Playing for ZERO points?

[El Diablo]

Spot on. Your second point is key. Even if everyone willingly renegotiated their contracts to get under the cap, all it has done is create a falsity, a mirage. Melbourne would still have a squad that took $4.8m to build, whereas other teams would still have squads that takes $4.1m to build. Voiding their punishment through contractual wrangling is not an equitable way to go.

they have closed that loophole as that's what the Dogs did

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...dont-fit-wear-it/story-e6frfgh6-1225857168985

They are $700,000 over the cap this year.

Asked yesterday what the Storm must to do to be welcomed back as equal contenders next season, Gallop was direct.

"Certainly by the 2011 season they need to be operating within the salary cap," he said.

"How they do that? I'm not sure at this stage."

But Gallop is cluey. In 2002 Canterbury was found to be breaching the salary cap and, in hindsight, the NRL made an error that failed to deal with the breach properly.

Which is why Canterbury's 2004 premiership should be forever marked with an asterisk.

The premiership they won when they shouldn't have.

To understand why, you have to go back to the beginning.

In times of recruitment, no player ever leaves a club where he is happy unless he is offered more to go elsewhere.

The Bulldogs did this to lure the likes of Andrew Ryan, Mark O'Meley, Braith Anasta, Luke Patten and Willie Mason.

All came from other clubs to the Bulldogs.

For those of us with a little hair in our ears, it is not that far back that there was a great gnashing of teeth when Greg Inglis was up for contract and looked ready to try rugby union.

No other NRL club could afford to poach him.

Well, now we know how they got the money to keep him.

Gallop has also moved to close that loophole.

The Storm is not allowed to reduce player payments to retain their roster.

They must sack players.

 

[Quidgybo]

The Storm is not allowed to reduce player payments to retain their roster.

They must sack players

Which is fine. Any player retained must be paid at the rate they were originally contracted (according to the hidden books!). But once they've shed enough players to get the team under the cap based on the remaining contracted values, then they should be allowed to resume competing - subject to one further restriction. They should not be allowed to start accumulating points this year until they are under the cap or until the end of round 13 (the halfway mark of the season), whichever comes later. This means with 13 rounds remaining (and denying them points for the bye) they'd have a maximum theoretical points total of 24. Only one team (Brisbane in 2007) has made the finals with 24 points and no team with less than that in the history of the NRL since 1998. Although theoretically possible with a winning streak of 12 games, this effectively rules them out of finals contention without having the remaining rump of the team playing the rest of the year for literally nothing.

I don't buy the argument that they don't deserve to finish ahead of any other team. If by cutting players they are left with a squad worth no more than the salary cap then they deserve the right to play for points as much as their opponents. They've already been punished by the requirement to repay prize money from their premierships, a substantial fine on top of that, the loss of all points accumulated while they played over the cap, and the need to shed $700k worth of existing playing talent to get under the cap. Combine that with the collateral damage to sponsorships and fan support, and I really fail to see what more is to be gained by prolonging the damage for another 6 months. They're not getting let off lightly by any means. Make it all but theoretically impossible to make the finals and then let them get on with trying to rebuild.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

Which is fine. Any player retained must be paid at the rate they were originally contracted (according to the hidden books!). But once they've shed enough players to get the team under the cap based on the remaining contracted values, then they should be allowed to resume competing - subject to one further restriction. They should not be allowed to start accumulating points this year until they are under the cap or until the end of round 13 (the halfway mark of the season), whichever comes later. This means with 13 rounds remaining (and denying them points for the bye) they'd have a maximum theoretical points total of 24. Only one team (Brisbane in 2007) has made the finals with 24 points and no team with less than that in the history of the NRL since 1998. Although theoretically possible with a winning streak of 12 games, this effectively rules them out of finals contention without having the remaining rump of the team playing the rest of the year for literally nothing.

I don't buy the argument that they don't deserve to finish ahead of any other team. If by cutting players they are left with a squad worth no more than the salary cap then they deserve the right to play for points as much as their opponents. They've already been punished by the requirement to repay prize money from their premierships, a substantial fine on top of that, the loss of all points accumulated while they played over the cap, and the need to shed $700k worth of existing playing talent to get under the cap. Combine that with the collateral damage to sponsorships and fan support, and I really fail to see what more is to be gained by prolonging the damage for another 6 months. They're not getting let off lightly by any means. Make it all but theoretically impossible to make the finals and then let them get on with trying to rebuild.

Leigh.

Again, that's where the logic finds it biggest fault. If you are employed by an employer for a set period of time, would you be happy if your employer came to you and said, look, we've done some highly unethical things, you could say corrupt, a few of us may even end up doing time, but even though you've done nothing wrong what we're going to do is terminate your playing agreement.

Get real. What player is going to accept the termination of their agreement to get the Storm under the salary cap? As I have said, the RLPA will have a massive problem with this, as I'm sure the legislation for employment law in Australia will also have a massive problem with it.

There is no way around it - you can't sack players from legally binding agreements. The only way out is to pay those players out. When the Storm have lost a hell of a lot of its revenues in the past 48 hours with sponsors pulling the plug, how on Earth could they afford it? Even if they could afford it, and you knew that performing on the field is your best chance to assert your chances of a contract in next year's NRL competition with a club (IE playing increases your exposure to the clubs and lifts your profile), who in their right mind would happily accept that?

Not an option, would never work.

 

[Quidgybo]

Again, that's where the logic finds it biggest fault. If you are employed by an employer for a set period of time, would you be happy if your employer came to you and said, look, we've done some highly unethical things, you could say corrupt, a few of us may even end up doing time, but even though you've done nothing wrong what we're going to do is terminate your playing agreement.

Why not? Happens all the time in the real world - every time a small business goes bust or the receivers come into a Wall Street bank. Players get shown the door by clubs mid season every year. But regardless the NRL, as both legislator and enforcer, can tailor the punishment to whatever it needs to be to overcome your perceived hurdle. Allow all contracts to be paid at the rate they've been promised. So $4.8m gets paid out by the Storm. But still force them to cut $700k worth of those players from their squad such that the remainder of the playing squad is paid no more than the cap. Whether you formally release the cut players or just say "sorry mate, you aren't going to get picked for the remainder of the season, you're free to go to another club if you want to keep playing" (as any club can already do and regularly does), either way you've achieved the aim of getting the Storm's playing squad under the cap. Those players cut not only get their entire wage still paid by the Storm but the opportunity to double up for the remainder of the year by going to another club and getting whatever more they can. Effectively you've penalised the Storm another $700k in addition to the $1.1m prize money and $500k fine by forcing them to pay out $700k for players they can't use. You still get your pound of flesh.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Just to add to point, how would it be legally different to Brian Smith refusing to select Kirk Reynoldson for 15 games straight while at the Knights or the Roosters telling Willie Mason he's not going to play first grade for an entire season? In both cases the club hasn't sacked the player or done anything outside what they are legally obligated to do. They've said to the players we're going to keep paying you what we're committed to paying you but we can guarantee we won't select you so if you want to go elsewhere you're free to do so. Difference here is the player wouldn't lose financially by taking that option to go elsewhere. The NRL could still force the Storm to both honour the contracted money and release the player to another club so they can continue their first grade career and probably earn another couple tens of thousands from the second club too. Meanwhile, in addition to the release player getting a bumper dual wage for 2010, they get to keep playing first grade with a non tainted club who is still in contention to make the finals while having the entire rest of the year to negotiate a full cost contract for next season with either that club they've gone to or any other club in the league. I can't see a player or the RLPA having too many issues with the player earning more than they ever would've at the Storm and escaping a poisonous environment with little finals hope to set themselves up to continue their career elsewhere next year.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

Why not? Happens all the time in the real world - every time a small business goes bust or the receivers come into a Wall Street bank. Players get shown the door by clubs mid season every year. But regardless the NRL, as both legislator and enforcer, can tailor the punishment to whatever it needs to be to overcome your perceived hurdle. Allow all contracts to be paid at the rate they've been promised. So $4.8m gets paid out by the Storm. But still force them to cut $700k worth of those players from their squad such that the remainder of the playing squad is paid no more than the cap. Whether you formally release the cut players or just say "sorry mate, you aren't going to get picked for the remainder of the season, you're free to go to another club if you want to keep playing" (as any club can already do and regularly does), either way you've achieved the aim of getting the Storm's playing squad under the cap. Those players cut not only get their entire wage still paid by the Storm but the opportunity to double up for the remainder of the year by going to another club and getting whatever more they can. Effectively you've penalised the Storm another $700k in addition to the $1.1m prize money and $500k fine by forcing them to pay out $700k for players they can't use. You still get your pound of flesh.

Leigh.

If you pay a player out of his contract for non-player conduct issues, that still comes under your salary cap.

As far as people being 'sacked', how do any of those situations apply to the players? Firstly, in most of the cases you talk about, people are not on contracts of any period. They are under general employment contracts, not contracts that GUARANTEE you employment, barring breaches of terms and conditions and the code of conduct, to a certain period. The only way you can get rid of a player in this circumstance is if you come to a mutual agreement (which player would seriously want to do that?) or you sack them for misconduct (hasn't happened). You can hardly use the "business going bust" situation as a comparison, it hasn't happened here, Melbourne are still a solvent entity who will still be performing the same job week in week out.

As far as players going to other clubs, if it's at the clubs request you are required to pay a certain value (is it the full value?) of the contract under the salary cap. At one point in his career, Todd Payten was being paid under the salary cap by the Roosters, Raiders and Tigers. Finch has fallen into this situation with the Roosters/Eels.

