General Rugby Discussion II

stephen_n

Former Former wrote: »

Well this is it.

Qantas were very vocal first time around. Without strong action this time they might well have walked.

In somewhat related news, London Irish have lost one of their sponsors after signing Paddy Jackson.

They claim it’s not related that Cash Converters had already decided to pull out before PJ was announced. How true that is, well that’s yet to be seen. But BOI definitely had a hand to play in his sacking here. Rugby is a commercial entity now, any employer that’s going to lose money in any walk of life would act in a similar manner.

Jupiter Mulligan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Folau signed a contract with the ARU with stipulations about posting controversial matters on social media. Which he had previously been warned for breaching.

Any standard contract of employment says you cannot publicly represent your employer in a negative manner.

If I was to go on social media and make controversial, and sensitive comments, about a group of people who were born that way, be it race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, my employer would rightfully be legally able to terminate my employment. And I'm sure any other companies who were aware of it wouldn't touch me with a barge pole, as having an employee like that would be harmful for the company's reputation.

There's a difference between tolerance, and publicly denouncing something. Folau is entitled to his religious beliefs and if he has a personal opinion about homosexuality, that's fine. But the issue arises when he then broadcasts that to the public from a platform visible to people around the globe.

The ARU didn't sack him for thinking people who are gay are sinners. They sacked him because he publicly told them they're sinners.

It really couldn't be any more simple.

Complete waste of time taking the court case so. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Shame that Israel didn't employ your firm of lawyers instead of the dodgy Aussie firm that he went with.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

They claim it’s not related that Cash Converters had already decided to pull out before PJ was announced. How true that is, well that’s yet to be seen. But BOI definitely had a hand to play in his sacking here. Rugby is a commercial entity now, any employer that’s going to lose money in any walk of life would act in a similar manner.

Cash Converters literally said it in a tweet

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Cash Converters literally said it in a tweet

Did they? Not in the tweet I read, it could certainly be interpreted as that but they didn’t literally say that at all. Unless there is another tweet where they referenced the signing?

Squidgy Black

stephen_n wrote: »

Did they? Not in the tweet I read, it could certainly be interpreted as that but they didn’t literally say that at all. Unless there is another tweet where they referenced the signing?

https://twitter.com/cash_converters/status/1136292332591095809?s=09

That's a response to the chain of tweets of people calling for sponsors to boycott LI because of the signing.

stephen_n

Squidgy Black wrote: »

https://twitter.com/cash_converters/status/1136292332591095809?s=09

That's a response to the chain of tweets of people calling for sponsors to boycott LI because of the signing.

Which LI responded to and said that the decision for CC to pull out was made before the signing was made public. That the decision was made before any of those tweets were sent. That tweet doesn’t “literally” say it was over the signing but could very much be interpreted as that. Which means LI are lying.

NeonWolf

molloyjh wrote: »

Like Folau has freedom of speech, employers have freedom of association. They are not obliged to employ him or to register him. But this merry-go-round of "concern" will continue regardless. People seem to get very caught up on individuals rights without any concern for their responsibilities or the rights of other people/organisations within the same scenario.

I just find the central protagonists in this affair are talking out both sides of their mouths. QANTAS have a code share agreement with Brunei Airlines and around the same time this Folau story broke the Sultan of Brunei was in the news for bringing back stoning of homosexuals via sharia law. That business arrangement continues on un-interrupted.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/22/brunei-defends-stoning-death-gay-sex-letter-eu


https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/virgin-australia-cut-staff-travel-ties-with-bruneis-national-airline/news-story/9ea12041ff38ca16b4e314a13912b201

"The Australian reported Qantas, which has interline agreements and staff travel arrangements with Royal Brunei, has not made any changes in response to Brunei’s new criminal laws
News.com.au has contacted Qantas for comment".

sydthebeat

Can we get back to rugby please, and not inter airline business

NeonWolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

Can we get back to rugby please, and not inter airline business

It's about Israel Folau's contentious sacking via the pressure exerted by a seemingly duplicitous Airline.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

Which LI responded to and said that the decision for CC to pull out was made before the signing was made public. That the decision was made before any of those tweets were sent. That tweet doesn’t “literally” say it was over the signing but could very much be interpreted as that. Which means LI are lying.

Opportunistic virtue signalling is a fairly cynical move if that's true. Very disingenuous.

