Storm for Wooden Spoon - Betting Suspended

[Meat77]

True. Really the only fair thing is to exclude the Storm from the 2010 premiership, and all teams who have/are scheduled to play them get 2 points for an extra bye. But even then, some teams play them twice, others only once. So even THAT's not fair.

Besides, the TV contracts require 8 games a week, so the games can't just be called off.

Whole situation just sucks.

The last sentence is the point to be made - there is no fair solution or punishment...the whole thing is just a steaming pile of shit...

 

[Jeba]

If AP is stupid enough to compare minor salary cap breaches to Melbourne's, well geez I dunno, 2 + 2 is 4!!!!!!!!!

So basically what you're saying is that it's ok to only cheat a little bit every year, as long as it's not too much?

Cheating is cheating. Last time I checked, a 'minor' salary cap breach was still a salary cap breach, and an attempt to avoid the salary cap is cheating. Answer me this question Jeb - did the Broncos cheat in 2006?

Why answer the question myself when someone has already perfected it:

I can't believe AP is referring to the Broncos' salary cap breach as "cheating".

Cheating implies a deliberate attempt to subvert the rules. If the NRL thought the Broncos' salary cap breaches of the past were deliberate attempts to break the rules and get away with it, they would've copped more than a fine. Look at the Warriors. Look at the Bulldogs. Look at the Storm.

In all three of those cases there was a calculated, concealed method to hiding the extra undisclosed payments and they were only revealed when someone leaked the info, or owned up (in the Warriors case the new administration noticed what their predecessors had done and owned up).

To even have the Broncos' 2006 undisclosed payment and the Storm's calculated 5 year rorting of the system in the same postcode is an utter joke.

icon_thumbs_u icon_thumbs_u icon_thumbs_u

 

[Anonymous person]

lol typical jeb post, sidestepping the issue and question.

 

[Coxy]

He's not though, because my fundamental disagreement with your equating the Broncos 2006 salary cap breach to the Storm's 5 year rort is the implication both are "cheating".

The NRL found that the Broncos' 2006 breach was a legitimate mistake by the club.
The NRL found that the Storm had been secretively siphoning off extra money to players outside the salary cap for years. THAT's cheating.

As I said way earlier in the thread, I don't necessarily agree with taking away the Storm's premierships from the record books, but as per schmix's response, I can understand why it's been done. I could never ever understand them applying similar punishment to the Broncos for a clerical mistake in 2006!

 

[Meat77]

Now they've lost their jersey sponsor...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...lary-cap-scandal/story-e6frexnr-1225857372201

THE explosive salary cap revelations have cost the Melbourne Storm a major sponsor with ME Bank announcing that it will terminate its sponsorship of the disgraced club.

ME Bank chief executive Jamie McPhee said today ME Bank has decided to terminate its sponsorship agreement with the Melbourne Storm Rugby League Club.

The bank said it is extremely disappointed by the events, which have come to light in the past 24 hours, relating to the salary cap breaches at Melbourne Storm.

“As an organisation ME Bank believes in the principles of strong governance, transparency, integrity, and fairness and we seek to ensure that all of our corporate and community partnerships uphold these same values,” McPhee said.

 

[Flutterby]

Storm have to release player(s) to reduce their salary expenditure in 2010 to a legal level

That could be harsh on the players though. What if they don't want to relocate from Melbourne? Is it just a case of tough luck?

No different from if the Storm hadn't cheated the system - in order to stay under the salary cap for the last 5 years they would have had to release players, who would have had to relocate from Melbourne. Same as Broncos had to do with Civo and countless others over the years. If you can't fit the players under your cap they have to move on.

 

[Coxy]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/bria ... 5857286768

Sponsors pulling out. Storm now genuinely a threat of folding. This, Jeba, is why I think this is such a dark day for rugby league. If the Storm folds, then as many have said, the NRL can forget about having a presence in Melbourne ever again IMO.

 

[Flutterby]

This is also why I think News Ltd's total withdrawal from the game is now under threat. I think they might feel duty bound to continue ownership of the Storm a bit longer in order to get them through this and continue to operate.

 

[Coxy]

I don't see News stepping out of the NRL ownership having any influence on their ownership of the Storm. I think most would be perfectly happy for them to retain that ownership and in fact work harder than ever now to make sure the Storm don't fold.

 

[Flutterby]

Yeah they can own the Storm without owning any part of the NRL - but the initial deal was them withdrawing all and every ownership - this is now unlikely, and as all 16 clubs are to have ownership under the IC - they will still have a say in how the game is run.

 

[m1c]

AP, are you saying teams shouldn't field a full 17 on match day, or clubs shouldn't pay certain players?

What




The



F#$%!?!?!!

where did i even say anything REMOTELY like that? [icon_confu

m1c seems to enjoy banana cake too Huge [icon_lol1.

