Malthouse claims Trigg admits Adelaide had Betts 'stitched up' with 18 months to go on his contract

Remove this Banner Ad

Can people just stop posting links to his articles already? Do any of you understand how the media works? Do you honestly think giving Rucci more web traffic is going to hurt him somehow.

People need to smarten the **** up.
Also the AFL is not even investigating it. Beat. Up.
 
That makes no sense though so Mick os full of it.

I reckon he just misinterpreted what Trigg said in what was probably a casual conversation. Having said that, it makes more sense for a player to want to come to the AFC in 2012 when we were on top of the ladder and almost guaranteed a premiership in the near future, rather than 2013 when we were a shambles who had lost draft picks and couldn't keep interstate talent.
 
11036701_10155691848930389_489599375430162557_n.jpg


What about Niel Craig?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you were believing Malthouse's version of events.

No, Actually. Its the fact he said anything about list management at AFC is stupid. I am with Bicks, The crows couldn't have done anything wrong because Betts was a Restricted Free Agent. I believe Malthouse never bothered to understand that point, look it up he just said it. I don't think he wanted to keep Betts anyhow as I think its quite clear they didn't get along.
 
Can people just stop posting links to his articles already? Do any of you understand how the media works? Do you honestly think giving Rucci more web traffic is going to hurt him somehow.

People need to smarten the **** up.

Roach is resigned to using click bait instead of accurate, quality journalism. No surprises there.
 
Today would have to go down as one of the most interesting Tuesdays in an AFL season of all time.
 
No, Actually. Its the fact he said anything about list management at AFC is stupid. I am with Bicks, The crows couldn't have done anything wrong because Betts was a Restricted Free Agent. I believe Malthouse never bothered to understand that point, look it up he just said it. I don't think he wanted to keep Betts anyhow as I think its quite clear they didn't get along.
That's part of why they hired him! Because he has such knowledge! Could you imagine him saying to Carlton "Oh sorry, I can't say anything about what we did at the Crows"
 
I'd just refer AFL House to the contract that was lodged with them, ask them to check the date on it, then make a polite request that they let Carlton know to keep their in house shitfight to themselves.

I would also assume that Trigg signed a Confidential Disclosure Agreement before exiting the club, and if he did, I'd be reviewing that agreement very closely to see if Trigg is in breach of it. Had enough of this ******* damaging our club. Even if we have done nothing wrong, which I suspect is the case, it's currently dragging our name through the mud again.
 
Last edited:
Roach is resigned to using click bait instead of accurate, quality journalism. No surprises there.

We all know what Rucci is. I just wish people would stop giving the creep free publicity by linking to his articles. It should be a bannable offense and I'm surprised the mods allow it given how precious they usually are.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ok we got Mcdimwit sacked we need to get Rowie axed now. What a clown. Only a deadest moron could carry on about Malthouse and Betts the way his is. He wouldn't lie! Why sack him, what a gutless board! haha you are the stupidest link Stephen.
 
You won't believe what Allefgib told me about the voting process for new mods. Said it was a sham.

See, I can just make up a quote.
Hope Rooch writes a story about me getting a lifelong ban.
 
Just heard Trigg's explanation again - he did put it into context - in short, 'stitched up' was in reference to the extensive process AFC went through in weighing up Bett's worth(not money worth) to the AFC, and coming to the decision, yes, that's what the club needed.

It wasn't 'stitched up' as in they had Betts agreeing to come to AFC, nor that he'd signed with the AFC.
 
Assuming all is above board with the Eddie Betts contract, no real issue with Trigg in this particular case, was probably a quick "we had him 18 months ago", meaning we had identified him (clubs mentioned plenty of times they work at least 18 months out on these deals), talked to his agent, and had him interested beginning 18 months out. Not paperwork signed and deal done 18 months early.

Malthouse knew what he was doing, seems like something he would do. Craig wouldn't of done it, Sanderson probably had plenty he could of dropped on his way out since he was there in 2012, but didn't, and I don't think I can imagine Walsh having a tantrum on his way out either, he's team first compared to Malthouses me first. You just don't talk about other clubs business in public like that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top