The Israel Folau saga

[Derpus]

I read that they had very little, if any, wriggle room in the construction of his contract (for reasons i cannot remember). If it was an option and they didnt persue it, i agree.

 

[I like to watch]

They need to own a part of this saga, though maybe not all of it.

After Folau's first blunder, they needed an ironclad plan as to how they would react if it happened again. They had a golden opportunity to actually safeguard themselves against this given he was at that time negotiating his next deal.

But they didn't do this adequately, which has partly resulted in the mess we have seen.

So while Israel has to own his actions, RA should have created a black-and-white world for him (in a legal sense) if he transgressed again. Unfortunately it's been very grey.
.

The more we know,the more it seems business as usual, avoid tough discussions/decisions.
Then claim they were innocent bystanders when it inevitably blows up.

It’s beyond comprehension that he could be re signed, without clarifying the boundaries of his social media posts.

 

[Quick Hands]

Gees Quick Hands, you left us hanging.

What is the 3rd path.?

The employee decides not to pursue the matter, which is a bit of anti-climax

 

[Quick Hands]

Latham would love for there to be a law that exempts him from defamation proceedings if he did the defamation from the privacy of his own home.

He's in Parliament, so under parliamentary privilege he's got a fair bit of licence at the moment.

 

[Braveheart81]

He's in Parliament, so under parliamentary privilege he's got a fair bit of licence at the moment.

Sure, and I expect him to use it but recent history has also shown he's not very capable of keeping his mouth shut.

Does he have the self control to only defame people when he's actually speaking in parliament?

 

[Show-n-go]

Going a bit off the beaten path

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I read that they had very little, if any, wriggle room in the construction of his contract (for reasons i cannot remember). If it was an option and they didnt persue it, i agree.

Wasn't there something about not being able to add Clauses to an individual's contract? And/ or it not being possible to have collective Clauses potentially not to the players' benefit?

 

[Braveheart81]

Wasn't there something about not being able to add Clauses to an individual's contract? And/ or it not being possible to have collective Clauses potentially not to the players' benefit?

Yes. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement all the contracts are the same in those aspects.

 

[I like to watch]

Apparently there was a precedence with KB (Kurtley Beale).
Even if it wasn’t possible to add clauses, as part of the “listening process” after the first controversy, RA could easily have sent him a letter specifying exactly what was and wasn’t ok in regards to social media activity.
And require him to acknowledge and agree to those standards before a new standard contract was executed.

If he refused to do that, then that’s a massive red flag.

 

[Quick Hands]

Apparently there was a precedence with KB (Kurtley Beale).
Even if it wasn’t possible to add clauses, as part of the “listening process” after the first controversy, RA could easily have sent him a letter specifying exactly what was and wasn’t ok in regards to social media activity.
And require him to acknowledge and agree to those standards before a new standard contract was executed.

If he refused to do that, then that’s a massive red flag.

It doesn't appear that they even sent him a letter after the meeting/meetings with Castle and Cheika spelling out exactly what was agreed to at the meeting/s. All just left as a melange of recollections of one or more meetings. Remember that Folau publicly stated at the time that his recollection of the meeting/s and Castle's recollection were at variance. Surely that would have been the time to send a letter outlining what Castle believed took place on behalf of RA. Folau then could have responded in writing with exactly what his recollections were. It sounded like they were at different meetings.

 

[Derpus]

It doesn't appear that they even sent him a letter after the meeting/meetings with Castle and Cheika spelling out exactly what was agreed to at the meeting/s. All just left as a melange of recollections of one or more meetings. Remember that Folau publicly stated at the time that his recollection of the meeting/s and Castle's recollection were at variance. Surely that would have been the time to send a letter outlining what Castle believed took place on behalf of RA. Folau then could have responded in writing with exactly what his recollections were. It sounded like they were at different meetings.

Folau did put his response in writing. You know, the part where he said he would walk away if his beliefs were at odds with RA. He didn't.

