Foxy,

You still don't get it. An employment contract is far more complex than a normal business contract. All sorts of factors come into play, including "the common good" of which one aspect is preserving a person's ability to ply his trade. For example, people in sales normally are bound by restraint of trade agreements which in the event of them leaving the business, but is limited by law to a reasonable distance and time, and any contract that tries to exclude someone from working in their profession too broadly for too long without an exceptional reason is not worth the paper it is printed on.

RA is attempting to ban Folau from all rugby codes throughout Aus in perpetuity. The chances that a judge might not consider this just cause are strong, and RA and moreso its executives probably wouldn't survive a $6m settlement.

Is Mise,

Rugby Australia has more than just one sponsor.
And it appears that most of them agree with the
stance that Rugby Australia took.

SM,

I'm sure that Rugby Australia does have a team of
legal advisers who would have told them what they
can and can't do - prior to the contractual
agreements being drawn up. And they are still
advising them. So your concern is admirable. However
I would not worry too much. I'm sure they know what
they are doing.

I wonder if Folau is getting a kick back from the lawyers who will be getting a motza from his simple social media message, which could have been ignored by the disapproving, and forgotten in a couple of days by everyone, if it hadn't been for politically correct, pants-peeing Rugby Australia, swapping it's obvious role for that of social arbitrator. Our society gets sillier and sillier.

Foxy,

I'm sure that James Cook University had a plethora of competent lawyers to advise them before they got knocked for six for firing a professor in similar circumstances and are now facing $ms in court fees and damages.

Let's see whether the lawyers advising the "tribunal" are happy to toss the dice on such high stakes.

Conspiracy Theory.

Ever thought that some lawyers give advice that lets their mates make a killing; less 'expenses' to the party of the first part.

"Was Folau in breach of his employment contract? Whealy’s response: “It seems likely there is no specific provision in his contract prohibiting him from expressing publicly his religious convictions.” This has been my argument all along and, following The Daily Telegraph’s discovery that Rugby Australia attempted to have it inserted retrospectively in his contract, it looms as doubly important. Ask yourself this: why, if a standard players’ contract was sufficient to ensure Folau did not post anything offensive on social media, did Rugby Australia make a last-minute attempt to change the contract?

Whealy poses the question of whether the comments Folau made about homosexuals were in fact homophobic. Did he make the comments not out of hate, as Genia maintains, but out of love for them? He doesn’t want them burning in Hell. This implies, of course, that Folau assumes homosexuals are capable of changing their sexuality, just the way black people can convert to white whenever it suits them."