The article commences: The first law of Holes is an adage which states that “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.
Cameron Clyne and Raelene Castle still don’t seem to understand that digging a hole makes it deeper and therefore harder to get back out.
The expression is a metaphor that when, in an untenable position, it is best to stop carrying on and making the situation worse.
OK, start with some fluff, Alan.
Am I the only person imploring Rugby Australia to stop digging?
Ask John, Alan, he thinks there about 20,000. It's not about you, Alan.
Some substance is coming ...
In the wake of the inability of Rugby Australia to reach agreement through a Fair Work Commission conciliation hearing last Friday,
There were two parties to the conciliation process, Alan. They both failed.
Cameron Clyne finally broke cover, speaking to what he believed would be a sympathetic journalist at Nine newspapers.
Alan knows what this fellow believes?
Substance is coming ...
He argued how offended he was that people would dare to suggest that Rugby Australia’s decision-making would be influenced by sponsors.
So this is Alan's version of what Clyne said. Not even a direct quote?
But in the first two paragraphs of the story in which Clyne made his debut on the Folau affair, he argued that he wanted to make it clear that if they hadn’t taken this action against Folau, they wouldn’t have had any sponsors.
But that observation doesn't preclude RA taking the action it did for other reasons ... like ... say ... breach of contract.
Is this man a complete fool or does he think we are?
He must have thought he would grow hairs on his chest by saying that the administration had no option but to sack Israel Folau.
Huh?
And then this, “(the alternative) would be that we would have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be associated with social media posts of that sort and that includes government because we have also heard from them … We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we are not providing a workplace that is safe or respectful.”
So, according to Alan, RA can't have more than one reason for taking the action it did? It can't be that their primary reason was breach of contract and the wider consequences of Folau's actions?
It can't be that RA negotiated the contract because of its own policies and the effect of Folau's actions on the RA 'brand' (and therefore sponsors)?
You get the picture! The hole gets deeper.
Any number of legal entities have argued that Clyne has just opened yet another legal avenue for the very smart outfit representing Israel Folau.
Paid for by other people.
Put simply, if Rugby Australia breached its contract with Folau, were sponsors a powerful and influential force behind the breach?
Could be. Could be that RA's policies with regard to how players represent them are in accord with the sponsors expectations. In fact, why would a sponsor do anything else?
As this newspaper reported last Monday, Sydney barrister Jeffrey Phillips SC — who specialises in employment law — told The Australian that, “having read Mr Clyne’s comments, there was a real possibility of another legal Ave for Folau’s team. He suggested that if Rugby Australia breached its contract with Folau by sacking him, then sponsors induced that breach of contract.”
Jeffrey Phillips was quoted as saying, “If it be the case that sponsors or even the government, has placed any pressure on Rugby Australia to terminate his contract, then that raises prospects of interference with contractual relations and aspects of Australian Competition and Consumer Law, in particular, Section 45D, dealing with secondary boycotts.”
And I'm sure RA's lawyers will present an equally compelling case. Let us know when, in the interest of balance, AJ presents that to the readers.
And on the question of the "quiet Australians" - all 20,000 and more of them, the article offers this little note: The response from “quiet Australians” demonstrates quite clearly that not only are corporations and sporting administrations out of step with community values, but also, they are appropriating to themselves the mantle of moral custodians which in itself is an exercise in arrogance and self-importance.
On that basis, the millions of other Australians who didn't contribute -- let's call them the even quieter Australians -- demonstrate the opposite.
The most reliable indicator of 'community values' of recent times was the plebiscite and that tells a different story of who is out of step.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »