"Storm Cloud" book details Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal

[Huge]

Morkel , I seldom agree with AP but the NRL has a figure in mind when they allow/review a roster with regard to the cap at the time. If you had the top 26 players in the game today and all fitted under the cap the of one club then the NRL would refuse to register them. They assign a value to the players, it may not be published or even agreed too by the player ,club or market. They have that power. Melbourne paid overs because the market valued these players more highly, that is true but what the market valued the players at influenced the NRL when making their own valuations.

Im not saying what Melbourne did was right, indeed it was wrong because it allowed a team to stay together that the mediocrity of other clubs could not tolerate. Melbourne were punished not so much for cheating but for excellence. They developed their own and due to being successful were a victim of that success. No matter what, they lost players, lost prestige, lost fans, lost sponsorships ,lost points ,lost premierships, lost credibility and finally lost trust. It's a credit to them that they have risen from those losses. It's more than high time the holy than thous moved on. The crimes been paid for and the current players and roster is legal. Simply having a few of that squad till playing together is neither here nor there.

 

[subsbligh]

Salary caps are a farce.

Free market all the way.

Super League had the right idea.

Less clubs, more money, better conditions, better players, better competition.

 

[Anonymous person]

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.

youre not getting it.

you said the NRL will register a contract for any amount of money if thats what the player agrees to. that is flat out false, and i just proved it to you. the NRL will not register a contract for a player that is under the amount that the NRL deems that player is worth per year.

you are wrong. move on.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Just for the LOL they need to sell this book with a bonus 2nd book for free.

 

[Huge]

Although this model of salary cap is clearly wrong they are a necessary evil. Unrestrained clubs will injure themselves and the game in general. A salary cap can remain in place but with each year that passes and a player remains ,his allowance increases until he reaches his tenth year. By that I mean a portion ( percentage ? )of the money paid to him is not counted. Perhaps this could start after the first three years or so. Either way it is critical that clubs be rewarded and not punished for development . Clubs that buy only must be made to pay for that privilege . We would never have to endure a Melbourne like saga again and the long term health of clubs would be assured.

 

[Kimlo]

Morkel , I seldom agree with AP but the NRL has a figure in mind when they allow/review a roster with regard to the cap at the time. If you had the top 26 players in the game today and all fitted under the cap the of one club then the NRL would refuse to register them. They assign a value to the players, it may not be published or even agreed too by the player ,club or market. They have that power. Melbourne paid overs because the market valued these players more highly, that is true but what the market valued the players at influenced the NRL when making their own valuations.

Im not saying what Melbourne did was right, indeed it was wrong because it allowed a team to stay together that the mediocrity of other clubs could not tolerate. Melbourne were punished not so much for cheating but for excellence. They developed their own and due to being successful were a victim of that success. No matter what, they lost players, lost prestige, lost fans, lost sponsorships ,lost points ,lost premierships, lost credibility and finally lost trust. It's a credit to them that they have risen from those losses. It's more than high time the holy than thous moved on. The crimes been paid for and the current players and roster is legal. Simply having a few of that squad till playing together is neither here nor there.

Melbourne got punished for cheating, in a massive way. The biggest cheating scandal in Australian sporting history yet you can somehow defend them as noble warriors fighting against the injustice of the salary cap. There's a right way and wrong way to deal with things, we could have kept so many players that we have now lost to other clubs if we were cheating like Melbourne, we could have won in 2007 and 2009 if we had a team way over the cap as well.

 

[Huge]

Defend ? It's an explanation, a cool headed unemotional rational description . Nothing more. What is laudable is getting up when you've been knocked down. What is desirable is forgiveness and understanding that when the punishment has been metered out , and the punishment endured and accepted that we are big enough as people to move on. What the hell is wrong with you, how long do you hang on like a dog with a bone, every bit of goodness long gone. It's over.

Since they served their time they have embodied all that we desire in a club. Solidarity, perseverance and the strength to rise above the adversity . These are the very qualities and traits we would want for our children when they have done wrong. What we don't do is bang on and on and on about how they failed. We get over it and expect others to accord our kids the same respect. For a club we should act no differently and look to the future.

