From the huge smiles on the Folau's faces and grim look on Ralene Castle's face the rumours of the payout appears to be somewhere between $5m which is the remainder of his contract as estimated by HR experts and $8m claimed by some news outlets.

"A team of the sassiest spin doctors can’t help Rugby Australia. They lost on Wednesday. Big time. It was an old-fashioned shellacking not seen since the Wallabies lost to England in the World Cup quarterfinal this year."

And while Folau will probably not be able to play in Australia again (RA probably can no longer afford him) but is likely to continue playing overseas.

The lesson is "Get Woke, Go Broke"

How big was the payout, how do you know the figure
It would not have been the 14 million he asked for
His subsequent actions have turned me against him, firmly
However he and his people are victims
Victims of long dead forceful importing of a God other than their own
A God seen these days to be more interested in money than good deeds

The settlement is confidential, so we don't have a clue how much it was. As it is Rugby Australia's money, not ours, we need not worry about it. Personally, I hope the sum cripples RA for good. The PC plonkers brought it on themselves when they meddled in Folau's personal beliefs and freedom of speech. Any organisation, sporting or business, that involves itself in politics deserves to go under. Good luck to Folau. I hope he got enough to keep him comfortable for the rest of his life, and he tells the stupid sport and that awful Kiwi running it what to do with themselves.

Folau is good at catching a ball and running. Who gives a rats what he thinks about gays and hell.

But the QWERTY community can't leave it alone. Every utterance of dissent from the one allowable truth must be quashed. With Rugby now run by the woke-crowd and beholden to Qantas which is also run by gay busy-bodies, they made fools of themselves and cost the code monies it can ill afford.

If they had the interests of the game at heart, they'd have let his comments pass with perhaps a note to say that the code doesn't agree with him.

But, No. Everyone who steps out of line must be crushed. Well Folau has been crushed all the way to the bank.

We were told that the homosexual marriage issue was the last outstanding problem and once it was resolved, all would be well.

But No. Its not good enough that the society now allows them to marry. Every person in the society is now required to actually approve of such marriages.

There's an old Dave Allen joke about immigrating before they make it compulsory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h82D5ZvcALM

So the next move for Rugby Australia must be to get rid of a totally incompetent ideologically biased management. Not just some but the lot.

You need ex players running sport, not some fly ins with no understanding of the players or the game. Surely among the thousands of ex players there are some with the management & financial skills. It wouldn't be hard to find some better than the current Rugby bunch.

Can't do more than endorse the sentiments expressed above this post.
Three cheers for Falou and God save the Queen!

And I might add, thanks to forums like OLO which from the get-go, stood firmly behind Falus right to free speech, and free thinking!

Hope this finds you smiling Graham Young, as it does me!

Dan

Well that resolves nothing. Rugby Australia made the decision for purely financial considerations.

Their insurance company pays out not them. Premiums will increase as a result but it isn't a huge hit for now at all.

The millions in sponsorship dollars from the likes of Qantas are safe.

They are not required to reinstate Falou which was one of the things on the top of his wish list.

Finally they can away without having to resolve the issue properly and without having to set any precedent.

Wimps.

SR,

I agree that Rugby Australia settled for a few $m (3-5) and a grovelling apology to Folau for financial reasons. However, I believe that it is because the advice they got from their legal team is that they faced the very real chance of a substantially higher payout.

As for Insurance paying, I seriously doubt it as Insurance seldom covers contractual issues. However, if they were covered for this by insurance, the insurance company would only permit a settlement if there was little chance of winning.

Either way, I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set, and I would guess that Raelene Castle is on borrowed time.

It's all over now and Folau is the winner: money and an apology! Right still prevails when people with conviction and courage stand up to bullies like the pathetically virtue-signalling Rugby Australia and its dumb CEO.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Bloody hell mate, you really have been reduced to just spin haven't you. There are others performing that role on the forum but you weren't always this much of an automaton.

There was absolutely no “grovelling apology”.

This is what the JOINT statement read;

“While it was not Rugby Australia’s intention, Rugby Australia acknowledges and apologises for any hurt or harm caused to the Folaus. Similarly, Mr Folau did not intend to hurt or harm the game of rugby and acknowledges and apologises for any hurt or harm caused.”

Rugby Australia have said theirs was directed at the Falou family as indicated in the above, which was reasonable even though this was an unfair dismissal claim.

This was another part of the joint statement;

“Mr Folau wants all Australians to know that he does not condone discrimination of any kind against any person on the grounds of their sexuality and that he shares Rugby Australia’s commitment to inclusiveness and diversity.”

http://australia.rugby/news/2019/12/04/if-joint-statement-dec

Rugby Australia also confirmed no budget changes as a result of the settlement and that the insurance company was covering an undisclosed percentage of it.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2019/12/05/castle-folau-presser

You wrote;

“ the insurance company would only permit a settlement if there was little chance of winning”

Bollocks.

Of course the insurance company would have had a huge say in whether or not to make an out of court settlement and would have jumped at a lower offer to avoid the legal expenses of a full blown trial.

No precedent whatsoever has been set and it is idiotic to claim otherwise.

