"Storm Cloud" book details Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal

[Porthoz]

If their John Hancock is on it, you bet they are!

 

[Kimlo]

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.

I think Porthoz has mentioned this but it's just like a tax return, even if your accountant does it all for you, you are still legally responsible for it being accurate and true.

 

[Kaz]

I ordered the book online from Bookworld.

Search | Search results for "Storm Cloud" | Bookworld

They say they have it in stock, getting it for $22.49 with free delivery.

 

[Kaz]

You really think these people are smart enough to interpret the differences in legal contracts? I sure as hell don't.

Yes I do, that's the reason why Billy Slater didn't sign his 2nd contract.

IMO: Billy Slater thought long & hard about it & thought about the outcome if the shit hit the fan & it all came out one day.

Him not signing the 2nd contract they didn't have the goods on him, where with the others they did.

Cronk may be the 'smartest' of all the players, but Billy has the 'smarts' to think ahead of what the consequences could be.

 

[Coxy]

I am paid to lead, not to read.

 

[hayseed]

No doubt in my mind that everyone was in on the rort and knew exactly that what they were doing was wrong. IMO, these people should have been given severe bans but it would have decimated the Qld Origin team, RL's biggest showcase and the NRL couldn't afford to do that. These guys disgraced the game, the very game that took them out of the Logan gutter, Kempsey gutter etc. and made them household names and earning a very good living while doing it but chose to get greedy and got away with it totally. WTF, GI requesting rental assistance for his parents, why is a 60 yo in need of assistance? They have had plenty years to get it right. Total blight on the game and still leaves a sour taste. When GI chose to join Souths instead of us, I wasn't unhappy and I hope Cam Smith never comes near the place, I couldn't cheer for a team of which he is a member and don't even get me started on Bellyache. These guys all disrespected the game of RL, a game that you and I love and would hope that is always played fairly.

 

[Huge]

Yeah, but they did the crime, did the time and now it's history. Build a bridge ffs.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

I ordered the book online from Bookworld.

Search | Search results for "Storm Cloud" | Bookworld

They say they have it in stock, getting it for $22.49 with free delivery.

If you're anywhere near a Big W, they're selling it for 22 bucks as well.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Yeah, but they did the crime, did the time and now it's history. Build a bridge ffs.

Agree .......

(now insert the whining about the punishment NOT fitting the crime and that the Storm should have been totally disbanded because they still are enjoying an advantage by keeping the big 3 together, when if they weren't cheating in the past ......they wouldn't have been able to do)

 

[Morkel]

Agree .......

(now insert the whining about the punishment NOT fitting the crime and that the Storm should have been totally disbanded because they still are enjoying an advantage by keeping the big 3 together, when if they weren't cheating in the past ......they wouldn't have been able to do)

whining about the punishment NOT fitting the crime and that the Storm should have been totally disbanded because they still are enjoying an advantage by keeping the big 3 together, when if they weren't cheating in the past ......they wouldn't have been able to do

 

[OXY-351]

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

My thoughts too. Does the authour actually have any sources for his info. In regards to the extract, either one of Inglis, Waldron or Gainey could really be the only ones who really know what went on in that meeting.

 

[Morkel]

I'm going to jump in with my belief that the NRL setting minimum values for players is ****ing bull****. If a player wants to stay at a club for $100k when he could earn $500k elsewhere, so what? Who ****ing 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 ****. We'd have Folau back in the game if it weren't for that sort of interference. And who-knows who else!! It's bull****.

The thing is, that's wrong. The NRL has never set a minimum or arbitrary figure for any contracts. The disputes have always come down to how much of their salary is included in the cap, not how much they are 'worth'.

If Inglis was going to sign for Souths for $190k, and that's it, the NRL would be suspicious but would have no choice but to allow it. But Inglis wasn't going to play for $190k, he was signing a 'package' that was worth about $650k. Souths had just tried to get $460k on unsecured 3rd part agreements. The NRL went through each of these agreements and found just about all of them were for local businesses (which were dependent on him playing for Souths, which is not cap-exempt), or bankrolled by sponsors of the club (eg, ambassador roles). Therefore, the NRL deemed that $590k of his package was organised in such a way that it had to be included in the cap.

Same goes for Folau. His package was apparently above $700k, but again, the vast majority of it was 3rd party deals. The NRL never 'softened' their stance on how much under the cap he should be signed for, the Eels were desperately sourcing 3rd party deals that were legit (not secured or conditional to the club), in fact, so were the NRL. They were doing their best to get him back to League by sourcing deals for him too, but it was all too late.

Ever wondered how SBW was able to sign for $550k? Because he had absolutely zero third party deals in his contract. By the rules set by the NRL, every cent you earn, even externally, has to be declared for scrutiny. SBW's contract simply said there was nothing more than his Roosters contract. That's why he's signing one-year deals. He's off-contract after each season, all of his sponsorship / boxing / man-whoring etc gets paid to him while he's not contracted, then he signs a new one-year deal just as the season's about to commence.

Like I said, it's never been about assigning a player a value. They really are earning that much. The contract they sign declares how much. They just bitch and moan to the media when the NRL call them out for their BS creative accounting.

 

[Anonymous person]

MOD EDIT: If you have a mod complaint, go through the proper channels. Venting publicly is not the right way to go.

