So they paid out the fundamentalist??

Why?

I'd have though that every player contract would have had an exit clause should a player be unable to take the field long term. I imagine this would normally be for health reasons. But I would have thought other reasons could also be argued?

A large part of the player contingent not wanting to have anything to do with you would surely disqualify you from selection? Rugby being a team game and all. Should this team mate lack of respect be ongoing I would have thought it was a sure trigger to activate that part of the contract?

Or they could have just had him assessed as mentally unfit.. ..his imaginary god burning everybody with fires and all.

Come on RA lawyers. Do your fucking job!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antiussentiment

Why?

I'd have though that every player contract would have had an exit clause should a player be unable to take the field long term. I imagine this would normally be for health reasons. But I would have thought other reasons could also be argued?

A large part of the player contingent not wanting to have anything to do with you would surely disqualify you from selection? Rugby being a team game and all. Should this team mate lack of respect be ongoing I would have thought it was a sure trigger to activate that part of the contract?

Or they could have just had him assessed as mentally unfit.. ..his imaginary god burning everybody with fires and all.

Come on RA lawyers. Do your fucking job!!

---

It wasn’t in his contract. I don’t buy in to the Code of Conduct nonsense that doesn’t wash against the law of the land. Cheika, Pulver and uncle Cam broke it numerous times and got extensions or in terms of Pulver weren’t dismissed. Beale and Pocock also have broken it.

The code of conduct argument might work in court, but it's far from a sure thing. It would depend on any contract clauses that actually empower the code (or generic lauses about abiding by company policy) or the paper trail that has been built to show that abiding by the code is a requirement. Harder but not impossible to prove if folau hasn't written to accept it as his responsibility.

I don't buy the line that it was cheaper to pay out than try the case. If your argument is rock solid, you'll expect a swift trial and a good chance of being awarded costs. That alone leads me to believe that the ball was dropped in preparing the dismissal.

anyway he and his wife ride off into the sunset with their saddlebags chocka with the folding stuff,while all us poor bastards can look forward to is the prospect of eternal damnation(i think i qualify by the alcoholic rule,plus a few others)
such is life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIGS20

The code of conduct argument might work in court, but it's far from a sure thing. It would depend on any contract clauses that actually empower the code (or generic lauses about abiding by company policy) or the paper trail that has been built to show that abiding by the code is a requirement. Harder but not impossible to prove if folau hasn't written to accept it as his responsibility.

I don't buy the line that it was cheaper to pay out than try the case. If your argument is rock solid, you'll expect a swift trial and a good chance of being awarded costs. That alone leads me to believe that the ball was dropped in preparing the dismissal.

---

The signs were there when Hore resigned from the Tahs without notice.

"So they paid out the fundamentalist?"

I never heard Smoko had been sacked.

Is that why he's in Hawaii instead of, you know, leading the country?