Well that is the only way the Broncos could have prevented breaching the salary cap in past years. The reason they breached it was because players outside the top 25 played first grade due to a large amount of injuries, and players they didn't expect to, made rep teams and thus got bonuses.

 

[Anonymous person]

He's not though, because my fundamental disagreement with your equating the Broncos 2006 salary cap breach to the Storm's 5 year rort is the implication both are "cheating".

The NRL found that the Broncos' 2006 breach was a legitimate mistake by the club.
The NRL found that the Storm had been secretively siphoning off extra money to players outside the salary cap for years. THAT's cheating.

As I said way earlier in the thread, I don't necessarily agree with taking away the Storm's premierships from the record books, but as per schmix's response, I can understand why it's been done. I could never ever understand them applying similar punishment to the Broncos for a clerical mistake in 2006!

both are cheating, intentional or not. if youre over the salary cap youre cheating.

and again, misinterpretation. im not comparing the broncos 2006 salary cap breach to the Storms 5 year rort - im comparing the broncos 2006 to melbourne 2006, or melbourne 2007, or 2008 - NOT 1 broncos year vs 5 melbourne years combined.

they both were over the salary cap, only 1 team loses a minor premiership/premiership at a time when they were only ONE year in breach of the cap, and then 2 years in breach of the cap. in 2007 they werent 5 years in to their salary cap rorting, they were 2. in 2006, they were only 1. yet they are punished for both of those years as if they had been doing it for 5 years.

 

[Coxy]

Nup, you're just clearly not getting it.

A mistake is not a rort. It's a mistake. If the ATO audits you and finds you've not declared something/incorrectly declared something, but feel it was a genuine mistake, they simply make you pay it back. If they think you've been trying to knowingly cheat the system, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

So, forgetting 5 years of it, let's say the Storm were caught in 2008 with this double books system applying only to 2007. And in 2007 the Broncos' mistake in 2006 was uncovered.

NRL rules the 2006 breach by the Broncos was a mistake, they were fined, done and dusted.
NRL Rules the 2007 breach by the Storm a deliberate attempt to cheat, which resulted in a premiership, they strip the title.

Totally valid.

 

[Charmamba]

He's not though, because my fundamental disagreement with your equating the Broncos 2006 salary cap breach to the Storm's 5 year rort is the implication both are "cheating".

The NRL found that the Broncos' 2006 breach was a legitimate mistake by the club.
The NRL found that the Storm had been secretively siphoning off extra money to players outside the salary cap for years. THAT's cheating.

As I said way earlier in the thread, I don't necessarily agree with taking away the Storm's premierships from the record books, but as per schmix's response, I can understand why it's been done. I could never ever understand them applying similar punishment to the Broncos for a clerical mistake in 2006!

both are cheating, intentional or not. if youre over the salary cap youre cheating.

and again, misinterpretation. im not comparing the broncos 2006 salary cap breach to the Storms 5 year rort - im comparing the broncos 2006 to melbourne 2006, or melbourne 2007, or 2008 - NOT 1 broncos year vs 5 melbourne years combined.

they both were over the salary cap, only 1 team loses a minor premiership/premiership at a time when they were only ONE year in breach of the cap, and then 2 years in breach of the cap. in 2007 they werent 5 years in to their salary cap rorting, they were 2. in 2006, they were only 1. yet they are punished for both of those years as if they had been doing it for 5 years.

the Storm won a premiership via cheating and CONTINUED to do so. Its not like they screwed up and then fixed it. They got cocky pushed it further as is shown by the fact the amount goes up each year.

When your doing Contracts for 25 top grade players and now the U20's as well mistakes are bound to happen and thats shown with the fact every club has been hit at some point.

 

[Emma]

Nup, you're just clearly not getting it.

A mistake is not a rort. It's a mistake. If the ATO audits you and finds you've not declared something/incorrectly declared something, but feel it was a genuine mistake, they simply make you pay it back. If they think you've been trying to knowingly cheat the system, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

So, forgetting 5 years of it, let's say the Storm were caught in 2008 with this double books system applying only to 2007. And in 2007 the Broncos' mistake in 2006 was uncovered.

NRL rules the 2006 breach by the Broncos was a mistake, they were fined, done and dusted.
NRL Rules the 2007 breach by the Storm a deliberate attempt to cheat, which resulted in a premiership, they strip the title.

Totally valid.

I think you're wasting your breath.

 

[Nashy]

Yeah, give up Coxy. He isn't going to back down.




edited by admin

 

[Charmamba]

Yeah, give up Coxy. He isn't going to back down.


edited by Admin

+1

How can one call himself a Rugby League fan and then sit here and defend a team that has embarrassed our game?

 

[Charmamba]

Moodie said former chief executive Brian Waldron, who has been described as the "architect" of the deceit, told him that "everyone was doing it", when he asked for an explanation.

"This was about if we want to be competitive, everybody else does it, we had to do it," Moodie said.

http://www.nrl.com/news/news/newsarticl ... fault.aspx