Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Rugby Discussion II

Options
1…133134136138139…293

Comments

  • Options
    #4052
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    stephen_n wrote: »
    Well they haven’t actually but do carry on.

    :D


  • Options
    #4053
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,677 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    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.

    It's semantics but he accepted the pay off from the IRFU of the rest of his contract as a settlement rather than pursuing it further. Unlike Folau who rejected it and chose to sue over his dismissal.


  • Options
    #4054
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,355 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    It's semantics but he accepted the pay off from the IRFU of the rest of his contract as a settlement rather than pursuing it further. Unlike Folau who rejected it and chose to sue over his dismissal.

    Not positive but was Folau not just effectively sacked? No pay off etc?


  • Options
    #4055
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    salmocab wrote: »
    Not positive but was Folau not just effectively sacked? No pay off etc?

    Yes.

    Jackson had to be paid because they lacked concrete grounds to dismiss. The IRFU might have won a court battle, but felt it was the better option to pay the remainder of the players contracts.


  • Options
    #4056
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,677 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    salmocab wrote: »
    Not positive but was Folau not just effectively sacked? No pay off etc?

    He was offered a settlement of $1 million AUSD before the code of conduct hearings

    https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/israel-folau-rejected-a-1m-rugby-australia-settlement-offer-1.3881625


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4057
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    It's semantics but he accepted the pay off from the IRFU of the rest of his contract as a settlement rather than pursuing it further. Unlike Folau who rejected it and chose to sue over his dismissal.

    Oh yes absolutely he accepted a settlement, but he was sacked. At the time we were told the IRFU could never get away with that etc


  • Options
    #4058
    Jupiter Mulligan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 525 ✭✭✭Jupiter Mulligan


    Bazzo wrote: »
    Dell, Kepu, Coleman, Phipps, Rona and Naholo are hardly duds...

    Are they part of the London bit, or part of the Irish bit?


  • Options
    #4059
    NeonWolf
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 359 ✭✭NeonWolf


    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12238637

    Doesn't paint the ARU in a great light if true.
    They sold him down the river.


  • Options
    #4060
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Jackson was sacked. He just got a settlement which he accepted. That is not unusual, in fact it's the norm.

    Folau was also sacked but declined the settlement. My guess is he realised that NRL and AFL weren't options so he needed a bigger payout.

    TBH there isn't that much difference between the two.


  • Options
    #4061
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    He was offered a settlement of $1 million AUSD before the code of conduct hearings

    https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/israel-folau-rejected-a-1m-rugby-australia-settlement-offer-1.3881625

    It's 1/5th his current contract AFAIK but I reckon he was mad not to take it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4062
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Oh yes absolutely he accepted a settlement, but he was sacked. At the time we were told the IRFU could never get away with that etc

    No one said that.

    He couldn't be sacked without consequences. He isn't their slave and they aren't his. They can ask him to leave like any employer. But they had to pay for it.

    And it was equally clear at the time, they didn't have sufficient grounds to dismiss him for a breach of contract, they had to buy out his contract and agreed to do so on the basis that they got to write the media release. I don't know how much easier this needs to be made.


  • Options
    #4063
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    No one said that.

    He couldn't be sacked without consequences. He isn't their slave and they aren't his. They can ask him to leave like any employer. But they had to pay for it.

    And it was equally clear at the time, they didn't have sufficient grounds to dismiss him for a breach of contract, they had to buy out his contract and agreed to do so on the basis that they got to write the media release. I don't know how much easier this needs to be made.

    His contract was not simply bought out.


  • Options
    #4064
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if those Leaks are coming from Folau’s camp.


  • Options
    #4065
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    stephen_n wrote: »
    Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if those Leaks are coming from Folau’s camp.

    I think any leaks are more likely coming from SOB’s camp TBH.


  • Options
    #4066
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    NeonWolf wrote: »
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12238637

    Doesn't paint the ARU in a great light if true.
    They sold him down the river.

    He wasn't sacked for his religious beliefs. He's telling a few lies of his own saying that


  • Options
    #4067
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Synode wrote: »
    He wasn't sacked for his religious beliefs. He's telling a few lies of his own saying that

    Most religions, Catholicism included, oblige their followers to spread the word.

    Folau can very plausibly claim that he was prevented from doing so therefore his religious freedoms were infringed.


  • Options
    #4068
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Former Former wrote: »
    Most religions, Catholicism included, oblige their followers to spread the word.

    Folau can very plausibly claim that he was prevented from doing so therefore his religious freedoms were infringed.

    Being sacked because your religious beliefs made you do things that are punishable by termination is very different to being sacked for holding a religious belief, I think that’s the major difference and it’s what makes him completely wrong to say it was the reason he was sacked.


  • Options
    #4069
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,582 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    He can claim whatever he wants.

    Essentially there has to be a schism between your employment and your religion. Religious expression in all places of works is allowed but can't be with impunity though.
    You can express your religion once it's not deemed injurious to others, which folaus views are obviously


  • Options
    #4070
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    ]
    Being sacked because your religious beliefs made you do things that are punishable by termination is very different to being sacked for holding a religious belief, I think that’s the major difference and it’s what makes him completely wrong to say it was the reason he was sacked.

    Any contractual clause that infringes on freedom of religion is invalid. The ARU essentially put him under duress and made him sign up to contractual obligations that are incompatible with his right to practice his faith and are therefore not enforceable.

    This is not what I think btw, this is what any competent lawyer will argue. He has a very strong case IMO.


  • Options
    #4071
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Former Former wrote: »
    Any contractual clause that infringes on freedom of religion is invalid. The ARU essentially put him under duress and made him sign up to contractual obligations that are incompatible with his right to practice his faith and are therefore not enforceable.

    This is not what I think btw, this is what any competent lawyer will argue. He has a very strong case IMO.

    I agree that’s what he’ll argue, but that’s not what he said in the letter. What he said there is objectively wrong.

    He has very little hope. Hed want to make sure he’s getting help on his legal fees before he gets taken for a ride


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4072
    jacothelad
    Registered Users Posts: 5,931 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    Former Former wrote: »
    Most religions, Catholicism included, oblige their followers to spread the word.

    Folau can very plausibly claim that he was prevented from doing so therefore his religious freedoms were infringed.


    I don't think employers are obliged to provide a platform for their employees to spread their 'religious' bigotry. Folau can do what he likes as a private citizen, the fact that he thinks his bosses should allow him to spread his poison shows what a feckwit he is. The ARU have no legal requirement to help him out in his cretinism. Good for them.


  • Options
    #4073
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,492 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    jacothelad wrote: »
    I don't think employers are obliged to provide a platform for their employees to spread their 'religious' bigotry. Folau can do what he likes as a private citizen, the fact that he thinks his bosses should allow him to spread his poison shows what a feckwit he is. The ARU have no legal requirement to help him out in his cretinism. Good for them.

    I don’t think they provided a platform though did they? Or did I miss the ARFU buying a stake in twitter?


  • Options
    #4074
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    jacothelad wrote: »
    I don't think employers are obliged to provide a platform for their employees to spread their 'religious' bigotry. Folau can do what he likes as a private citizen, the fact that he thinks his bosses should allow him to spread his poison shows what a feckwit he is. The ARU have no legal requirement to help him out in his cretinism. Good for them.

    Did they provide him a platform? Posting on his Instagram account is exactly what any private citizen would do. He wasn't speaking at an official function, he didn't wear a "Gays Burn In Hell" baseball cap to Wallabies training. How did they help him?

    I abhor what he believes btw. I'm just not sure the ARU are the arbiter of the boundaries of religious freedom.


  • Options
    #4075
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,355 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Former Former wrote: »

    I abhor what he believes btw. I'm just not sure the ARU are the arbiter of the boundaries of religious freedom.

    They haven’t tried to be to be fair, just the arbiters of what’s acceptable from their employees.
    He done it before and got his wrist slapped so he knew what he was at.


  • Options
    #4076
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    salmocab wrote: »
    They haven’t tried to be to be fair, just the arbiters of what’s acceptable from their employees.
    He done it before and got his wrist slapped so he knew what he was at.

    Well this is the question. Folau hasn't broken any laws. Were they entitled to slap his wrist, are they entitled to dictate what is acceptable from their employees when they're not at work?

    He has a right to religious freedom, no-one has a right not to be offended. This is the difficulty they might face. The ARU can't say that what he posted is morally unacceptable because about 3 billion people belong to religions which teach exactly the same thing, including the majority of boards.ie posters who are all so exercised about it.

    If you're a Catholic and you go to mass on a Sunday, can you be hauled in front of your boss on a Monday? Of course not. But what if I find your membership of that particular religion and what it teaches to be offensive? Who draws the line of what is acceptable and what is not?


  • Options
    #4077
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Former Former wrote: »
    are they entitled to dictate what is acceptable from their employees when they're not at work?

    Yes


  • Options
    #4078
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    NeonWolf wrote: »

    It was populist grandstanding by the NRL to pander to the current status quo.


    The "current status quo" that gay people arent evil, immoral or wrong for what they are?

    Cant see that changing unless some religious nutters take over the world. Now those people? They are evil, immoral and wrong.


  • Options
    #4079
    jacothelad
    Registered Users Posts: 5,931 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    Former Former wrote: »
    Did they provide him a platform? Posting on his Instagram account is exactly what any private citizen would do. He wasn't speaking at an official function, he didn't wear a "Gays Burn In Hell" baseball cap to Wallabies training. How did they help him?

    I abhor what he believes btw. I'm just not sure the ARU are the arbiter of the boundaries of religious freedom.


    I meant that without his talent as a rugby player no one would give two flying Boris Johnsons for any of his opinions. I also suspect that without his sporting platform, those who are taking advantage of a weak minded fool's sporting position wouldn't do a SOB on him if he was on fire. His position as a famous player - which is at the gift of his employers - gives him a platform and publicity. The ARU are quite right to sack the fool rather than roll over and allow him to spew his vile opinions.


  • Options
    #4080
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    stephen_n wrote: »
    Well they haven’t actually but do carry on.

    But the pawn brokers to the poor that give payday loans with 4 figure interest rates couldn't be morally dubious, why are you doubting their integrity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4081
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Former Former wrote: »
    Well this is the question. Folau hasn't broken any laws. Were they entitled to slap his wrist, are they entitled to dictate what is acceptable from their employees when they're not at work?

    He has a right to religious freedom, no-one has a right not to be offended. This is the difficulty they might face. The ARU can't say that what he posted is morally unacceptable because about 3 billion people belong to religions which teach exactly the same thing, including the majority of boards.ie posters who are all so exercised about it.

    If you're a Catholic and you go to mass on a Sunday, can you be hauled in front of your boss on a Monday? Of course not. But what if I find your membership of that particular religion and what it teaches to be offensive? Who draws the line of what is acceptable and what is not?

    You should do an experiment. Change your profile picture on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. to the logo of the company you work for. Then post that homosexuality is a sin and gays will burn in Hell. Let us know how the HR department reacts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement