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

[Chimp]

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

That would work if RA didn’t have the public moral high ground - settlements that aren’t about winning/losing are usually corporates being happy to pay for a potential PR hit to go away - the PR disaster had well and truly already happened, and RA were actually fighting for the moral high ground - there’s no way they paid out to try and save face, as it had the complete opposite effect - they paid out because they knew they couldn’t win.
Israel didn’t need to prove anything, as they caved.
Don’t get me wrong, Israel is the one most at fault here, but companies can’t sack people for relaying words from the bible - they can choose not to hire them in future, but not sack or ban, as that would be discriminatory in itself.

 

[SBD82]

That would work if RA didn’t have the public moral high ground - settlements that aren’t about winning/losing are usually corporates being happy to pay for a potential PR hit to go away - the PR disaster had well and truly already happened, and RA were actually fighting for the moral high ground - there’s no way they paid out to try and save face, as it had the complete opposite effect - they paid out because they knew they couldn’t win.
Israel didn’t need to prove anything, as they caved.
Don’t get me wrong, Israel is the one most at fault here, but companies can’t sack people for relaying words from the bible - they can choose not to hire them in future, but not sack or ban, as that would be discriminatory in itself.

That’s a a bold statement when the case was not tested in court.

Have you considered that RA may have been concerned about their image amongst Pacific Islanders, and the impact that it may have had on their support within the community?

There are many possible reasons that they settled.

 

[Bazal]

That would work if RA didn’t have the public moral high ground - settlements that aren’t about winning/losing are usually corporates being happy to pay for a potential PR hit to go away - the PR disaster had well and truly already happened, and RA were actually fighting for the moral high ground - there’s no way they paid out to try and save face, as it had the complete opposite effect - they paid out because they knew they couldn’t win.
Israel didn’t need to prove anything, as they caved.
Don’t get me wrong, Israel is the one most at fault here, but companies can’t sack people for relaying words from the bible - they can choose not to hire them in future, but not sack or ban, as that would be discriminatory in itself.

Given the case was never tried it's impossible to say, however based on precedent it's certainly not anything like a case of RA being a definite loser...

 

[Timmah]

Don’t get me wrong, Israel is the one most at fault here, but companies can’t sack people for relaying words from the bible - they can choose not to hire them in future, but not sack or ban, as that would be discriminatory in itself.

Not sure where you pulled this idea from - he was sacked because he breached RA's publicly available code of conduct on more than one occasion. Knowingly.

 

[Game_Breaker]

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.

Compare that to how the NFL is acting now

 

[Chimp]

Not sure where you pulled this idea from - he was sacked because he breached RA's publicly available code of conduct on more than one occasion. Knowingly.

Yet they paid him out - so he may have been sacked, but they weren’t comfortable enough with that decision to see the court case through.
Anyhow, it’s all semantics really - the fact is, the NRL shouldn’t be forced to make a decision on banning him (that would be 50/50 in terms of legality, just based on the RA case and the split views on interpretation of law in here). The NRL have stated Folau isn’t welcome based on his public and divisive views that go against the ‘inclusive’ nature of our sport - the clubs should be aligned with the NRL on that and not want anything to do with him and therefore shouldn’t be putting the NRL in an awkward position of having to formally do something.
I’m pretty sure the Dragons will have been advised of such early last week.

 

[Timmah]

Yet they paid him out - so he may have been sacked, but they weren’t comfortable enough with that decision to see the court case through.
Anyhow, it’s all semantics really - the fact is, the NRL shouldn’t be forced to make a decision on banning him (that would be 50/50 in terms of legality, just based on the RA case and the split views on interpretation of law in here). The NRL have stated Folau isn’t welcome based on his public and divisive views that go against the ‘inclusive’ nature of our sport - the clubs should be aligned with the NRL on that and not want anything to do with him and therefore shouldn’t be putting the NRL in an awkward position of having to formally do something.
I’m pretty sure the Dragons will have been advised of such early last week.

