Israel Folau back

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,733
As for your last part - let me know what business you're in... maybe we can settle our differences in court :P
Refusing you service mate (by not telling you what business I'm in). Won't tell you what business I'm in because you're religious 8)

See how it works, it's a fucking ridiculous law to try and pass.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,733
Reports (not denied by RA) settlement is $8 million.
If true that is a huge win for Folau and with the apology a vindication for Folau in his unfair dismissal claim.
The Australian Christian lobby (the right wing evangelical extemists) are also claiming there's only a little bit left from the 2million donations and they will pro-rata refund people. Wasn't the original statement that the whole 2 million would be refunded if they won?

If he got 8 million surely he's refunding the whole 2 million? Why would the ACL come out with that statement if it was 8 million
 

doggieaaron

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
15,617
Reaction score
11,274
2 big payouts whilst Raelene in charge she’s useless
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Read the respective "apologies" they are not equal.
Yes, they are. An apology is an apology. They issued a joint statement and both apologised for any hurt or harm caused to the other party. The statement in no way says Rugby Australia admits it was wrong in its chosen course of action. Castle has also issued a statement stating media reports of the payout figure are "wildly inaccurate".
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that Castle tried to add the social media clause after Folau had signed the contract. Wasn’t that one of the main issues?
I don't know where you got that idea from. Rugby Australia's position has always been a specific social media clause clause was not necessary because of Rugby Australia's existing COC clauses which focus on respect and inclusiveness. At no time has any credible evidence emerged to suggest Castle tried to add clauses after the fact. Common knowledge? Common misinformation/ misrepresentation of the truth is more like it.
 

Nexus

Super Duper Ultimate Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
10,647
Reaction score
4,382
Yes, they are. An apology is an apology. They issued a joint statement and both apologised for any hurt or harm caused to the other party. The statement in no way says Rugby Australia admits it was wrong in its chosen course of action. Castle has also issued a statement stating media reports of the payout figure are "wildly inaccurate".
Yeah Castle also said she wouldnt be apologising to Folau.

Castle says alot of stuff.

I wouldnt believe a word that painted harlot says.
 

Trafford10

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
5,240
Do you know what NDA is? In any case it should come out in RA publicly available budget papers for next yr.

And in no way is it vindication of IF, it did not go to court.

As I said previously with this government trying to introduce a religious discrimination bill, this is when this will all play out in the courts. There's no doubt that a religious discrimination bill will impede on the already existing anti-discrimination bill and the FACT of the matter is religion is a choice, the things covered in the anti-discrimination laws are things you are born with, it's not a choice. Its clear cut in my books as to which one deserves to be defended and which one deserves to be thrown out.
yes, I am a lawyer so I know what a NDA is.

Point is "if" that is the financial settlement that is a huge win for Folau and is in excess of all his lost earnings under this contract with RA. This action was an employment dispute and if RA had grounds to terminate his employment?

What Folau posted was I think a passage from the old testament. The old testament is made up stories of fire and brimstone and a vengeful god. While Folau was wrong to post these comments, nobody should take them seriously, but of course the “outrage police” on social media feed off this type of thing.

The same “outrage police” who go on about Margaret Court speaking out about her objection to gay marriage. She is an old woman with a view, the same view held by more than half the members of the Australian government yet I don’t see these outrage police singling out MPs with the same view as Margaret Court and they are law makers.

Look Rugby Australia stuffed up royally by terminating his contract, other sanctions should have been applied first and I'm 100% positive that is the way the court mandated mediation was going, hence the settlement.
 

Trafford10

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
5,240
Yes, they are. An apology is an apology. They issued a joint statement and both apologised for any hurt or harm caused to the other party. The statement in no way says Rugby Australia admits it was wrong in its chosen course of action. Castle has also issued a statement stating media reports of the payout figure are "wildly inaccurate".

