News ‘You’ve been wrong that many times’: Gus’ wild TV clash with reporter over Tino pub claims

[djdeep4172]

Bulldogs general manager Phil Gould has blown up in a furious exchange with a journalist over the club’s messy attempt to sign Titans superstar Tino Fa’asuamaleaui.

The pair were discussing Canterbury’s bid to sign Fa’asuamaleaui on a $4 million contract and a share of Laundy Hotels, which is a major sponsor of the club.

According to the Daily Telegraph who broke the story, Arthur Laundy said he would guarantee a 10 to 12 per cent annual return for players who invested in his business.

Gould: “Didn’t I just answer that. It’s made up. It’s made up. Someone has just made it up.”

Chammas: “To destabilise the Bulldogs?”

Gould: “100 per cent, 100 per cent. You do it yourself. You do it to me to destabilise me all the time. You’ve done it 100 times. You’ve been wrong that many times it’s not funny.”

Chammas: “What have I done?”

Gould: “Come on young whippersnapper. Plenty of times. Do you want me to list them for you. Plenty of times, plenty of times.”

Chammas: “Tell me.”

Gus: “I couldn’t be bothered, you’re not worth it. You’re not worth it.”

After the NRL blocked the deal, Gould denied the story despite Laundy being quoted saying his business had been in talks with the club.

“I’ve never spoken to Tino, I’ve never met Tino,” Gould said.

“I wouldn’t know who managed Tino. It’s never been discussed within our club.

“This article has come out of left field and someone has added two and two together and come up with five to try to destabilise our club.

“It’s been a common theme throughout this season and ever since I joined the club. It’s a continuing childish thing that they do.

“That’s life in the rugby league world.”

Rothfield then fired back at Gould’s claims on Twitter, doubling down on his story.

Watch interview below

‘You’ve been wrong that many times’: Gus’ wild TV clash with reporter over Tino pub claims

‘You’ve been wrong that many times’: Gus’ wild TV clash with reporter over Tino pub claims

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Rassayri]

Look at this scumbag Buzz the drunk who shat himself Rothfield who from day one is out to get Gus and our club questionable my ass you just made it all up when none of it is true how bout you good mate Flanno and what he did over at the Sharks is that questionable you **** Flanno in my opinion should have never been allowed to have anything to do with the game again

 

[lovemachine]

Someone here is directly lying.

someone here can get sooed. I don’t know who just yet.
But it’s very damning if the quote was made up.
Sadly I think Buzz might be right here and Gus is in Damage control bevazus Laundy spoke too much

 

[Bulldog1966]

Idk why this needed a thread lol

Also why the f is Nasheed still able to post, saw a mod quite disgusted at shim quite recently why not just bounce the ****, we don't need dhs like shim on here ..

 

[Psycho Doggie]

You have to identify exactly what it is that Gould denies. He denies having ever spoken to Tino or his management. Go back to the article quoting Laundy and you see that all he talks about is his idea for luring players to the Dogs using the investment opportunity. That article makes the claim that Tino was a target for this scheme, but there is no indication of this from what Laundy is quoted as saying. They do quote Tino's manager who says that "clubs have reached out to me about Tino".

So this is Gus' 2 + 2 = 5.

2 = Laundy is serious about his scheme, and wants to be able to use it to help the Dogs attract some top players. This is TRUE
2 = Tino was upset when Holbrook was punted, and is considering his options. This is TRUE
5 = The Dogs have put together a $4m offer including the pub deal and offered it to Tino. This is FALSE

 

[cntrbry bnkstwn]

 

[Raysie]

Love Gus, but I don't believe a thing he says.

 

[DinkumDog]

someone here can get sooed.

Is that like telling them to go away?
‘Oi! Get sooed!’ .

 

[lovemachine]

Is that like telling them to go away?
‘Oi! Get sooed!’ .

No what I mean is if Gus is lying, he is calling Buzz a liar and if it’s proven to be true, Buzz can get him for libel.

Likewise, if he made it up and wrote it, he slandered laundy and can get sooed.

I have a feeling that Laundy has ran his mouth and Gus is in damage control.

It won’t help the already strained relationship.

 

[oldpuppy]

Is that like telling them to go away?
‘Oi! Get sooed!’ .

or where's my sokk to go with my sooe.

 

[Bazildog]

Is that like telling them to go away?
‘Oi! Get sooed!’ .

 

[diddly]

Gus did help clarify the Melbourne investment thing wth BetR - its an opportunity to invest part of player salary into a business venture that is likely to result in a good return as opposed to shares etc on top of the salary.

