Aussie Pro Rugby
-
It's a bullshit article. It's that classic lie that politicians use: 'you spend ALL your time talking about X, but neglect Y which is FAR more important'.
They had one meeting with Izzy. Hardly taking up all of their time. And there has been huge public outcry about the issue, so I think a meeting was definitely warranted.
And then he just goes into the usual 'get off my lawn' patter, where the solution to everything is to get in a time machine and go back 25 years. Get rid of the NRC, bring back Bob Dwyer and Ealesy and the boys because things were simpler then and you could call winger a fag and an Islander a coconut and everyone would just have a beer and a laugh and go out there and beat the bloody All Blacks without the PC brigade whinging because we're Aussie blokes and that's just what we do.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
And there has been huge public outcry about the issue, so I think a meeting was definitely warranted.
I wouldn't confuse a few people making noise with numbers of public who actually care to the point it would change their relationship with rugby.
All the ARU had to do is say "we have an inclusive policy, we don't share his stated position, but he's entitled to it."
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
And there has been huge public outcry about the issue, so I think a meeting was definitely warranted.
I wouldn't confuse a few people making noise with numbers of public who actually care to the point it would change their relationship with rugby.
All the ARU had to do is say "we have an inclusive policy, we don't share his stated position, but he's entitled to it."
Yep, this.
I'm with Alan on this - I don't agree with Israel, but FFS he's entitled to be a christian and believe what he likes. Heck, most christian churches are split on this too
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I wouldn't confuse a few people making noise with numbers of public who actually care to the point it would change their relationship with rugby.
All the ARU had to do is say "we have an inclusive policy, we don't share his stated position, but he's entitled to it."
He's the biggest player in the game, by a country mile. His comment has affected his standing with sponsors, and with fans of the game.
While I agree that it won't cause people to walk away, I think it's been big enough to warrant a meeting. Not to silence him, or condemn him, but to see if steps can be taken to avoid any further backlash or comments that may be perceived to be divisive.
I'd say that's a pretty standard step that an employer would take when an action by an employee has caused a reaction like this one has.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
He's the biggest player in the game, by a country mile. His comment has affected his standing with sponsors, and with fans of the game.
Which of his sponsors have publicly distanced themselves from his comments? The ARU may have to field some uncomfortable calls from sponsors but the answer writes itself:
- This has got you media coverage you don't have to pay for.
- He's entitled to his beliefs, just as you're entitled to yours.
- Make an unnecessary issue of it and he's likely to walk, reducing the return on your investment.
Quite frankly a mature organisation that engages in sponsorship would write the same type of response I wrote earlier. And it goes a long way to placating people like me; who actually spend money on the product rather than people who couldn't give a shit about the game and are too poor to fly anything other than Jetstar.
-
No sponsors publicly, but I have heard there have been some moves in private.
And I think you underestimate the depth of sentiment on this issue. Whilst nobody is trying to silence him, the comment has alienated him to a fair chunk of the fan base.
The sentiment hasn't been whipped up by RA at all. Their initial response mirrored yours, in fact. But as the issue continued to dominate headlines, I think it's appropriate that they had a private discussion with him.
They have done OK to navigate a pretty tricky issue IMO, with a wide array of opinions on the subject - ranging from yours to some who think he should be thrown out of the game.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
They have done OK to navigate a pretty tricky issue IMO, with a wide array of opinions on the subject - ranging from yours to some who think he should be thrown out of the game.
That's not a wide array. My opinion is bang in the middle of the extremes that want to tell other people how to think and what to say.
-
Firstly, if anyone has read the Politics forum you'll now how critical I am of Islam, but I really hate the "if he was a Muslim then X, Y, Z" argument. He's not a Muslim, this has nothing to do with Islam, so fuck off with that shit.
As @barbarian says it's a pretty tricky time to be an organisation like the ARU. If anyone associated with them says something the lynch mob feels is out of line, then the media picks it up and plasters it all over the headlines for clicks/revenue, and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
@antipodean also makes a good point that those idiots on social media are rarely representative of the wider population, who generally have better things to do then get worked up over things like this.
So it's a pretty fine balance and I don't know that there is an obvious "right" way to handle the outrage mob. Personally I'd look to push the line that we are not a political organisation, our employees views do not represent ours, but we believe in their rights to freedom of speech and expression as per the law.
Then I'd try and say nothing more on the issue and let it blow over. The outrage mob will soon find something else to complain about as they have very short attention spans, and this will all be a distant memory. The worst thing you can do is continue to comment which effectively just pours fuel on the fire.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It's a bullshit article. It's that classic lie that politicians use: 'you spend ALL your time talking about X, but neglect Y which is FAR more important'.
They had one meeting with Izzy. Hardly taking up all of their time. And there has been huge public outcry about the issue, so I think a meeting was definitely warranted.
And then he just goes into the usual 'get off my lawn' patter, where the solution to everything is to get in a time machine and go back 25 years. Get rid of the NRC, bring back Bob Dwyer and Ealesy and the boys because things were simpler then and you could call winger a fag and an Islander a coconut and everyone would just have a beer and a laugh and go out there and beat the bloody All Blacks without the PC brigade whinging because we're Aussie blokes and that's just what we do.
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
What I'm interested in is the blatant hypocrisy between a sponsor being concerned about their image because a player said something homophobic but having no problem entering into a multimillion (billion?) dollar partnership with the flagship carrier of a nation where homosexuality is illegal. You also have sporting bodies cracking down mercilessly on players who might say something in the heat of the moment on the field, but who also have no problems taking millions in sponsorship and naming rights from companies representing nations where you are imprisoned if you are homosexual.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
It's been solid back page content for the past week. I suppose we don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but I'd call that a fair outcry.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
I agree totally. We're following a pretty familiar outrage cycle here. It will all blow over soon.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It's a bullshit article. It's that classic lie that politicians use: 'you spend ALL your time talking about X, but neglect Y which is FAR more important'.
They had one meeting with Izzy. Hardly taking up all of their time. And there has been huge public outcry about the issue, so I think a meeting was definitely warranted.
And then he just goes into the usual 'get off my lawn' patter, where the solution to everything is to get in a time machine and go back 25 years. Get rid of the NRC, bring back Bob Dwyer and Ealesy and the boys because things were simpler then and you could call winger a fag and an Islander a coconut and everyone would just have a beer and a laugh and go out there and beat the bloody All Blacks without the PC brigade whinging because we're Aussie blokes and that's just what we do.
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
What I'm interested in is the blatant hypocrisy between a sponsor being concerned about their image because a player said something homophobic but having no problem entering into a multimillion (billion?) dollar partnership with the flagship carrier of a nation where homosexuality is illegal. You also have sporting bodies cracking down mercilessly on players who might say something in the heat of the moment on the field, but who also have no problems taking millions in sponsorship and naming rights from companies representing nations where you are imprisoned if you are homosexual.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
That's the problem with corporate virtue signalling. They claim to "care" about particular issues but if there is $$ on the line for their stakeholders...
They really should just not be political. We have laws around freedom of speech, leave it at that and stop trying to shove ideologically driven ideas down everyone's throats.
I blame it on HR departments. They are just a complete waste of time and money, if I had my way I'd get rid of pretty much the whole department at my work and just hold people leaders accountable for doing their job.
-
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
It's been solid back page content for the past week. I suppose we don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but I'd call that a fair outcry.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
I agree totally. We're following a pretty familiar outrage cycle here. It will all blow over soon.
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
-
@chris-b said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
The Fern is different!! Just don't mention the Cookie Monster...
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
OK. Well let's go a different metric - I've had more than a few conversations at work about it. My girlfriend (not a huge rugby head but understands the game thankfully) has wanted to chat about it. My mum brought it with me yesterday.
Now this may not constitute 'outrage' but I certainly think there has been a very high interest.
-
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@chris-b said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
The Fern is different!! Just don't mention the Cookie Monster...
I'm afraid not. We are all now "Internet Personalities".
We should be fucking ashamed!
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
OK. Well let's go a different metric - I've had more than a few conversations at work about it. My girlfriend (not a huge rugby head but understands the game thankfully) has wanted to chat about it. My mum brought it with me yesterday.
Now this may not constitute 'outrage' but I certainly think there has been a very high interest.
I just had my kid at a 3 day rugby camp and nobody even mentioned it. There is only "high" interest because the media keeps fanning the flames.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I just had my kid at a 3 day rugby camp and nobody even mentioned it. There is only "high" interest because the media keeps fanning the flames.
Of course. But it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Rugby journos are on it because it's broken beyond the sport, and it's probably getting good clicks/comments online.
But I've forgotten what we're even arguing about now, so I'll tap out here.
-
-
I thought actually a fair article from Jones - as an opinion piece anyway. It's not written as fact, and presents one side of things.
Rugby has taken some decent strides over the years in ensuring acceptance for people who bat for the other team. It's most high profile ref is open, a lions captain is open & then you have well recognised and supported gay rugby competitions and teams. This didn't happen overnight.
Folau posting things like this could be read as taking some backward steps and in a public forum, does need to be dealt with. Yes, there are contradictions all over the show, but the ARU almost has an obligation to World Rugby to condemn.
