Folau - Higgins/Lehrmann P193

oneonesit wrote: rusty nails wrote: oneonesit wrote: Just tried reading this thread again - got up to about page 20 & gave up. What is clear is that many got it wrong. It was not a clear cut breach of his contract. If it was clear cut RA would not have settled. Big business (including insurance companies) are not in the habit of throwing "big" money away if they think they have a case with minimal risk re its success. i understand many cases get settled out of court - however i remember reading somewhere the legal liability to RA if the case went to the High Court was less than 2 million (& that RA had budgeted for this possibility). Izzy got a lot more than that - possibly around 5 million - so there must have been a fair bit of uncertainty with the case. What a load of tosh. You have no idea of the culture of RA in regards to how they settle disputes. You have zero understanding of what Insurance companies take into account, before settling. BIG money, no they don’t settle early for that.Nuisance money they do. Bearing in mind, scale costs do not come close to recouping actual costs. One thing is certain, any settlement this early in the process, reflects a weakness in one parties position. Bear in mind, in the most recent article you have linked, his legal team decided very early on, that they would only win by public relations, not by the law. Lawyers with strong cases, focus on the law, not spin. The only one spinning the tosh in here tonight Rusty is you. You would be the only bloke in the country making RA to be the winners in this dispute. They sacked him with no payout / no nothing - remember ? Gee's you cannot be that thick ! The only way RA could WIN is if IZZY stayed sacked - got no apology - got no loot - & the judge said he broke his code of conduct contract.

Oh dear,
I’m not claiming victory on their behalf.
I’m disputing your assertion that
a) they had no legal basis to terminate him
b) that Izzy won HUUGE.... no one has any idea of the settlement.
c) that RA making an apology is vindication for Izzy, when he also made an apology that he vowed he would never make.

Further I dispute your assertions that he has held the line all through the process.

I note that you don’t dispute he lied to the poor gullible Christians about his true motives,and tried to deflect it with a ridiculous “what about them.”

Do you really need to have it explained why all CEOs dont fund all of their employers litigation costs.......

26 

Thats why Izzy came out all guns blazing after the settlement was announced. He basically gave no ground on what he said in his original post. Said he was entitled to say it

oneonesit wrote: 1 - Correct ; RA didn't go the distance 2 - Your in Fitzy's 200k bracket i presume  3 - Folau never apologised for the statement he made other than to say he apologised if the game of rugby was damaged. He didn't apologise for the comment to whom it was aimed at. RA on the other hand specifically apologised to Folau for any damage their action may have had on HIM. Big difference there Rusty. Suggest you have a good read of it.

Now you’re being ridiculous, Izzy swore it was about standing up for an issue,never pursued that issue legally, and settled for piss off money from the insurers.
He clearly didn’t go the distance,and clearly never intended to.

No I’m not in any camp, 200k is just as ridiculous as your claims of $8M.

Both parties apologised, using identical wording.
It’s not the massive victory you perversely think it is.

Liar,liar pants on fire.........

“Since my contract was terminated by Rugby Australia I’ve been overwhelmed and humbled by the support received from family, friends, fans and the public. Even people who don’t share my beliefs have defended my right to uphold and express them.
“They made me realise that I’m not just fighting for my future and family – I’m fighting for what’s right.
“But I can’t do it alone. If you want to join this journey with me, to fight for the right for freedom of religion, please donate. Thank you and God bless.”

rusty nails wrote: oneonesit wrote: Thats why Izzy came out all guns blazing after the settlement was announced. He basically gave no ground on what he said in his original post. Said he was entitled to say it How did he go with his crusade? Whoops, let’s not mention that little bit about him obtaining funds by deception......

Extremely well i would say. Crystallised the whole Religious Expression concept that had been bandied about for a number of years. I think your failed mob indicated after their last loss they needed to to be more tolerant of folk with traditional religious views. And now up pops the new Religious Expression Legislation. So yes - Izzy has done very well actually.

No doubt IMHO izzy won big time .      NO written contract for him to refrain from posting his Religious crap.

What am I missing something ....    What is a Fking "belief".    AND what strength has that ( Probable delusion ) if you can't back it up with facts .

    Pull down the flag on these "Beliefs"     ...     I don't know that our globe is warming , or if it is in the warmer stage of a ( say) 500 year cycle.
    I don't know if all those people Izzy mentioned are going to hell ....
I don't know where hell is , or heaven or if they even exist ...    belief in such things is BS.

When was our worst drought ....   I believe   hahahahaha
The most well known of these are the Federation drought (1895-1903), the World War II drought (1939-45), and the recent Millennium drought (1997-2009). All three droughts were devastating to agriculture and the broader economy, but each was distinct in its spatial footprint, duration, and intensity.May 1, 2018.

We may be heading into our worst drought ever..

Well if you " Believe " get out there and Pray Pray Pray .

AND sack the Baxstrd if he wastes your time.    Or is that She.

oneonesit wrote: Now c'mon Rusty - i wont be happy until you spit it out for all too see. I wouldn't want anyone thinking i was "perverse". Izzy got sacked by RA. They claimed that he broke their Code Of Conduct in the Agreement. Izzy said he was unfairly terminated . So that's the starting point  - yes ? RA TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT. Izzy ended up getting a sizable payout (most likely 4 to 5 million), plus an apology plus much public adoration from those like minded. He was acting like a winner straight after the announcement, & he still walks around looking like a winner (cpd to Castle - who looks like a loser). So please Rusty - tell me IZZY won so i can go to bed. I know you struggle with that concept - its just that sometimes its better just to suck it up so you can move on. I'm here to help you know (i helped Whale once - the blokes never looked back).

Allegedly settled for between 4 and $5m.Which was far less than his on-going contract potential and only a couple of years worth of his current contract.  Plus he received an apology from Rugby Australia.  Future earning potential: far less than would otherwise been the case.  He's a winner?

*to

It's tough out here.

Always something to be gained in the name of Science .

That word --WHALE-- will eventually be the worlds most effective emetic.

I think the Reverend should beat his way down to poor Cobargo and preach to them how they are being punished for the outcome of the same sex marriage poll.  

Or maybe Izzy should just relax with like minded people who adore him. Or spend time with his gorgeous wife. Or pass on his thoughts on religious expression that has helped facilitate new draft laws in the area. Or maybe he might just earn a few more million in some second rate competition somewhere around the globe. On the run you reckon Tonto -  i'd say the world was Izzys oyster - & that gets right up your snoz doesnt it ? Raelene on the otherhand, lets just say here today - gone tomorrow !

Who knows. Haven't heard boo out of her for months. When does Clyne go ?