Reflux says:” No precedent whatsoever has been set and it is idiotic to claim otherwise.”
Wrong, Reflux !No legal precedent has been set, because there has been no hearing of the case.
There are precedents for employers losing where they attempt to interfere with employees’ personal beliefs.
Rugby knew they were losers, and Folau knew he was a winner.
Reflux followed his usual precedent of being wrong .Just one more example of his crooked thinking.

SR,

Your literacy seems not to be up to the task.

Definition of Precedent: "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations"

In spite of RA having an "ironclad" case against Folau they have settled for a reported $3.1m with a further $1m in legal fees which comes close to simply paying Folau out the rest of his contract. Folau on the other hand walks away with $3.1m in his pocket and free to play for other teams overseas.

If they had fought the case and won, Folau would have got nothing and would have had to pay RA's legal bills. The payout reflects RA's confidence in their case and sets a precedent for similar cases.

Dear Leo Lane,

Bloody hell mate, you're still alive? Well good on you.

So let's see what you have for us today.

“Reflux says:” No precedent whatsoever has been set and it is idiotic to claim otherwise.”
Wrong, Reflux !No legal precedent has been set, because there has been no hearing of the case.”

So you said I was wrong then proceeded to explain I was right.

Lol.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Apparently Leo Lane is or has been a lawyer and he claims there has been no precedent set. Perhaps you had better take it up with him.

Under the Fair Work commission rules; “The Fair Work Commission must determine if reinstatement is appropriate before considering any other remedy. It is not until the Commission is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate that compensation can be considered.”

Falou not only didn't get reinstated but was also required to give an apology for the 'hurt and harm' he may have caused.

Yet you are saying his is an overwhelming victory for him and that he is now “free to play for other teams overseas”. But there was nothing preventing him from doing so before.

All that seems to have happened is that he ended up basically getting his contract paid out just like our disgraced banking CEOs manage to do all the bloody time. Nothing spectacularly new and hardly a resounding victory.

Sorry to burst your bubble mate but facts can be inconvenient.

SR,

From several posts ago I said "Either way, I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set, and I would guess that Raelene Castle is on borrowed time."

To translate for your illiteracy:
- I never claimed that a legal precedent was set as this would have required a court case and judgement, However:
- As RA got hammered for > $4m for cancelling the contract of a player for religious reasons, any other employer considering the results will strongly consider the beating RA received.

From the Age Newspaper: "How can she sack a player on "principle", preach about the importance of “inclusiveness”, talk about her code “standing for something”, insist that RA has “a strong legal footing” … and then slither out the back door of mediation for the sake of “moving on”?"

Dear Shadow Minister,

Hell, I thought only the likes of Leo could tie himself in knots so blatantly.

“I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set” to “I never claimed that a legal precedent was set”, yet you don't see any contradiction at all?

Lol.

Amazing.

Have you lost your marbles to this degree or are you now just trolling?

Personally I see no winners in this case. It's a pity that rugby Australia has been taken over by ideologue's like the one of the abc's favourite sons Fitzsimons. He would come close to winning any virtue signalling contest. They are happy to allow rapist, bigots and every other deviant play rugby. Amazing how many organisations have been taken over by toxic feminist and emasculated males. Kind of like the woeful democrats in America. With the likes of Epstein and Weisten, Smollet, Warren and numerous deviant actors you would think they would stick to politics. No instead they push their transgender and other deviant woke issues.

Dear runner,

"They are happy to allow rapist, bigots and every other deviant" into the high offices of the various Christian faiths to rape and bugger their way through thousands of Aussie kids with the full knowledge of others within the organisation. Hillsong is a case in point.

Sorry mate, you and your ilk have lost any moral authority you once imagined you had and every bloody time you run this line I will hopefully be there to remind you of that fact.

SR

Clearly you are too dim to grasp the concept of "clear but not legal"

For example if Labor goes to the election with promises of new taxes, it loses the election badly. This sets a clear but not legal precedent that Labor would be stupid to repeat. Pretty much like RA having to fork out >$4m for cancelling a contract on legal grounds. There is no precedent, but any thinking employer would be cognisant of the possibility of a huge whack if they followed suit.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The beauty of a forum like this is that you can not edit prior posts.

You write; “Clearly you are too dim to grasp the concept of "clear but not legal"”.

Oh I get the concept fully, but that is not what you had written was it. Instead you had said;

“I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set”.

'if not' instead 'but not'.

Just on the off chance you really don't know the difference let me explain it to you.

If I was to say by way of example 'Shadow Minister is one of 'if not' the most slipperiest of posters on OLO' this would mean in my opinion that either is a distinct possibility.

If instead I was to say 'Shadow Minister is one of 'but not' the most slipperiest of posters on OLO' this would mean in my opinion that while you were indeed slippery you were not the most slipperiest, and that title is held by someone else.

I hope this assists in your understanding of the concept and grammar involved.

'Sorry mate, you and your ilk have lost any moral authority you once imagined you had and every bloody time you run this line I will hopefully be there to remind you of that fact.'

yeah I know Steelie you god haters very happy to hide the likes of Epstein, Weinstein and other Hollywood deviants. And lets not forget all the homosexual priests. Then again someone filled with such hatred is blinded to the obvious.

