Malthouse claims Trigg admits Adelaide had Betts 'stitched up' with 18 months to go on his contract
- Thread starter Allefgib
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Moderator
- #702
Yet it was widely reported that Port had numerous meetings with Ryder long before he announced his departure from Essendon.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 43,603
- 21,025
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
There is one and only one thing that needs to be said here.
If Eddie Betts said he was going to adelaide 412 years ago it doesnt matter.
As long as he didnt sign a contract, there is NOTHING wrong with it.
Phil Davis did the same thing. Told us he was leaving mid year. Now how is Eddie's one an issue, and Phil Davis not in that case?
Fact is Trigg told him that because he was privy to the information that Eddie was planning a move and had pretty much said yes to moving already (NOT ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE AFL RULES)
Nothing to see here
If Eddie Betts said he was going to adelaide 412 years ago it doesnt matter.
As long as he didnt sign a contract, there is NOTHING wrong with it.
Phil Davis did the same thing. Told us he was leaving mid year. Now how is Eddie's one an issue, and Phil Davis not in that case?
Fact is Trigg told him that because he was privy to the information that Eddie was planning a move and had pretty much said yes to moving already (NOT ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE AFL RULES)
Nothing to see here
Don Muraco
Club Legend
Maybe he was Lindy
LOL Rucci on AA. Came out swinging knowing he's been a thorough campaigner. Didn't work Rooch. Changes nothing - still a campaigner.
Heard a bit of that. Bicks stood up to him pretty well and challenged him on every point Rooch raised.
Rooch had more strawmen than a ******* corn farmer.
Rooch had more strawmen than a ******* corn farmer.
Still pretending Mick Malthouse is a male version of Mother Teresa though.
Rowe keeps saying "Mick doesn't make things up, he's very calculated, thats why I'm worried", that doesn't even make sense, somebody who is calculated is going to spin something to suite their agenda, thats the closest thing to making something up there is.
It's like Cornes with Dank, the funny thing is Cornes admitted he hadn't heard from Dank in ages and agreed with Bickley that he was probably using him to get a message out. If Malthouse wasn't being paid to talk to Fiveaa once a week Rowe's opinion of him would be completely different.
It's like Cornes with Dank, the funny thing is Cornes admitted he hadn't heard from Dank in ages and agreed with Bickley that he was probably using him to get a message out. If Malthouse wasn't being paid to talk to Fiveaa once a week Rowe's opinion of him would be completely different.
Yea. He admits Malthouse is smart and calculated, has a vendetta against Trigg and it was a well thought out comment that was meant to hurt Trigg, but "Why would he lie about it?!?!?"
Mick hasn't lied, Trigg did say what he said and confirmed it. It's just the context of the comment. Adelaide was into Betts long before his contract ended because we identified him as a need. Trigg was telling the Carlton board and executive that they need to start doing the same: identifying talent they want to aquire 12-24 months in advance.
Not defending Trigg but there is a context to everything.
Rowe: "one simple word: stitched up"
That's two words!
That's two words!
Yes, but did he use the words "stitched up" or "signed"? I know Trigg said about IDing Betts, but I don't doubt Malthouse put just enough spin on it to where it's vague enough not to be a direct accusation, but has enough on it to make you go "wait a minute..."
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
He used both. Stitched up he used first and then later in the same discussion he said signed.
Mick would have known the context of the conversation and I think the AFL should put the onus on Mick Malthouse to explain himself. He was a paid employee of the AFL at the time of that interview so the AFL should have every right to demand a please explain from him and potentially fine Malthouse for those comments especially as it appears to be completely baseless and impossible under AFL rules, so the comments are defaming to say the least. No AFL coach should be able to cut and run from comments made against other AFL clubs.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
The Phil Davis thing is amazing. He held a ******* press conference mid-season and said "I've signed with GWS." AFL's and the media's reaction that time? Meh.
