Broncos withdraw their two year offer to Greg Inglis
- Thread starter Aeetee
- Start date
Jeba
International
- Mar 4, 2008
- 6,501
- 244
As far as season 2010 goes, there was no right or wrong answer. There was no way they could make a punishment that everyone would be happy with, so there is no point arguing what they should've or shouldn't have done.
But overall I agree with Rock. Taking their minor premierships, taking their premierships and prizemoney, and disqualifying them from 2010 was simply taking back what they shouldn't have had in the first place.
But overall I agree with Rock. Taking their minor premierships, taking their premierships and prizemoney, and disqualifying them from 2010 was simply taking back what they shouldn't have had in the first place.
That would have been all well and good if the rort had been discovered before a match was played, but doing that would have punished teams who played them earlier in the season - those who lost to them at that stage may well have beaten them if they played them after the rorting was discovered and they had "nothing to play for" (and vice versa, those who beat them later in the season my have lost to them pre-rort discovery).
Maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to play at all, but have to pay costs to the other clubs and NRL for their loss of income/gatetakings of cancelled matches. (This would have been a further financial penalty on top of what they repaid and were fined already). But then the players themselves - who let's face it there is not definitive evidence of their knowledge/involvment - would have been punished. And would Qld have won the SOO if these players had not been playing NRL and therefore either not selected of been woefully un-match fit?
In the end whilst the punishment may not seem harsh enough and indeed may seem like there was not real punishment - only giving back what they shouldn't have had in the first place; there probably wasn't a lot more the NRL could have done without the ramifications/punishments actually negatively affecting innocent parties.
Maybe they shouldn't have been allowed to play at all, but have to pay costs to the other clubs and NRL for their loss of income/gatetakings of cancelled matches. (This would have been a further financial penalty on top of what they repaid and were fined already). But then the players themselves - who let's face it there is not definitive evidence of their knowledge/involvment - would have been punished. And would Qld have won the SOO if these players had not been playing NRL and therefore either not selected of been woefully un-match fit?
In the end whilst the punishment may not seem harsh enough and indeed may seem like there was not real punishment - only giving back what they shouldn't have had in the first place; there probably wasn't a lot more the NRL could have done without the ramifications/punishments actually negatively affecting innocent parties.
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
I was going to bump this thread but you did the honours.mrslong said:
Thank **** we didn't sign him, Rabbitohs wasted 600k on an overweight disinterested player.
Now if Melbourne wanted to release Cooper Cronk on the other hand... Give him his own cheque to write if he wants to come here!
- Feb 27, 2010
- 29,689
- 12,055
If he does, Inglis will own him during Origin and return to his mediocre best at club level after that...broncospwn said:
Since Souffs are no danger of reaching the finals, that's as much as they will get from him... [icon_lol1.
