vertigo
State of Origin Rep
- Mar 2, 2010
- 6,329
- 4,450
They're the most professional team in the competition, this wont phase them too much.
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
Melbourne Storm just aren't the Melbourne Storm if Craig Bellamy isn't having a whinge about something.
Kimlo
International Captain
Senior Staff
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,580
- 35,552
I hope the IC keep pissing off the Melbourne Storm just for lolz.
vertigo
State of Origin Rep
- Mar 2, 2010
- 6,329
- 4,450
Toovey is the worst, espeically with that maggoty little face.
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,017
- 3,761
- Thread starter
- #23
You do know that Stewart got the 4 weeks for being drunk at an official function. Nothing was done to Anthony Watmough who was punched by one of their sponsors for allegedly making inappropriate comments to his daughter.
The NRL has the proof that it was for being drunk, they have the documents from Manly who agreed to the ban, yet they are bleating that it was for the other incident.
Regarding the Broncos incident (yes it was wrong) but the woman involved was a willing participant. What p!ssed her off was the camera scandal.
Browny
State of Origin Captain
- Apr 9, 2008
- 11,931
- 7,135
Not to open the debate about toiletgate there was no illegality about it, however it being wrong depends on your moral and ethical code.
Bull Shark
State of Origin Rep
- Jun 4, 2008
- 6,216
- 5,655
agree, they could play their 24 games in 24 days and still finish 18-6 ...
S
subsbligh
NRL Captain
- Mar 16, 2008
- 3,270
- 857
The point was:
1. Stewart - banned by NRL based on allegations/complaint to the police. Tarted up as ban for being drunk.
2. Toiletgate Broncos - not banned based on allegations/complaint to the police.
3. Storm Salary cap scandal - old news, trawled out everytime a Bellamy or Storm thread comes up
4. Broncos - were not robbed in 2008 by the Storm's illegal team - 3 involved should have been suspended by the NRL (or the Broncos should have had the balls at the time to do the right thing).
Conclusion: Stop bringing up old news to invalidate current issues about the Storm because it's pointless and irrelevant.
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
And just to be clear I was very much in favour of the club standing them down until the incident was fully investigated too, and was actually disappointed that they played in "that" game.
Steve
NRL Player
- Mar 4, 2008
- 1,002
- 3
If we had that schedule we'll be up in arms so I understand his point. Hard to see the NRL changing the draw now though. It's already been a shit fight getting it approved by the broadcasters.
Kimlo
International Captain
Senior Staff
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,580
- 35,552
4. Of course it did. Who was the player that scored the match winning try and where did he go the year immediately after they were found out for cap rorting?
The storm were the team who eliminated us form the finals 3 years in a row with an over the cap team. There's no way they'll have my sympathy. Bellamy can cry all he wants, I will just laugh. He rorted the entire game for 5 years and he has the hide to complain that they have to play a match 5 days later, lolz.
Last edited:
S
subsbligh
NRL Captain
- Mar 16, 2008
- 3,270
- 857
2006 - Broncos beat Storm in GF - Storm under cap - Broncos awesome.
2007 - Lockyer injured, Broncos no chance - Storm cheating no effect on Broncos chances. Alwyn Simpson debuts in the semis in his first and last first grade game. Shows how seriously Bennett thought out chances.
2008 - The "match winning try"... My argument is that the Broncos would not have been in a winning position if Karmichael Hunt, Sam Thaiday and Darius Boyd don't play (and they shouldn't have - you can guarantee Hook and White would have summarily stood them down). If that holds, Storm cheating, no effect on Broncos chances.
2009 - Wallace injured - Broncos no chance - Storm cheating no effect on Broncos chances.
2010 - We fail to make semis and Storm are irrelevant.
If my 2008 argument holds, there is no reasonable justification for a Broncos fan to hate the Storm and Bellamy due merely to the idea that the Storm's salary cap breaches enabled them to knock us out for 3 years in a row.
There were more significant contributing circumstances in every one of those 3 years.
Ari Gold
Master Baiter
Contributor
- Mar 13, 2008
- 6,522
- 2,807
Your 2008 argument is completely bogus but you are right about every other year.
S
subsbligh
NRL Captain
- Mar 16, 2008
- 3,270
- 857
Exactly. Imagine if they in fact were found to be up for rape/sexual assault charges after that game. The Broncos took a punt (one that I find morally incomprehensible to this day) that there was nothing in it and let the players play. If they were wrong that would be the end of the club's good name and there is no way the club or the police could have definitively completed an investigation in that one week to clear each of the player's names.
S
subsbligh
NRL Captain
- Mar 16, 2008
- 3,270
- 857
The alternative argument is that the disrupted preparations brought about by toilet gate is at the very least greater than or equal to the Storm's cheating as a contributing factor to the Broncos loss.
This is especially true because the Broncos were consciously aware of the toiletgate as a contributing factor at the time of the game, as opposed to the Storm's cheating, which only came out many years later.
No tolietgate, Broncos beat Storm in 2008 major semi.
Not creating a convenient bit of evidence, but as soon as it came out in the press in 2008, it sounded the death knell for me. I knew we had to be at the absolute top of our game that night and even the slightest glitch in our preparation was going to throw us off.
So Broncos fans, time to stop irrationally hating on the Storm "becoz they knocked us out wif a cheatin side for 3 yearz"
Last edited:
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
And while one might argue it's a hypothetical, I have absolutely NO DOUBT that if it'd been 3 nuffies involved they would've been dropped, if not contracts torn up, on the spot after that behaviour following a semi. The fact it was 3 high profile rep players was the difference.
S
subsbligh
NRL Captain
- Mar 16, 2008
- 3,270
- 857
It's not hypothetical. Ask Te Reo, Lacey, Seymour and (to a lesser extent - though IIRC he wasn't a rep player at the Broncos) Costigan versus toiletgate and Hunt and McCullough's night out.
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
Hunt and McCullough is a nothing issue.
Te Reo and Lacey was a no brainer - they bashed the shit out of someone. Badly.
And Seymour and Costigan got the marching orders due to a string of off field issues, which individually weren't too serious but combined were untenable.
But yes, I still think it was poor judgment by the club to let those 3 play...but it's all academic now, and has zilch to do with the Storm's cheating being acceptable or not.