 

[Huge]

One further thing, there is absolutely no proof or evidence that had we cheated the cap we would have won. We may have retained more players but like a penalty try, there has to be no doubt and there is plenty of doubt.

 

[Morkel]

youre not getting it.

you said the NRL will register a contract for any amount of money if thats what the player agrees to. that is flat out false, and i just proved it to you. the NRL will not register a contract for a player that is under the amount that the NRL deems that player is worth per year.

you are wrong. move on.

I understand what you're saying. You're saying that they're forcing teams to pay more of their cap towards a certain player because of their profile, because the NRL believes they are worth more, right? That even though they may be willing to play for less at a certain club, the NRL are not allowing it? That's false. Because in all of these instances, they're not willing to play for less. No less than what their contract stipulates anyway. It's not like Inglis was willing to play for $190k. The NRL didn't say 'no, he's worth $590k, you have to pay him that'. His contract was about $650k. The NRL never inflated his value, he was signing for that amount! They were just trying to say that the additional money was from other sources, sources that would be paying those 3rd party $$ regardless of whether he was as Souths.

When you said the NRL would not let them sign for less than their market value, that in itself is correct. But they didn't pull their market values out of their arses, they were determined by the value of the contract that they were trying to register. They weren't letting Folau sign for less than $400k because that much of his contract was secured by both the club and parties that were only paying him if he played for Parra. In essence, that's how much money it took for him to play for the Eels, so that's how much they deemed it should affect their cap!

Morkel , I seldom agree with AP but the NRL has a figure in mind when they allow/review a roster with regard to the cap at the time. If you had the top 26 players in the game today and all fitted under the cap the of one club then the NRL would refuse to register them. They assign a value to the players, it may not be published or even agreed too by the player ,club or market. They have that power. Melbourne paid overs because the market valued these players more highly, that is true but what the market valued the players at influenced the NRL when making their own valuations.

Im not saying what Melbourne did was right, indeed it was wrong because it allowed a team to stay together that the mediocrity of other clubs could not tolerate. Melbourne were punished not so much for cheating but for excellence. They developed their own and due to being successful were a victim of that success. No matter what, they lost players, lost prestige, lost fans, lost sponsorships ,lost points ,lost premierships, lost credibility and finally lost trust. It's a credit to them that they have risen from those losses. It's more than high time the holy than thous moved on. The crimes been paid for and the current players and roster is legal. Simply having a few of that squad till playing together is neither here nor there.

Melbourne did not pay overs for any player. They were made to honour the value of previous contracts, the legit ones plus the dodgy side ones. That's not overs. Again, it's what they were getting paid!!! If they're getting paid that much to play for Melbourne, then that's how much of the cap should be used.

 

[Kimlo]

One further thing, there is absolutely no proof or evidence that had we cheated the cap we would have won. We may have retained more players but like a penalty try, there has to be no doubt and there is plenty of doubt.

And there is absolutely no proof or evidence that Melbourne would have won those premierships without cheating the cap. The fact that Greg Inglis got the Clive Churchill medal says a fair bit.

 

[Kimlo]

Defend ? It's an explanation, a cool headed unemotional rational description . Nothing more. What is laudable is getting up when you've been knocked down. What is desirable is forgiveness and understanding that when the punishment has been metered out , and the punishment endured and accepted that we are big enough as people to move on. What the hell is wrong with you, how long do you hang on like a dog with a bone, every bit of goodness long gone. It's over.

Since they served their time they have embodied all that we desire in a club. Solidarity, perseverance and the strength to rise above the adversity . These are the very qualities and traits we would want for our children when they have done wrong. What we don't do is bang on and on and on about how they failed. We get over it and expect others to accord our kids the same respect. For a club we should act no differently and look to the future.

What is laudable is not cheating in the first place. Cheating and then going back to not cheating only because you got caught is not laudable. If someone gets put in jail and comes out and never gets in trouble again should he be lauded over someone who never got in trouble in the first place? So if the Broncos cheated then won the premiership 1 year after being caught out while reaping the benefits of keeping the players they originally cheated to keep in the team, they should be lauded? Respect needs to be earned and trust takes a long time to rebuild, Melbourne robbed so many teams of the chance of a premiership during their cheating year and completely devalued two years of the comp which are now forever listed without a premiership win.

Let me share some quotes.

“They had a long-term system of effectively two sets of books and the elaborate lengths they have gone through to cover this up has been extraordinary.”
“I would hope they would play for personal pride, I’d hope they’d play to restore the faith of so many people who followed that team faithfully.”

“What you’re going to see and hear of is collusion at such a level, and such an orchestrated level of deceptive conduct that you may understand why over a period of five years some $1.7 million was able to be fraudulently misappropriated.”

This wasn't some accident, or a stupid mistake, it was a meticulously planned way or rorting the entire competition by cheating the conditions of the salary cap.

 

[Anonymous person]

I understand what you're saying. You're saying that they're forcing teams to pay more of their cap towards a certain player because of their profile, because the NRL believes they are worth more, right? That even though they may be willing to play for less at a certain club, the NRL are not allowing it? That's false. Because in all of these instances, they're not willing to play for less. No less than what their contract stipulates anyway. It's not like Inglis was willing to play for $190k. The NRL didn't say 'no, he's worth $590k, you have to pay him that'. His contract was about $650k. The NRL never inflated his value, he was signing for that amount! They were just trying to say that the additional money was from other sources, sources that would be paying those 3rd party $$ regardless of whether he was as Souths.

When you said the NRL would not let them sign for less than their market value, that in itself is correct. But they didn't pull their market values out of their arses, they were determined by the value of the contract that they were trying to register. They weren't letting Folau sign for less than $400k because that much of his contract was secured by both the club and parties that were only paying him if he played for Parra. In essence, that's how much money it took for him to play for the Eels, so that's how much they deemed it should affect their cap!

holy shit ive never seen someone so blatantly trying to twist and turn an obvious fact to suit your agenda lol.

the NRL determines what they feel is market value for a player independent of what the player is currently signed for or attempting to sign for. this is not up for debate, the NRL auditor Ian Schubert himself says this.

this whole "They weren't letting Folau sign for less than $400k because that much of his contract was secured by both the club and parties that were only paying him if he played for Parra" thing is, pardon my french, absolute bullshit that youre pulling out of your arse lol.

heres yet ANOTHER link proving you wrong and me right:

NRL club bosses want salary cap auditor Ian Schubert held to audit for his decisions | Rugby League, NRL Scores, NRL Ladder | Fox Sports

"Parramatta could not strike an immediate deal with Folau because Scubert insisted his base contract must be worth at least $350,000. The delay gave New South Wales Waratahs enough time to compile a counter offer to Folau."

and another:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...ion/story-fn2mcuj6-1226527889236#.Ufo7opJmhcY

"NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert knocked back several attempts by the club to squeeze him into their $5m salary cap after valuing him at $400,000."

again, and i cant emphasise this enough - you are 10000000000000000000% wrong on this. there is no room for misinterpreting it, theres no "oh they say this but they mean this" - Ian Schubert plucks a figure out of his bum about what a player is worth at a minimum, and will then reject ANY contract that is less than that amount for that player.

 

[Anonymous person]

stupid double post

 

[Porthoz]

Hi Morkel, meet AP. Whether you're right or wrong... You're wrong! :cuckoo::cuckoo:

 

[Ari Gold]

AP is 1000000% right in regards to Folau. The Nrl gave Union a freebie by insisting on a stupid rule that has only hurt the game immeasurably.

 

[Kimlo]

holy shit ive never seen someone so blatantly trying to twist and turn an obvious fact to suit your agenda lol.

the NRL determines what they feel is market value for a player independent of what the player is currently signed for or attempting to sign for. this is not up for debate, the NRL auditor Ian Schubert himself says this.

this whole "They weren't letting Folau sign for less than $400k because that much of his contract was secured by both the club and parties that were only paying him if he played for Parra" thing is, pardon my french, absolute bullshit that youre pulling out of your arse lol.

heres yet ANOTHER link proving you wrong and me right:

NRL club bosses want salary cap auditor Ian Schubert held to audit for his decisions | Rugby League, NRL Scores, NRL Ladder | Fox Sports

