• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Man straya does not have the talent to lose one of the best two or three players in the world eh.
 
scotty507 said:
Liking the honest comment because what he said we perfectly true. Epic player but why would a team expose themselves to all that hassell for a 30 year old player you might get 2 years out of and if he posts stuff again you cant fire him or he will sue you.
Click to expand...
Similar to Paddy Jackson - it's about risk / reward.
The reward isn't worth the risk in any ring-fenced league, but it's possible that a side fighting off relegation or chasing promotion might think that his ability to win matches might be worth the risk of losing a few fans &/ sponsors - would they lose more by being relegated? would they gain more than they lose if they secure promotion?

Of course, there are also some professional teams where his comments wouldn't cause a stir at all (eg some of the Southern teams in MLR - with the caveat that they're not yet comfortably established, which may increase the risk somewhat)
 
Which Tyler said:
Similar to Paddy Jackson - it's about risk / reward.
The reward isn't worth the risk in any ring-fenced league, but it's possible that a side fighting off relegation or chasing promotion might think that his ability to win matches might be worth the risk of losing a few fans &/ sponsors - would they lose more by being relegated? would they gain more than they lose if they secure promotion?

Of course, there are also some professional teams where his comments wouldn't cause a stir at all (eg some of the Southern teams in MLR - with the caveat that they're not yet comfortably established, which may increase the risk somewhat)
Click to expand...
Honestly given America's rugby community grew mostly from the college scene I don't think it would be very welcome. Also Dallas, Austin, Heuston and New Orleans and Atlanta wouldn't be very conservative cities by Southern standards.
 
Derpus said:
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.
Click to expand...
If he is rightfully terminated, as RA claimed, they would need no insurance clause to kick in.
Insurance companies dont hand in checks they can avoid to pay.

And the main problem i have with this argument is that it ignores the other side of the equation: how on earth was Folau, who was struggling to pay current legal fees, going to aford such a lenghty and expensive trial with, as RA claims, high chances of losing?

Jabby said:
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"
Click to expand...
Excuse me, it IS true. That is precisely the point. Points actually. You understand that under YOUR contract you couldn't do what he did. He (and his lawyers agree with him) thinks he could.
First, Folau is claiming, precisely, that under his contract he was entitled to post what he did.

Second, and this is important, Folau's main post on instagram was paraphrasing scripture. This is not some random thought that crossed his mind.
If u fire someone (w/o comp, course) for paraphrasing the book that states the beliefs of his religion, on his personal instagram account (this could be debated, i know, just give me the benefit of the doubt for a sec), a lot of factors kick in (jurisdiction, freedom of speech laws there, hate speech laws, freedom of worship laws, etc.).
You would need to deem scripture as some sort of hate speech in order for that to happen. Or to establish that he cannot talk about his religion, which would open another can of worms.
By you i mean judge/jury, as in a sentence/presedent.
 
ncurd said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do and i still think you dont.
The point is, precisely, that he was paraphrasing scripture and that's why his right to do so on his personal instagram account is protected and supersedes any contract clause.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
I do and i still think you dont.
The point is, precisely, that he was paraphrasing scripture and that's why his right to do so on his personal instagram account is protected and supersedes any contract clause.
Click to expand...
That is an opinion and not Australian law and nobody knows where the Australian law actually settles this matter.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
If he is rightfully terminated, as RA claimed, they would need no insurance clause to kick in.
Insurance companies dont hand in checks they can avoid to pay.

And the main problem i have with this argument is that it ignores the other side of the equation: how on earth was Folau, who was struggling to pay current legal fees, going to aford such a lenghty and expensive trial with, as RA claims, high chances of losing?


Excuse me, it IS true. That is precisely the point. Points actually. You understand that under YOUR contract you couldn't do what he did. He (and his lawyers agree with him) thinks he could.
First, Folau is claiming, precisely, that under his contract he was entitled to post what he did.

Second, and this is important, Folau's main post on instagram was paraphrasing scripture. This is not some random thought that crossed his mind.
If u fire someone (w/o comp, course) for paraphrasing the book that states the beliefs of his religion, on his personal instagram account (this could be debated, i know, just give me the benefit of the doubt for a sec), a lot of factors kick in (jurisdiction, freedom of speech laws there, hate speech laws, freedom of worship laws, etc.).
You would need to deem scripture as some sort of hate speech in order for that to happen. Or to establish that he cannot talk about his religion, which would open another can of worms.
By you i mean judge/jury, as in a sentence/presedent.
Click to expand...
You have a very simplistic view of the legal system. If it worked the way you imagined it the world be a much more efficient place. Unfortunately, people will often settle if they think will win because going to court can be very expensive even if you are a winner.

