- Mar 5, 2008
- 55,291
- 35,927
Not quite.
They said straight out that they had their suspicions but no proof. Then they found the second set of books in another office.
Melbourne Storm and the great celery hat debate
- Thread starter m1c
- Start date
- Status
Not quite.
They said straight out that they had their suspicions but no proof. Then they found the second set of books in another office.
Jeba
International
- Mar 4, 2008
- 6,501
- 244
Not true. Boyd was told by the Broncos that he wasn't wanted at the club. He went and told this to Wayne and Wayne said "rightio come with me then".
Yes Jeb, but your point of view is biased by the fact you are an admirer of Bennett....
broncos4life
International Captain
- Oct 5, 2011
- 26,673
- 27,321
No offence but it's not a point of view, it is the facts. I have heard it from both Boyd and Bennett.
You probably missed what I was getting at. Oh well ;-)
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,089
- 3,858
Shit.
Was Boyd told be the DragQueens that he wasn't wanted as well. As Bennett & Boyd both went to the Knights.
I seem to remember Boyd saying Bennett was the father he never had. (Boyd is a stalker)
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,089
- 3,858
ZOMG: Someone gets Bennett to speak.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 55,291
- 35,927
So if one rower in a team at the Olympics tests positive, the others are still in a fair compeition because it wasn't them that cheated, so they should still win the Gold?
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,089
- 3,858
That's why the players were cleared & no charges will be layed.
The court case would make the NRL look like bigger geese, than what they already are.
It's just one big cover up after the other.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
no, because in rowing what one team does doesnt affect the other teams. like with the 100m sprints they can just take the medal off the winner and give it to second since the team that cheated being there didnt affect anyone else.
melbourne beat teams and lost to teams all throughout those seasons, causing the ladder to be affected. some teams got 2 points when they played them, some got 0, some played them twice, some once. so its not as simple as saying "the runners up get the premiership" because the entire season wouldve been different had melbourne not cheated.
they paid players more than they should have. thats it.
now that could mean that they keep players that they would have lost, but thats not certain. whos to say that slater/smith/cronk wouldnt have stayed for a legal amount? they seem to like the club and the coach, and are still there now after the whole ordeal, so thats something to consider. they would probably have lost a few fringe first graders/depth signings, but really that wouldnt have hurt them too much as they have had a pretty amazing run with injuries for what seems like forever. unfortunately we'll never know what wouldve happened.
i havent said they didnt get an advantage, they clearly did - so i dont know why its so important that someone answers that question?
Last edited:
And then there's the player movements that may have happened. Would the Storm have been able to retain Cronk, Inglis, Smith, Slater, Blair, Turner etc beyond say 2007? Maybe Cronk could've attracted a bigger offer from another club and left? What about Smith?
How much impact would that have a) on the Storm in those years, or b) the clubs that pick them up? Hell, Storm may not have even made the 8 let alone win the premiership in 2009...
Given the ultimate aim of every club is to win titles, taking those titles off the club made total sense. And unlike running/rowing etc, as you say, you can't just give it to who was runner up because it totally changed the complexion of the competition.
So yes, as far as the history books are concerned, there were no premiers in 2007 or 2009. It will record that Melbourne Storm won the Grand Final by whatever scorelines they were, but not that they won the premiership.
How much impact would that have a) on the Storm in those years, or b) the clubs that pick them up? Hell, Storm may not have even made the 8 let alone win the premiership in 2009...
Given the ultimate aim of every club is to win titles, taking those titles off the club made total sense. And unlike running/rowing etc, as you say, you can't just give it to who was runner up because it totally changed the complexion of the competition.
So yes, as far as the history books are concerned, there were no premiers in 2007 or 2009. It will record that Melbourne Storm won the Grand Final by whatever scorelines they were, but not that they won the premiership.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
in a way yes, in a way no. i think stripping their premierships from the records is too much punishment, but i dont think the managers/storm officials got anywhere near enough punishment. didnt the managers only get like a 6 month disqualification from the NRL or something stupid like that? where were the criminal charges? why not a life ban and losing any and all accreditation?
but really, no i dont think they "ruined" it because to me i still enjoyed watching the football at the time. i personally hate the salary cap, id prefer to see teams that are well run and who bring up their own talent to be able to prosper instead of being dragged down to the lowest common denominator. so really, the results dont really bother me. you might be furious, im sure plenty are, but i honestly couldnt really care less. i dont feel "dudded" or "robbed". its just entertainment, and i was entertained. the only season that was ruined was 2010, and thats more because of how the NRL chose to handle the after effects of it by not giving teams that played the storm the 2 points win lose or draw. melbourne could have, even though they didnt appear to, chosen which games to win and which to lose to affect the ladder. that shouldnt have even of been an option. they should not have played another match in 2010 IMO.
2010 was also ruined because the Storm were the only ones who couldve, and probably wouldve, beaten the drag queens for the premiership lol.
Last edited:
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,005
The problem with doing that is that sides who got to face Melbourne twice would have received an unfair advantage as opposed to those who played them once. Really, it was just an unfortunate situation the NRL found themselves in and for the most part I thought they handled it the best they could.
I'm not a fan of the salary cap but the fact of the matter is 15 other sides had to abide by it, Melbourne didn't. I wasn't really entertained when Melbourne made four grand finals in a row & aside from 06 I didn't enjoy their clinical brand of footy. Every now and then, sure they'd dismantle a s**t side but for the most part they were playing Bennett ball with more of an emphasis on cross field kicks & dirty ruck tactics.
I'm not a fan of the salary cap but the fact of the matter is 15 other sides had to abide by it, Melbourne didn't. I wasn't really entertained when Melbourne made four grand finals in a row & aside from 06 I didn't enjoy their clinical brand of footy. Every now and then, sure they'd dismantle a s**t side but for the most part they were playing Bennett ball with more of an emphasis on cross field kicks & dirty ruck tactics.
- Status
