Israel Folau has joined the Catalan Dragons

argument, or fact?

 

Nobody here can deal in known facts about the nature of the settlement....I'm just demonstrating the flaws in Twin Turbo's argument by flipping it on him.

 

also need to consider how long a case can be drawn out for.. that always plays a big part in reasons for clients either pushing on with it, or agreeing to settle

 

The same is often true of employers. Folau was the one who said it was all about principle. Personally, I think Rugby Australia were confident of their case, but grew weary of the time and money the case alone was costing them. Face it, Folau's prospects were not great at the time. I think if his team had been confident he could have won, he'd have taken RA for every cent he could .... but nobody on here really knows for sure.

 

That was definitely a factor - for both sides. Any suggestion that it was cut and dried however is not the case (from what I have been told, with absolute limit - I don’t claim to know the details, I do not - but know someone who worked close to the event).

 

Lawyers will tend to remain bullish for as long as their fees are getting paid.

 

No matter how good your case is, litigation also presents a risk.

I currently have slam dunk case against a pair of directors for doing something dodgy, but am negotiating a settlement, as i'm trying to keep legals down and get some coin in the door in a timely manner. Litigation will take months and cost a shitload, even if i do get costs ordered in my favour.

 

I don't think so, he has displayed that he is not about the cash by putting his faith over that job, and it was never a given that he was going to be allowed to participate in another code.. It's easy at the beginning of a case to have an idea of what you want to achieve.. but once it begins consuming so much of your time and energy, you just want to get it over and done with as quick as possible

 

He has proven he is not about money by asking people who are less financially secure than he is to pay his legal bills? He asked members of the public to donate to his case, portraying himself as a champion of free speech who would do everything he possibly could to defend their rights.....then he ended up just giving up on a case he supposedly had a good chance of winning in favour of a settlement payout?

Sounds like he is very much about the money to me. If he is truly not about the money, I hope he paid back all those who donated to his abandoned cause.

 

Nobody put a gun to their heads.. the case was as much about them as it was about him, and court cases certainly are not cheap, even for a guy earning what he does. None of us know the facts regarding the settlement so it's not even worth debating

 

How do you know he settled "for considerably less"?
How much is "considerably less"?
For example, say, he sued for $10m and they offered $7m is that "considerably less"?
What if his legal fess were going to be $3m and so the $7m in cash, now, was a good deal?
Is it not common to sue for more than you really expect to get, knowing that it will get bargained down and the judge can rule however he likes?

All of the above is irrelevant, the fact is RU stated that they had the right to sack him for breach of contract and plainly they didn't otherwise they would have paid nothing.

Go Dogs

 

That's not how it works. - see my comment above about litigation. Plus RA had to consider the longer term detriment by the Falous circus being front page news for months.

 

But that is how it worked. RA stated many times that they had the right to sack him for breach of contract, plainly they didn't and had to cough up lot$. If it was a black and white breach of contract (as RA claimed) then it would have been over in a few days. Undeniably it wasn't black and white, because only heaps of grey could have delayed the litigation for "months".

Go Dogs

 

Thankfully, you clearly have never been involved in any sort of commercial litigation.

 

Like religious folk who think they can work in an entertainment based industry, alienate a large chuck of his employer’s paying fans and then play the victim when they get put in the too hard basket.

 

that literally has nothing to do with this

 

Over this guy an all the drama an media surrounding him. Used to want him at our club, an though he is a fantastic player, I just don’t care for it.

 

It has everything to do with it. You can’t go around accusing Folau’s critics of being selfish without expecting people to point out how selfish he has been throughout this entire process.

Gives Rugby Australia assurances he will resign if he says something which puts them in a difficult position with fans and shareholders.... goes and says something he knows will put them in a difficult position..... asks for public donations to fund his legal battle while assuring donors he is all about defending their free speech, bails on the case for a cash payout without reimbursement. That’s your textbook example of a selfish asshole. Folau probably thinks the sun revolves around him too, tbh.

 

My bad, I read your post wrong. Initially I thought Izzy was being selfish, but you know what.. the guy was targeted over a freaking Instagram post. And I have said it before and I will say it again, if he had said the same thing about rangas, nobody would have given a shit... I mean come on, all he said is that he believes a certain people are going to a place that they don't even believe in anyway... let's face it.. everybody wants to grand stand for the LGBT community nowadays because it makes them look like a hero.

It all depends on how you look at the case though.. None of us know how much the settlement was for... he may not have taken it all the way and won, but they didn't win either.. so the donors can be somewhat satisfied... and who is to say they won't get their money back? he did just sign a new contract, and I am sure he will come good... who even says they are requesting to receive their money back? most of what you're saying is mere speculation

 

I have been involved in enough to know that when you have a solid case (which you don't settle) and when you don't have solid case (where you try and minimise the cost). I read the legal teams pretty well and you learn when they are confident and when they are not, when they are certain and when there is doubt. If RA had a rock sold rolled gold case, as they claimed many times they had, then there is no way that they would have settled. RU had plenty of reasons to pursue it all the way, their reputation and the standing of existing contracts with their players depended on it. Plainly their legal team had doubts and they caved.

Go Dogs