 

[Quick Hands]

Folau did put his response in writing. You know, the part where he said he would walk away if his beliefs were at odds with RA. He didn't.

It's been reiterated many, many times that his offer to walk away if his beliefs were a problem came in the negotiations before his latest contract. At that point, RA could have foreseen the current situation and decided that it was too much of a risk and both sides could have walked away with reputations and dignity intact. He didn't make the comment after the contract was signed as many are implying. The comment needs to be understood in its correct context. It wasn't made as an undertaking that Folau would walk away (without payment?) after the contract was signed. Not even RA have tried to run this line, but it keeps popping up on this thread.

EDIT: And was the undertaking even in writing? OR was it part of the meeting/s and only preserved in oral form?

 

[KOB1987]

It's been reiterated many, many times that his offer to walk away if his beliefs were a problem came in the negotiations before his latest contract. At that point, RA could have foreseen the current situation and decided that it was too much of a risk and both sides could have walked away with reputations and dignity intact. He didn't make the comment after the contract was signed as many are implying. The comment needs to be understood in its correct context. It wasn't made as an undertaking that Folau would walk away (without payment?) after the contract was signed. Not even RA have tried to run this line, but it keeps popping up on this thread.

EDIT: And was the undertaking even in writing? OR was it part of the meeting/s and only preserved in oral form?

He said it on Players Voice. The media quoted it from that 'letter'. And yes it was in relation to his first post last Easter.

 

[Derpus]

Sooo RA should have walked away because Izzy promised to walk away if it became an issue? Yeah righto.

 

[cyclopath]

Latham would love for there to be a law that exempts him from defamation proceedings if he did the defamation from the privacy of his own home.

Does he have enough self-control for that? He throws shit like a monkey in the zoo.

 

[KOB1987]

Sooo RA should have walked away because Izzy promised to walk away if it became an issue? Yeah righto.

That's clutching at straws. The point is that the media have got hold of it because Folau put it up on his Players Voice letter. It's being played out as though it was some iron clad agreement between him and RA. As QH says even RA haven't run with it. It has zero substance legally.

 

[I like to watch]

That's clutching at straws. The point is that the media have got hold of it because Folau put it up on his Players Voice letter. It's being played out as though it was some iron clad agreement between him and RA. As QH says even RA haven't run with it. It has zero substance legally.

It’s being played out that someone who is wanting the high moral ground,refusing to budge due to his beliefs,is a liar & a hypocrite.

Don’t you think after the first episode,RA should have ensured that there was clarity,and that their standards had been communicated in a legally binding way?

 

[Ignoto]

All just left as a melange of recollections of one or more meetings. Remember that Folau publicly stated at the time that his recollection of the meeting/s and Castle's recollection were at variance.

Chief executive Raelene Castle also discussed the matter and her expectations during three separate meetings with Folau, two further meetings with Folau's manager Isaac Moses and a support letter sent to them.

"It's very disappointing from my perspective because I had a very direct and specific conversation with him about the expectations that I had," Castle said last month.

"He accepted that conversation, he said that he understood that conversation, he shook my hand at the end of that conversation, said that he was very clear of it, and yet he has gone off and done what he's done."

I dunno Quick, Castle is of the opinion they had 5 meetings and sent Izzy's manager a letter. Then you couple it with the fact that Israel has said he knew what he was doing was wrong and still did it (don't forget he did a runner after the incident). So I'm of the opinion Folau knew exactly what was expected of him much like a 5 year old knows its expected that he doesn't hit someone even without being given a letter from Mummy and Daddy.

 

[KOB1987]

Don’t you think after the first episode,RA should have ensured that there was clarity,and that their standards had been communicated in a legally binding way?

Yes

 

[formerflanker]

Will the Players' Choice letter, and Castle's recollections, and the support letter, all be tabled during the court case?
And open to challenge?