"Storm Cloud" book details Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal

[Anonymous person]

No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au

I think i'll buy a copy of this book, would be an interesting read.

the extract goes to show that Inglis seemingly had no knowledge whatsoever of the rort.

 

[subsbligh]

Do you talk to your workmates about your salaries? I know I don't.

Do you think your answer would be the same if you earned 550K per year?

 

[Porthoz]

No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au

I think i'll buy a copy of this book, would be an interesting read.

the extract goes to show that Inglis seemingly had no knowledge whatsoever of the rort.

Yeah, I'm sure he never wondered how that boat got there... :loool:

 

[pennywisealfie]

no way we will ever know who knew coz they won't admit it. The whole thing ruined rugby league for me quite a lot.

 

[Nashy]

Will be a good read. I still don't think the punishment was harsh enough, and I don't care if people think the players shouldn't be punished.

 

[Huge]

And I don't care that's its over and in the past. I've moved on and even though I don't like the fact they were over the cap they were/are the winners. It was still 17 on 17 irrespective of the pay rates. I might buy a copy of the book myself too.

 

[theshed]

COntracts are complicated things. I bet most players struggle to understand their own contracts let alone have such in depth knowledge of everyone else in the team's that they are able to judge if the team has rorted the cap.

Don't get me wrong, their are other reasons why I think a lot of those storm players have poor sportsmanship (billy slater mostly) but I don't hold them at all accountable for the cap breach. I think the penalties should have been more severe though, the team should've been almost completely torn apart.

 

[subsbligh]

Craig Bellamy is still the most successful coach of the modern era.

 

[Anonymous person]

Yeah, I'm sure he never wondered how that boat got there... :loool:

did you even bother to read the extract?

"As everyone was leaving Inglis said to Waldron, "Is there any chance of getting a boat for Dad?" Not even Gainey knew his client was going to make the request.Waldron replied, "When you're ready I'll give you a contact person and they'll look after you. Up to a maximum of $30,000.""

Do you talk to your workmates about your salaries? I know I don't.

Do you think your answer would be the same if you earned 550K per year?

with my friends at work, sure. I don't really have a problem with talking about it with them. wouldnt change if i was earning $5k or $500k. its not something that i think is all super secret.

 

[Porthoz]

did you even bother to read the extract?

"As everyone was leaving Inglis said to Waldron, "Is there any chance of getting a boat for Dad?" Not even Gainey knew his client was going to make the request.Waldron replied, "When you're ready I'll give you a contact person and they'll look after you. Up to a maximum of $30,000."

OMFG, what does that quote tell you? That Inglis didn't know that "the boat" was part of the salary cap, or did he think that "the contact person" was going to donate a boat out of the generosity of their own heart?

Did he know the full extent of the rort? Probably not! I think only Waldron and his acolytes did...

You know what... let's just leave it at a vastly different interpretation of that quote. :glare:

 

[Morkel]

Will be a good read. I still don't think the punishment was harsh enough, and I don't care if people think the players shouldn't be punished.

The players involved in the rort should have been made to sit out the remaining years of the dodgy contracts. Then every player will be making sure their managers have everything above-board before it's signed.

And I don't care that's its over and in the past. I've moved on and even though I don't like the fact they were over the cap they were/are the winners. It was still 17 on 17 irrespective of the pay rates. I might buy a copy of the book myself too.

No way. They may have been a better 17, but they were a 17 that shouldn't have existed. There are rules of what a team needs to comply with in order for it to be legal. If in some way we're able to 'borrow' Thurston, Scott, Inglis, Smith, Slater & Cronk, just for this game against the Knights, will our victory (assuming we win) be legit? After all, it'll still be 17 on 17.

 

[Kimlo]

And I don't care that's its over and in the past. I've moved on and even though I don't like the fact they were over the cap they were/are the winners. It was still 17 on 17 irrespective of the pay rates. I might buy a copy of the book myself too.

No no no no no. Absolutely not. They were not winners, they were proven cheats.

if it's 17 on 17 then we have 17 players every week yet we can't compete against a team full of stars. How about you take on a professional boxer in the ring? It's 1 on 1 so technically it's a fair match!

They won AT THE TIME, not anymore, they've been proven to be cheats and their winnings have been stripped and deservedly so. We could win the competition two if we were 1 million over the cap, in fact if we were to be a million over the cap for next year we could afford to sign Milford, Barba, DCE and SJ and have no problem taking out the comp.

 

[Huge]

The players involved in the rort should have been made to sit out the remaining years of the dodgy contracts. Then every player will be making sure their managers have everything above-board before it's signed.



No way. They may have been a better 17, but they were a 17 that shouldn't have existed. There are rules of what a team needs to comply with in order for it to be legal. If in some way we're able to 'borrow' Thurston, Scott, Inglis, Smith, Slater & Cronk, just for this game against the Knights, will our victory (assuming we win) be legit? After all, it'll still be 17 on 17.

Every game played 17 on 17 is legit. Whether it is fair or not is a different question. Had Melbourne bought 6 legends from outside the club, purportedly paid them a wage that fit them under a cap and paid them overs off the record then it would have been grossly unfair. As we all know that's not what happened. They developed the players who were then notionally valued at an amount that exceeded the cap. Yes it was wrong of them to keep the players they had developed but as I've pointed out before, if you paid Parramatta each player 1,000,000 dollars each a season it would not give them an ounce of ability they didn't previously possess. They would however be a illegal team costing 26 million bucks !!!!

anyhoo, it's all been said before and that's all I care to say. If you wish to argue , review my answers in the earlier threads, I m sure I would have a reply to match whatever ...

 

[pennywisealfie]

That didn't make sense at all, CF. I'm not going to debate with you but you are incorrect on so many levels.

 

[Anonymous person]

OMFG, what does that quote tell you? That Inglis didn't know that "the boat" was part of the salary cap, or did he think that "the contact person" was going to donate a boat out of the generosity of their own heart?

Did he know the full extent of the rort? Probably not! I think only Waldron and his acolytes did...
You know what... let's just leave it at a vastly different interpretation of that quote. :glare:

ffs just read the article lol

- Inglis' manager asks what price he wants
- inglis says "550k would be good"
- waldron says thats all good, itll include some third party deals
- inglis' manager then says he wants some extras, like a car and flights for family
- waldron says he'll get back to them but it should be fine
- inglis asks if he can get a boat for his dad
- waldron says yep, ill get someone to take care of it
- inglis and his manager meet a week later, with a list of all the things inglis wanted from his contract
- inglis says "I'll stay if you can get that deal done"
- waldron and inglis' manager get the deal done, inglis stays

point out where inglis could have even possibly known that the boat was outside of the salary cap/third party deals?

 

[Huge]

Err, which part didn't make sense. I always read what I've written and I cannot see which part was nonsensical .

 

[Kimlo]

And if Parra did that they would be fined and docked whatever competition points they had. Cheating and not achieving success does not somehow make cheating and achieving success a legitimate win.

Your argument is absurd, under that same view we could have kept so many players that we wanted to keep but couldn't afford to and then we would have remained a premiership force and possibly won multiple premierships.

 

[Broncoman]

Might be an interesting read can still remember Melbourne's salary cap rort like it was yesterday, I bought a book called Eelectric on Monday about Parramatta's golden era and it's a very good read.