If media reports turn out to be correct and Carlton and Mick Malthouse agree terms and sign a contract within days of the conclusion of the home and away rounds, Malthouse’s insistence that he hadn’t spoken with Carlton up until Ratten’s sacking looks disingenuous at best.
As with the Hird and Thompson ascendency at Essendon two years ago, the timing and the seeming inevitability of the end result make so much smoke that there can only be a raging fire at its centre.
It matters not whether it was Malthouse’s management or he who dealt with Carlton. For all practical intents and purposes, they’re one and the same and if that distinction is the basis for Malthouse’s denials, then he’s worthy to argue angels and pin heads with the finest Christian scholars of the 5th Century.
The half-truths, if that’s what they turn out to be, didn’t kill the story — if that’s what was intended. A flat “No comment.” wouldn’t have killed the story either, but it also wouldn’t play us all for mugs.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment