General Rugby Discussion II

Utah_Saint

With quite a few high profile injuries recently I wanted to know if clubs and province's continue to pay a players salary out of their budgets or would they have insurance coverage?

You'd think insurance would be unlikely as rugby players are frequently injured the premiums would be huge!?

Squidgy Black

Utah_Saint wrote: »

With quite a few high profile injuries recently I wanted to know if clubs and province's continue to pay a players salary out of their budgets or would they have insurance coverage?

You'd think insurance would be unlikely as rugby players are frequently injured the premiums would be huge!?

I'm not sure about Irish contracts, but for English contracts for long term injuries it's 6 months full pay, and then 3 months half pay. So essentially if a player's out injured for 12 months, they'll get 7.5 months worth of pay over those 12 months.

Also the IRUPA have been fairly prominent in assisting players with insurance, but I believe that's mostly around retirement, and not sure how it works for lost wages as an active player.

molloyjh

swiwi_ wrote: »

Fair play to folau for sticking up for what he believes in, even if he’s in the minority. I don’t really believe in forcing views on someone, if he goes against the mainstream so be it. TBH I don’t really care about the off field views of players I watch rugby to see what players do on the field. And that man can’t be beat in the air.

Would you say fair play to him if he was expressing a racist view? Or a sexist one? There are these so called "sinners" all through the game and at times like this the ARU have a choice to make. Back them or back him. Allowing views like this to freely spread is toxic at best and dangerous at worst. It validates bigotry and makes dealing with it harder. It increases hate towards people who have done nothing to deserve it. And that should be treated as such IMO.

Quin_Dub

swiwi_ wrote: »

Fair play to folau for sticking up for what he believes in, even if he’s in the minority. I don’t really believe in forcing views on someone, if he goes against the mainstream so be it. TBH I don’t really care about the off field views of players I watch rugby to see what players do on the field. And that man can’t be beat in the air.

molloyjh wrote: »

Would you say fair play to him if he was expressing a racist view? Or a sexist one? There are these so called "sinners" all through the game and at times like this the ARU have a choice to make. Back them or back him. Allowing views like this to freely spread is toxic at best and dangerous at worst. It validates bigotry and makes dealing with it harder. It increases hate towards people who have done nothing to deserve it. And that should be treated as such IMO.

If Folau holds those opinions and only discussed them face to face with people in a private setting , then , whilst I'd find the views abhorrent he's entitled to them, however because of his status as a public figure the second he makes comments like this in Twitter/Instagram or whatever then that has implications.

His employers absolutely have the right to take action against him for it - And they should take action as the opinions are utterly incompatible with the ethos of the Sport and with the majority of the fans and sponsors etc.

Utah_Saint

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Utah_Saint wrote: »

With quite a few high profile injuries recently I wanted to know if clubs and province's continue to pay a players salary out of their budgets or would they have insurance coverage?

You'd think insurance would be unlikely as rugby players are frequently injured the premiums would be huge!?

I'm not sure about Irish contracts, but for English contracts for long term injuries it's 6 months full pay, and then 3 months half pay. So essentially if a player's out injured for 12 months, they'll get 7.5 months worth of pay over those 12 months.

Also the IRUPA have been fairly prominent in assisting players with insurance, but I believe that's mostly around retirement, and not sure how it works for lost wages as an active player.

Thanks - I never knew that. Obviously not as much money in rugby as soccer so clubs and players need protection

Burkie1203

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If Folau holds those opinions and only discussed them face to face with people in a private setting , then , whilst I'd find the views abhorrent he's entitled to them, however because of his status as a public figure the second he makes comments like this in Twitter/Instagram or whatever then that has implications.

His employers absolutely have the right to take action against him for it - And they should take action as the opinions are utterly incompatible with the ethos of the Sport and with the majority of the fans and sponsors etc.

Naholo and Francis Saili liked his post too. Disappointing to see

Clegg

Rugby Australia statement on Folau.

"In the absence of compelling mitigating factors, it is our intention to terminate his contract".

Wow

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1116250773443231744?s=19

Clegg

Rugby Australia have tried to contact Folau and his reps since yesterday, but have received no reply. So he's a coward on top of everything else.

thomond2006

"Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Rugby Union have made repeated attempts to contact Israel both directly and via his representatives since 6.30pm on Wednesday, and at this point he has failed to communicate directly with either organisation.

"Whilst Israel is entitled to his religious beliefs, the way in which he has expressed these beliefs is inconsistent with the values of the sport. We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.

"Israel has failed to understand that the expectation of him as a Rugby Australia and NSW Waratahs employee is that he cannot share material on social media that condemns, vilifies or discriminates against people on the basis of their sexuality.

"Rugby is a sport that continuously works to unite people. We want everyone to feel safe and welcome in our game and no vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality is acceptable and no language that isolates, divides or insults people based on any of those factors can be tolerated.

"As a code we have made it clear to Israel formally and repeatedly that any social media posts or commentary that is in any way disrespectful to people because of their sexuality will result in disciplinary action. "In the absence of compelling mitigating factors, it is our intention to terminate his contract."

https://www.rugbyau.com/news/2019/04/11/rugby-australia-and-nsw-rugby-union-statement-regarding-israel-folau

As good a statement as they could have made.

Clegg

If you were being cynical you'd wonder if Folau had a mega contract offer from France or Japan.

Squidgy Black

Clegg wrote: »

If you were being cynical you'd wonder if Folau had a mega contract offer from France or Japan.

Nah he's just genuinely that zealous in terms of his faith. It's not the first time something like this has happened with his social media posts.

sydthebeat

am i missing something , but why is there "an intention to terminate his contract" ?

i wonder could this go legal i wonder and they find it that they actually cannot terminate his contract on religious beliefs grounds?

