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

[Wood_Duck]

Jon Ralph and his hand grenade.

 

[DangerSloane]

The issue is that it wasn't during that 2 week window AND he said he had signed. He had to backpedal and the GWS coach and CEO had to do some major damage control.

Yeh see either way, you're allowed to agree to anything you like as long as you dont sign a contract.

You cant physically stop a player saying "at the end of my contract I'm going to Club x". Thats what it would've been. He would've been planning his move for a couple of years.

 

[weekend at bernies]

it was just plain bizarre

i'll post the screenshots later

 

[Jbudds]

No chance...you know what lawyers always say when you ask if you have a case?

Sure!

Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule (trivial ridicule or good natured humour is less likely to be problematic than derisory ridicule).

It is still state bound, though federalising it has started.

The only person in this situation that could POSSIBLY sue is Trigg, however he has enough previous that this comment could not damage his image any further.

Agree. Malthouse hasn't actually said or accused anyone of anything. Just made an innuendo. He certainly didn't accuse Trigg or the AFC of draft tampering. Just said that Betts had made his mind up to leave and that had an impact on the club.

 

[relapse]

Can't stop laughing at this being a Rucci Exclusive. Also like how we somehow tampered with the draft in free agency.

Crows will be cleared in Betts saga
RUCCI EXCLUSIVE: Adelaide will be cleared of draft-tampering allegations by the evidence of two AFL clubs that will say there was a genuine auction for Eddie Betts’ free agency signature.

"Rucci exclusive" is an oxymoron

 

[beartoo]

"Rucci exclusive" is an oxymoron

Delete exclusive, change and to a, delete oxy.

 

[Mattrox]

No chance...you know what lawyers always say when you ask if you have a case?

Sure!

Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule (trivial ridicule or good natured humour is less likely to be problematic than derisory ridicule).

It is still state bound, though federalising it has started.

The only person in this situation that could POSSIBLY sue is Trigg, however he has enough previous that this comment could not damage his image any further.

What if the comment MM made had fallout in the wider media?...... Like Rooch putting up a poll - inviting public opinion - of if Trigg should receive a life time ban. Can actions by others, be used as evidence that the comments did diminish Trigg's standing? Because if the comments were not made this guff would not exist.

 

[Smoooothy]

View attachment 138520

posted above..

 

[chiwigi]

What if the comment MM made had fallout in the wider media?...... Like Rooch putting up a poll - inviting public opinion - of if Trigg should receive a life time ban. Can actions by others, be used as evidence that the comments did diminish Trigg's standing? Because if the comments were not made this guff would not exist.

If Trigg receives a ban then it is not defamation, there has to be an untruth unless it's clearly used to incite.
But yes, the viral nature of the defamation will add weight to a claim.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Can't stop laughing at this being a Rucci Exclusive. Also like how we somehow tampered with the draft in free agency.

Crows will be cleared in Betts saga
RUCCI EXCLUSIVE: Adelaide will be cleared of draft-tampering allegations by the evidence of two AFL clubs that will say there was a genuine auction for Eddie Betts’ free agency signature.

Interesting wording used there... 'will say' can imply that it's not the truth, it's just that they will say something else.

 

[Mattrox]

If Trigg receives a ban then it is not defamation, there has to be an untruth unless it's clearly used to incite.
But yes, the viral nature of the defamation will add weight to a claim.

But we all strongly suspect that MM was burning down the house on his way out, throwing hand grenades. So it is very unlikely, that MM is dealing in "truth" when making these comments.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Yeh see either way, you're allowed to agree to anything you like as long as you dont sign a contract.

You cant physically stop a player saying "at the end of my contract I'm going to Club x". Thats what it would've been. He would've been planning his move for a couple of years.

Have a search for the articles with quotes around the time this all occurred. Davis said he had signed a contract with GWS and that money was the strong reason for him making that decision. Then there are quotes from our club talking about how we had seen the offer/contract and we offered more than we wanted to but it was far under what GWS had in front of Phil.

Davis didn't say at the end of my contract I'm going to the GWS, he said I've signed a contract with GWS to play for them next year and I think he even said the length of the contract. As Davis was only a second year player, and GWS was a recent creation there is no way he could have been planning his move for a couple of years. The Davis/GWS thing stinks to high heaven and the media were aware of it, the AFL was fully aware of it and nobody did anything about it.

 

[chiwigi]

But we all strongly suspect that MM was burning down the house on his way out, throwing hand grenades. So it is very unlikely, that MM is dealing in "truth" when making these comments.

If that is the case then Trigg would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with suing, though what MM said was suitably vague and could easily be argued as a matter of terminology.

Trigg suing would also have to show harm caused (none really unless he gets sacked because of it) cost incurred (none) etc.

People running off with the comment can't be blamed on Malthouse if he is only saying stitched up...if the Crows admit to talking to Betts beforehand (which they did and legitimately so) there is nothing for Malthouse to answer to as this can be taken any number of ways as can signed.

If Trigg does sue then the burden of proof will be on him, it's clear there are a few skeletons in the closet due to the fact that he even has a job at Carlton, there is no way he wants to head down that road.

 

[weekend at bernies]

posted above..

ha ha good stuff

 

[SmegHead]

But we all strongly suspect that MM was burning down the house on his way out, throwing hand grenades. So it is very unlikely, that MM is dealing in "truth" when making these comments.

