Izzy Folau

[Kiwiwomble]

i was just starting to accept a settlement and move on...and then he came out with his vindication speech...normally if you put out a join statement thats it....you dont talk about it...that video is BS, i have heard murmurs that it generally goes against confidentiality clauses...you cant both apologise and then come out claiming to have won outright...it might invalidate the settlement...we can only hope

So reports ive heard are that RA were insured for up to 10 million and that the decision to settle was driven by the insurer.

Heard he settled for less than a million and as high as 8 million.

Either way, RA were covered so thats good.

Raelene Castle claiming on twitter the $8m is "wildly Inaccurate"...

and shes now just dont a press conference in which she said the settlement was less that taking it to court

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm not a WUM as ppl used to say on the old 606 board.

This sentence makes me think that you are actually a WUM. And that you have a track record of being one.

The fact that you have received so many dislikes in a matter of 2 days, is astounding. Plus every other post you made tends to support that conclusion. And your credibility is now zero to none.

 

[TRF_heineken]

There's a rumour floating around that Folau might be joining the Bulls...

Say it isn't so...

 

[ncurd]

There's a rumour floating around that Folau might be joining the Bulls...

Say it isn't so...

Just pray its just that I suspect he'll be attached in rumors to numerous teams in coming years.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I've stated this before but i will do it again: three issues here. First, what i believe about his actions (he is an idiot), second, whether i think he has the right to do what he did and therefore whether he was wrongfully terminated or not. And third, who makes this settlement look better.
I think we all agree he is an idiot and wrong on so many levels, so i will avoid talking about this as it is a non-issue in my book.

Regarding the second point, i've said this since day 1, i dislike what he has to say but as far as my understanding goes, he has the right to say that in the way he said it. But since we dont have a ruling we can only speculate.

Regarding the third point (most relevant right now), it's a no brainer. He comes on top, easily. He claimed he was wrongfully terminated while RA said the opposite. People who are rightfully terminated do not get paid.
The fact that they settled for an undisclosed amount makes him look even stronger. It's as if RA shouts "you've beaten us, just don't tell people by how much and we'll expedite the payment, deal?".

and then he came out with his vindication speech...normally if you put out a join statement thats it....you dont talk about it.

That's when parties meet halfway, which is precisely why i think Folau came on top. They could have included some sort of clause about that, if they had the leverage but as we clearly see, that didn't happen.

Simple fact as pointed out above, if was about principle he wouldn't have settled.

Not true. If the settlement vindicates him the way he perceives it to be fair he has every incentive to settle.

And i don't buy the "RA settled to avoid a lengthy and costly trial". That's ********. The weaker party is generally squeezed with that argument by the stronger/richer/more patient part.
So not long ago Folau was counting the chips and begging others to cover his legal fees and now he has the leverage to last longer in a trial than RA?
Now that RA has the chance to put pressure on someone who, clearly, had issues financing his lawyers, they want to put this behind them
BS.
He had them by the balls and they knew it.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Just pray its just that I suspect he'll be attached in rumors to numerous teams in coming years.

Well the source of this rumour is Netwerk24. Which is a brother online newspaper of News24. But it only posts in Afrikaans and you have to pay a subscription to read their articles.

It could just be clickbait, but you never know.

 

[WaterboySA]

At this stage we will take anybody......maybe he can carry bags?

 

[ncurd]

*snip*
He had them by the balls and they knew it.

I'm not entirely sure you understand what was at stake in terms of employment law in Australia and RA would consider settling. Or even what he was terminated for.

He was terminated for bring his employers into disrepute which is a pretty standard gross misconduct allegation. Essentially RA said your actions are costing us and our brand money to the people we want to market to therefore you can no longer be our employee.

Then the law gets involved there are two forms of discrmination in this case, (1) Is Falou allowed to say what he believes in publicly and cause material distress to his employers for publicly stating them. Is he protected because these are religious views? (2) If he is protected by those anti-discrimination laws is he protected when his vocal views actually form a discrimination act against a different protected group? Which protected group is better protected?

