The Origin story goes well beyond Fletcher. "They" backed two players to win MOM, one NSW player and one Qld player who had been "suggested" if their side was to win would have to have played well and be in the running for the award, backed the two of them for 2 days for what was said to be a $1 mil + take out. Problem was the NSW pick (Bird) didn't end up having the stand out game expected, but as always they had help ensuring that the right person was selected.
The article has Fletcher winning a piddly 50 gorillas. That suggests any suspicion should focus elsewhere, but in a curious media oversight the other million appears to be an orphan.
Hypothetically speaking rigging such a market narrows the contingencies down to ~two, and doesn't even involve any pesky overpaid unpredictable players, and is thus extremely efficient compared to traditional grifts.
Pity the media also failed to name these selectors - the objects of "no suggestion of any wrongdoing".
And what an enlightened reassurance from John Brady:
"But ... the only people who had the man of the match in their keeping by this time were actually involved in the broadcast and would not have had any opportunity to engage in betting."
Evidently all of these selectors are recluses and have no accomplices to whom they could convey prearranged signals. Subtly scratching an ear would suffice, no need to resort to smashing a glass.