Jump to content
Peter

Israel Folau

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, more said:

They couldn't-they had a gay CEO threatening to pull sponsorship. And I guess that's what it all comes down to-a person of significant power and influence has a personal interest in this and has flexed his muscle...

Bullshit.

I wish people would stop down playing this. There has been a massive push for Gay rights and marriage equality and all that in society.

The ARU took that position, to support all.

Go to the ARU site https://australia.rugby/ and look at the tabs across the top. The sixth tab is dedicated to Diversity. You don't see that in many sports.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nealo said:

Bullshit.

I wish people would stop down playing this. There has been a massive push for Gay rights and marriage equality and all that in society.

The ARU took that position, to support all.

Go to the ARU site https://australia.rugby/ and look at the tabs across the top. The sixth tab is dedicated to Diversity. You don't see that in many sports.

Whats bullsh!t? Alan Joyce has admitted contacting RA and asking them what they were going to do about it. You don't need to read between the lines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2019 at 10:04 AM, Prince said:

with a lean to the left....

Of course. No one cares though as so few people run on the amazing facilities we have. Normally run outside lanes as the inside ones are all cut up from masters and little athletics.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, more said:

Whats bullsh!t? Alan Joyce has admitted contacting RA and asking them what they were going to do about it. You don't need to read between the lines...

So you've got a the head of a company that is a major long term sponsor (maybe because of their beliefs and values) asking what are you going to do about a player laughing in the face of said beliefs and values?

If you're not going up hold your code of conduct why have it?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

They certainly do seem to have a Labor-esque penchant for punching themselves square in the balls, don't they?

That’s about your 3rd attempt to politicise this along Labor, Coalition lines. 

 

D992B94C-C2FF-40FC-9664-2FA8CFF006C3.jpeg.6daf764173992f210ed89e305535590b.jpeg

 

 

Edited by Mike Del
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, more said:

They couldn't-they had a gay CEO threatening to pull sponsorship. And I guess that's what it all comes down to-a person of significant power and influence has a personal interest in this and has flexed his muscle...

Crap, and you’re making your assumptions out to be facts again. If that was even possible Izzy’s legal team would have named Joyce or Qantas as a party in the upcoming proceedings guaranteed, and they didn’t.

 

The 2nd, 3rd & 4th questions at Joyce’s press conference to announce a new long distance flight routes to the US were about Izzy’s Insta post. Joyce and other major sponsors (are they gay too More?) said to RU what are you going to do to insulate us from this issue. Joyce said the exact same thing to Cricket Aus after the ball tampering incident in South Africa.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

Crap, and you’re making your assumptions out to be facts again. If that was even possible Izzy’s legal team would have named Joyce or Qantas as a party in the upcoming proceedings guaranteed, and they didn’t.

 

The 2nd, 3rd & 4th questions at Joyce’s press conference to announce a new long distance flight routes to the US were about Izzy’s Insta post. Joyce and other major sponsors (are they gay too More?) said to RU what are you going to do to insulate us from this issue. Joyce said the exact same thing to Cricket Aus after the ball tampering incident in South Africa.

Settle down. I have been in many a board meeting where things can be conveyed very strongly without something being said directly. Why did Joyce then feel the need to contact them before action had been taken? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 No surprise to me the conciliation today was unsuccessful with folou apparently walking out.  

On to the federal court now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nealo said:

So you've got a the head of a company that is a major long term sponsor (maybe because of their beliefs and values) asking what are you going to do about a player laughing in the face of said beliefs and values?

If you're not going up hold your code of conduct why have it?

I would have thought there would be reasonable steps taken before termination-suspension and financial penalty perhaps? Dunno, maybe they already did this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, more said:

Settle down. I have been in many a board meeting where things can be conveyed very strongly without something being said directly. Why did Joyce then feel the need to contact them before action had been taken? 

Read my comment you just quoted 

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Prince said:

 No surprise to me the conciliation today was unsuccessful with folou apparently walking out.  

On to the federal court now.  

Did he not read the bits about "turn the other cheek" , "forgive your enemy" etc etc. 

More selective bibleism in the name of the almighty dollar. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Del said:

That’s about your 3rd attempt to politicise this along Labor, Coalition lines. 

Quit your whining 

You sound like Sarah Hanson-Young... 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

Crap, and you’re making your assumptions out to be facts again. If that was even possible Izzy’s legal team would have named Joyce or Qantas as a party in the upcoming proceedings guaranteed, and they didn’t.

 

 

Sounds like they considered it..

"The Sydney Morning Herald, citing sources familiar with Folau’s tactics, reports his team considered the drastic idea of adding Qantas as a defendant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, more said:

Sounds like they considered it..

"The Sydney Morning Herald, citing sources familiar with Folau’s tactics, reports his team considered the drastic idea of adding Qantas as a defendant."

And then promptly dropped the idea when they realised that Qantas would bring some serious financial resources to the defence, unlike RA.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, more said:

I would have thought there would be reasonable steps taken before termination-suspension and financial penalty perhaps? Dunno, maybe they already did this?