And its all rather more complex than that I'm sure if you are a lawyer. More importantly Australia has barely any case law in this regard it would of been a landmark case that defined how many more cases in this regard would of been judged (in US terms think of Roe V Wade as an example).

RA and Falou were both relying on courts to come down on their side but neither could be sure of winning hence why they settled.
Ultimately if Falou had them by the balls he wouldn't of settled. RA had much more to lose in this than Falou who started off with nothing and at very worst would of got nothing. The fact Falou walked away with something suggests he was not willing to actually to test the courts to prove himself right.

 

[ncurd]

And believe me employers in the UK settle out of court in employment tribunals all the time even when they've done nothing wrong and are 90% solid in their conviction. Its usually cheaper, takes up less of your actual employee time who have to be diverted to the court case and its better to just make headache go away.

Its only when employee who quite blatantly broke their contract/law do employers really care. eg the employee was stealing money.

 

[McTallshort]

And believe me employers in the UK settle out of court in employment tribunals all the time even when they've done nothing wrong and are 90% solid in their conviction. Its usually cheaper, takes up less of your actual employee time who have to be diverted to the court case and its better to just make headache go away.

Its only when employee who quite blatantly broke their contract/law do employers really care. eg the employee was stealing money.

This.

Have been advised a number of time to settle even when you have the employee bang to rights

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm not entirely sure you understand what was at stake in terms of employment law in Australia and RA would consider settling. Or even what he was terminated for.

I am. Not sure you are tho.

Essentially RA said your actions are costing us and our brand money to the people we want to market to therefore you can no longer be our employee.

That is precisely the point! Whether he is/was costing them or not is irrelevant with regards to whether or not they have the right to terminate his contract without compensation. If his contract didnt prevent him from making those statements in his instagram accout then they have to compensate him for contract termination. Those are, specifically, Folau's grounds.
They believe the contract allowed them to do that, he believed it did not. That's the issue here.

And regarding how it works in other cases where employers settle, well, the difference here is that those employers do not go to the media before settling and brag about how right they are.

Once you go out of your way to comment on how right you are, you can't then turn around, pay off the one you claimed was wrong and still claim you are in the right. You cant have it both ways.

 

[ncurd]

He has a social media clause in his contract, Falou grounds were that said clause amounted to discrimination and therefore was null and void.

I really don't think you understand this at all.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Settling when you think are gonna win isn't that uncommon. I'd imagine that settling was cheaper than continuing to pay legal fees and the amount of time that executives would have to spend away from actual work.

 

[DragonsRugbySupporter]

This sentence makes me think that you are actually a WUM. And that you have a track record of being one.

The fact that you have received so many dislikes in a matter of 2 days, is astounding. Plus every other post you made tends to support that conclusion. And your credibility is now zero to none.

Why? That is an opinion not a fact. It says in the Bible that guys should not marry guys. There are core things, obviously, and other things said which need to be considered due to the year it was written, you know this.

 

[DragonsRugbySupporter]

i hope RA have learnt about investing in league players; none of their converts (maybe andrewWalker) have ever been successful.
mind u only bradThorn and jasonRobinson really transitioned into great rugbyUnion players. the rest ahve been expensive flops.

Rubbish. M Rogers, L Tuqiri and W Sailor were the back 3 for Aus in a very close WC Final that England should have won at a cantor. M Koroibete has had his moments. Look at the number of former RL players in Britain who've been capped, and compare that to the thousands of ppl born into RU families and played RU for years who didn't get capped at full international level.

 

[BiggusLaddus]

Hmmm depends on your interpretation but I'd suggest yours is very misguided. Unsure why fellatio is allowed but not sodomy, your not allowed to lay with man as you would a woman but if your excluding fellatio, sodomy must be okay because it must only be talking about vaginal penetration....

Just like it says in the 10 commandments:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery, but up the bum no harm done".

 

[mania]

Rubbish. M Rogers, L Tuqiri and W Sailor were the back 3 for Aus in a very close WC Final that England should have won at a cantor. M Koroibete has had his moments. Look at the number of former RL players in Britain who've been capped, and compare that to the thousands of ppl born into RU families and played RU for years who didn't get capped at full international level.

sailor was a waste of time and money. absolute rubbish . and u cant blame the cocaine for his bad performance. he just wasnt versatile enough to learn rugby quicker.
rogers had potential but never really got given the chance and was a scapegoat for a few of aus' losses. tuqiri was good but was all brawn. but that was a lot of brawn and he was a major presence and danger on the field. a great tho? nah a journey man in transition between codes at best.
korobeite is playing well, but its still early
i dont know of any converts in britain (other than jasonRobinson) who are any good.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I am. Not sure you are tho.


That is precisely the point! Whether he is/was costing them or not is irrelevant with regards to whether or not they have the right to terminate his contract without compensation. If his contract didnt prevent him from making those statements in his instagram accout then they have to compensate him for contract termination. Those are, specifically, Folau's grounds.
They believe the contract allowed them to do that, he believed it did not. That's the issue here.

And regarding how it works in other cases where employers settle, well, the difference here is that those employers do not go to the media before settling and brag about how right they are.

Once you go out of your way to comment on how right you are, you can't then turn around, pay off the one you claimed was wrong and still claim you are in the right. You cant have it both ways.

thats not true in NZ/AUs or the UK, i've checked all my contracts from working in those countries and all had clauses about disrepute, all said something to the effect of "if your public actions reflect negatively upon the company or or are in contrast to the company values (these are defined) then disciplinary actions may be undertaken"

for most of us that can be controlled by not wearing our work lanyard when robbing a bank...harder for him but thats the price you pay when you get paid the big bucks

 

[Derpus]

I've stated this before but i will do it again: three issues here. First, what i believe about his actions (he is an idiot), second, whether i think he has the right to do what he did and therefore whether he was wrongfully terminated or not. And third, who makes this settlement look better.
I think we all agree he is an idiot and wrong on so many levels, so i will avoid talking about this as it is a non-issue in my book.

Regarding the second point, i've said this since day 1, i dislike what he has to say but as far as my understanding goes, he has the right to say that in the way he said it. But since we dont have a ruling we can only speculate.

Regarding the third point (most relevant right now), it's a no brainer. He comes on top, easily. He claimed he was wrongfully terminated while RA said the opposite. People who are rightfully terminated do not get paid.
The fact that they settled for an undisclosed amount makes him look even stronger. It's as if RA shouts "you've beaten us, just don't tell people by how much and we'll expedite the payment, deal?".



That's when parties meet halfway, which is precisely why i think Folau came on top. They could have included some sort of clause about that, if they had the leverage but as we clearly see, that didn't happen.


Not true. If the settlement vindicates him the way he perceives it to be fair he has every incentive to settle.

And i don't buy the "RA settled to avoid a lengthy and costly trial". That's ********. The weaker party is generally squeezed with that argument by the stronger/richer/more patient part.
So not long ago Folau was counting the chips and begging others to cover his legal fees and now he has the leverage to last longer in a trial than RA?
Now that RA has the chance to put pressure on someone who, clearly, had issues financing his lawyers, they want to put this behind them
BS.
He had them by the balls and they knew it.

They were insured for a payout of up to 10 million. They were not insured for legal fees. So any settlement less than 10 million means that they pay nothing and avoid legal fees and a years long legal process.

Folau walks away with money but RA get what they want too. No Folau and they didn't have to pay his contract out.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Sanity has prevailed:

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/bulls-opted-against-considering-folau-signing/

Bulls CEO Meyer claimed that he briefly considered signing Folau, but decided not to due to his controversial views.

'I'm not sure if it is Folau's lawyer, but a lawyer approached us to hear if we are interested in contracting him,' Meyer said. 'Initially, I was excited but if you look at this matter with a sober mind then it's simply not worth the risk. He is controversial and you'll expose yourself by contracting him.

'It's a pity because he [Folau] is a very special player,' added Meyer.

'He is probably amongst the top two or three players in the world. If it wasn't for his comments, we would have given our all to have him in the group.'