Storm for Wooden Spoon - Betting Suspended

[Foordy]

I saw the last 15mins of Gallops press conference and he was asked something like FIVE times why the NRL aren't going to take further action against the Storm, now that it has been revealed that the rorts were much greater than first thought. he gave the same answer each time.

he was also asked multiple times whether he would take action against Peter O'sullivan since he was one of the people named in the report.

 

[Porthoz]

While I agree you would think there would be a lot of legalities in simply "cancelling" contracts, what about players who truly had nothing to do with anything, why should their future no longer be secured?

It is the best way to go about it but in practice it's going to be a nightmare.

That's a very good point, but what will practically happen and is already happening, is that at least some of those players will be "advised" to seek another employer or take pay cuts.

Let's not forget that this rorting made it impossible for other clubs to table competitive offers for the better Storm players, which is one of the main reasons for the cap.
By taking paycuts and allowing the Storm to control who they release is still punishing the other clubs in the NRL. Coxy's idea about taking the control away from the Storm would correct that.

Having said that, if the big 4 are willing to take pay cuts down to their NRL "real" value, I can't really argue it, except for the fact that it feels morally wrong and obviously because I am interested in getting Inglis up here!

 

[Flutterby]

Most of my thoughts have already been covered by others, so I won't repeat them. But I do have a couple of things to add.

1. Interesting that Issy wasn't one of the players to be found to have received any payments outside of the cap

2. I heard someone with the Storm saying that they wanted to keep "The Big 4" but would also like some help from the NRL so that they didn't have to basically have a pub team (as Hartigan called it) around those 4 - that would basically be the whipping boys of the comp. My response to this is - well the Storm have a choice, keep the big 4 and build a 'pub team' getting flogged every week around them; OR off-load one or two of the 4 and be able to afford a decent team around them who will be more competitive. You cannot continue to have it both ways.

 

[Coxy]

Most of my thoughts have already been covered by others, so I won't repeat them. But I do have a couple of things to add.

1. Interesting that Issy wasn't one of the players to be found to have received any payments outside of the cap

Did they ever upgrade him? He debuted in 2007, and left at end of 2008. Chances are he was still on his "rookie" contract, plus some rep bonuses.

 

[tkday]

They've already been punished, why are we saying they need to be punished further? I think they have definitely payed their dues. If it's not against any rules then there's nothing to argue.

 

[Flutterby]

Most of my thoughts have already been covered by others, so I won't repeat them. But I do have a couple of things to add.

1. Interesting that Issy wasn't one of the players to be found to have received any payments outside of the cap

Did they ever upgrade him? He debuted in 2007, and left at end of 2008. Chances are he was still on his "rookie" contract, plus some rep bonuses.

Oh yeah - but I remember when the whole salary cap cheating came out there was a lot of innuendo that Issy basically got suss to his Storm contract and that is why he wanted out. But this report shows there was nothing at all suss about his contract.

 

[Kaz]

It makes our GF win in 2006, much sweeter knowing we beat the cheats.

 

[tkday]

Oh yeah - but I remember when the whole salary cap cheating came out there was a lot of innuendo that Issy basically got suss to his Storm contract and that is why he wanted out. But this report shows there was nothing at all suss about his contract.

Maybe he was suss about the others contracts and what was offered to him to stay?

 

[Kaz]

They've already been punished, why are we saying they need to be punished further? I think they have definitely payed their dues. If it's not against any rules then there's nothing to argue.

It is against the rules.

And what they did is corrupt, that's why they have contacted the police to investigate that matter.

 

[Anonymous person]

They've already been punished, why are we saying they need to be punished further? I think they have definitely payed their dues. If it's not against any rules then there's nothing to argue.

It is against the rules.

And what they did is corrupt, that's why they have contacted the police to investigate that matter.

when the police tell them that theyre not allowed to take pay cuts to stay in Melbourne then youve got a point.

until then though, you dont.

 

[Kaz]

Just saw part of the interview from Gallop & he is finding it hard to believe the players & managers didn't know.

He said he knows there isn't any evidence.

 

[Je$ter]

Most of my thoughts have already been covered by others, so I won't repeat them. But I do have a couple of things to add.

1. Interesting that Issy wasn't one of the players to be found to have received any payments outside of the cap

2. I heard someone with the Storm saying that they wanted to keep "The Big 4" but would also like some help from the NRL so that they didn't have to basically have a pub team (as Hartigan called it) around those 4 - that would basically be the whipping boys of the comp. My response to this is - well the Storm have a choice, keep the big 4 and build a 'pub team' getting flogged every week around them; OR off-load one or two of the 4 and be able to afford a decent team around them who will be more competitive. You cannot continue to have it both ways.

I don't understand why the don't just offload one of the big 4 and keep some good players.

I'd rather have a couple great players surrounded by role players than 4 great players surrounded by nuffbags.

 

[Kaz]

when the police tell them that theyre not allowed to take pay cuts to stay in Melbourne then youve got a point.

The police will be investigating the corruption, not the rules of the NRL.

They maybe able to take pay cuts next year.

I don't understand why the don't just offload one of the big 4 and keep some good players.

Because the Storm think they are getting a raw deal from the NRL.

 

[Flutterby]

when the police tell them that theyre not allowed to take pay cuts to stay in Melbourne then youve got a point.

The police will be investigating the corruption, not the rules of the NRL.

Hence APs point that what THE CLUB has done is not illegal - it is against the rules of the NRL and they have been punished by the NRL. The police will be investigating certain individuals on charges of Fraud, NOT the club - ergo The Club has not done anything illegal.

 

[Nashy]

What do you mean it's not illegal. It's fraud.

 

[Flutterby]

YES - what the individuals concerned did is commit fraud, which is illegal. What the club as an organisation did was breach the NRL Salary Cap - which is not illegal. What they players did (or can be proven to do) was to accept an employment contract for certain payment - which is not illegal. What the supporters did was suppport the team, which is incredibly stupid, but again not illegal.

Therefore the only people who may have done anything illegal are the individual administrators that covered up everything that was going on.

 

[Nashy]

Yep. I don't actually know how this argument came to be. But anyway.

It comes down to the fact that the NRL rules are to be followed. If the NRL rules state that the four must be broken up, then no one can whinge.

 

[The Brizz]

That is a bullsh!t decision if it were to happen, who are the NRL to tell clubs who they can and cannot employ?