Bare in mind, even if you could get players out of the club, you still need to replace them. You are still required to have 25 players contracted under your top 25. All those players need to be on a minimum of $55,000. The players who the Storm would consider letting go would be fringe players. Lets say someone on $80,000. You rehire some local player at $55,000 in his place, that's only $25,000 saved off the cap.

Finally, as far as the NRL being able to tailor things to suit their needs, once again, the Rugby League Players Association will not take kindly to players losing any entitlements or opportunities, or being forced to move against their will. And rightfully so. You would find a lot of support throughout the other clubs who will support the rights of the players you aim to move on, as they themselves have done nothing wrong.

 

[Iafeta]

Just to add to point, how would it be legally different to Brian Smith refusing to select Kirk Reynoldson for 15 games straight while at the Knights or the Roosters telling Willie Mason he's not going to play first grade for an entire season? In both cases the club hasn't sacked the player or done anything outside what they are legally obligated to do. They've said to the players we're going to keep paying you what we're committed to paying you but we can guarantee we won't select you so if you want to go elsewhere you're free to do so. Difference here is the player wouldn't lose financially by taking that option to go elsewhere. The NRL could still force the Storm to both honour the contracted money and release the player to another club so they can continue their first grade career and probably earn another couple tens of thousands from the second club too.

Leigh.

Those players were still counted under the salary cap. If Melbourne tell Cahill, Lima, Blair, whoever, they won't be selected, if doesn't matter a dime in this case. Melbourne are still entitled to pay the player's their earnings, and secondly and more importantly to try and resolve this situation, all those players are part of the allowed $4.1m cap.

On your second bolded point, most clubs currently are at the maximum level of the cap. Cronulla maybe not, although they can't afford it anyhow. The Warriors I don't believe are, although they are fairly close to it. The NRL won't allow contracts to go to other clubs that will put them over the cap. So in 99% of the cases they certainly will not be earning more money elsewhere as it's simply not permissable, if anything they would significantly less. They simply won't register those contracts if that puts a club over the cap. Furthermore, the Rugby League Players Association is hardly going to back players having being forced to move state/country mid-season due to executive mismanagement.

 

[Quidgybo]

If you pay a player out of his contract for non-player conduct issues, that still comes under your salary cap.

Only because the NRL says it does. As an abnormal punishment for an abnormal breach the NRL can set the conditions however they want. Get your playing squad under the cap and we'll allow the players left out to still be paid their full contracted wage while being able to earn a second wage from another club if they chose to go to another club for the remainder of the year.

As far as people being 'sacked', how do any of those situations apply to the players? Firstly, in most of the cases you talk about, people are not on contracts of any period. They are under general employment contracts, not contracts that GUARANTEE you employment, barring breaches of terms and conditions and the code of conduct, to a certain period. The only way you can get rid of a player in this circumstance is if you come to a mutual agreement (which player would seriously want to do that?) or you sack them for misconduct (hasn't happened). You can hardly use the "business going bust" situation as a comparison, it hasn't happened here, Melbourne are still a solvent entity who will still be performing the same job week in week out.

See my Brian Smith examples above. A club may be legally obligated to pay a contracted player what they've been promised but they aren't required to select them. The NRL can simply require the Storm to select a squad comprising no more than $4.1m in contracted value to play the remainder of the year and tell the remaining players, sorry you're not going to get selected for the remainder of the season, you're free to go elsewhere. Same as Brian Smith did. Same as every club does, every year. Difference is there's at least the consolation that if they decide to go elsewhere they'll still get paid every cent they've been promised plus whatever else they can get for the remainder of the year from another club.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

It's not an abnormal rule at all. It's designed to protect players and give them security that they know what they'll be doing for a year. It's designed to maximise the times that an employment contract with a tenure is executed as it's legally designed to do for a term (period). It still gives the club and players to make allowances, but to escape the cap punishment it has to be because of misconduct on behalf of the player or a mutually agreeable decision without duress. Understand that with your Brian Smith example of Kirk Reynoldson that Kirk Reynoldson was STILL included under the salary cap. It was not a ploy to change the value of their salary cap so therefore is not in any way shape or form comparable. Clubs do it for a variety of reasons, Wayne Bennett did to Justin Hodges as punishment for him signing with the Roosters (ironic given Wayne was confirmed to have agreed to have gone there anyway a few years later!!)