 

sometimes, but as you say they may have issued him something previously.   I thought RA may have been at fault for not following the correct process as after only a day after his post, there were strong reports that RA had 'torn up his contract'. You have to give the respondent the opportunity to respond before you slit their throats. I have two employees on serious performance management issues at the moment and despite their Managers coming to me and saying 'i want them sacked' i won't be persuaded until i have given them ample opportunity to respond as well as time to improve. It isn't easy to sack someone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Prince said:

 No surprise to me the conciliation today was unsuccessful with folou apparently walking out.  

On to the federal court now.  

At least it gives the journalists something to do without making up stuff like they usually do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, more said:

Settle down. 

It’s all good, I’m bored sh#tless and need to lash out at something 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the real issue isnt Alan Joyce, but rather RA's CEO who looks like a satan worshiper lol

Yikes, teenage goth or Halloween 365..? 

image.jpeg.f79eb5f976d4c9fd30752fc7c8945599.jpeg

Image result for rugby australia ceo

image.jpeg.b758bf12e8953bdaf8dc1fb9bd305c79.jpeg

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

It’s all good, I’m bored sh#tless and need to lash out at something 

Lash our at Ironjimbo   Everyone else does 😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prince said:

Lash our at Ironjimbo   Everyone else does 😂

It's nice to feel needed  😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, more said:

They couldn't-they had a gay CEO threatening to pull sponsorship. And I guess that's what it all comes down to-a person of significant power and influence has a personal interest in this and has flexed his muscle...

This is the real world...... what CEO wouldn’t flex there muscle if they were offend by someone they essentially sponsor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was Alan Joyce, I would have walked out on the Wallabies along time ago.

Why does Qantas even need to waste money on any sporting teams. It’s not a brand that needs to be pushed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if I was Alan Joyce, I would have demanded Rugby Australia to fix this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

If I was Alan Joyce, I would have walked out on the Wallabies along time ago.

Why does Qantas even need to waste money on any sporting teams. It’s not a brand that needs to be pushed.

Union is far more popular in Europe than it is over here (and Qantas is far less known) which is why it makes sense for them to be the jersey sponsor.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on the failed arbitration thing, which I'm sure both sides went into in good faith......

All I've seen on the news broadcasts is Falou talking going in and Falou talking coming out.

Did RA not make any statements/were they not asked any Q's by the dozens of folks there to shove cameras in Falou's face or do the news orgs just not report it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cameron Clyne (born 21 March 1968)[1] is an Australian businessman, who served as executive Director & Managing Director and Group CEO of the National Australia Bank Group, from 1 January 2009 until 2014. Cameron Clyne retired in August 2014, to be succeeded by Andrew Thorburn.[2]

In December 2015 he was appointed as chairman of the Australian Rugby Union.[3]

Ah the old boss - didn't do much good at the bank either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments from Mr Clyne.

 

Folau had hoped RA would apologise for terminating his multimillion-dollar contract over a social media post in April condemned as homophobic.

“I’m not sure exactly what we’re apologising for, I don’t quite understand that request,” Clyne told Nine newspapers.

“We’ve provided a player with opportunities and asked him to adhere to a contract and a generous one at that. Israel was not sacked for his religion, he was sacked for a breach of his contract.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2019 at 11:39 AM, IronmanFoz said:

 

“We’ve provided a player with opportunities and asked him to adhere to a contract and a generous one at that. Israel was not sacked for his religion, he was sacked for a breach of his contract.”

by those words, it seems pretty clear cut Legally.    Be interesting what his Lawyer will say. He could actually get a pretty good lawyer for the money he has, even if he has to bring in Erin....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this from David Marr in the Guardian: "...being decent and kind requires no legislation. You only need a religious freedom act to shelter behind when you plan to be nasty...if you are demanding rights for yourself which you won't extend to others, that's not freedom. It's privilege."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jun/27/with-israel-folau-the-church-demands-a-kind-of-free-speech-that-keeps-gays-in-the-firing-line

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mike Del said:

Interesting letter to the Editor in The Age

867E0976-C978-45F3-BDB7-8EAA936BD43A.png

‘ken oath Brian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard an interview (with a lawyer) on the radio last night that the total cost of his case wouldn't go above 300K so why he needs 3 million is beyond them.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Peter said:

I heard an interview (with a lawyer) on the radio last night that the total cost of his case wouldn't go above 300K so why he needs 3 million is beyond them.

 

does that include photocopying? Lawyers talking down a bill? Is it April 1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Parkside said:

‘ken oath Brian. 

Again your mate Brian has go it wrong and has twisted the reason for his sacking. It was not due to religious freedom, It was to do with the RA code of Conduct. The whole debate is being twisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

Again your mate Brian has go it wrong and has twisted the reason for his sacking. It was not due to religious freedom, It was to do with the RA code of Conduct. The whole debate is being twisted.

