Port Adelaide and Zak Butters are reportedly furious after an AFL tribunal found the acting-captain questioned umpire Nick Foot’s integrity.
The messy drama is continuing to spin on Wednesday after a rollercoaster tribunal hearing on Tuesday evening where Butters was issued a $1500 fine after the match review’s charge of using “abusive and insulting language towards an umpire” was upheld.
Watch every match of every round of the AFL Premiership Season LIVE and ad-break free during play on FOX FOOTY, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
Evidence heard by the tribunal shows Butters is alleged to have said, “How much are they paying you?” towards Foot during his side’s loss to St Kilda on Sunday.
Butters denied this, insisting he actually said words to the effect of “How is that a free-kick?”
After hearing both arguments, the tribunal deliberated for around 30 minutes, before confirming that the charge would be upheld and a $1500 fine issued.
The AFL counsel highlighted one issue where Butters changed his version of events slightly.
Butters told the tribunal he said “surely that’s not a free kick”, and his case was backed up by nearby teammate Ollie Wines.
However, the words Butters told the hearing were different to the words he said during a post-game interview where he told Channel 7 he said: “How’s that a free kick?”
The case essentially boiled down to which of the figures involved were most credible in their testimony. The tribunal clearly sided with Foot.
Butters’ case was further weakened by Wines’ inability to record the exact words Butters said.
“I can’t be sure of what he said, but I’m adamant what he didn’t say,” Wines said during the hearing.
“I categorically deny that’s what he said. I did not hear that at all or anything remotely close.”
The case was made even murkier by the well-publicised fact the umpire’s microphone did not record any audio of the incident.
The tribunal’s decision to disregard the testimony provided by Wines and Butters has reportedly infuriated the football club.
Leading AFL journalist Jon Ralph told Fox Footy’s Midweek Tackle Port Adelaide feels “angry and bemused”.
The Code Sports reporter also said Butters is “completely filthy”.
“The AFLPA is ropeable as well. Their CEO James Gallagher, who is new in the job, will come off the top rope in defence of Butters,” Ralph said.
“He has already spoken to Zak, who is incandescent with rage.”
Football journalist Braden Ingram also posted on X: “I understand the AFL players association is incensed by the Zak Butters decision. Its chief James Gallagher has already spoken with the Port star who is understandably livid”.
Essendon legend James Hird said on Tuesday night he expects Butters to appeal the verdict.
“It now comes down to Zak Butters’ character,” Hird said on Channel 9.
“Basically what the AFL are saying is, ‘Zak, you are lying. You’re not telling the truth’. It comes down to him as a character. If I was Zak Butters, I’d be taking this all the way because if you definitely know you didn’t say it, you can’t have that on your character and it’s a slur against his character.”
On the other side of the coin, the AFL is also reportedly unhappy with how the situation has played out.
Veteran football journalist Caroline Wilson said on Tuesday the AFL attempted to resolve the issue behind the scenes before the tribunal hearing was heard.
“The bad blood between the Port Adelaide Football Club and head office is tangible,” Wilson said on Channel 7’s The Agenda Setters.
“Port Adelaide are furious. The AFL are contemptuous both of Zak Butters and of the Port Adelaide Football club. They continue to say that Zak Butters has changed his version of events too many times to be a credible witness. Whereas their man, Nick Foot, was entirely credible.
“The AFL wanted to manage an outcome. But their outcome only involved Zak Butters admitting he’s made a mistake and to pay the fine. Zak Butters refused.”
She suggested Butters also gave a third different version of what he claims he said in a text message.
“The AFL believe that not only did Zak Butters change his quote from what he told Xander McGuire on Ch7 after the game, there was a text message yesterday in which a different quote, according to the AFL, came out,” Wilson said.
“And then of course his evidence today.”
The official reason for tribunal’s ruling will be communicated to both parties on Wednesday.
Reacting to the decision, Butters, who arrived for the tribunal in a t-shirt with the word “Listen” printed on it, said: “I’m clearly disappointed with the result tonight.
“I stand by knowing what I said and what I didn’t say, especially what I didn’t say. I’d like to thank the club for the support. Thank you.”
