Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Izzy Folau
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 981099" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>I've stated this before but i will do it again: three issues here. First, what i believe about his actions (he is an idiot), second, whether i think he has the right to do what he did and therefore whether he was wrongfully terminated or not. And third, who makes this settlement look better. </p><p>I think we all agree he is an idiot and wrong on so many levels, so i will avoid talking about this as it is a non-issue in my book. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>The fact that they settled for an undisclosed amount makes him look even stronger. It's as if RA shouts "you've beaten us, just don't tell people by how much and we'll expedite the payment, deal?". </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's when parties meet halfway, which is precisely why i think Folau came on top. They could have included some sort of clause about that, if they had the leverage but as we clearly see, that didn't happen. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Not true. If the settlement vindicates him the way he perceives it to be fair he has every incentive to settle. </p><p></p><p>And i don't buy the "RA settled to avoid a lengthy and costly trial". That's ********. The weaker party is generally squeezed with that argument by the stronger/richer/more patient part. </p><p>So not long ago Folau was counting the chips and begging others to cover his legal fees and now he has the leverage to last longer in a trial than RA? </p><p>Now that RA has the chance to put pressure on someone who, clearly, had issues financing his lawyers, they want to put this behind them </p><p>BS. </p><p>He had them by the balls and they knew it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 981099, member: 55747"] I've stated this before but i will do it again: three issues here. First, what i believe about his actions (he is an idiot), second, whether i think he has the right to do what he did and therefore whether he was wrongfully terminated or not. And third, who makes this settlement look better. I think we all agree he is an idiot and wrong on so many levels, so i will avoid talking about this as it is a non-issue in my book. 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. The fact that they settled for an undisclosed amount makes him look even stronger. It's as if RA shouts "you've beaten us, just don't tell people by how much and we'll expedite the payment, deal?". That's when parties meet halfway, which is precisely why i think Folau came on top. They could have included some sort of clause about that, if they had the leverage but as we clearly see, that didn't happen. Not true. If the settlement vindicates him the way he perceives it to be fair he has every incentive to settle. And i don't buy the "RA settled to avoid a lengthy and costly trial". That's ********. The weaker party is generally squeezed with that argument by the stronger/richer/more patient part. So not long ago Folau was counting the chips and begging others to cover his legal fees and now he has the leverage to last longer in a trial than RA? Now that RA has the chance to put pressure on someone who, clearly, had issues financing his lawyers, they want to put this behind them BS. He had them by the balls and they knew it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Izzy Folau
Top