Dear runner,

You write;

"yeah I know Steelie you god haters very happy to hide the likes of Epstein, Weinstein and other Hollywood deviants"

What? Epstein's mates included Trump and Prince Andrew.

It was the Me Too movement which was kicked off by someone coming forward about Weinstein yet you slammed it by saying; "Hollywood preaching on morals is like paedophile priests preaching on childcare."

You have been utterly dismissive of women standing up to abuse. You are an enabler my friend without a single drop of moral credibility on this.

Slink off why don't you.

SR,

What is clear is that not only has a precedent been set, but you have accepted it and as usual are trying to deflect with a pathetic attempt at semantics. The meaning of " I think a clear if not legal precedent has been set" is clear for anyone other than a moron and the example that you gave is not even vaguely equivalent.

Dear Shadow Minister,

So we have gone from “I never claimed that a legal precedent was set” and “There is no precedent” to;

“a precedent been set”.

Mate I'm sorry but I think the even more discerning readers will be having a hard time keeping up.

SR,

I am sure that the only people reading my posts that are confused are the ones that are as dumb as a post.

To use small words that even you can grasp, I claimed that a non legal precedent was created that most newspapers seem to agree with.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Sure mate.

Reflux says:”Bloody hell mate, you're still alive?’
Yes. I will see you out if your mental capacity is any indication of your general condition
Well good on you, {to reciprocate the unwelcome and inappropriate familiarity you inflicted on me.). And why should your incapacity in English and the law justify reference of me back to Shadow Minister to sort out your nonsense..
You must have missed a lot of English lessons at school to preserve your state of ignorance.
I congratulate Falau on his success

Dear Leo Lane,

My goodness old chap, you could have at least got the poor blighter's name correct. It is Folau not Falau. Manners old boy.

However it is probably a little rich of me to expect someone well ensconced in their dotage to completely have their wits about them. Therefore mate, I will cut you some slack.

Anyway you may well see me out. The preservatory properties of the pickling potions are likely to stand you in good stead.

Sherry anyone?

SR,

Finally you get the picture.

Next time you struggle with big words like precedent, I suggest you try looking them up at:

https://www.dictionary.com/

I have absolutely nothing to offer when it comes to talking about sport, cars and fishing, and other such stuff like that. I leave it to the experts.

Reflux says:” The preservatory properties of the pickling potions are likely to stand you in good stead.

Sherry anyone?”

I had my first glass of poison in 953; shortly after I started National Service, and my last in 1977, after I ceased poisoning myself
I have had a couple of heart arrests, but none since I cut out heavy exercise in the gym, so I have only been dead twice, and that was in the last 2 years .My experience was similar to Packer’s, regarding death. “There’s nothing there".
“Preservatory” does not appear to be an English word but more like a baseless concoction of an uneducated person, like yourself,with no engliish. You really need a course in English, to compensate for your schoolboy delinquency, and general illiteracy.

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote;

"“Preservatory” does not appear to be an English word but more like a baseless concoction of an uneducated person, like yourself,with no engliish. You really need a course in English, to compensate for your schoolboy delinquency, and general illiteracy."

Loosen up old cock, you witnessed a protologism become a neologism so you really should be thanking me. (BTW English has only a single 'i').

Anyway, good to see you still kicking.

Reflux, that is a heap of rubbish, typical of you. Protologism is a term invented in the early 2000s by Mikhail Epstein, an American literary theorist, to refer to a new word which has not gained wide acceptance in the language. A protologism becomes a neologism as soon as it appears in published press, on a website or book independent from the coiner, which Reflux asserts to be himself.
When and where did you coin the word, Reflux?. How do you assert its publication to be independent of yourself, Reflux?

Further proof of your lack of education is not needed,, Reflux. It is painfully obvious that your actions are those of an uneducated ignoramus.
“Preservatory” is not a new word,it is an obsolete English word so is not a neologism when published in circumstances obviously not applicable,I n any event, to a change of status of this word
You have reverted to making a fool of yourself again with each of your posts

Leo,

SR can't even grasp the meaning of precedent.

No, S.M but he can follow his own precedent of making a fool of himself with each of his posts.
He remains delusional

Dear Leo Lane,

This is a term I usually reserve for Shadow Minister but you are fitting the bill to a tee.

You are as slippery as a butcher's dick.

First you assert that “Preservatory” wasn't an English word but “a baseless concoction of an uneducated person”.

Now you are asserting it is an English word but it fell into disuse?

Well make up your bloody mind old cock, tis one or the other. Actually what has happened is you finally decided to check didn't you.

I was hoping to have you dig yourself a little deeper hole before sticking this under your gouty old proboscis;

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/preservatory

It is of course a word and it is still in current use. First coined by the Bishop of Norwich in the 1500s.

Here is a business selling preserves which calls itself The Preservatory.

http://thepreservatory.com/

Very much in current use.

Oh I do enjoy educating the uneducated. You have been schooled old boy. Do take it with a bit of grace this time.