News Do you care if Israel Folau returns to the NRL?

[taste2taste]

Actually what it comes down to is not being a f**kwit who brings reputational damage to his employer. This has already been discussed.

Yes, exactly what I said.
It comes down to sponsorship dollars or the right to express a controversial opinion.

The Almighty $ will win every time.

 

[Foreign Legion]

I doubt a group chat in the world exists without gay porn

man you need some new friends

 

[Bazal]

Yes, exactly what I said.
It comes down to sponsorship dollars or the right to express a controversial opinion.

The Almighty $ will win every time.

Except in trying to make a "woe is the modern world" argument about money or whatever, you fail to acknowledge that causing reputational damage to an employer is grounds for immediate termination under the Fair Work Act...whether the employee is Israel Folau or Tom the Bricky.

 

[taste2taste]

Except in trying to make a "woe is the modern world" argument about money or whatever, you fail to acknowledge that causing reputational damage to an employer is grounds for immediate termination under the Fair Work Act...whether the employee is Israel Folau or Tom the Bricky.

Yes, we are in agreement.
Izzy was sacked because his opinions don't agree with the modern world and Qantas and St George bank didn't want to associate themselves with him.

If the NRL wasn't professional and didn't rely on sponsorship dollars how many teams would want Izzy on their team ? All of them would want him. But we live in a commercial world and therefore non of them want him.

 

[Perth Red]

Of course it’s about money as much as values, nrl is a first and foremost a $1billion business!

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...zPec05x5d7XECFEOSSlExMeKAdPm40HCfclKNMbxDRDCk

 

[taste2taste]

Of course it’s about money as much as values, nrl is a first and foremost a $1billion business!

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...zPec05x5d7XECFEOSSlExMeKAdPm40HCfclKNMbxDRDCk

Its the same in the NFL. Is Colin Kaepernick in the top 64 quarter backs in the NFL ? Of course he is! But because his views are 'controversial' no team will touch him and he'll never play in the NFL again.

 

[The_Frog]

Izzy was sacked because his opinions don't agree with the modern world and Qantas and St George bank didn't want to associate themselves with him.

His sacking was not found by a court to be unlawful, only because RA paid him a settlement before it reached that point. Their lawyers advised them to settle the matter. So really, RA's behaviour didn't agree with the modern world either, but they were able to dispose of the matter by paying money, just like a parking fine. Both sides at fault, one side only continues to pay for it.

 

[Bazal]

His sacking was not found by a court to be unlawful, only because RA paid him a settlement before it reached that point. Their lawyers advised them to settle the matter. So really, RA's behaviour didn't agree with the modern world either, but they were able to dispose of the matter by paying money, just like a parking fine. Both sides at fault, one side only continues to pay for it.

That's an incredible leap of logic.

It's equally likely that RA were advised or decided to settle because the costs (monetary and otherwise) of a protracted court case would be greater than any legal "win" they could achieve. The same thing happens approximately 220 times a day regardless of the case for terminating

 

[AJB1102]

Who's going to come forward and update the Bible ?

As it stands the bible doesn't look favourable on drunks, adulterers and a few others. I don't see why because someone adheres to these teachings they aren't allowed to step foot on a sporting field ever again.

Let's not beat around the bush, the reason Izzy was sacked by the Wallabies and other clubs don't want to touch him is because of the threat of sponsors pulling their money. So what it comes down to is a mans right to express his beliefs or the Almighty dollar.

Money talks and bullshit walks.

Toodeleoo religion.

 

[_Johnsy]

So what it comes down to is a mans right to express his beliefs or the Almighty dollar.

If anyone understands this, it would be organised religion,

 

[The_Frog]

That's an incredible leap of logic.

It's equally likely that RA were advised or decided to settle because the costs (monetary and otherwise) of a protracted court case would be greater than any legal "win" they could achieve. The same thing happens approximately 220 times a day regardless of the case for terminating

I think you are agreeing with me but in different words. They thought they'd lose so they settled.

 

[SBD82]

I think you are agreeing with me but in different words. They thought they'd lose so they settled.

Why did Folau settle then?

 

[The_Frog]

Why did Folau settle then?

Good question.

 

[SBD82]

Good question.

I mean, by your logic it must have been because he thought he’d lose.

 

[Chimp]

I mean, by your logic it must have been because he thought he’d lose.

That’s not how it works though is it - Folau was taking the action against RA, RA were the ones defending their position.
Folau obviously accepted as he would have been happy with the both the financial settlement and the perceived ‘win’. Folau would have stood to gain very little extra by pressing on when RA have caved and agreed a settlement.

 

[THE CHAMP]

Folau settled because he was going to win but the settlement was acceptable

Same reason Michael Jackson settled but in reverse

 

[myrrh ken]

I'd take him. No one likes us anyway and he could have the fullback slot

 

[_Johnsy]

That’s not how it works though is it - Folau was taking the action against RA, RA were the ones defending their position.
Folau obviously accepted as he would have been happy with the both the financial settlement and the perceived ‘win’. Folau would have stood to gain very little extra by pressing on when RA have caved and agreed a settlement.

No the onus is on Israel to prove that he was unfairly treated, or that RA had terminated his employment contrary to his terms of employment.

 

[The_Frog]

I mean, by your logic it must have been because he thought he’d lose.

I don't honestly know. But RA were paying him a settlement, so that logic doesn't stand up.

 

[Bazal]

I don't honestly know. But RA were paying him a settlement, so that logic doesn't stand up.

You seem quite happy to ignore the idea that most settlements have nothing to do with the chances of winning or losing, rather they're to do with costs and image