• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Israel Folau saga

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slim 293

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I sound confident but i could easily be wrong. Employment isnt my area.

I came across this on another forum.........

Speaking to Lawyers Weekly, Marque Lawyers managing partner Michael Bradley said it was “unsurprising” that the Folau sacking had been likened to restrictions on freedom of speech, “given how fraught the whole issue of freedom of speech and religion has become”.

But this case is not about human rights, he posited.

“Folau is a contracted employee with clearly understood obligations which exist specifically to ensure that Rugby Australia’s people behave in accordance with the organisation’s values. One of their values is inclusiveness. Folau’s conduct directly contradicts it, and he’d been previously warned not to do that,” Mr Bradley explained.

“RA is entitled to act on his contractual breach and, more importantly, it has no obligation to compromise its values by continuing to employ a person who refuses to abide by them. It is a straightforward matter and there’s no basis for trying to make it something else.”

https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/po...-s-sacking-is-about-contract-not-human-rights

And this one too follows a similar line.........

https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/25532-post-pray-play
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I'm guessing only burdening legal costs will put the stoppers on Folau's challenge.
I also guess he'll have a lot of support.
No one needed it but it's happening.

I think he'll be funded by supporters. My guess is this will go as far as the Courts will allow it to go.

For sheer chutzpah, the comment of the day goes to Ralene who apparently hopes that Israel considers how much RA would have to spend defending themselves after terminating his contract. Astounding.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
It's a can of worms I reckon, technically RA's actions contradict their own inclusion policy as well, even though they are reacting. This is going to be a legal battle that will go on and on but will be about employment, not rugby. So I'm just going to sit on the sidelines and watch with interest.

Not suggesting any tinfoil, but I found it ironic that two kiwis fronted the media to pull the plug on the rugby career of Australia's best player.
 

Derpus

Rod McCall (65)
I think he'll be funded by supporters. My guess is this will go as far as the Courts will allow it to go.

For sheer chutzpah, the comment of the day goes to Ralene who apparently hopes that Israel considers how much RA would have to spend defending themselves after terminating his contract. Astounding.
What. Shes right. Hes jeopardising the game we all love for personal reasons. Its extraordinarily selfish.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
I think he'll be funded by supporters. My guess is this will go as far as the Courts will allow it to go.

For sheer chutzpah, the comment of the day goes to Ralene who apparently hopes that Israel considers how much RA would have to spend defending themselves after terminating his contract. Astounding.

Have to say it raised an eyebrow here too when I was watching at 3pm this afternoon.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Does the community game (you know it won't be the players or the corporates) lose millions from lost sponsorship, or millions from legal fees. We didn't have to lose anything at all but that's always been Izzy's choice.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
this fuckwit should be jettisoned. Pronto.

Problem is he has to jettison himself. TA funds the development of players but once they become pro they're on their own. He can not get picked in Davis Cup, Olympic Games teams etc, but they can't stop him playing and/or being Australian. UNFORTUNATELY!!
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
^ it's first & foremost a test of employment law, I seriously doubt any judge is going to go near any of the other things you mention unless it somehow fails that initial test.

Question for the lawyers: can he actually proceed directly to "Supreme Court" action without first exhausting his other options, beginning of course with his right of appeal to a second CofC hearing?


So you think that once it goes to court, his representation will argue on employment law alone?

All indications are this is going to the courts and the defense can argue whatever the heck they like. They are not constrained by the ARU's in-house ruling.

Extremely unlikely that in the public legal system this remains a simple little matter of an employment contract. And it should not.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Jason Little (69)
^ his legal team can argue whatever they like, I just think RA's legal team will counter-argue that it's an employment issue, that they'll win that argument, and that having won that argument they won't have to address the other, non-employment issues.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Have to say it raised an eyebrow here too when I was watching at 3pm this afternoon.
Facepalmorangflipped.png
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
Does the community game (you know it won't be the players or the corporates) lose millions from lost sponsorship, or millions from legal fees. We didn't have to lose anything at all but that's always been Izzy's choice.

It won't really affect the community game out here. I'll give you a hint how much money RA contributes to our club, it starts with a $ and ends with a 0 and there's nothing in between.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
^ his legal team can argue whatever they like, I just think RA's legal team will counter-argue that it's an employment issue & that they'll win that argument.

Not a lawyer, but from ones that I spoke to that's a highly presumptuous statement. Apparently the judge could rule that there is no clear precedent. Anyway, we'll see.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Alan Jones had another embarrassing rant in the Australian - I think the only thing that has come out of the Israel Folua saga is how much I have had reinforced what a waste of space Alan Jones is with his obvious BS agenda. I have no respect whatso ever for that man.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)

I'm ignoring contributions like that admittedly, there are development officers out this way etc etc. Our zone pays for it's own CEO though - Matt Tink - who's doing a great job. I don't think the involvement of former stars would cease though if the game were (hypothetically) to go back to amateur, it might even increase.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
I'm ignoring contributions like that admittedly, there are development officers out this way etc etc. Our zone pays for it's own CEO though - Matt Tink - who's doing a great job. I don't think the involvement of former stars would cease though if the game were (hypothetically) to go back to amateur, it might even increase.
Did you hear him on rugby ruckus this week?

Talked about this very thing!
Basically it is not RA's role to fund him. Have a listen
 

mark_s

Chilla Wilson (44)
Did Folau break the ARU COC? Yes
Did the media force the ARU into an extreme position? Yes, but that’s not Folau fault
Did Folau have ample opportunity to take down the post if he thought it was mis understood? Yes
Did Folau deserve termination as Punishment for his posts? Debatable
Has this destroyed Australian rugby’s chance of being respectable at the 2019 RWC? Yes
Should Folau be terminated? Yes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top