Jump to content
Peter

Israel Folau

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Peter said:

But they have no money so it can’t be a massive payout.  

Try $8 million....Thats a win.... 

 

Share this post


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

Try $8 million....Thats a win.... 

 

*according to the Daily Telegraph 

Share this post


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

*according to the Daily Telegraph 

Izzy had nothing to lose-plenty in the war chest for legal expenses. The fact he was able to get them to apologise shows he had them over a barrel. He would have got millions. 

The CEO should be sacked for the amateur hour way the whole thing was handled. 

Share this post


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

Try $8 million....Thats a win.... 

 

Yeah saw NZ papers are also reporting 8 mill but local radio SEN, Maq and MMM are saying 2 million.

Share this post


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

Try $8 million....Thats a win.... 

 

Raelene Castle said $8 million is wildly inaccurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AA7 said:

Raelene Castle said $8 million is wildly inaccurate. 

Of course she did, who/how is anyone going to prove otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the reality is no one other than those in the room actually know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, goughy said:

So, the reality is no one other than those in the room actually know?

Exactly, however as I mentioned you can almost be certain the Izzy got a fair chunk of change. If RA had the upper hand they certainly wouldn't have agreed to appologise. And why would he have walked away with anything less-he had a war chest ready to take them on, there was little to no risk to him.

Edited by more

Share this post


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

Yeah saw NZ papers are also reporting 8 mill but local radio SEN, Maq and MMM are saying 2 million.

8 Million NZD is 2 million AUD....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AA7 said:

Raelene Castle said $8 million is wildly inaccurate. 

She also said they had a solid legal case that would win the court case.  If so, why settle?

Hard to believe anything she says at the moment.  

AJ 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Castle doesn't lose her job over this, I'd say RA came out on top.  If she does, Dizzy did.

Anything from a mil down I'd think was an RA win.  Up to around 2mil, probably 50/50.  Over is a Dizzy win.

I know there's the chatter of why settle if they felt they were in a winning position, but tonnes of cases settle, even if someone felt they could win.  There's the whole moving on thing, there's the costs of continuing it all, financially and publically.  With the settlement private, I have no doubt Dizzy would come out bleating like he has.  And we already have RA qualifying that the apology wasn't about the banking itself, which is kinda the way Dizzy spun it.  That they unreservedly apologised for everything, where is it was supposedly a joint apology to reach other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AA7 said:

Raelene Castle said $8 million is wildly inaccurate. 

Because it was probably twelve...

Share this post


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

Exactly, however as I mentioned you can almost be certain the Izzy got a fair chunk of change. If RA had the upper hand they certainly wouldn't have agreed to appologise. And why would he have walked away with anything less-he had a war chest ready to take them on, there was little to no risk to him.

 

16 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

She also said they had a solid legal case that would win the court case.  If so, why settle?

Hard to believe anything she says at the moment.  

AJ 

I wouldnt be surprised if paying his legals and a public apology was all he got in the end.

Saves face despite it being a BS apology from RA.

But he can walk away with his head held high.

The settlement will leak. If he did get 8 million, his people will leak it.

If it was basically nothing RA will leak it.

But be assured.  It will be leaked.

Share this post


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

 

I wouldnt be surprised if paying his legals and a public apology was all he got in the end.

 

He is pretty much unemployable in Australia so there is no way he would have settled for an apology. The very bare minimum he would have got is the reminder of his contract. 

Share this post


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

 

I wouldnt be surprised if paying his legals and a public apology was all he got in the end.

Saves face despite it being a BS apology from RA.

But he can walk away with his head held high.

The settlement will leak. If he did get 8 million, his people will leak it.

If it was basically nothing RA will leak it.

But be assured.  It will be leaked.

If all he got was to keep his GoFundme he will still be doing OK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they are changing any of their policies etc after this as what happens if someone else does it in the future..

Reports were a number of his teammates supported him, if they wanted a payout before heading overseas what is stop them posting a similar comment.?

Share this post


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

 

I wouldnt be surprised if paying his legals and a public apology was all he got in the end.

Saves face despite it being a BS apology from RA.

But he can walk away with his head held high.

The settlement will leak. If he did get 8 million, his people will leak it.

If it was basically nothing RA will leak it.

But be assured.  It will be leaked.

But he already had his legals covered by crowd funding. Look at how happy he looked afterwards, he raped them. 

Share this post


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

But he already had his legals covered by crowd funding. Look at how happy he looked afterwards, he raped them. 

The mob that arranged the crowd-funding has said that refunds will be available to those that have donated.

It wouldn't surprise me if the apology was required to save him face if the payout was small.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, after a day or chatter between us all, this is what we can take away from it all.