All this shows is that the insurer believes they wouldn't be awarded legal fees with the verdict.
 
Which Tyler said:
Similar to Paddy Jackson - it's about risk / reward.
The reward isn't worth the risk in any ring-fenced league, but it's possible that a side fighting off relegation or chasing promotion might think that his ability to win matches might be worth the risk of losing a few fans &/ sponsors - would they lose more by being relegated? would they gain more than they lose if they secure promotion?

Of course, there are also some professional teams where his comments wouldn't cause a stir at all (eg some of the Southern teams in MLR - with the caveat that they're not yet comfortably established, which may increase the risk somewhat)
Click to expand...

social conservatives don't know what rugby is. It's much bigger in the fiscally conservative crowd. I'd imagine most rugby fans in the United States would be privately okay with paddy Jackson playing here but think it would be bad for rugby's brand in the us.
 
Man straya does not have the talent to lose one of the best two or three players in the world eh.
Cruz_del_Sur said:
If he is rightfully terminated, as RA claimed, they would need no insurance clause to kick in.
Insurance companies dont hand in checks they can avoid to pay.

And the main problem i have with this argument is that it ignores the other side of the equation: how on earth was Folau, who was struggling to pay current legal fees, going to aford such a lenghty and expensive trial with, as RA claims, high chances of losing?


Excuse me, it IS true. That is precisely the point. Points actually. You understand that under YOUR contract you couldn't do what he did. He (and his lawyers agree with him) thinks he could.
First, Folau is claiming, precisely, that under his contract he was entitled to post what he did.

Second, and this is important, Folau's main post on instagram was paraphrasing scripture. This is not some random thought that crossed his mind.
If u fire someone (w/o comp, course) for paraphrasing the book that states the beliefs of his religion, on his personal instagram account (this could be debated, i know, just give me the benefit of the doubt for a sec), a lot of factors kick in (jurisdiction, freedom of speech laws there, hate speech laws, freedom of worship laws, etc.).
You would need to deem scripture as some sort of hate speech in order for that to happen. Or to establish that he cannot talk about his religion, which would open another can of worms.
By you i mean judge/jury, as in a sentence/presedent.
Click to expand...
Youre right, the insurance company most likely agreed to the payout rather than risk being liable for the full 10 million.

Its common for insurance companies to take over court matters which they are covering.

As to your second point, he crowd funded his case to the tune of 2m. Lots of Christians really dont like gays.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
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.
Click to expand...

I take issue with these. Firstly, people keep confusing the general right to free speech with contractual obligations. As an example that is less controversial, civil servants may not openly campaign for a party. This is not deemed a free speech issue as it is accepted that you forfeit the ability to do that as part of your contract with the civil service and their need to at least appear neutral and apolitical. Likewise here, Folau knowingly signed a contract that included clauses about expected behavior as an ambassador of the sport. He broke this clause multiple times (that's the key bit) and received more than 1 warning about his behaviour. He knew what he was doing was against his contractual obligations yet he continued to do it anyway. It's not like he made a passing statement and got the sack, he was a repeat offender.

The right to free speech does not extend to include an employer may not impose some restrictions as part of your employment

Secondly as others have stated, payout doesn't always mean you think you'd lose
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
You would need to deem scripture as some sort of hate speech in order for that to happen.
Click to expand...
What is scripture, could it be used as a defence for slaughtering all the first born of a people? Couldn't people just pen their own to get away with any hate speech or anything else they wanted?

I'm curious as to where you think the multiple millions would be recouped from should Rugby Australia have won in court. IF doesn't seem to have any and needed to crowd fund to the tune of several million just for legal costs. Whilst I think of it, as this hasn't gone all the way what's happened to that money?

What do RA stand to gain from dragging this through the courts aside from "Yeah, you were right" and being massively out of pocket when they can avoid any outgoing costs whatsoever due to the insurance and resolve a situation they didn't create in a satisfactory manner?
 
Rumour is that Rugby Australia had to settle because the UK media were going to run a campaign labelling them as anti-semitic for criticising Israel.

