Rugby Australia chief Raelene Castle says with the benefit of hindsight her organisation could have handled the Israel Folau saga better.
Rugby Australia boss Raelene Castle admits it would be wrong to suggest the Israel Folau saga couldn’t have been handled better.
RA on Friday terminated the Wallabies and NSW Waratahs superstar’s four-year, $4 million contract after an independent three-person panel found his controversial social media posts warranted his sacking.
Folau last month posted a biblical quote which said “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters” would go to hell unless they repented.
Castle said the decision would change the landscape for sport across Australia and perhaps internationally.
Folau later released a statement saying he was “deeply saddened” by the decision and that he was considering his options.
He has until Monday afternoon to appeal.
If he decides to do that it will necessitate a second code of conduct hearing, which would add to the significant financial costs already incurred by both sides.
Castle said there had been discussions between both sets of lawyers regarding a possible payout to Folau, but they had never advanced far enough to be brought to the RA Board.
Asked if RA could have better handled the situation regarding the negotiations of Folau’s last contract Castle said: “You couldn’t go through an issue like this and not say that you couldn’t do things better.
“You’d be crazy to say that. But it’s often done with the benefit of hindsight and the sequence of events that happen.
“So out of this we will certainly do that review to make sure we understand that we’ have got the right contracts in place.
“That will be a discussion that we will need to have with RUPA (Rugby Union Players’ Association) around whether the code of conduct is delivering the best outcomes from a financial delivery viewpoint.
“That will be something that we’ll be looking to discuss with them as we come to a new collective bargaining agreement.”
Castle explained RA couldn’t insert a specific social media clause in Folau’s last contract as it wasn’t part of the existing CBA between RA and RUPA.
“We can’t just insert clauses whenever we feel like it,” she said.
“Even if we had a (social media) clause who knows where this could have gone from a legal perspective?”
Asked if the CBA could be updated in future to keep pace with the development of social media Castle replied; “I certainly think those are the types of things that CBAs need to include and as time changes and social media does become more focused.”
amband
Roar Rookie
i suspect he'll be back
Marlin
Roar Rookie
Myth perpetrated by religious zealots
Marlin
Roar Rookie
In which part of the bible does it say that, Lroy?
Ralph
Roar Guru
I like that you have moved from no evidence to not strong evidence.
terrykidd
Roar Pro
So much irrelevant comment here. What this whole saga comes down to is whether or not you think what Folau tweeted was hate speech or not. Personally I was not offended at all and I was prepared to move on. Why? Because Folau posted his belief and did not direct it at any single person or group and did not single out any specific sin. In my opinion it was not hate speech and therefore all he did was post his belief on social media. This is something that RA has subsequently said players are allowed to do and is not in breach of the CoC, but only after RA had vilified Folau, found him guilty of a high level breach and cancelled his contract. Then in hindsight RA says it should have handled the matter differently. Everything else is just froth and bubble. Bottom line it is just horrible, appalling and inconsistent management performance from RA.
amband
Roar Rookie
bugger wayne Smith
amband
Roar Rookie
this has Joyce all over it. The other sponsors made their own pc decisions as minor sponsors. We'll find out more about their decision in due course
amband
Roar Rookie
principle the same and neither should be against the law and isn't in many nations
Fat Toad
Roar Rookie
It is hard to immediately say what they could have done worse.
amband
Roar Rookie
disgraceful she is. She is now using this excuse https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/6131632/castle-sacked-folau-after-parental-pleas/?cs=10231 " "The posts are harmful, they are very harmful. I've had hundreds of people contact me about the specifics of the harm, it made them relive how they found it really difficult to come out. "Parents of young children have contacted us saying 'I've got a 15-year-old who really looks up to Israel and is struggling with his sexuality'.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
And then Izzy went and wrote an article in the Player's Voice agreeing with Raelene. In your world is Raelene particularly mesmeric or Folau particularly dumb ? It's difficult to reconcile your comment to reality otherwise.
aussierad
Roar Rookie
Yup, Raelene was probably rambling on and on , and Izzy was probably preparing to play, nod his head a few time and then Raelene finishes her speech, releases a press release saying an agreement was reached.
aussierad
Roar Rookie
I suspect it was a rhetorical question to Raelene :)
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
And then after the meeting you went out and penned an article agreeing with your boss, stating his way was the right way and if that was an issue you'd leave the organisation.
deucer
Roar Rookie
That may be extreme, jameswm, but it's still on the same spectrum. I'll give you two examples that aren't so extreme and see what you think. Would a teacher at a religious school be able on discuss homosexuality wearing his uniform. Would a coke employee, in a coke t shirt, be able to post that pepsi is far superior?
deucer
Roar Rookie
TWAS makes a valid point and you try to deflect by saying he comments too much! I think he comments so much because people can't understand and he needs to repeat the point again and again.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
IF you single out Joyce for comment and ignore the other sponsors (and organisations like the NRL) then how else is that explained other than prejudice ? A number of persons have made comment support RA's position. Why is the gay guy repeatedly singled out ??
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Over for how long ? What happens next time ? And the offending post is still up, so should the fine repeat every day, or week - how would that work?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
And there would have been a few "Christs" as well considering it's a title not a name.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
1. It wasn't a quote 2. Not every church shares that opinion. 3. Even if it was the policy of every church how can that possibly override the terms of the agreement he reached to play for RA (including obviously the code of conduct) ? 4. What did he publicly state that he would comply with RA's requests or walk away from the game ?