None of us actually have a single clue what came out of this all!  Not a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point from Janet Albrechtsen today - "Given that Westpac boss Brian Hartzer fell on his sword for a disaster he didn’t know about, surely RA boss Raelene Castle should resign for a disaster she personally orchestrated"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

The mob that arranged the crowd-funding has said that refunds will be available to those that have donated.

It wouldn't surprise me if the apology was required to save him face if the payout was small.

Refund for any amount left over? 

Share this post


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

So, after a day or chatter between us all, this is what we can take away from it all.

None of us actually have a single clue what came out of this all!  Not a clue.

No but you can make an educated guess. That guess seems to be swinging depending on a bit of wishful thinking. There is no freaking way he would have walked away with legals and a few hundred grand, that's a joke. 

Correct I may be wrong but he had $2m or so in crowd funding to pay for his legal expenses, so why on earth would he settle for something that he wasn't going to have to personally pay anyway? 

Share this post


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

He is pretty much unemployable in Australia so there is no way he would have settled for an apology. The very bare minimum he would have got is the reminder of his contract. 

He will move to NZ with his wife.

1 hour ago, roxii said:

If all he got was to keep his GoFundme he will still be doing OK. 

Then there is that...

Share this post


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

If Castle doesn't lose her job over this, I'd say RA came out on top.  If she does, Dizzy did.

Anything from a mil down I'd think was an RA win.  Up to around 2mil, probably 50/50.  Over is a Dizzy win.

 

I have to disagree. i think RA are a bunch of hippocrits to have settled.  They didn't stand up up at all for what they believed in, and took the soft C**k option to settle. If they were so sure they were right they wouldn't have settled.  They also haven't stood up for inclusiveness at all.   Weak as water. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I have to disagree. i think RA are a bunch of hippocrits to have settled.  They didn't stand up up at all for what they believed in, and took the soft C**k option to settle. If they were so sure they were right they wouldn't have settled.  They also haven't stood up for inclusiveness at all.   Weak as water. 

Everyone loves to have morals so long as it doesn't cost them to much money...

Share this post


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

I have to disagree. i think RA are a bunch of hippocrits to have settled.  They didn't stand up up at all for what they believed in, and took the soft C**k option to settle. If they were so sure they were right they wouldn't have settled.  They also haven't stood up for inclusiveness at all.   Weak as water. 

When I say came out on top, I'm taking about in this dispute!  I agree, and would have liked to see them take it to court, and hand his arse to him in a way that he couldn't spin it as a win.  But the reality is, isn't this how a good many civil court cases are solved, isn't it?  Like it or not.

Let's also not forget that an independent tribunal looked at all this in the first place, and decided that a serious beach was made.  That seems to get lost in all the mud.  Wasn't that the right thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, goughy said:

Let's also not forget that an independent tribunal looked at all this in the first place, and decided that a serious beach was made.  That seems to get lost in all the mud.  Wasn't that the right thing to do?

Lets not forget that "independent" does not mean "unbiased".  

The way I've seen it, the whole thing has been over peoples interpretation of the post and whether it supports "non-inclusiveness" (or to be more specific is homophobic).  Without guessing I'd suggest you'd be hard pressed to find 3 people who don't have fairly strong opinions over this one way or the other.

AJ (Bring on the beige)

Share this post


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

Let's also not forget that an independent tribunal looked at all this in the first place, and decided that a serious beach was made.  That seems to get lost in all the mud.  Wasn't that the right thing to do?

 

31 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

Lets not forget that "independent" does not mean "unbiased".  

The way I've seen it, the whole thing has been over peoples interpretation of the post and whether it supports "non-inclusiveness" (or to be more specific is homophobic).  Without guessing I'd suggest you'd be hard pressed to find 3 people who don't have fairly strong opinions over this one way or the other.

AJ (Bring on the beige)

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/australia-reacts-to-israel-folau-settlement-with-rugby-australia/news-story/18b5f344ec602b647facb9dab0b11069

“And imagine the relief on Kate Eastman’s face on Wednesday afternoon. Folau’s team was set to argue that the Sydney barrister’s role in the original tribunal hearing that led to Folau’s sacking raised questions of bias, or perceptions of bias. Eastman, a human rights lawyer, has a long history of supporting LGBTI causes.

“Good on her, that is her business. But her inclusion on the tribunal to sit in judgment on a devout Christian was a silly stunt that backfired badly.”