Trigg already admitted that he said what he said with more context, It is just the use of the phrase "Stitched Up" that has thrown up the controversy. Numpties like Rowie will bleat on that "Mick wouldn't lie; he is a sharp, calculating mind", but there is a difference between plainface lying and saying something in the heat of the moment when emotions are running high and you are certain you are about to lose your job.

I would be disappointed if tonight on Fox Footy, after Mick cashes his million dollar cheque for the exclusive interview, he doesnt come out and says that what he said was slightly embellished and was not meant to be taken the way it was.

Furthermore, the AFL interviewed 8 people who were parties connected to whatever may have gone on. Was one of their calls to Malthouse asking him to clarify his statement? Why is Mick allowed to clam up and wait until money is thrown at him for an interview 3 days later?

 

[DangerSloane]

Have a search for the articles with quotes around the time this all occurred. Davis said he had signed a contract with GWS and that money was the strong reason for him making that decision. Then there are quotes from our club talking about how we had seen the offer/contract and we offered more than we wanted to but it was far under what GWS had in front of Phil.

Davis didn't say at the end of my contract I'm going to the GWS, he said I've signed a contract with GWS to play for them next year and I think he even said the length of the contract. As Davis was only a second year player, and GWS was a recent creation there is no way he could have been planning his move for a couple of years. The Davis/GWS thing stinks to high heaven and the media were aware of it, the AFL was fully aware of it and nobody did anything about it.

That's the thing though...you're allowed to do whatever you like as long as you don't sign the paper.
You can have your manager say right I want 4 years at 1m a year.
The club can then go 'yeah we'd do that'.

Both parties walk away with the player 'signed up' but nothing official has occurred.

To think that players only field offers once their contract up is fanciful. I know thats not what you're saying...but its an important point.

 

[relapse]

Have a search for the articles with quotes around the time this all occurred. Davis said he had signed a contract with GWS and that money was the strong reason for him making that decision. Then there are quotes from our club talking about how we had seen the offer/contract and we offered more than we wanted to but it was far under what GWS had in front of Phil.

Davis didn't say at the end of my contract I'm going to the GWS, he said I've signed a contract with GWS to play for them next year and I think he even said the length of the contract. As Davis was only a second year player, and GWS was a recent creation there is no way he could have been planning his move for a couple of years. The Davis/GWS thing stinks to high heaven and the media were aware of it, the AFL was fully aware of it and nobody did anything about it.

The Phil Davis and Tom Scully departures stunk to high heaven, but the AFL did nothing about them. This is why I don't think the AFL really want to open pandora's box on free agency negotiations as they've overlooked and rubber stamped far more blatant cases in the past like Davis/Scully.

 

[NikkiNoo]

That's the thing though...you're allowed to do whatever you like as long as you don't sign the paper.
You can have your manager say right I want 4 years at 1m a year.
The club can then go 'yeah we'd do that'.

Both parties walk away with the player 'signed up' but nothing official has occurred.

To think that players only field offers once their contract up is fanciful. I know thats not what you're saying...but its an important point.

It was spoken about in football circles that a contract HAD been signed. Fairly openly being talked about. No way was the AFL going to come down on their new love child though for breaking the laws of the games even before they started playing. That is what stinks to high heaven with a lot of us.

 

[Vader]

Wondering if Betts might have a case, given the implication that he virtually tanked his last year at Carlton.

 

[Smoooothy]

Wondering if Betts might have a case, given the implication that he virtually tanked his last year at Carlton.

he was injured a fair chunk of 2013

 

[NSWCROW]

Just listened to Rooch vs Bicks

What a sad little ferret he is......

 

[NikkiNoo]

Wondering if Betts might have a case, given the implication that he virtually tanked his last year at Carlton.

I think he might as there are two parts to it, that the implication was that he lied to Carlton about his intentions and had already agreed to terms with Adelaide and signed a 'secret deal'. The second that because of this he 'played cautiously' as Malthouse said because he wasn't interested in playing for Carlton. The second one ignores that his performance was likely affected by him breaking his jaw earlier in the season and then coming back to play after that type of injury.

 

[Redleg Crow]

The Law Talking Guy on MMM with Roo and Ditz said Trigg and Betts would have cause for a defamation case if they wanted to persue it.

When using a colloquial term like "stitched up" context is the key. When used by MM in that context it asserts, or is made to sound like a deal was already in place. I doubt anyone will sue, but it was interesting listening.

I think whether anyone will sue will depend on what Malthouse says tonight. The implication on Betts that he basically didn't try for a season and a bit is a fairly big slur on an AFL player's character by his own coach.

 

[Banshee23]

Listening to the Rucci v Bickley radio fight

This is hilarious. Rucci is getting shriller and shriller... Bickley has told him to calm down... "that's because I have facts"... "it's the headline"... "12th paragraph"... "maybe you should speak with your boss"... "can you hear the words coming out of your mouth?"

Pure Pwnage.

Is there a link where i can listen?

EDIT: nevermind, found it.

 

[WhySoSerious]

Are you kidding me???? Talk about being busted big time, no way can you escape that. Why is this not more common knowledge? wow. just wow.

The last bit was more tongue in cheek

I remember the topic being discussed on here sometime. Don't think it was actually ever officially confirmed as such though.