Which Tyler said:
Similar to Paddy Jackson - it's about risk / reward.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying, but let's not compare Paddy to Folau. One was guilty of nothing more than having a sex drive, an unlocked bedroom door and mates who made idiotic instant messages; the other is openly and unapologetically a bigot. If a rugby chairman considered those situations comparable (which I agree, many will) then I dont consider them well informed.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
If he is rightfully terminated, as RA claimed, they would need no insurance clause to kick in.
Insurance companies dont hand in checks they can avoid to pay.

And the main problem i have with this argument is that it ignores the other side of the equation: how on earth was Folau, who was struggling to pay current legal fees, going to aford such a lenghty and expensive trial with, as RA claims, high chances of losing?


Excuse me, it IS true. That is precisely the point. Points actually. You understand that under YOUR contract you couldn't do what he did. He (and his lawyers agree with him) thinks he could.
First, Folau is claiming, precisely, that under his contract he was entitled to post what he did.

Second, and this is important, Folau's main post on instagram was paraphrasing scripture. This is not some random thought that crossed his mind.
If u fire someone (w/o comp, course) for paraphrasing the book that states the beliefs of his religion, on his personal instagram account (this could be debated, i know, just give me the benefit of the doubt for a sec), a lot of factors kick in (jurisdiction, freedom of speech laws there, hate speech laws, freedom of worship laws, etc.).
You would need to deem scripture as some sort of hate speech in order for that to happen. Or to establish that he cannot talk about his religion, which would open another can of worms.
By you i mean judge/jury, as in a sentence/presedent.
Click to expand...

you said that his actions costing a company money had no relevance to RA's ability to fire him, i pointed out that it is actually standard for that to be the case in AUS, you seem to think his lawyers are the only ones that know anything, i assume that's because of your blind belief he was doing the right thing and that he actually won this.

the fact he paraphrased make it worse in my mind...it means he put some thought into it rather than just cut and paste

might i also just point out, Castle has said the settlement was less than the cost of going to court, its been well published that high court costs we expect to be up to $3M, folau was also fund raising for $2-3M...we can safely assume it was less that $3M


ragerancher said:
I take issue with these. Firstly, people keep confusing the general right to free speech with contractual obligations. As an example that is less controversial, civil servants may not openly campaign for a party. This is not deemed a free speech issue as it is accepted that you forfeit the ability to do that as part of your contract with the civil service and their need to at least appear neutral and apolitical. Likewise here, Folau knowingly signed a contract that included clauses about expected behavior as an ambassador of the sport. He broke this clause multiple times (that's the key bit) and received more than 1 warning about his behaviour. He knew what he was doing was against his contractual obligations yet he continued to do it anyway. It's not like he made a passing statement and got the sack, he was a repeat offender.

The right to free speech does not extend to include an employer may not impose some restrictions as part of your employment

Secondly as others have stated, payout doesn't always mean you think you'd lose
Click to expand...

just to add, something thats kept being brought up and then forgotten, Aus doesn't have freedom of speech as an absolute right, that's why whilst he might have been claiming that was the cause he was fighting his legal claim was on religious persecution, just another little bait and switch from this muppet
 
Last edited:
Been supporting Dragons since maybe 2007?
No more, though.

They're taking a big, and really really stupid, risk. RFL have said they'll remove his license to play in Super League and heavily fine Dragons if he says anything out of line.
He's not stopped saying things that are out of line. He was preaching about the bush fires being God punishing the gays only a month or two ago.


I did notice that Wigan Warriors have designated their game against Dragons as a Pride game, and will be using it to raise money for LGBTQ+ charities.
 
im hoping this is yet another nail in folaus playing career. its only a matter of time before he shoots his mouth off. religious zealots cant help themselves.

awesome how wigan made folau's first game pride day.

folau cant win here. if he preaches he's fired. if he keeps his mouth shut then he's a hypocrite to his church and father.

cant wait to watch this car wreck unfold in slow motion. im getting beer and pop corn
 
Last edited:
No one in the Super League or RFL outside the Dragons seems happy about this signing but they don't appear to be able to stop it.

He is bound to say something daft and get the sack but it's not a good look for League who were the first national sport to have openly gay players.
 
I could be wrong but I don't think there's a TV deal for Super League in France this year. There certainly wasn't a few weeks ago. Perhaps Catalans feel signing Folau is worth the bad press because it's better than no press at all.
 

Latest posts

Top