"Parramatta could not strike an immediate deal with Folau because Scubert insisted his base contract must be worth at least $350,000. The delay gave New South Wales Waratahs enough time to compile a counter offer to Folau."

and another:

Parramatta Eels shocked by Israel Folau's decision to turn back on NRL for rugby union | Rugby League, NRL Scores, NRL Ladder | Fox Sports

"NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert knocked back several attempts by the club to squeeze him into their $5m salary cap after valuing him at $400,000."

again, and i cant emphasise this enough - you are 10000000000000000000% wrong on this. there is no room for misinterpreting it, theres no "oh they say this but they mean this" - Ian Schubert plucks a figure out of his bum about what a player is worth at a minimum, and will then reject ANY contract that is less than that amount for that player.

I'm not on either side here but Ian Schubert is probably the best person in the game to judge a players value, after all he knows what every player is paid so he would be in the best position to have a realistic market rate, there is no way Folau could be less than 400,000, don't you agree with that? If he's signed for less then something dodgy is happening.

The way I understand it is the NRL accepts what ever figure the club says but if they smell anything suspicious (like Folau for less than 400...) they'll come in and assign a minimum value.

 

[Morkel]

holy **** ive never seen someone so blatantly trying to twist and turn an obvious fact to suit your agenda lol.

the NRL determines what they feel is market value for a player independent of what the player is currently signed for or attempting to sign for. this is not up for debate, the NRL auditor Ian Schubert himself says this.

this whole "They weren't letting Folau sign for less than $400k because that much of his contract was secured by both the club and parties that were only paying him if he played for Parra" thing is, pardon my french, absolute bull**** that youre pulling out of your arse lol.

heres yet ANOTHER link proving you wrong and me right:

NRL club bosses want salary cap auditor Ian Schubert held to audit for his decisions | Rugby League, NRL Scores, NRL Ladder | Fox Sports

"Parramatta could not strike an immediate deal with Folau because Scubert insisted his base contract must be worth at least $350,000. The delay gave New South Wales Waratahs enough time to compile a counter offer to Folau."

and another:

Parramatta Eels shocked by Israel Folau's decision to turn back on NRL for rugby union | Rugby League, NRL Scores, NRL Ladder | Fox Sports

"NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert knocked back several attempts by the club to squeeze him into their $5m salary cap after valuing him at $400,000."

again, and i cant emphasise this enough - you are 10000000000000000000% wrong on this. there is no room for misinterpreting it, theres no "oh they say this but they mean this" - Ian Schubert plucks a figure out of his bum about what a player is worth at a minimum, and will then reject ANY contract that is less than that amount for that player.

So tell me where in any of those articles is there a claim that he's making the numbers up as he goes along? The clubs might be pissed off that they're not allowed to fudge the cap figures, but even they haven't even claimed that Schubert is setting arbitrary values. Simply, he is assessing the whole package that's being submitted for approval, looks at the value of each component, and declares what should and what shouldn't be included in the cap. There has not been one single instance of him suggesting that a player is not getting paid enough, that the club needs to pay him at least X amount for it to be fair to a market value, and that to pay him less than that would be cheating the cap. On the contrary. As I said, these 'packages', in these examples are in the $600k - $700k range. All he's ever done is say that this is the amount that needs to be included in the cap. Expecting an auditor to believe that Folau was willing to play for less money that a typical second-year winger, and expecting that to be allowed under the cap, is stupidity of the highest order. The fact that his deal was worth $700k proves it was a sham.

 

[Morkel]

AP is 1000000% right in regards to Folau. The Nrl gave Union a freebie by insisting on a stupid rule that has only hurt the game immeasurably.

If any club needed a handout to help their performance it's Parra. But why should they be allowed to break the rules just because they're incompetent fools? They would likely have had every legit opportunity to get Folau under their cap if they weren't paying Sandow $550k, Lussick $450k, and by all reports, paying a non-player (Hoppa) out of their 2013 cap just to get him to agree to a future deal. If it was Manly or the Rooters attempting to sign Folau for less than $250k under the cap then everyone would be screaming blue murder.