Edited by more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly may have been a problem if you, me, and say More, were sitting on the tribunal.  But we weren't.  I'm assuming they were experienced people, who I guess have a background in dealing with this sort of stuff.  And I'm guessing that RA didn't pick all the members themselves?  The way your explaining the problem with bias, will why have any court system, or any sort of spring tribunal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Kate Eastman was the only member of the tribunal, and there weren't two others?  So I'm assuming at least two had to find he was in breach, or did all 3 find that was the case?  

Share this post


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

Because Kate Eastman was the only member of the tribunal, and there weren't two others?  So I'm assuming at least two had to find he was in breach, or did all 3 find that was the case?  

Dunno, but I know it wouldn't go over well if for example you had a vocal racist being involved in a decision regarding a black person? The entire panel should be free from bias.

Share this post


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

“And imagine the relief on Kate Eastman’s face on Wednesday afternoon. Folau’s team was set to argue that the Sydney barrister’s role in the original tribunal hearing that led to Folau’s sacking raised questions of bias, or perceptions of bias. Eastman, a human rights lawyer, has a long history of supporting LGBTI causes.

3 minutes ago, goughy said:

 The way your explaining the problem with bias, will why have any court system, or any sort of spring tribunal.

Because in a Court system the judge is independently appointed and  "should" excuse themselves from the case if there is a perceived conflict of interest or Bias.   Doesn't always happen but happens often enough to provide some faith that the system works.  

From memory, the panel was picked by RA and the Rugby Union Players association.  Makes it hard to describe the panel as "independently" appointed and leaves them open to the suggestion they made their choices to get the result they wanted.   (e.g Kate Eastman)

AJ

Share this post


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

Dunno, but I know it wouldn't go over well if for example you had a vocal racist being involved in a decision regarding a black person? The entire panel should be free from bias.

So you're comparing a lawyer who does support the LGBTQ to a racist?  The panel was agreed upon by RA and the players association, who represent Dizzy.  All members had to be agreed upon at the time, which they were.  If there was a problem with her being chosen, Dizzy's representative, the players association, should have excluded her.

As far as the panel being free from bias, AJ asserted above that finding three people without bias one way or the other would be near impossible!  So what's the point of tribunals then?  Did Kate make the decision and the other two have no input?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, goughy said:

So you're comparing a lawyer who does support the LGBTQ to a racist?  The panel was agreed upon by RA and the players association, who represent Dizzy.  All members had to be agreed upon at the time, which they were.  If there was a problem with her being chosen, Dizzy's representative, the players association, should have excluded her.

As far as the panel being free from bias, AJ asserted above that finding the people without bias one way or the other would be near impossible!  So what's the point of tribunals then?  Did Kate make the decision and the other two have no input?

I'm using the example of a racist as someone who would have a bias. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. As AJ stated if someone has what could be perceived as a bias then they should excuse themselves. Being a vocal LGBTQ advocate being involved in a matter primarily about homosexuals obviously would lead to a perception of bias. I have no idea about the technicalities-I'm just repeating what has been reported.

Share this post


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

So you're comparing a lawyer who does support the LGBTQ to a racist?  The panel was agreed upon by RA and the players association, who represent Dizzy.  All members had to be agreed upon at the time, which they were.  If there was a problem with her being chosen, Dizzy's representative, the players association, should have excluded her.

Could depend on whether they were legitimately representing Falou or taking into account the wishes of their entire membership (the most influential of those would be getting paid by RA).  Tough position for the RUPA to be in. 

Should have gone straight  to the Court of Arbitration and all this could have been avoided.  

AJ  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And maybe she felt she would have no bias in this matter, and that she could treat it impartially.  And that the body representing Folau could have excluded her, but didn't.  You are automatically assuming that her belief system absolutely affected the final decision of the tribunal, of which two other people were are part of.   AJ made the point that there was near no chance of having unbiased people part of the tribunal.  So then why bother having one?  What was the tribunal there to judge?   Was it that he said something against a section of the community?  Or was it that he said something that breached his contact?  

Lawyers out there defend people who are as guilty as sin!  They can be appalled at what they do, but still fight for them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, goughy said:

And maybe she felt she would have no bias in this matter, and that she could treat it impartially.  And that the body representing Folau could have excluded her, but didn't.  You are automatically assuming that her belief system absolutely affected the final decision of the tribunal, of which two other people were are part of.   AJ made the point that there was near no chance of having unbiased people part of the tribunal.  So then why bother having one?  What was the tribunal there to judge?   Was it that he said something against a section of the community?  Or was it that he said something that breached his contact?  

Lawyers out there defend people who are as guilty as sin!  They can be appalled at what they do, but still fight for them.  