No they are not.
Why would Folau agree to the settlement not on his terms? He raised $3 million to cover his legal costs and in the end this is an employment contract dispute.
Also Castle has proven to be incompetent and a liar.
 
Last edited:

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Yes, they are. An apology is an apology. They issued a joint statement and both apologised for any hurt or harm caused to the other party. The statement in no way says Rugby Australia admits it was wrong in its chosen course of action. Castle has also issued a statement stating media reports of the payout figure are "wildly inaccurate".
This whole issue is now a matter of perception. IT doesn't matter what the settlement was (mainly because it will never be disclosed due to the NDA). As a result, it's all about the trial by media and so far it seems Raelene Castle and Rugby Australia are coming out on the wrong side of this.

They claimed to have a very strong legal position, so giving in prior to trial makes them look like maybe they didn't have as strong a position as they claimed.

Castle is a sitting duck.

I think the only thing holding the board back is that no one wants the gig as Rugby Australia CEO.
 

Natboy

Banned
Premium Member
SC H2H Champion
SC Top Scorer
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
8,945
Reaction score
11,608
I don't know where you got that idea from. Rugby Australia's position has always been a specific social media clause clause was not necessary because of Rugby Australia's existing COC clauses which focus on respect and inclusiveness. At no time has any credible evidence emerged to suggest Castle tried to add clauses after the fact. Common knowledge? Common misinformation/ misrepresentation of the truth is more like it.
I don’t follow or like the sport but heard Brett Papworth and some other guy involved in Rugby say it
 

Trafford10

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
5,240
The Australian Christian lobby (the right wing evangelical extemists) are also claiming there's only a little bit left from the 2million donations and they will pro-rata refund people. Wasn't the original statement that the whole 2 million would be refunded if they won?

If he got 8 million surely he's refunding the whole 2 million? Why would the ACL come out with that statement if it was 8 million

Not sure one follows the other. In any event the payment terms may be protracted.
I don't know if it was $8 million or even close, but I can't see why Folau would settle unless it was on his terms?
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Yeah Castle also said she wouldnt be apologising to Folau.

Castle says alot of stuff.

I wouldn't believe a word that painted harlot says.
And Folau publicly stated after his first twitter tirade that if he placed RA in a difficult position again with shareholders and sponsors, he would walk away. He also maintained that he would not apologise or back down..... The Daily Telegraph - the only paper which has quoted a figure at all doesn't exactly have an unblemished record of accuracy when it comes to reporting figures, so at the end of the day, who in this scenario CAN you trust?

The case was settled and the real details surrounding the settlement are not known at this stage, so it's impossible to say either party "won". You interpret this as a win for Folau because that's what you want to believe. I interpret it as a loss of face for both parties, tbh. Both parties have backed down from so called principles they vowed not to compromise. At least Folau has a bigger bulge in the hip pocket, I guess. But when it comes to questions of integrity, there are no winners here.
 

Trafford10

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
5,240
So far only one outlet is making this claim - The Telegraph.

All the others are merely saying "it has been reported" (by the Telegraph).

As the terms are supposed to be confidential, it is wise for RA to say nothing about the figure at all.

Although if the figure is anywhere near what the 'Crap is saying, it would be hard to hide that payment, it will show up in RA's financial statements.

Maybe, I don't know. But I suspect it was a large settlement in terms of $$$$

Rugby Australia have proven to be totally incompetent.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
I don’t follow or like the sport but heard Brett Papworth and some other guy involved in Rugby say it
Papworth is just a media personality. I don't see why he would have any inside info about the terms of the contract and wouldn't take his word as fact, personally. I think Castle would have to be insane to try that. I'm sure Izzy/ or his management team had a copy of the contract. If she had tried a stunt like that it would be an open and shut case for Folau. Why would he settle if that were the case? Christian charity?
 

Trafford10

Kennel Addict
Gilded
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
5,240
This whole issue is now a matter of perception. IT doesn't matter what the settlement was (mainly because it will never be disclosed due to the NDA). As a result, it's all about the trial by media and so far it seems Raelene Castle and Rugby Australia are coming out on the wrong side of this.

