by Aardvark Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:07 pm
filthridden wrote:
For me, the key difference is the majority of those players have admitted guilt or paid their penance.
Folau has refused to do so and even after getting a clause in his ARU contract to stop him continuing to do it, he continued to do it.
Pearce although clearly a repeat offender at least gives the PR of "I'm sorry, I know what I did was wrong" whereas Folau dug his heels in and took his lawyers against his former employer in Australia.
You're right in that we allow the likes of Packer, Ferguson, Lodge etc back in... I'm all for giving people a second chance but I can understand why people would not want to, particularly due to the amount of players who seem to take that second chance and walk straight down the same path.
Packer, Lodge etc have turned their lives around and now mentor youth, hell Lodge even stopped a woman from being attacked the other day so the opportunity for rehabilitation is definitely there.
If Folau came out and said what he said was wrong and showed understanding of how he hurt people then I would 100% be for welcoming him back into the code.
That's how I see it.
How the NRL sees it is probably quite different. I wonder what the legal stand point is for refusing him a contract.
This is a good post. The ARU didn't sack Folau because he held those beliefs they sacked him because he used his profile as a player to promote those beliefs (Which ran counter to the values of the code and probably more importantly their sponsors).
If he can't put a lid on it until after he finishes playing the he shouldn't expect to earn the $$. When you work for someone, like it or not, you represent them...particularly in a public facing industry like sport (but I'm sure if any of us made front page news for something that reflects badly on our employer we would be given the arse).
I don't give a flying one what he believes, but if he is using his profile as an employee of my organisation to push an agenda that runs counter to my values then I start to care a lot more.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that his family are trying to found their own more fundamentalist version of Hillsong, so in a way it's still all about the $$$