It’s been revealed that the heated exchange between Bulldogs kingpin Phil Gould and rugby league journalist Michael Chammas on Monday night’s edition of Nine’s 100% Footy show kept going once the cameras were off.
The tense on-air clash saw Gould denying accusations that he misled the public about signing young playmaker Lachlan Galvin.
Galvin is expected to join Canterbury after the Tigers agreed to give the 19-year-old an early release from his contract.
The bombshell development occurred just a couple of weeks after Gould said his club had no intention of chasing Galvin.
Gould has since stated that ‘the goalposts shifted last week’, referring to the Tigers backflipping on their earlier stance that they wouldn’t release Galvin until his contract expired at the end of next season.
‘How did I mislead you on Lachlan Galvin?’ Gould asked Chammas.
Phil Gould (pictured) and Michael Chammas had a tense on-air clash on Nine’s 100% Footy
The heated exchange between the pair reportedly kept going while the cameras were off
‘I never said I wasn’t interested. What I said was we’re on a different course, he’s not in our plans because he wasn’t off contract until 2027.
‘You’re summising that because it’s happened. You want that to be the truth. You want that to be the truth, that’s the scenario you want to create. I didn’t see it happening that way at all, not at all.
‘You go back and review everything I’ve said about Lachlan Galvin and what transpired and everything I said was 100 per cent the truth at the time.’
Gould finished off his tirade by saying: ‘I didn’t mislead anyone… Mind your words, son.’
NRL great Braith Anasta revealed on Tuesday night that the stoush didn’t end once they were off-air.
‘Gould and Chammas last night, work colleagues, went toe to toe on air, we all saw it. Apparently it went beyond there, off-air,’ Anasta said on NRL 360.
Reporter James Hooper responded: ‘Watching it live, it felt like they were sort of forced into an ad break because it looked like it was starting to get a little bit overly heated and then when it did cut to the ad break, talking to people who were there today, they certainly suggested that Gus wasn’t overly happy.
‘I think there might have been a couple of expletives, he felt as though his integrity had been questioned. They kept going toe to toe, after it cut to an ad break there were definitely further words exchanged.’
Gould has strongly denied accusations that he misled the public about signing playmaker Lachlan Galvin (pictured)
Gould was not happy that his integrity had been questioned on the program
Reporter Phil Rothfield also commented on the exchange, saying Gould’s reputation has taken a serious hit.
‘I reckon he’s been seriously damaged credibility wise and his reputation has been severely damaged at Channel 9 over this,’ Rothfield said on the Off the Record podcast.
‘I think the punters are awake to it and they are the lifeblood of every TV network that provides the ratings. I honestly think he’s been badly damaged and people won’t cop his bullsh** anymore.’
‘Rugby league officials do lie and it’s a fact we have to live with but when you are being paid nearly $1 million to sit on a (TV) panel, you are there to inform and say the truth. But this is where Gus gets himself into an awkward situation. As a viewer, he hasn’t been upfront with us.’
Gould has insisted Galvin’s looming arrival won’t destabilise the table-topping Bulldogs, after their best start to a season in 23 years.
Asked if he was worried that Galvin’s arrival could cause animosity from other players if he was to take their spot, Gould was defiant.
‘No. None at all. That’s the least of my worries,’ Gould said on the Nine Network’s 100% Footy.
‘I don’t think anyone denies he is a talent. And you win premierships with talented players. It’s my responsibility to get talented players into the club.
‘I think it will create great competition, that’s what it’ll create if he turns up.
‘He’s got talent. Why wouldn’t you want a talented player at your football club? And why wouldn’t the other players want talent at their football club? They do.’
