Jon Ralph and his hand grenade.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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
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.
posted above..
If Trigg receives a ban then it is not defamation, there has to be an untruth unless it's clearly used to incite.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ha ha good stuffposted above..
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.
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.
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.
he was injured a fair chunk of 2013Wondering if Betts might have a case, given the implication that he virtually tanked his last year at Carlton.
Wondering if Betts might have a case, given the implication that he virtually tanked his last year at Carlton.
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.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.
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.
The last bit was more tongue in cheekAre 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.