Both you and The Frog seem obsessed with drawing conclusions about a settlement that aren't there.

I agree with the later part of your statement though, the clubs shouldn't bother entertaining the thought if the NRL's already said no in the past.

 

[Rhino_NQ]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...oney-spammed-devout-star-gay-pornography.html


Nice one jimmy

 

[Slackboy72]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...oney-spammed-devout-star-gay-pornography.html


Nice one jimmy

Umm yeah. lol

 

[The_Frog]

Both you and The Frog seem obsessed with drawing conclusions about a settlement that aren't there.

I've left this discussion because it is going around in circles and there's nothing remaining to discuss. There are differing views and that's that.

 

[Timmah]

I've left this discussion because it is going around in circles and there's nothing remaining to discuss. There are differing views and that's that.

Is that why you came back five days after my post to respond to it?

 

[The_Frog]

Is that why you came back five days after my post to respond to it?

I guess so. That was your intent naming me. You really do look for fights, don't you? Something to discuss with your counsellor.

 

[ACTPanthers]

I guess so. That was your intent naming me. You really do look for fights, don't you? Something to discuss with your counsellor.

To be fair, you are pretty f**king stupid so Timmah naming you was just low hanging fruit...

 

[Timmah]

I guess so. That was your intent naming me. You really do look for fights, don't you? Something to discuss with your counsellor.

I named you a week ago, you replied five days later to claim you "weren't coming back to the discussion" lol.

If that were true, you wouldn't have actually replied at all

Claiming I "look for fights" is amusing under the above circumstances.

 

[lynx000]

Although Lodge and Packer’s actions were obviously awful, there is a key difference that I think gets missed: they showed contrition.

There’s no way that I can see Packer or Lodge putting up social media posts endorsing criminal violence. And the NRL loves a redemption story. They get to take credit for the violent young man who made bad choices and turned his life around.

Izzy on the other hand is not likely to ever apologise for what he’s done, as he doesn’t believe that what he has done is wrong.

So the best outcome for the NRL is that they are viewed as a place that ARU rejects can come and be given tacit approval for their antisocial views, and the worst case scenario is he does it again and they end up in a very public legal battle in the industrial courts.

Where’s the upside?

One of the better analyses of the situation I have seen to date.

 

[Chimp]

I think PVL and Abdo have played this perfectly this time - the Dragons were very publicly made to look like absolute fools for even considering him (which will have put clubs off thinking about it again) and then when Folau has tried to go direct to the NRL to discuss if he’ll be allowed back, they’ve just played the straight bat; ‘they’ll only review it once a club puts in an application’. This is perfect - no need to say he’s ‘banned’ and therefore give any option for a legal challenge, simply make it as difficult and unappealing as possible to the clubs that effectively means none of them even try and register him.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

No

 

[taste2taste]

After Kevin Durant's homophobic tweets I'm guessing he'll be banned from ever playing in the NBA and all his sponsors will drop him ? Neither the NBA or Nike would want to he associated with a homophobic !

Maybe KD can get a game with the Catalans Dragons

 

[Vee]

Isako, he's not playing the dogs this week.

 

[colly]

I think PVL and Abdo have played this perfectly this time - the Dragons were very publicly made to look like absolute fools for even considering him (which will have put clubs off thinking about it again) and then when Folau has tried to go direct to the NRL to discuss if he’ll be allowed back, they’ve just played the straight bat; ‘they’ll only review it once a club puts in an application’. This is perfect - no need to say he’s ‘banned’ and therefore give any option for a legal challenge, simply make it as difficult and unappealing as possible to the clubs that effectively means none of them even try and register him.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/au...u-campaign-says-v-landys-20210406-p57gru.html

Rope a dope...continues
Rule 1. When Folau signs a contact with a club.....it will be considered By the NRL and then rejected registration.....
Rule 2 See rule 1.