Broncos withdraw their two year offer to Greg Inglis

[Nashy]

Moved to League Talk. Greg Inglis is not a Broncos player, nor will he be.

 

[john1420]

i gotta agree with the rock on this - pretty much melbourne has just been asked to give back what it never should have had earned

they also should be starting the next season or so on -4

that's a penalty

 

[Big Pete]

Nashy: Was actually -4, both bye points.

Unlike the Bulldogs and Storm, it was too late to penalise them mid-season, so they had to come up with a compromise, in which I think it was fair, in fact all the punishments were fair...except the part where the Dogs were able to sign players to smaller contracts, that was suss.

Not sure how we're a laughing stock in all of this.

 

[Nashy]

It's funny seeing you argue about fraud. To me of all people.

It then comes back to, why should the players suffer for something they didn't know about?

 

[Aeetee]

That's the big "if" Nashy. You can't say they knew and you can't say they didn't know. I'm of the opinion that they knew and if not all if them, then aleast a few did. Maybe not about each other but about themselves.

 

[Kaz]

It then comes back to, why should the players suffer for something they didn't know about?

So they didn't know getting a boat or getting vouchers to renovate their house wasn't fishy, seeing as it wasn't written into their contracts.

IMO: The players knew what was going on.

 

[Nashy]

Ok, lets go back to Rocky's great fraud theory.

Police: We know the company you work for committed fraud, and we have fined them. We're pretty sure you were involved, but we can't prove it. So we'll send you to jail anyway.

 

[Aeetee]

Sounds fair enough to me, personally I would have gone the death penalty.

 

[Kaz]

Police: We know the company you work for committed fraud, and we have fined them. We're pretty sure you were involved, but we can't prove it. So we'll send you to jail anyway.

Now you are talking sense.

Don't the police already do that. [icon_ee [icon_razz1

 

[Twiztid]

How is this for punishment?

As a result:

* The 1987 season was canceled; only conditioning drills (without pads) would be permitted until the spring of 1988.
* All home games in 1988 were canceled. SMU was allowed to play their seven regularly scheduled away games so that other institutions would not be financially affected. The university would ultimately choose not to do so (see below).
* The team's existing probation was extended to 1990. Its existing ban from bowl games and live television was extended to 1989.
* SMU lost 55 new scholarship positions over 4 years.
* The team was allowed to hire only five full-time assistant coaches, instead of the typical nine.
* No off-campus recruiting would be permitted until August 1988, and no paid visits could be made to campus by would-be recruits until the start of the 1988-89 school year.

This is the SMU death penalty scandal punishment. If you get a chance watch the ESPN documentary on it called Pony Excess.

 

[Nashy]

Ok, lets go back to Rocky's great fraud theory.

Police: We know the company you work for committed fraud, and we have fined them. We're pretty sure you were involved, but we can't prove it. So we'll send you to jail anyway.

Um this is not about the players in particular. This is about punishing the club overall. I used fraud as an example and nothing more. I'm not arguing what penalty should be applied for fraud. So I'm not trying to think of some "great fraud theory". It was just an example to try and explain that the Storm did not receive a penalty. It's amazing how you miss the point.

We could use the example of someone breaking into someone's home and stealing 20,000 worth of stuff. Use the same concept with regards to punishment.

Melbourne Storm weren't penalised. What the NRL ordered them to do was to just give back the money and the premierships they shouldn't have had in the first place.

It's an NRL fail.

And a $500,000 fine. And didn't allow them to get under the cap and compete in 2010.

They were personalised. Just because you don't agree with the penalty, doesn't mean they weren't

 

[pennywisealfie]

How is this for punishment?

As a result:

* The 1987 season was canceled; only conditioning drills (without pads) would be permitted until the spring of 1988.
* All home games in 1988 were canceled. SMU was allowed to play their seven regularly scheduled away games so that other institutions would not be financially affected. The university would ultimately choose not to do so (see below).
* The team's existing probation was extended to 1990. Its existing ban from bowl games and live television was extended to 1989.
* SMU lost 55 new scholarship positions over 4 years.
* The team was allowed to hire only five full-time assistant coaches, instead of the typical nine.
* No off-campus recruiting would be permitted until August 1988, and no paid visits could be made to campus by would-be recruits until the start of the 1988-89 school year.

This is the SMU death penalty scandal punishment. If you get a chance watch the ESPN documentary on it called Pony Excess.

great documentary

 

[Nashy]

But they shouldn't have been allowed to compete in 2010 anyway!!! Had of this been found out BEFORE the 2010 season, chances are they may have been forced to lose players before the start of the season. It's bad timing that it happened when the season already started. Their team was IlLEGAL so not allowing them to compete is not punishment it's justice.

And did you even read what I posted before? $500,000 isn't a penalty. They made more than that in revenue due to their success for the past 5 years, but this was because they rorted the cap. Being asked to pay back the money they "stole" isn't a penalty. It's like telling a theif that his penalty is to give back the 42" LCD that he stole from down the road.

Does that not make sense???

It doesn't matter! The Storm, as a business had that money. It was in their books. They were forced to remove that revenue from their end of year figures.

You can assume all you like that they made that money due to their success, but you simply do not know. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I agree with what you are saying.

But you need to look at the reasons for what look to us as crappy fines and stuff.

 

[john1420]

Agree with ya Rock

Money, almost regardless of the amount, is not a penalty to an organisation with a bucket load of it

A true penalty has to effect their results - like starting 4 points behind everyone else or having a smaller salary cap than the rest

Not competing for points in 2010 went part of the way to achieving that, but the team was illegal anyway

I would have preferred then to have their points stripped and then have to field a salary cap compliant team for the rest of 2010 but be allowed to earn points

2011 at least they should be starting behind everyone else

 

[Professor47]

Good arguments both sides - I'll throw in some points

- Not competing in 2010 may have been 'justice' but in turn created injustice as well --> Teams had to compete with an illegal team who had nothing to compete for... some got points, some didn't... this creates a whole new situation altogther.. some teams miss out on the 8 by 2 pts etc etc --> loss of revenue etc etc. Basically it created a ridiculous situation that made the NRL look like a complete joke IMO. I don't have the answer but to play for nothing with an illegal team and let them verse other teams in the comp = amateur.

- I agree the Storm punishments were merely stiripping away what was not rightfulyl theirs in the FIRST place... however if any harsher penalties were handed down it most likely would have been the end of Melbourne RL in general or there abouts... The administration can only handle so much... I mean... as RL fans do we kick them to the curb and let them die?... I don't know... For the good of the game perhaps the penalties handed down suffice.

 

[vertigo]

All I have to say is 2008 semi final, lest we forget.

I hate Greg (outside origin) and the Storm so much for what they have done.

 

[Raw Boned Youngster]

The Storm had to be included in the comp post scandal simply because the other clubs needed the revenue from when they were scheduled to play them at home.
The NRL's hands were tied - they couldn't afford to affect the bottom line of other teams while punishing the Storm.

 

[Nashy]

The other teams, win or loss, should have got the 2 points, AND the Storm should have been required to be under the cap.