Geezus, you just want to argue for the sake of arguing? Its not about if you feel you don't have a bias, its whether you could be seen to have a bias. Any perception of bias brings the whole process into doubt. Like my example (as fanciful as it may be) a open racist would not be allowed to 'feel' he could act impartially in a case involving a black person, as any outcome would be tainted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know what you want me to say?  Do you just want me to agree with you, that maybe his tribunal was biased by one member?  Is it easier if I just agree with you?

I don't.  I'm sorry that you have a problem with me not being able to agree with your point of view.  I understand what you are saying, and I'm sure plenty will agree with you.  I'm not one.

The whole point of our argument seems to have stemmed from AJ's comment (yeah, thanks for that AJ ;) ) about whether the independent tribunal was biased or not.  Not perceived bias, but bias.  So what exactly are we arguing about?  Do you think she was biased within the tribunal, or do you purely think she should have stood down because she supports the LGBTQ community, and whether she was biased or not there would be an inference that she was biased?  Well, what if any of the panel were christian?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, goughy said:

What was the tribunal there to judge? 

The tribunal was there to allow for "due process".  Which they did by upholding the original decision. 

Realistically, considering there was no new information, this decision shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody.

So it was always going to go to a real court where the arguments could be decided based on legal aspects and not based on the high strung emotions that had been a major part of the process up till then.

On the surface, looking at the prospect of a truly independent arbitrator,  RA appears to have effectively folded.   Although I suspect there might be more to it than that.  If the media is anywhere near the truth, RA is nearly broke and can't afford to fight the case and so may have taken the least worst case option of settling.

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, goughy said:

I don't.  I'm sorry that you have a problem with me not being able to agree with your point of view.  I understand what you are saying, and I'm sure plenty will agree with you.  I'm not one.

Heres something you can agree with.

In my opinion, Folau is a complete and absolute tosser who has done extreme damage to everything that he has represented and doesn't deserve the media attention that he's been getting.

While I don't disagree with the theology (it is Biblically based), the post itself was arrogant, clumsy,  ill considered and hurtful.  It wasn't necessary and there are far better ways of getting the Christian message across.  Subsequent events have shown that Izzy is a very slow learner.

Some have suggested that social media has become the new window to people souls.  Make of that what you will.

AJ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, goughy said:

I really don't know what you want me to say?  Do you just want me to agree with you, that maybe his tribunal was biased by one member?  Is it easier if I just agree with you?

I don't.  I'm sorry that you have a problem with me not being able to agree with your point of view.  I understand what you are saying, and I'm sure plenty will agree with you.  I'm not one.

The whole point of our argument seems to have stemmed from AJ's comment (yeah, thanks for that AJ ;) ) about whether the independent tribunal was biased or not.  Not perceived bias, but bias.  So what exactly are we arguing about?  Do you think she was biased within the tribunal, or do you purely think she should have stood down because she supports the LGBTQ community, and whether she was biased or not there would be an inference that she was biased?  Well, what if any of the panel were christian?  

Well its pretty straight forward-you seem to be o.k with having someone involved in making a decision who could be easily perceived to be heavily emotionally invested. This is o.k if this person is aligned with your wishes, but would you be happy if the person was heavily against your beliefs? Would you be happy with a racist being involved in a decision involving a black person? Of course not, so your whole argument is silly.

As such you should try to have people involved who are as impartial as possible. Ideally yes a christian should also not be involved. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came wait to see what happens with the Pell appeal!

Share this post


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

 

Ideally yes a christian should also not be involved. 

 

Nor an Athiest, as he posted against them too.

Nor Drunks, Homosexuals, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, nor Idolaters. That lot takes out most lawyers that could have been on the panel.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Came wait to see what happens with the Pell appeal!

Agreed.  Reckon it could go either way.

Regardless, he's finished as a cardinal....or should be

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Nor an Athiest, as he posted against them too.

Nor Drunks, Homosexuals, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, nor Idolaters. That lot takes out most lawyers that could have been on the panel.

and politicians

Share this post


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

He will get off, guaranteed.

Sadly, I agree with you😢

See, we can agree sometimes!

Share this post


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

Well its pretty straight forward-you seem to be o.k with having someone involved in making a decision who could be easily perceived to be heavily emotionally invested. This is o.k if this person is aligned with your wishes, but would you be happy if the person was heavily against your beliefs? Would you be happy with a racist being involved in a decision involving a black person? Of course not, so your whole argument is silly.

As such you should try to have people involved who are as impartial as possible. Ideally yes a christian should also not be involved. 

 

 

Your argument about the perception of bias is an important one.

On that basis not one of the more recent US Supreme Court appointments should be able to sit on the bench.  The perception of conservative, right wing bias is palpable.

  • Like 1

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...