 

[DinkumDog]

No what I mean is if Gus is lying, he is calling Buzz a liar and if it’s proven to be true, Buzz can get him for libel.

Yeah thanks Chief.
The word you were looking for is ‘sued’.
And it’s not ‘libel’. Gus neither put anything in writing nor defamed Rothfield. He simply denied the story. Might be best to leave the legal commentary aside .

 

[wendog33]

Gus did help clarify the Melbourne investment thing wth BetR - its an opportunity to invest part of player salary into a business venture that is likely to result in a good return as opposed to shares etc on top of the salary.

So Bulldog players have an opportunity to invest part of their salary into a business venture that is likely to result in a good return as opposed to shares etc on top of the salary.

Difference being one's a betting agency business and one's a food/beverage/gambling business.

Where is the difference if structured the same....which may be what Craig Laundy discussed with both Gus and Abdo several months ago, as Gus revealed.

Much ado about nothing much and Buzz creating content against Gus, putting a credibility issue up about Laundy and our Club and just being his usual rugby league wrecker self.

Backs up even more what Gus said about NSW media being hyper critical of NSW in all SOO matters. I've lived in both States and the publicity and support in Qld is way more supportive of Qld than the media jjackals in NSW led by Faily Terrorgraph, Buzz, Crawly etc.

 

[_G-Dog_]

A return by Poolitis is ok though?...

 

[craigo]

Love Gus, but I don't believe a thing he says.

Yep. He has been the biggest shit talker in rugby league for years. Yeah he speaks his mind a bit but he also covers his ass with a lot of stuff too.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Is this any different to Mark Bouris helping Chooks players to buy real estate as an investment and helping them secure the finance?


Always a Bulldog

 

[diddly]

So Bulldog players have an opportunity to invest part of their salary into a business venture that is likely to result in a good return as opposed to shares etc on top of the salary.

Difference being one's a betting agency business and one's a food/beverage/gambling business.

Where is the difference if structured the same....which may be what Craig Laundy discussed with both Gus and Abdo several months ago, as Gus revealed.

Much ado about nothing much and Buzz creating content against Gus, putting a credibility issue up about Laundy and our Club and just being his usual rugby league wrecker self.

Backs up even more what Gus said about NSW media being hyper critical of NSW in all SOO matters. I've lived in both States and the publicity and support in Qld is way more supportive of Qld than the media jjackals in NSW led by Faily Terrorgraph, Buzz, Crawly etc.

My understanding based on what Gus said and what others have said is that any player could direct their salary into an investment opportunity that presents itself - a third party could be a property developer, opening a restaurant/ cafe, etc - they cant guarantee return but the opportunity might only be available if they sign with a certain club. As has been alluded to the investment is usually long term and intended to generate income / growth well beyond the players nrl career.

It is not - "here take a share in this business on top of your salary"

 

[Malla]

You have to identify exactly what it is that Gould denies. He denies having ever spoken to Tino or his management. Go back to the article quoting Laundy and you see that all he talks about is his idea for luring players to the Dogs using the investment opportunity. That article makes the claim that Tino was a target for this scheme, but there is no indication of this from what Laundy is quoted as saying. They do quote Tino's manager who says that "clubs have reached out to me about Tino".

So this is Gus' 2 + 2 = 5.

2 = Laundy is serious about his scheme, and wants to be able to use it to help the Dogs attract some top players. This is TRUE
2 = Tino was upset when Holbrook was punted, and is considering his options. This is TRUE
5 = The Dogs have put together a $4m offer including the pub deal and offered it to Tino. This is FALSE

I think the scheme currently exists, this is the point Gus made. Buzz contacted Arthur and asked him about the scheme, he then probably asked him if he had the opportunity to offer it to Tino would he, to which Arthur may have said yes and then Buzz wrote this big story about how we have offered him this (fabricated bullshit)

Gus has had enough judging by his reaction and sounds like Laundy will follow it up with Buzz.

 

[wendog33]

My understanding based on what Gus said and what others have said is that any player could direct their salary into an investment opportunity that presents itself - a third party could be a property developer, opening a restaurant/ cafe, etc - they cant guarantee return but the opportunity might only be available if they sign with a certain club. As has been alluded to the investment is usually long term and intended to generate income / growth well beyond the players nrl career.

It is not - "here take a share in this business on top of your salary"

Yes understand that but the opportunity to structure Laundy's proposal is there to administer it the same way?