Richard Hillman

Clegg wrote: »

If you were being cynical you'd wonder if Folau had a mega contract offer from France or Japan.

I was listening to Second Captains this week and they were saying that he wanted to play Sevens to get into the Olympics.

I do think there is something in what he posted, in terms of getting out of his contract. Obviously he holds those views but I think he knew exactly what he was doing, whilst going out in blaze of glory for himself.

Tigerandahalf

Looks like Folau wanted out of his contract. Handy way to get things ended. He had signed until 2022. He will likely get a bumper contract elsewhere now.

Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

am i missing something , but why is there "an intention to terminate his contract" ?

i wonder could this go legal i wonder and they find it that they actually cannot terminate his contract on religious beliefs grounds?

I suppose they have to at least give him the chance to explain himself before they terminate it, due process and all that.

He had signed a new contract after the previous kerfuffle so you'd imagine it is loaded down with clauses about this sort of thing.

Either a) he is the dumbest person on the planet or b) he knew exactly what he was doing and what it would mean for him. I genuinely don't know which.

AdamD

I don't think those social media posts are gonna help him get a bigger contract than what he'd already signed with AR...

Bridge93

There must be a possibility it was intentional.

a) He knew the reaction last time and surely had conversations with those in charge about the consequences if it happened again

b) the comments are full of people saying theyve seen him out drunk before so unless hes an enormous hypocrite/didnt read the full content of his own post/didnt care/is very stupid then...

c) that they cant contact him and the post is still up a day later suggest a calculated nature at worst and total ignorance to the situation at best

Larbre34

I must say, I had to google a few of those sins.

Going for the full house don't you know.

molloyjh

Former Former wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

am i missing something , but why is there "an intention to terminate his contract" ?

i wonder could this go legal i wonder and they find it that they actually cannot terminate his contract on religious beliefs grounds?

I suppose they have to at least give him the chance to explain himself before they terminate it, due process and all that.

He had signed a new contract after the previous kerfuffle so you'd imagine it is loaded down with clauses about this sort of thing.

Either a) he is the dumbest person on the planet or b) he knew exactly what he was doing and what it would mean for him. I genuinely don't know which.

This. They aren't looking to terminate his contract on the basis of his religious beliefs. They said in the statement that he can belief what he likes. The sacking will be down to his publication of those beliefs in a way that doesn't sit with his responsibilities as their employee.

He's entitled to his beliefs in the same way a racist is entitled to theirs. The rest of us, including his employers, are entitled to react to any publication of those beliefs also. Free speech, beliefs and opinion do not protect people from the real life consequences of their actions.

Hurrache

sydthebeat wrote: »

i wonder could this go legal i wonder and they find it that they actually cannot terminate his contract on religious beliefs grounds?

They won't be terminating his contract on religious belief grounds though.

Squatter

Perhaps he regards the preservation of his eternal soul as slightly more important than a professional rugby contract. Not that I'd expect any of the new age Irish heathens loitering around this forum to understand that kind of unenlightened thinking! (Although some Ulster supporters might! )

Quin_Dub

And he's still at it..

https://twitter.com/IzzyFolau/status/1115871864495247360

b.gud

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And he's still at it..

https://twitter.com/IzzyFolau/status/1115871864495247360

I think that was all around the same time as the Instagram post, it was definitely before his post really gained traction in the media and Rugby Australia released their statement

thomond2006

molloyjh wrote: »

This. They aren't looking to terminate his contract on the basis of his religious beliefs. They said in the statement that he can belief what he likes. The sacking will be down to his publication of those beliefs in a way that doesn't sit with his responsibilities as their employee.

He's entitled to his beliefs in the same way a racist is entitled to theirs. The rest of us, including his employers, are entitled to react to any publication of those beliefs also. Free speech, beliefs and opinion do not protect people from the real life consequences of their actions.

Inclusivity works both ways.

Eod100

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Nah he's just genuinely that zealous in terms of his faith. It's not the first time something like this has happened with his social media posts.

Really? As pointed others how come other very Christian players like the lads from SA aren't so vocal? Not like it's a component part of any faith and some would argue not a part of faith at all

Squidgy Black

Eod100 wrote: »

Really? As pointed others how come other very Christian players like the lads from SA aren't so vocal? Not like it's a component part of any faith and some would argue not a part of faith at all

He's a member of the 'Assemblies of God', which are a an evangelical group of Christianity, they believe in speaking tongues and the rapture etc, they're on the extreme end of Christianity.

Erik Shun

Perhaps he wants out of his contract and this is his guaranteed way out...get sacked and sign a 3 year contract with Toulouse...or Sarries.... he'll definitely have many suitors.... it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out

Yeah_Right

Squidgy Black wrote: »

He's a member of the 'Assemblies of God', which are a an evangelical group of Christianity, they believe in speaking tongues and the rapture etc, they're on the extreme end of Christianity.

I think he was a Mormon and converted to the Assemblies of God who are even more conservative.

I read that Qantas are reviewing their sponsorship with the ARU. If it comes down to a choice between Qantas and Folau then Folau is gone.

aloooof

Erik Shun wrote: »

Perhaps he wants out of his contract and this is his guaranteed way out...get sacked and sign a 3 year contract with Toulouse...or Sarries.... he'll definitely have many suitors.... it's going to be interesting to see how it pans out

Can't see Sarries coming in for him, plenty of options at FB with Liam Williams and Alex Goode already there and Elliot Daly coming in. Tho I suppose they could put Williams on the wing and Daly in midfield or wing. They'd have a ridiculously good backline. To go with their ridiculously good forwards.

stephen_n

thomond2006 wrote: »

Inclusivity works both ways.

He’s condemning people for being who they are. He’s not being condemned for his religious beliefs, he’s being condemned for his actions.