Storm for Wooden Spoon - Betting Suspended
- Thread starter Flutterby
- Start date
- Status
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
AH ok, still very good considering they usually get crowds in the 10,000's.
"In addition it appears that Storm will be over the cap by around $1.2 million in 2011."
Saw this in another forum.
So they have to release a lot more players than first thought to be under next year.
This also means a lot of players here this year are here because of the pay boost next year so Storm are so far ahead because of their cheating and 1.2 million is not just one or 2 players, it's 3-4 really good players + a very solid team.
With that much above the cap you could offer 6 really good players 200k more than any other club and keep them.
Dirty scum bag cheats.
"In addition it appears that Storm will be over the cap by around $1.2 million in 2011."
Saw this in another forum.
So they have to release a lot more players than first thought to be under next year.
This also means a lot of players here this year are here because of the pay boost next year so Storm are so far ahead because of their cheating and 1.2 million is not just one or 2 players, it's 3-4 really good players + a very solid team.
With that much above the cap you could offer 6 really good players 200k more than any other club and keep them.
Dirty scum bag cheats.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 27,337
- 17,420
Donny said:
Quite serious.
No way that Cam Smith would have been on $400k. NRL would not have registered a contract for that amount. I'm assuming 500k at least would have been registered. Key word: assuming. Like everyone else, we don't know what the players knew. If it's proven they knew they were receiving payments outside of the cap, then de-register them. But they do deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
They were all entitled to assume they were being paid legally. How would the players know that anything they received was not declared under the cap unless Waldron saids "Here's a free car, mate. *wink wink*"
Plenty of companies have sponorships with clubs, some of them may have been provided with goods or services that were provided in kind and passed on the players. I'd bet nearly every club does that.
As for Slater's salary cap clause, he re-signed with the Storm last year while Smith and Inglis re-signed back in 2008. Footy show reminded me of an article last year when Waldron was boasting the Storm was under the cap when Billy re-signed so I'm guessing Slater had heard those rumours and wanted the clause for his peace of mind. Those rumours might not have been around in 2008!
Until the NRL states any or all of Smith, Slater and Inglis knew the club was rorting the salary cap then, as far as I'm concerned, they're innocent of any wrong doing. They might be dirty Storm grubs but they're not rorting Storm grubs yet.
Major JW Hochstetter
NRL Player
- Mar 4, 2008
- 1,480
- 28
Mark Geyer rumour:
"Am hearing there may be extraordinary meeting tonight between Storm heirarchy and NRL officials re playing for points....stay tuned...!"
http://twitter.com/markMGgeyer/status/12813754427
"Am hearing there may be extraordinary meeting tonight between Storm heirarchy and NRL officials re playing for points....stay tuned...!"
http://twitter.com/markMGgeyer/status/12813754427
- Mar 26, 2008
- 7,997
- 6,941
Good,I hope its true, its the only way to move forward.
As much as I dislike Pus he made a lot of sense today when he argued that the only ones getting hurt were the fans the sponsors and the players who all at this stage are innocent victims of the Storm admin.
As much as I dislike Pus he made a lot of sense today when he argued that the only ones getting hurt were the fans the sponsors and the players who all at this stage are innocent victims of the Storm admin.
Jeba
International
- Mar 4, 2008
- 6,501
- 244
Nashy said:
Exactly. The Warriors are a team that could well be fighting for 8th spot at the end of the year and they have just been dealt a massive blow for their for and against, all after playing against an illegal team. It could cost them a spot in the finals. In their case in particular, they have just travelled overseas to get thumped by a team that shouldn't be there in the first place.
Forget the Storm for a minute and whether or not you think their punishment for this year is unfair. Think of the other clubs. Because of their cheating, they have a superior team and it will take a massive, massive effort from other teams to beat them.
IMO the majority of the Storm's punishment was fair. The stripping of Minor Premierships and Premierships is totally justified.
With the playing for no points thing however, I think the NRL acted too quickly without thinking about it too much. I think it's a fair punishment, but I think it has an unfair affect on other teams who have played by the rules. I reckon still play the games, but for opposing teams to the Storm it should be treated as a Bye and they get the 2 points regardless of the result, and for and against is disregarded for that game. Might seem a tad unfair to teams that manage to beat Melbourne by 40, and it might seem a pointless exercise when you know who will walk away with 2 points, but I think it's fair. An easier solution might be to just have Melbourne not play until they are under the cap, but for the Storm to survive they need the revenue from gate takings every 2 or so weeks so the games need to be played.
And in saying all that, credit to the Storm on their performance yesterday and to their fans for turning out. There is plenty of hope for them yet. Still hate them :mrgreen:
- Thread starter
- #522
I see what you are saying Jeb, but what about the teams who have already played and lost to the Storm this year? Do we go back and now award all of them the 2 points as well, and take their scores out of the for and against? As well as the teams that beat the Storm already - we take their scores out of the for and against as well? Can't really do it IMO.
The NRL also needs Storm to play every week because the broadcast and sponsorship deals provide for pretty heft loss of income for the NRL if they don't put out 8 games a week - and that will only punish every other club.
In regards how much the players knew or didn't know. I personally still think they might have had thoughts (as have all the fans over the years) wondering as to how they could keep them all under the cap, but not asked any questions. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage under evidence proving them guilty is found. There is a big difference between having suspicions or knowing what was going on and being actively involved in the cheating. Specifically regarding the 3 players named - I'd love to see the letters, as the NRL are saying they were written in a way that it would not have caused the players to think they weren't legitimate, so I'd like to see how they were written.
The NRL also needs Storm to play every week because the broadcast and sponsorship deals provide for pretty heft loss of income for the NRL if they don't put out 8 games a week - and that will only punish every other club.
In regards how much the players knew or didn't know. I personally still think they might have had thoughts (as have all the fans over the years) wondering as to how they could keep them all under the cap, but not asked any questions. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage under evidence proving them guilty is found. There is a big difference between having suspicions or knowing what was going on and being actively involved in the cheating. Specifically regarding the 3 players named - I'd love to see the letters, as the NRL are saying they were written in a way that it would not have caused the players to think they weren't legitimate, so I'd like to see how they were written.
- Status