I must be reading a different letter. Brian clearly points out Folau was sacked for contract violation, then says religious freedom is the reason Folau and Jones etc are claiming he was sacked. Yet religious freedom is Ok to sack people based on their sexuality in government funded schools etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kinda what I thought too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I must be reading a different letter. Brian clearly points out Folau was sacked for contract violation, then says religious freedom is the reason Folau and Jones etc are claiming he was sacked. Yet religious freedom is Ok to sack people based on their sexuality in government funded schools etc. 

I will admit that snippet (news article) took me nearly 20 minutes to read due to interuptions. So...Yep.... You are 100% correct.

Apologies.

Edited by IronmanFoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Again your mate Brian has go it wrong and has twisted the reason for his sacking. It was not due to religious freedom, It was to do with the RA code of Conduct. The whole debate is being twisted.

but that is the debate. If Falou gets a good Lawyer i will not be surpassed if he wins the case. Surprised too. 😄

Edited by Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a panalist on Q&A last night ( I think they were a lawyer) said the legal fees for Izzy should max out at a couple of 100k max. She also said that because this case was brought before the Fair Work Commission as an unfair dismissal case, it will always remain an unfair dismissal case regardless if it ends up in the High Court of Aus or Appeals Court. Therefore regardless of the result it will never be a president in any free speech or religious freedom court case. If correct that makes the actions of the council of churches and all those donating $ even more unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

There was a panalist on Q&A last night ( I think they were a lawyer) said the legal fees for Izzy should max out at a couple of 100k max. She also said that because this case was brought before the Fair Work Commission as an unfair dismissal case, it will always remain an unfair dismissal case regardless if it ends up in the High Court of Aus or Appeals Court. Therefore regardless of the result it will never be a president in any free speech or religious freedom court case. If correct that makes the actions of the council of churches and all those donating $ even more unusual.

No. He is always entitled to also go civil.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

I heard an interview (with a lawyer) on the radio last night that the total cost of his case wouldn't go above 300K so why he needs 3 million is beyond them.

 

But then if he loses then appeals, or manages to get to the High Court, a couple of QCs would start draining that money real quick. He could also be up for Rugby Aus's costs.

And as a side note, if he is pushing for compensation for loss of earnings as a part of this, could RA also go him for their loss of earnings through potential sponsorship losses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prince said:

No. He is always entitled to also go civil.  

No to what? Are you talking about his additional claim of civil penalties against RA? Because that's already lodged as part of his claim

Edited by Mike Del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mike Del said:

No to what? Are you talking about his additional claim of civil penalties against RA? Because that's already lodged as part of his claim

i don't take much credence from anyone on Q&A sorry.  Also, even though it is an unfair dismissal case, it will still have ramifications for freedom of speech and  religious freedom, particularly if he wins. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/07/2019 at 2:23 PM, Mike Del said:

There was a panalist on Q&A last night ( I think they were a lawyer) said the legal fees for Izzy should max out at a couple of 100k max. She also said that because this case was brought before the Fair Work Commission as an unfair dismissal case, it will always remain an unfair dismissal case regardless if it ends up in the High Court of Aus or Appeals Court. Therefore regardless of the result it will never be a president in any free speech or religious freedom court case. If correct that makes the actions of the council of churches and all those donating $ even more unusual.

Is Izzy’s case really that different to this lady’s?

https://pacelawyers.com/implications-of-comcare-v-banerji/

To save you some reading time, it’s about a department of immigration and border protection employee dismissed for making anonymous tweets (on her personal phone and mostly out of work hours) that were critical of her employer.

By comparison, Izzy was not anonymous in making posts that he knew were not consistent with his employer’s view.

And being much better paid, he arguably should have known better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trilobite said:

Is Izzy’s case really that different to this lady’s?

https://pacelawyers.com/implications-of-comcare-v-banerji/

To save you some reading time, it’s about a department of immigration and border protection employee dismissed for making anonymous tweets (on her personal phone and mostly out of work hours) that were critical of her employer.

By comparison, Izzy was not anonymous in making posts that he knew were not consistent with his employer’s view.

And being much better paid, he arguably should have known better...

Whilst I feel Izzy should be stoned and then sold for slavery per the bible.... he wasn't critical of his employer like this case above.

However, it still goes up against the code of conduct..... So am guessing she will lose this case (depending what the code of conduct actually says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trilobite said:

Is Izzy’s case really that different to this lady’s?

https://pacelawyers.com/implications-of-comcare-v-banerji/

To save you some reading time, it’s about a department of immigration and border protection employee dismissed for making anonymous tweets (on her personal phone and mostly out of work hours) that were critical of her employer.

By comparison, Izzy was not anonymous in making posts that he knew were not consistent with his employer’s view.

And being much better paid, he arguably should have known better...

Yeh I notice all the talk of consequences of that case are limited to industrial law. I guess that's what industrial lawyer was saying on tv, because it was originally brought before the Fair Work Commission any precedents arising from the case are limited to the jurisdiction of fair Work Australia regardless if it ends up being decided in the High Court of Australia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...