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.