Jackson might have been guilty and deserve to be in prison and if that's the case then I don't really care if twitter follows him around and harasses him.

But objectively he is as likely to be innocent of everything bar some disrespectful texts and this following him everywhere is just uncalled for harassment.

He was cleared unanimously by a jury - people really need to move on.

Squidgy Black

It's an interesting one, Cash Converters only came on board with London Irish last year for a 3 year deal, and have already bowed out. You would have to imagine there had been some form of negotiations to release them from the agreement.

But the way they're placing themselves on social media is implying it was due to the Jackson signing, without explicitly stating it. Which is a risky game if not true.

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

Opportunistic virtue signalling is a fairly cynical move if that's true. Very disingenuous.

Jackson might have been guilty and deserve to be in prison and if that's the case then I don't really care if twitter follows him around and harasses him.

But objectively he is as likely to be innocent of everything bar some disrespectful texts and this following him everywhere is just uncalled for harassment.

He was cleared unanimously by a jury - people really need to move on.

But Israel Folau isn't even accused of a crime, let alone charged or found guilty, but you endorse his sacking and are pretty scathing of his suit for damages?

He's said some things that are pretty distasteful to a lot of people, fair enough, but then so did Jackson. LI must have known this was a possibility but they rolled the dice anyway.

LI had to say it was unrelated to PJ; if they don't counter the story, then maybe more sponsors start to get jittery...

Truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all of this.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

But Israel Folau isn't even accused of a crime, let alone charged or found guilty, but you endorse his sacking and are pretty scathing of his suit for damages?

Folau made public remarks. Jackson made private remarks that a court case made public. Folau can say what he wants in private or in church - when he spreads hate publicly then the ball game changes.

I would have thought this would be obvious no?

Former Former wrote: »

Truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all of this.

Yup, as I said in my post - 'if it's true' then it's cynical. It obviously might not be at all.

Dave_The_Sheep

Squidgy Black wrote: »

But the way they're placing themselves on social media is implying it was due to the Jackson signing, without explicitly stating it. Which is a risky game if not true.

Call me cynical, but a pawnbroker that provides payday loans doesn't really have much moral high ground most of the time. It wouldn't surprise me at all in this case if they're trying to take what brownie points they can get any way they can, actual truth or not.

irishbucsfan

Haha not sure how much more blatantly obvious it needs to be than a brand saying that! People will go to great lengths to lie to themselves

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Haha not sure how much more blatantly obvious it needs to be than a brand saying that! People will go to great lengths to lie to themselves

? Lie to themselves ?

London Irish are denying it and specifically citing the timing - that raises some doubts surely, it's not like one side is silent and people are drawing inference - London Irish have publicly challenged them on this.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

? Lie to themselves ?

London Irish are denying it and specifically citing the timing - that raises some doubts surely, it's not like one side is silent and people are drawing inference - London Irish have publicly challenged them on this.

Ah jaysus, the company have said it’s the reason. It doesn’t matter if there were ten thousand other factors at play. It doesn’t matter whatsoever.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah jaysus, the company have said it’s the reason. It doesn’t matter if there were ten thousand other factors at play. It doesn’t matter whatsoever.

I don't get your attitude here - London Irish have directly contradicted it, you are hand waving this fact away and subsequently accusing those who aren't as lying to themselves?

On the balance of probabilities I'd imagine they cancelled the sponsorship agreement because of Jackson joining, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that they are being very cynical here either, especially because London Irish publicly contradicted them.

If they *are* being cynical, I think that's worthy of a lot of criticism.

But sure look I'm obviously just telling myself fibs here because I've some vested interest, bias or ulterior motive right?

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

Folau made public remarks. Jackson made private remarks that a court case made public. Folau can say what he wants in private or in church - when he spreads hate publicly then the ball game changes.

I would have thought this would be obvious no? be at all.

Yeah it's obvious but is it relevant?

I mean, if you're talking about a guy's character, does it matter how it came to light?

Again, London Irish can't be any way surprised by this. They'll be happy enough if this is the only sponsor they lose.

DonVito

There's just no real pace or threat out wide. I'd like to see French on as well.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

Yeah it's obvious but is it relevant?

I mean, if you're talking about a guy's character, does it matter how it came to light?

Again, London Irish can't be any way surprised by this. They'll be happy enough if this is the only sponsor they lose.

Character? No.

But in terms of the relationship between employer and employee - yes.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't get your attitude here - London Irish have directly contradicted it, you are hand waving this fact away and subsequently accusing those who aren't as lying to themselves?

On the balance of probabilities I'd imagine they cancelled the sponsorship agreement because of Jackson joining, but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility that they are being very cynical here either, especially because London Irish publicly contradicted them.

If they *are* being cynical, I think that's worthy of a lot of criticism.

But sure look I'm obviously just telling myself fibs here because I've some vested interest, bias or ulterior motive right?

Because it doesn’t matter. The moment they say it was because of Jackson, that’s the reason it was. And that’s what other sponsors will see. And when the club then directly contradict an outgoing partner that does absolutely nothing positive for them. I don’t care if LI are right, it doesn’t matter because Cash Converters made a public statement setting out their public position.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Because it doesn’t matter. The moment they say it was because of Jackson, that’s the reason it was.

I mean, clearly it does matter - we are discussing it and numerous people on here are questioning the sponsor due to the statement by London Irish.

Cash Converters have set out their position, you seem to think that ends the public discussion - I don't understand how you have reached that conclusion.

Do you think people will only see one side of the story? Because the people that matter are their other sponsors and the supporters, neither of whom are likely to miss LI's response nor discount it as quickly as you have.

You are actually being a bit bizarre here imo.

According to London Irish fans on twitter, if the club were promoted then sponsorship costs increased but sponsors had a break clause and cash converters opted for theirs.

Supporters seem to be suggesting that it was better PR to look virtuous rather than cheap.

Obviously all just telling themselves lies.

Jupiter Mulligan

Deleted User wrote: »

Supporters seem to be suggesting that it was better PR to look virtuous rather than cheap.

Obviously all just telling themselves lies.

Scoff all you like, but that's a pretty sensible commercial decision from a PR point of view.

Unlike the signing of poor old PJ who reminds me of the Ancient Mariner in that it seems as though he'll never get rid of that damned albatross around his neck.

Between SOB and his dodgy hip (not to mention other bodily parts!) and PJ and his albatross, LI haven't really done particularly well in the transfer market.

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

According to London Irish fans on twitter, if the club were promoted then sponsorship costs increased but sponsors had a break clause and cash converters opted for theirs.

Supporters seem to be suggesting that it was better PR to look virtuous rather than cheap.

Obviously all just telling themselves lies.

I think you're missing IBF's point. Cash Converters have put it out there that it's because of Jackson. Whether that's the full truth is almost irrelevant, that's what they've publicly said so the genie is out of the bottle. It's created bad PR, it has Jackson's name all over Twitter again and people are asking other sponsors what they're going to do.

Trying to repair the damage after the fact is all well and good but as Ronald Reagan said, if you're explaining, you're losing.

Bazzo

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Scoff all you like, but that's a pretty sensible commercial decision from a PR point of view.

Unlike the signing of poor old PJ who reminds me of the Ancient Mariner in that it seems as though he'll never get rid of that damned albatross around his neck.

Between SOB and his dodgy hip (not to mention other bodily parts!) and PJ and his albatross, LI haven't really done particularly well in the transfer market.

Dell, Kepu, Coleman, Phipps, Rona and Naholo are hardly duds...

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

According to London Irish fans on twitter, if the club were promoted then sponsorship costs increased but sponsors had a break clause and cash converters opted for theirs.

Supporters seem to be suggesting that it was better PR to look virtuous rather than cheap.

Obviously all just telling themselves lies.

Its not London Irish fans who are lying to themselves. They’re probably right.

It’s the people who think Jackson’s reputation hasn’t completely become poisonous. Often the same who were telling us he’d easily sue Ulster and the IRFU if they sacked him.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Often the same who were telling us he’d easily sue Ulster and the IRFU if they sacked him.

I was one of those people. I didn't say he would sue, I said he could. And it appears that he was well paid by the IRFU. Did they do this out of charity?

I've already posted my thoughts on the cloud following Jackson around, but given that it could be fairly misguided I'm not surprised to see him playing pro rugby a few hundred miles from Ulster again.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah jaysus, the company have said it’s the reason. It doesn’t matter if there were ten thousand other factors at play. It doesn’t matter whatsoever.

Well they haven’t actually but do carry on.