Phipps praises bosses for swift action on Folau 'distraction'

When Waratahs and/or RA trot out international rugby's worst halfback to make media statements they shoot holes in their feet again imo. Phipps is a bad joke imo and I suggest he start taking his own advice. His continued poor passing is a "distraction". And his error ridden performances have been "continuing" for a decade. I'd prefer Phipps keep his head out of the media and get back to training :)

Following the same logic "just as long as he keeps it private" homosexuals can keep it private too, for fear of upsetting fundamentalist Christians? No more Mardi Gras? Alan Joyce can keep his identity politics out of public business as well then I assume.

I meant Nick Phipps to be quiet, sorry if you thought I was directing that at you.

They couldn't put it in his contract because that would be illegal. Yet, they believe that because they asked him nicely to forfeit his right to freedom of religion and speech, that's "ok". Little bit backwards don't you think?

We don’t need Phipps being distracted, he’s bad enough as it is. As for the fast action by RA . Good luck with that one, Izzy has plenty of support out here. This will go to court and my legal contracts tell me that RA will lose a lot more money.

Implied, implied, implied. Nothing but assumptions.

Please show everyone where IF has said homosexuals aren't allowed to play rugby union for the Wallabies? Oddly enough, you don't need to go any further than a roar article to find people that believe people that preach their religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to play rugby union for the Wallabies... Go figure!

Inshallah.

He’s actively sabotaging their attempts to be inclusive by alienating people with his widely broadcast homophobic bigotry. What else can they do but sack him?

The lack of any player support for IF is telling. Remember what Kafer said (he is director of elite performance): he implied IF lacks basic Union skills, limiting selections around him to cover for this. He also implied IF was hard to coach, even with these skills short falls. Kafer and Phipps were hinting at IF being arrogant. I have wondered why IF did all this again, last year almost got him fired, i think it implies either ignorance or arrogance, but I don’t know IF to decide. But Kafer does, IF’s team mates do too. Ex AB Jeff Wilson who played wing and full back said this wk he has always thought IF had several weaknesses especially in positional play on defence. He did come to Union later in life.

This is not about his beliefs. This is about his actions.

Of all the negative tripe that has been blown up from one man excercising his right to freedom of religion and speech; the one regular comment that's indicative of the truly self-absorbed society we now live in is, "he's welcome to follow his religion, just as long as he keeps it private"... "Inclusiveness", they said...

Oh, the convenience!

Be quiet, people who live in glass houses shouldn't urinate on them.

Also as Max Kimber (an employment lawyer) pointed out on the Rugby Ruckus podcast. Terms do not need to be inserted into the contract to be enforceable. "It was made clear to Israel in writing and verbally when I met with him last year that any social media posts or commentary that in any way were disrespectful to people because of their sexuality would result in disciplinary action," Castle said. "Despite this Israel has chosen to ignore this warning." Castle revealed there were no extra clauses added to the four-year contract he signed earlier this year in the wake of a similar controversy a year ago. "Not within the contract, but there was a number of meetings, documented meetings, that were put ... verbally and in writing to Israel about our expectations," she said. So it wasn't specifically put in the contract. It was advised in writing prior to even signing the contract.

No. if that was the case it would come down to whether the guidelines were enforceable. And whether repeated breaches were enough to warrant termination. Because it's not just a single case.

Castle has admitted there were no terms in the new contract that dealt with IF’s use of social media. So it all comes down to whether or not his post is enough to warrant termination as a breach of the COC. Termination of any contract of employment has strict legal rules applying to it. It isn’t normally that easy to sack someone for a breach of a general code of conduct. If IF wants to challenge it, I think a good employment lawyer would have an arguable case that termination is too harsh in this instance. And there are ambiguities in the case, eg was his post purely personal or related to his employment? How far can the control of the COC extend? Is IF’s personal life as a Christian seperate and distinct from his role as a RA employee? What warnings were given? Were they in writing? Were they clear as to what was required? If Folau challenges the termination, I think a financial settlement is very likely to manage the risk and uncertainty. For RA the risk is that if they lose they are up for the value of his contract plus his and their legal costs, possibly upwards of $3-4 Miillion? For IF the risk is that he pays the legal costs, probably a six figure amount.

Is that the one that was censured, like Folau last year, and agreed to not do it again, and hasn't? The thing is you've also waded into a subject that I used to talk about a lot. Why I don't think Pocock is suitable to be captain. So potentially Pocock has been punished for that too.

I agree with TWAS. None of those players are challenging Folau's beliefs, or thinking of it in terms of comparing it to Beale, or toeing any party line, or any of the multiple angles that fans have approached the issue with. They're just angry and frustrated that a major non-rugby issue has blown up again, after they were told that it wouldn't. So in that sense they don't trust Folau and want the whole business to go away - which wouldn't be the case if he rejoined the team.

It's pretty obvious