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.

legally binding contracts arent always upholdable in the eyes of the law. simple things like terms of service for websites are legally binding contracts, but in reality if you take them to court its not a simple 'you signed it, they win' thing. theyre very often found to not be enforceable. having a clause for sleeping with someones wife would be one of those times. i know youre just using that as an example, but the fact is that just because its in a contract doesnt mean its enforceable by law.

yes, the player is legally responsible, but they can sue the absolute shit out of the person that they paid to make sure the contract was above board if it turns out its not above board and that person knowingly broke the law.

If Inglis was going to sign for Souths for $190k, and that's it, the NRL would be suspicious but would have no choice but to allow it.

again, thats not true. the NRL will not allow a player to sign for less than they feel the player is worth. this is what was the major problem with gasnier coming back to the NRL was. the dragons wanted him for $50k for 2010, the NRL said no, we wont allow you to sign him for less than his market value. then they doubled that $50k and HUGELY backended his contract so as to get his per-year price up to market value. the NRL allowed it, then he retired so they didnt have to pay out his contract meaning he was never really signed for market value. it was a complete rort, and i have no doubt it was intentionally done.

 

[Morkel]

again, thats not true. the NRL will not allow a player to sign for less than they feel the player is worth. this is what was the major problem with gasnier coming back to the NRL was. the dragons wanted him for $50k for 2010, the NRL said no, we wont allow you to sign him for less than his market value. then they doubled that $50k and HUGELY backended his contract so as to get his per-year price up to market value. the NRL allowed it, then he retired so they didnt have to pay out his contract meaning he was never really signed for market value. it was a complete rort, and i have no doubt it was intentionally done.

I was going to include Gasnier in my argument, stating that he's the only exception. But his wasn't about an assigned nominal value either. You made my own argument for me. That debate was because the contract was so heavily back-ended, not because he was worth 'more'. If he'd signed for $50k per year for 3 years ($150k total), the NRL would once again have been suss, but had no grounds to not let it through.

 

[Anonymous person]

I was going to include Gasnier in my argument, stating that he's the only exception. But his wasn't about an assigned nominal value either. You made my own argument for me. That debate was because the contract was so heavily back-ended, not because he was worth 'more'. If he'd signed for $50k per year for 3 years ($150k total), the NRL would once again have been suss, but had no grounds to not let it through.

how did i make your argument? the NRL wouldnt let him sign for less than market value......that is the complete OPPOSITE of your argument lol. it wasnt because it was backended, it was because it wasnt worth as much as the NRL valued him at.

again, because you dont seem to get it - the NRL would NOT have let him sign for $50k a year for 3 years. David Gallop repeatedly said they will not let him sign for less than his market value.

the very same thing happened with folau:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...tor/story-fn2mcuj6-1226524632773#.Ufniv5KDz2E

"However, salary cap auditor Ian Schubert has rejected those ideas. Schubert is believed to have ascribed Folau a contract value of $400,000 a NRL season and is not prepared to allow him to play for anything less."

same thing happened with greg inglis:

http://www.rebelrabbitohs.com/hutch...rs-line-up-to-be-part-of-Crowe-s-Inglis-deal&

"The Herald reported on Saturday that the NRL would not register Inglis's contract for significantly less than $300,000 under the salary cap, but the Rabbitohs maintain that his value averages out at that figure over the three years he has signed."

but please, do tell me how the NRL will let players sign for whatever lowball amount they want to. im all ears.

 

[Morkel]

how did i make your argument? the NRL wouldnt let him sign for less than market value......that is the complete OPPOSITE of your argument lol. it wasnt because it was backended, it was because it wasnt worth as much as the NRL valued him at.

again, because you dont seem to get it - the NRL would NOT have let him sign for $50k a year for 3 years. David Gallop repeatedly said they will not let him sign for less than his market value.

the very same thing happened with folau:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/nrl-premiership/parramatta-eels-attempt-to-sign-code-hopper-israel-folau-could-be-thwarted-by-nrl-salary-cap-auditor/story-fn2mcuj6-1226524632773#.Ufniv5KDz2E

"However, salary cap auditor Ian Schubert has rejected those ideas. Schubert is believed to have ascribed Folau a contract value of $400,000 a NRL season and is not prepared to allow him to play for anything less."

same thing happened with greg inglis:

http://www.rebelrabbitohs.com/hutch/showthread.php?3059-Sponsors-line-up-to-be-part-of-Crowe-s-Inglis-deal&

"The Herald reported on Saturday that the NRL would not register Inglis's contract for significantly less than $300,000 under the salary cap, but the Rabbitohs maintain that his value averages out at that figure over the three years he has signed."

but please, do tell me how the NRL will let players sign for whatever lowball amount they want to. im all ears.

You did make my point. They determine the market value, ironically enough, by what the club is willing to pay them and what the player demands financially to play with that club. who'd have thought! Just like the Storm situation, would they really be willing to sign for that club for X less money? If it took an average of $600k per full season for the Dragons to sign Gasnier, then clearly he's not actually really willing to play for $50k, so only including that amount in the cap is a rort. Same with anyone who is supposedly willing to play for, example, $190k a season, but in reality their contract is $650k, with $590k of that coming on the previsor that he plays for that club.

 

[subsbligh]

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.

Even though no premiership was awarded in 2007 and 2009, no one has a better claim to the 2007 and 2009 premierships than the Melbourne Storm.

 

[subsbligh]

No one took the bait on my earlier Craig Bellamy post... :glare: