked them
Perhaps a sponsor thought it vital that the ARU stamp on this tweet with all it's might so that it should attract the 10% gay market to suddenly play rugby. The facebook addicted females with no kids and no sports interest might suddenly enroll at the local rugby club. The aging hippies might suddenly spend $1000 a year on rugby because of this new stand on inclusivity.
What's the benefit?
What's the angle?
Thousands of previously "wouldn't touch rugby with a barge pole" millenials are going to start buying jerseys, tickets, TV subscriptions, video games, figurines, memorabilia, and memberships all because the Australian Rugby Union will spend a fortune on stating that gays will not go to an imaginery place when they die?
All that money from these new "inclusivity attuned" markets
So much financial and rugby related benefit to screaming "Homophobe!" less than 48 hours after a tweet.
So much extra revenue stream?
It's all about the brand innit?
Enough ROI that we can shelve the 4 year investment we put into Izzy as the poster boy, IN A WORLD CUP YEAR and all the hype and marketability that entails.
Nup we'll just blurt out a statement and flush it all down the drain because no one asked "What if he sues?"
Lie in your bed ARU - Izzy's was always going to be comfy
Look after Aussie rugby and Aussie rugby people - caught out virtue signalling to a less than convinced rugby public
@pakman nailed it when he articulated we don't watch/love rugby for a moral experience.
Frankly, we couldn't give a toss what each rugby participant believes, as long as we all respect rugby behaviour and traditions then it's not important.highlanders were poor- pissed ramblings - vent over - appreciate the forum - night
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@Damo said in The Folau Factor:
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@Damo yep, same here.
I just can't be fucked judging someone breaking no laws, who I've never met. I don't know his set up
I do find corporate ARU more culpable for escalating this mess, their hurried first response bordered on hysterical. Should have been negotiated privately like any "family" disputeI disagree. My understanding is that RA made their position clear about the conduct they expected from Folau. Folau showed he did not agree to abide by that conduct. Folau made it clear he was unrepentant and would carry on posting as he chose - even going so far as to refuse to remove the offending post. I don't see there was any room for negotiation or settlement under these circumstances. Settlement requires will from both sides, which was not present here.
My only criticism of RA was the early statement that they would most likely terminate the contract. They should have said that they would commission an inquiry to determine sanction. I think that was a little naive.
I have no problem judging Folau. If he wants to be thought of as a martyr then he should be a martyr and fund his own legal battles, particularly given if he wins he stands to make millions.
Solid position mate.
My version differs because I assign the ARU less authority over Folau's behaviour and life. The "obey ARU" consideration relies on Folau's unconditional obediance, and subsequent fear (like nearly all of us) of job termination, yet he's trangressed no crown laws.
If we're to advance the ARU wide reaching, non rugby related, authority then it's fair to expect some high standards of governance and self awareness.
Upon issuing the "most likely" to terminate statement, not one person in the meeting asked:
"What if he sues us?"
Another might muse:
"What? A millionaire being willing and able to sue us because we've decided, to terminate his world cup aspirations and deny him more millions of dollars. Do you think that might cost us a bit in legal fees"Presumably no one in the meeting was personally close enough to Israel to suggest he have a word in private? No, an ultimatum was publically issued, that enters the oz rugby public consciousness and now we're a million miles away from the World Cup Rugby pitch, and about to spend double that on this nonsense.
There's apparently fark all money in Aus rugby and to enter into such a frivolous spat with a millionaire does not suggest even a modicum of rational decision making. No alternative strategy? No one thought this through?
It's almost as if someone spooked them
Perhaps a sponsor thought it vital that the ARU stamp on this tweet with all it's might so that it should attract the 10% gay market to suddenly play rugby. The facebook addicted females with no kids and no sports interest might suddenly enroll at the local rugby club. The aging hippies might suddenly spend $1000 a year on rugby because of this new stand on inclusivity.
What's the benefit?
What's the angle?
Thousands of previously "wouldn't touch rugby with a barge pole" millenials are going to start buying jerseys, tickets, TV subscriptions, video games, figurines, memorabilia, and memberships all because the Australian Rugby Union will spend a fortune on stating that gays will not go to an imaginery place when they die?
All that money from these new "inclusivity attuned" markets
So much financial and rugby related benefit to screaming "Homophobe!" less than 48 hours after a tweet.
So much extra revenue stream?
It's all about the brand innit?
Enough ROI that we can shelve the 4 year investment we put into Izzy as the poster boy, IN A WORLD CUP YEAR and all the hype and marketability that entails.
Nup we'll just blurt out a statement and flush it all down the drain because no one asked "What if he sues?"
Lie in your bed ARU - Izzy's was always going to be comfy
Look after Aussie rugby and Aussie rugby people - caught out virtue signalling to a less than convinced rugby public
@pakman nailed it when he articulated we don't watch/love rugby for a moral experience.
Frankly, we couldn't give a toss what each rugby participant believes, as long as we all respect rugby behaviour and traditions then it's not important.highlanders were poor- pissed ramblings - vent over - appreciate the forum - night
That's a long post so I won't respond to all.
My understanding is that in the 48 hours after the post RA tried to reach out to Folau again and again but he wouldn't pick up the phone. They asked his manager to get him to take the post down and even reached out through Cheika and others. They tried everything they could to get him to take it down, up to and including at the hearing.
Folau didn't want to take the post down. He said and says he doesn't have to. RA says he had to because it's a breach of the contract he signed. That's a fundamental dispute which cannot be solved except by a hearing.
Be interesting to see what happens. The issues are whether or not the post was a breach of contract, and if it was, whether that part of the contract is enforceable.
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
yet he's trangressed no crown laws.
Don't see what relevance that has to employment law.
Emailing naked midgets between consenting adults breaks no laws, but would get me fired at my place of work despite the complete lack of a specific clause re: naked midgets. The terms of my employment are based around what is fairly accepted as appropriate behaviour. So were Folau's.
I don't think he should necessarily be vilified, but IMHO and as @barbarian says: he's a fluffybunny for going down the crowd funding route, and IMHO anyone who supports him doing that can get equally fucked sideways
-
@Damo said in The Folau Factor:
That's a long post so I won't respond to all.
My understanding is that in the 48 hours after the post RA tried to reach out to Folau again and again but he wouldn't pick up the phone. They asked his manager to get him to take the post down and even reached out through Cheika and others. They tried everything they could to get him to take it down, up to and including at the hearing.
Folau didn't want to take the post down. He said and says he doesn't have to. RA says he had to because it's a breach of the contract he signed. That's a fundamental dispute which cannot be solved except by a hearing.
Be interesting to see what happens. The issues are whether or not the post was a breach of contract, and if it was, whether that part of the contract is enforceable.
As previously stated he didn't just post a quote from (whatever version of) the bible either. He wrapped it in other terms. IF he had simply posted a bible verse his argument would be stronger.
-
@NTA said in The Folau Factor:
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
yet he's trangressed no crown laws.
Don't see what relevance that has to employment law.
Emailing naked midgets between consenting adults breaks no laws, but would get me fired at my place of work despite the complete lack of a specific clause re: naked midgets. The terms of my employment are based around what is fairly accepted as appropriate behaviour. So were Folau's.
I don't think he should necessarily be vilified, but IMHO and as @barbarian says: he's a fluffybunny for going down the crowd funding route, and IMHO anyone who supports him doing that can get equally fucked sideways
You've done your research. Sensible.
-
@Catogrande in a nearly-12 year span at my current employer, I've made several moves that would be career-ending for a mere drone.
As it is, I have enough of the crucial passwords and information to make them merely career-limiting 😉
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
100 percent with Drew
Nah that's fucked up. Completely uncalled for. So he can't use GoFundMe because there are more worthy causes?
Who said that?
Not Drew, nor me.
-
@Damo said in The Folau Factor:
Everyone is allowed to publicly criticise the actions of others. No doubt people will criticise Drew. You might even do so yourself, and no-one will censor you for doing so.
Is that you being ironic, Mr Fooloo?
-
@Bones said in The Folau Factor:
ARU should crowdfund for their defence. I'd be in.
What’s stopping you from cutting a cheque?
-
Folau claimed people like me are condemned to Hell. If there is a Hell, surely it’s a Soviet-style tyranny where people lose their jobs for quoting The Bible. That’s where we are, so even though I strongly oppose his viewpoint, I’m going to contribute. Feel free to hate me.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
100 percent with Drew
Nah that's fucked up. Completely uncalled for. So he can't use GoFundMe because there are more worthy causes?
Completely asinine from Mitchell.
If when this bloke negotiated his Toulon contract he asked for $x00,000 per year, and their brass came back with the average salary for a nurse, aged healthcare worker and firefighter and said we can't pay you anymore than these - he would have copped that?
Celebrity is different, no shit.
You can't deny from a PR perspective this was a clear misstep.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in The Folau Factor:
@Bones said in The Folau Factor:
ARU should crowdfund for their defence. I'd be in.
What’s stopping you from cutting a cheque?
Only the fact I seem to have misplaced my cheque book somewhere in the previous century.
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
100 percent with Drew
Nah that's fucked up. Completely uncalled for. So he can't use GoFundMe because there are more worthy causes?
Who said that?
Not Drew, nor me.
Um. Yes he did.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions