Another potential team has closed the door on Folau
NZ Herald
Rugby Australia (RA) CEO Raelene Castle didn't slam the door shut on Israel Folau, diplomatically responding "never say never" when asked if she could see a way back for him in rugby, but at least one potential lifeline for the 30-year-old has been cut off.
CEO of South African Super Rugby franchise the Bulls, Alfonso Meyer, revealed he was contacted to gauge his interest in recruiting the former Wallaby but said Folau is simply too controversial a figure to take a risk on.
Folau and RA reached a confidential out-of-court settlement this week after he chased $14 million in compensation for what he claimed was wrongful termination when the governing body sacked him for saying on Instagram "hell awaits" gay people.
And while the fullback would still be a valuable asset to any team on the field, off it, he's too much of a liability.
Meyer said exactly that when discussing why the Bulls weren't interested in pursuing Folau after being contacted by a lawyer. It's unclear whether the lawyer was from the footy player's camp or not, but regardless, Meyer's view remained firm.
"I'm not sure if it is Folau's lawyer, but a lawyer approached us to hear if we are interested in contracting him," Meyer said in an interview with Netwerk24.
"Initially I was excited but if you look at this matter with a sober mind then it's simply not worth the risk. He is controversial and you'll expose yourself by contracting him.
"It's a pity because he is a very special player.
"He is probably amongst the top two or three players in the world. If it wasn't for his comments, we would have given our all to have him in the group."
It's impossible to imagine Folau ever playing rugby in Australia again and the NRL has said it won't register a contract with him because of his stance on homosexuality, so if he wants to continue his career, then looking overseas is his best option.
Varying reports of how much RA paid Folau to end their legal standoff have emerged, but Castle said rumours of an $8 million settlement were "wildly inaccurate". Suggestions of a pay-off between $2 million and $5 million have also been raised, but RA is determined to keep the final figure under wraps.
While there was concern the money used to pay Folau would take cash away from grassroots rugby, RA chairman Cameron Clyne assured fans that isn't the case.
"This (settlement) will not have one impact on community rugby — we're emphatic about that," Clyne said on Ben Fordham's 2GB radio show on Friday.
"We did not want to have a situation where by prolonging this case and paying legal fees we were going to damage community rugby.
"We got to a number with Israel Folau's side where it was cheaper for us to settle than to continue to run the case. It is not our job to take money away from community rugby to run the case."
This article was first published in the New Zealand Herald and is republished here with permission.
Latest Comments
I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.
Go to commentsYeah, and ours is waaay bigger than yours. Just as you's get a semi…oh hold on that never happens
Go to comments