It doesn't matter what Trigg says in the meeting. He could have told Carlton they had an agreement with Betts Parents from Birth that he would one day play for the crows. It means didly squat because the rules do not under any circumstance allow free movement of restricted FAs hence the name Restricted FA. This has just been a massive blow up over nothing lead by a deadset flog who knows nothing but wants everyone to think does.
Even better was Sheedys reply since they weren't allowed to sign him. Like "Wow, it's nice he wants to come here, I guess we'll have to consider taking him since he's just quit his current club"
I heard Rucci on 5aa and it was pathetic.
Bickley knocked him around the ring of truth like Mahummed Ali beating up a 45 to 50 year old woman (perhaps Bickley was too). Rucci was petulant and aggressive defending his indefensible actions. Every time Bickley nailed him with the truth, Rucci squealed louder than a fornicating pig.
The one thing that was overlooked was the poll Rucci ran as to what should the punishment be if found guilty - Rucci's article was all a virtual presumption of guilt without any of it based on fact. Rucci kept protesting his innocence and for them to ask Malthouse what he meant. Then why should Rucci write the offensive hurtful dribble that he did if he had no facts - which by his own admission he didn't.
So we have a sacked coach trying to get even with the CEO by making a controversial statement - about something which he Malthouse could not possible know - and a B grade reporter using this for his s**t-stirring offensive beat-up.
Pathetic!!
Bickley knocked him around the ring of truth like Mahummed Ali beating up a 45 to 50 year old woman (perhaps Bickley was too). Rucci was petulant and aggressive defending his indefensible actions. Every time Bickley nailed him with the truth, Rucci squealed louder than a fornicating pig.
The one thing that was overlooked was the poll Rucci ran as to what should the punishment be if found guilty - Rucci's article was all a virtual presumption of guilt without any of it based on fact. Rucci kept protesting his innocence and for them to ask Malthouse what he meant. Then why should Rucci write the offensive hurtful dribble that he did if he had no facts - which by his own admission he didn't.
So we have a sacked coach trying to get even with the CEO by making a controversial statement - about something which he Malthouse could not possible know - and a B grade reporter using this for his s**t-stirring offensive beat-up.
Pathetic!!
- Jun 10, 2009
- 29,795
- 44,888
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Malthouse would of known what Trigg meant in the meeting, and he would of known what he was doing when he spun it to mean something else in the interview and why he was doing it, Rowe is right on one point, he's very calculated.
The only way we could of broke a rule, like I believe Malthouse was implying, is by having a binding contract with Betts before the legal date. Even the free agency rules say something about the ability for there to be documents between a club and player as long as they mention they are non binding documents. It also says something about every FA contract must be ok'd by the AFL before being signed by the player.
We could of had a yes from Eddy 5 years ago as long as we had nothing that binds Eddy to that agreement before the FA period, and considering Betts whats considering offers from other clubs that pretty much rules that out.
You just don't talk about other clubs business like that in public, if he had a genuine issue bring it up with the AFL privately, I've lost a lot of respect for Malthouse over this.
The only way we could of broke a rule, like I believe Malthouse was implying, is by having a binding contract with Betts before the legal date. Even the free agency rules say something about the ability for there to be documents between a club and player as long as they mention they are non binding documents. It also says something about every FA contract must be ok'd by the AFL before being signed by the player.
We could of had a yes from Eddy 5 years ago as long as we had nothing that binds Eddy to that agreement before the FA period, and considering Betts whats considering offers from other clubs that pretty much rules that out.
You just don't talk about other clubs business like that in public, if he had a genuine issue bring it up with the AFL privately, I've lost a lot of respect for Malthouse over this.
Absolutely Mick understood what was said and what he himself said on Tuesday, I was just pointing out that everyone keeps asking "Why Would Mick Lie?" when there is clear evidence that no-one has lied, just some statements taken out of context.
Tex Support
Club Legend
- Oct 17, 2012
- 2,032
- 3,675
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Houston, UT Longhorns
He's a certified idiot.Rowe: "one simple word: stitched up"
That's two words!
Schhhhhhhlerppp!
There yarr, I rubber stamped it ya snoozer. It's certified.
