"Storm Cloud" book details Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal

[Morkel]

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 ...

Well clearly you haven't argued with me on the matter, otherwise you'd know by now that you are wrong...

'Notional' values has nothing to do with it. The values that count towards the cap (concessions & 3rd parties excluded) are what a player/club is willing to agree to in order for a player to play for them. Nothing notional about that. Even the cases where the auditor has had to step in, it was never about a notional value, it was because the player was getting paid X dollars, but they were trying to get those payments cap-excluded via incorrect means.

What will always sell it for me, the reason I am absolutely sure that the Storm would not have been held together if it wasn't for the rorting, is the example of Cam Smith. He was off to the Titans, no question. Nathan Friend was told to move on because they'd effectively signed him. It was only an 11th-hour counter-offer by the Storm that kept him in Melbourne, the increase in contract value we know now was outside the cap. Again, there is no 'notional' value about it. You could argue that Smith was worth, hypothetically, $750k to the Titans, while only being worth $600k to the Storm, because that's what each were willing to agree on in order for him to sign. But that's not what they agreed on. Smith was not willing to sign for that $600k. Otherwise he would have. Whatever he eventually signed for was what his cap value should have been. Without cheating, Cam Smith would not be at the storm. Whether he was enticed by illegal money to remain at the Storm, or bought from outside the club and paid overs off the record (as per your example), it's the same thing. Developing or buying a player, in this argument, is irrelevant.

 

[Huge]

You seem to misunderstand spwn ! Aside from my belief being reasonable I agree that under the rules Melbourne did deserve sanction for their actions. This is something I have written previously too I might add. My point about Parramatta is simple but you missed it altogether . The point is irrespective of what the players were paid it did not give them any advantage. What advantage was gained was the capacity to keep the team together. This team in the years previously was substantially the same but valued at a lower rate. Do you see the point now ? So to me it was 17 on 17 and the better team won. The better coached team as well. Like I said it was an illegal team but only because the players were valued more highly with each passing season.

 

[Morkel]

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?

The bit where they weren't included in the contract he signed.

 

[Anonymous person]

The bit where they weren't included in the contract he signed.

sigh.....

they wouldnt get one contract that states everything theyre getting. they would get an NRL contract, then at LEAST another 1 contract per third party deal. for a player of inglis' standing, i would say he would sign the old john hancock at least a dozen times after hes agreed to a deal. he wouldnt read these deals, thats what he pays his manager ~10% - or in this case something like $55k to do. manager would go through with the sticky notes and put one next to each thing he has to sign, and thats what he signs.

again, if the professional youre paying to get you a deal tells you to sign on the x you generally sign on the x. if you couldve done it all yourself, why would you be paying this person 10% of your money to do it? jesus christ some people just dont get it lol.

'Notional' values has nothing to do with it. The values that count towards the cap (concessions & 3rd parties excluded) are what a player/club is willing to agree to in order for a player to play for them. Nothing notional about that. Even the cases where the auditor has had to step in, it was never about a notional value, it was because the player was getting paid X dollars, but they were trying to get those payments cap-excluded via incorrect means.

well it does have something to do with it. the NRL decides that a player of say Smiths standing is worth a minimum of 600k a year, and any attempt to sign him for less than that will be denied. even if smith wanted to sign for $300k the NRL wouldnt let him, as they pin his at value at minimum of $600k.

thats what was so wrong about the mark gasnier resigning/retirement thing. the NRL would NOT register his contract at 100k for year 1, 150k year 2. they only agreed to it was because then in year 3 it went up to like 1 million, then like 1.2 million the next year, giving his total contract a value of like $600k a year, which they agreed is his worth. then he went and retired after year 2, meaning that they only really signed him for $125k a year - something the NRL was vehemently against.

 

[Kimlo]

You seem to misunderstand spwn ! Aside from my belief being reasonable I agree that under the rules Melbourne did deserve sanction for their actions. This is something I have written previously too I might add. My point about Parramatta is simple but you missed it altogether . The point is irrespective of what the players were paid it did not give them any advantage. What advantage was gained was the capacity to keep the team together. This team in the years previously was substantially the same but valued at a lower rate. Do you see the point now ? So to me it was 17 on 17 and the better team won. The better coached team as well. Like I said it was an illegal team but only because the players were valued more highly with each passing season.

I still disagree. We could have kept our players too, for example we upgraded Gillett, Glenn, Thaiday, Wallace and co in previous seasons, under the Storm salary cap cheating method we could have kept all these players on their much lower previous contracts and been able to sign some stars to complement our team or keep stars we already had. For example we could have kept Folau and K Hunt in our team and we wouldn't be struggling like we are now.

 

[Kimlo]

sigh.....

they wouldnt get one contract that states everything theyre getting. they would get an NRL contract, then at LEAST another 1 contract per third party deal. for a player of inglis' standing, i would say he would sign the old john hancock at least a dozen times after hes agreed to a deal. he wouldnt read these deals, thats what he pays his manager ~10% - or in this case something like $55k to do. manager would go through with the sticky notes and put one next to each thing he has to sign, and thats what he signs.

again, if the professional youre paying to get you a deal tells you to sign on the x you generally sign on the x. if you couldve done it all yourself, why would you be paying this person 10% of your money to do it? jesus christ some people just dont get it lol.

Yet you were willing to insinuate that certain Sharks players were cheats. Why didn't you extend them the same courtesy, because they too were told drink this here and here and you'll be good because I'm the person who manages all supplements.

