Was Terry Wallace paid?

[ShockOfHair]

I actually think Richmond's list is alright. Seems a silly thing to say when they're 2-8 but I think whoever takes them on really has something to work with.

Sure, they gave Geelong a run for their money and should have knocked off Port and us.

[Mr Magoo]

Sure, they gave Geelong a run for their money and should have knocked off Port and us.

It should be considering the draft picks they have had over the past few years. Saw an article recently pointing out the picks they had and if the talent doesnt develop then the recruiters should have been sacked before wallace.

[liz]

Surely you, of all people, would agree that if Wallace and the club had a contract then Wallace should have been compensated when the Swans pulled out of the deal. We wont go into any liability that Roos may have to Wallace for his involvement in inducing the Swans to break their promise to Terry.

[Hartijon]

I actually think Richmond's list is alright. Seems a silly thing to say when they're 2-8 but I think whoever takes them on really has something to work with.

I agree! Whoever has them has some great talent to work with.They should be 4:6 and I would be more worried playing them this week than Hawthorn. Is Roosey in the running for the job?

[laughingnome]

I agree! Whoever has them has some great talent to work with.They should be 4:6 and I would be more worried playing them this week than Hawthorn. Is Roosey in the running for the job?

Will Richmond seek a deal with Malthouse for him to leave Collingwood to coach Richmond next year only for the caretaker coach to win 8 from their last 10 and have fans revolt demanding the caretaker be instated instead leaving Richmond having to pay Malthouse out?

[Ruda Wakening]

Exactly...and now he is talking about the Gold Coast. They would have to be stupid to have him as the coach..they have Guy McKenna up there now and I would punt for him ahead of Mr. Image anytime.

Richmond should go after Guy McKenna.

[DST]

Don't care, the club made the right decision to go with the players and supporter sentiment and appointed Roos, if it meant they had to pay Wallace something then I have no issue with that.

DST

[floppinab]

Surely you, of all people, would agree that if Wallace and the club had a contract then Wallace should have been compensated when the Swans pulled out of the deal. We wont go into any liability that Roos may have to Wallace for his involvement in inducing the Swans to break their promise to Terry.

Nicely done. But I remember being livid at the time and it still is a concern that those responsible for signing Wallace on prior to him clearing his situation at the Bulldogs is inidicative of how poorly the club was being run at the time. I'd like to think Roos has influenced things at all levels of the club that anything like that would ever happen again.

[connolly]

Surely you, of all people, would agree that if Wallace and the club had a contract then Wallace should have been compensated when the Swans pulled out of the deal. We wont go into any liability that Roos may have to Wallace for his involvement in inducing the Swans to break their promise to Terry.

More to the point Dick perhaps induced the Wallet to break his contract with the Doggies. As Terry Terrific actually did no work for us he wouldn't have been paid. (I presume it was an employment contract) Why was he paid? Hush money? Was there a signing on fee? Was there a probationary period to the contract? Did the contract have penalties against us if Dick failed to deliver for the Wallet and he didn't actually take the position? What sort of contract was it FFS?? Has any member of the club seen a copy of the "contract"? Any answers Dick? In terms of the Corporations Act why doesn't Dick comply with the fiduciary obligations of company directors and at least report on the "Contract"? Also in terms of equitable remedy neither Dick nor the Wallet had clean hands did they?

[bedford]

Great move by the club to pay Wallace $186,000 to get rid of him and putting on Roos, as there would have been no flag under Wallace.

[ScottH]

Denied in the HS today, by the Club.

[ROK Lobster]

More to the point Dick perhaps induced the Wallet to break his contract with the Doggies. As Terry Terrific actually did no work for us he wouldn't have been paid. (I presume it was an employment contract) Why was he paid? Hush money? Was there a signing on fee? Was there a probationary period to the contract? Did the contract have penalties against us if Dick failed to deliver for the Wallet and he didn't actually take the position? What sort of contract was it FFS?? Has any member of the club seen a copy of the "contract"? Any answers Dick? In terms of the Corporations Act why doesn't Dick comply with the fiduciary obligations of company directors and at least report on the "Contract"? Also in terms of equitable remedy neither Dick nor the Wallet had clean hands did they?

Your lack of understading of the law is quite remarkable, as is your ability to simply dribble crap when trying to get out of a corner.

[satchmopugdog]

Your lack of understading of the law is quite remarkable, as is your ability to simply dribble crap when trying to get out of a corner.

It's great entertainment but.

[Xie Shan]

Great move by the club to pay Wallace $186,000 to get rid of him and putting on Roos, as there would have been no flag under Wallace.

Money well spent IMO. I guess it is possible to buy a flag then!!

[The Big Cat]

The club said today that the contact between Wallace and the club was instigated by Wallace's management and there were no payments or contracts. Wallace just assumed he was wanted in Sydney.

What really pees me off though is certain media types, Carro in particular, who run the line that Wallace was stiff because the swans appointed Roos and went on to win a flag and Wallace took Richmond over Hawthorn and the hawks went on to a premiership. Carro's implication was that Wallace was dudded out of a flag twice!