They claimed to have a very strong legal position, so giving in prior to trial makes them look like maybe they didn't have as strong a position as they claimed.

Castle is a sitting duck.

I think the only thing holding the board back is that no one wants the gig as Rugby Australia CEO.
Phil Kearns?
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
This whole issue is now a matter of perception. IT doesn't matter what the settlement was (mainly because it will never be disclosed due to the NDA). As a result, it's all about the trial by media and so far it seems Raelene Castle and Rugby Australia are coming out on the wrong side of this.

They claimed to have a very strong legal position, so giving in prior to trial makes them look like maybe they didn't have as strong a position as they claimed.

Castle is a sitting duck.

I think the only thing holding the board back is that no one wants the gig as Rugby Australia CEO.
Folau's team claimed to have a strong legal position and he previously stated he would not back down on this fight either.....and that it wasn;'t primarily about money. Folau hasn't come out of this looking any better than RA, IMO. Both sides compromised their positions, which often ends up happening in this type of situation.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
The Australian Christian lobby (the right wing evangelical extemists) are also claiming there's only a little bit left from the 2million donations and they will pro-rata refund people. Wasn't the original statement that the whole 2 million would be refunded if they won?

If he got 8 million surely he's refunding the whole 2 million? Why would the ACL come out with that statement if it was 8 million
Thought the nutters donated 3 mill?
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Folau's team claimed to have a strong legal position and he previously stated he would not back down on this fight either.....and that it wasn;'t primarily about money. Folau hasn't come out of this looking any better than RA, IMO. Both sides compromised their positions, which often ends up happening in this type of situation.
It's true he said he had a good position, but when you weigh up all the commentary, almost 100% of the media commentators were all backing RA and all the sentiment was against Folau. Now it's RA looking silly because they were the ones who supposedly had done nothing wrong and were going to prove it in court.

I do agree that Folau is slightly compromised that he has also agreed to the settlement.

I personally wanted to see this go to court and to have a judge rule one way or the other.

Now everything is still up in the air on many questions:

- Can an employee voice their own personal opinion in their own personal time on their own personal social media?
- Can an employer 'spy' on their employees social media and then sack them if they say something the employer doesn't like?
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
It's true he said he had a good position, but when you weigh up all the commentary, almost 100% of the media commentators were all backing RA and all the sentiment was against Folau. Now it's RA looking silly because they were the ones who supposedly had done nothing wrong and were going to prove it in court.

I do agree that Folau is slightly compromised that he has also agreed to the settlement.

I personally wanted to see this go to court and to have a judge rule one way or the other.

Now everything is still up in the air on many questions:

- Can an employee voice their own personal opinion in their own personal time on their own personal social media?
- Can an employer 'spy' on their employees social media and then sack them if they say something the employer doesn't like?
Both sides' integrity has been compromised, IMO....but a lot of the commentators who backed RA would no doubt be pissed off that they backed down. Meanwhile, Folau's supporters don't seem to give a shit that he also backed down and are broadcasting this as a win for him.....but at the end of the day, he took the money and didn't stand by his principles ....I don't see why his supporters aren't annoyed by that if the issue is so important to them. Their martyr deserted their cause and took the money.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Both sides' integrity has been compromised, IMO....but a lot of the commentators who backed RA would no doubt be pissed off that they backed down. Meanwhile, Folau's supporters don't seem to give a shit that he also backed down and are broadcasting this as a win for him.....but at the end of the day, he took the money and didn't stand by his principles ....I don't see why his supporters aren't annoyed by that if the issue is so important to them. Their martyr deserted their cause and took the money.
That's all true.

Personally I'm disappointed with the settlement. If Folau truly wanted to support other 'small people' and their right to express their religious opinions then he would have kept going to court.
 
Top