You can't have it both ways.

Players have to take personal responsibility of what they do.

 

[Porthoz]

The bit where they weren't included in the contract he signed.

[AP mode ON]

Yeah, but Inglis just signed where the little arrows pointed to. He didn't realise the boat wasn't in it!
And when he signed the second contract, he was told that was because the first had a typo in it, so he thought nothing of it...
True story! :001_rolleyes:

[/AP]

 

[Anonymous person]

Yet you were willing to insinuate that certain Sharks players were cheats. Why didn't you extend them the same courtesy, because they too were told drink this here and here and you'll be good because I'm the person who manages all supplements.

You can't have it both ways.

Players have to take personal responsibility of what they do.

i didnt insinuate that that sharks player was knowingly a cheat, i insinuated that IMO he was taking performance enhancing drugs. i didnt say he knew he was taking them, just that based on his sudden substantial performance increase he was IMO taking drugs.

i give the players in the drug case the benefit of the doubt. but if they were going to outside doctors to get them, or taking drugs that say "for equine use only", thats completely different to a player signing a thing saying he gets a free boat and being told that the NRL are aware of it. if the boat had a sticker that said "not to be given to NRL players for free" on it then sure, itd seem a bit iffy. boats dont have that label on them though.

[AP mode ON]

Yeah, but Inglis just signed where the little arrows pointed to. He didn't realise the boat wasn't in it!
And when he signed the second contract, he was told that was because the first had a typo in it, so he thought nothing of it...
True story! :001_rolleyes:

[/AP]

again, there wouldnt have been a single contract that had both the boat and the nrl salary in it. boat is third party, wouldve had its own contract. i swear some of you guys must never have had a full time or even contract job lol.

 

[Jeba]

So exactly which NRL player's contract have you seen AP?

 

[pennywisealfie]

The whole thing is the biggest wank ever. The whole book would be made up.

 

[Bucking Beads]

This is really pathetic. I can't for a second believe the players getting paid in the 2 books didn't know what was going on. Especially Cameron Smith who is very switched on. You can mount an argument for GI though because he thinks planes don't fly in the rain,.

 

[Kaz]

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

GI when the NRL etc came knocking & asking about the boat.

GI is the female in this clip. :tongue_smilie:





If the boat was for his father, why was it in GI's driveway.

 

[Porthoz]

i swear some of you guys must never have had a full time or even contract job lol.

Yeah mate, I have never had one of those! :loool:

 

[LittleDavey]

sigh.....

they wouldnt get one contract that states everything theyre getting. they would get an NRL contract, then at LEAST another 1 contract per third party deal. for a player of inglis' standing, i would say he would sign the old john hancock at least a dozen times after hes agreed to a deal. he wouldnt read these deals, thats what he pays his manager ~10% - or in this case something like $55k to do. manager would go through with the sticky notes and put one next to each thing he has to sign, and thats what he signs.

again, if the professional youre paying to get you a deal tells you to sign on the x you generally sign on the x. if you couldve done it all yourself, why would you be paying this person 10% of your money to do it? jesus christ some people just dont get it lol.


well it does have something to do with it. the NRL decides that a player of say Smiths standing is worth a minimum of 600k a year, and any attempt to sign him for less than that will be denied. even if smith wanted to sign for $300k the NRL wouldnt let him, as they pin his at value at minimum of $600k.

thats what was so wrong about the mark gasnier resigning/retirement thing. the NRL would NOT register his contract at 100k for year 1, 150k year 2. they only agreed to it was because then in year 3 it went up to like 1 million, then like 1.2 million the next year, giving his total contract a value of like $600k a year, which they agreed is his worth. then he went and retired after year 2, meaning that they only really signed him for $125k a year - something the NRL was vehemently against.

I'm going to jump in with my belief that the NRL setting minimum values for players is fucking bullshit. If a player wants to stay at a club for $100k when he could earn $500k elsewhere, so what? Who fucking cares? Why should the NRL be able to jump in and say "nah, sorry guys, he's worth $500k, we won't let you sign him for less than that"?? A contract should be between a player and a club. The NRL has enough to sort out, what with scheduling and shit. We'd have Folau back in the game if it weren't for that sort of interference. And who-knows who else!! It's bullshit.

 

[Coxy]

I want some taquitos

 

[Ari Gold]

I'm with AP on this one.

Watch a footy player give an interview. Outside of Cooper Cronk they all speak like fucking retards. You really think these people are smart enough to interpret the differences in legal contracts? I sure as hell don't.

But as Cronk was one of them, then you can go ahead and say he should have known.

Also agree with Little Davey. Minimum player values are bullshit (except for in the Storm's case where it prevented guys from re-signing for less). NRL's whole management of the salary cap is a blight on this game. The Storm's cheating of it might have ruined it for some people, but for me, the strictness and blindness of it is what's ruining the game.

 

[Nashy]

You can bet your bottom dollar that the agents can read them though.

 

[Jeba]

Well if the players just sign next to the sign here stickers and don't at least skim through their contracts they are even stupider than I thought. For all they know there could be a clause in there that stipulates that Billy Slater's manager gets to have sex with Billy's wife every Tuesday night. If they don't read it and that's in there but they've signed it, it's a legal contract!!!!

I know that managers are paid to work things out for them, but at the end of the day I think they would be legally responsible for what is in the contract to some extent.