Of course the players aren't required to select the players. But again, what good does that good for the club? They still have to pay them and therefore it still counts on their cap. NOT selecting certain players does absolutely nothing for the Storm. If you are suggesting then that shouldn't count towards their cap, my argument is, with the Storm knowing they couldn't under regulations resign certain players, they went and did so anyway preventing other clubs from successfully negotiating with pivotal marquee players. IE, the Storm's tactics denied fair economic access to what are marketable assets to other clubs. In other words, other clubs have lost revenues due to lost season tickets, lost winnings, lost sponsorship returns because Melbourne played a criminal labyrinth. Dropping say 3-4 of their top players still does not give back equity to the other 15 clubs. Going further with this, if they were allowed to do this, wouldn't you think other teams would run the gauntlet knowing they can use the precedent that as soon as they put their team under the cap by dropping marquee players, then everything would be all good? Wouldn't you take the risk too? It's also about prevention of the same thing happening again, ultimately for the likes of Melbourne because while they're losing competition points, surely their biggest loss is the financial hit they're taking from losing sponsors which would have happened irrespective of points losses. It's about ethics and building a reputable brand with strong internal governance.

 

[Quidgybo]

Those players were still counted under the salary cap. If Melbourne tell Cahill, Lima, Blair, whoever, they won't be selected, if doesn't matter a dime in this case. Melbourne are still entitled to pay the player's their earnings, and secondly and more importantly to try and resolve this situation, all those players are part of the allowed $4.1m cap.

Again only because the NRL says so. You're limiting your thinking about what can be done based on happens with regular run of the mill breaches. The NRL is free to say given this is an extraordinary breach and an extraordinary range of penalties has been applied, then the excess wages will count or won't count or half count or anything else. It's the NRL's comp and the NRL's rules to apply however they see fit. What is important here is that the Storm can put no more than $4.1m worth of contracted talent on the field for the remainder of the season. Exactly how that is achieved legally is irrelevant to that particular point. If the NRL lets players who aren't allowed to play for the Storm play for another club and be paid by the Storm without it counting against either clubs salary cap for the remainder of this season, that's the NRL's business. There's no law against it. How this can all be legally achieved in terms of the players existing contracts, I have pointed out in my previous couple of posts. Simply tell the players we'll honour your contract but we can guarantee you're not going to be selected, you're free to go elsewhere if you want to play and earn an extra $10,000 or $20,000 on top of your existing wage.

Leigh

 

[dollyhands]

so gallop says to look how the bulldogs made it back after 2002, but just don't do it the same way.... storm are stuffed

 

[Quidgybo]

Understand that with your Brian Smith example of Kirk Reynoldson that Kirk Reynoldson was STILL included under the salary cap. It was not a ploy to change the value of their salary cap so therefore is not in any way shape or form comparable.

I will say it again - only because the NRL says it counts. They can declare tomorrow that Melbourne can pay all contracts as legally required but must choose only $4.1m of that talent as a squad to fulfil their on field commitments for the remainder of the season. There is no law or untouchable rule that says otherwise. Their playing squad would be under the cap and thus on equal footing with other playing squads in the comp. Whatever payments are made to non playing players or staff outside of that would be irrelevant to the matter. Simply because the NRL says so.

Leigh.

 

[innsaneink]

Quidgys way, which many others in RL & media have propsoed does seem to be the most sensible...though I havent yet heard to ''make it nigh impossible for them to make semis part" good move.
No easy solution, no fair solution, someone - lots will be hurt, its what happens when people cheat...but we shouldnt be punishing the game itself as well.

 

[Iafeta]

I will say it again - only because the NRL says it counts. They can declare tomorrow that Melbourne can pay all contracts as legally required but must choose only $4.1m of that talent as a squad to fulfil their on field commitments for the remainder of the season. There is no law or untouchable rule that says otherwise. Their playing squad would be under the cap and thus on equal footing with other playing squads in the comp. Whatever payments are made to non playing players or staff outside of that would be irrelevant to the matter. Simply because the NRL says so.

Leigh.

So the NRL can simply say we can do away with all rules, because Melbourne can cheat? So the NRL can say to the other 15 teams, all the sponsors, that it's ok, we will bend our rules to allow for unethical corruption? Imagine if they let Melbourne get away with it for this and Telstra say you know what, we don't want our brand tarnished by unethical corruption going on that isn't penalised as it happens. Where does that leave everyone, including Melbourne?

And don't tell me that is not a prospect. Melbourne directly themselves have lost 2-3 major sponsors as a result of their behaviour. You don't need to pull off a move that basically actively encourages the behaviour because of a lack of current action against the club.

The NRL has done the soundest thing possible in the market. I think you need to realise it's not the NRL who are at fault, it is simply the Melbourne Storm. The rules are very clear and they serve a valuable purpose for our game. Just ask Melbourne's sponsors if they understand the value of ethics.

 

[Quidgybo]

So the NRL can simply say we can do away with all rules, because Melbourne can cheat? So the NRL can say to the other 15 teams, all the sponsors, that it's ok, we will bend our rules to allow for unethical corruption? Imagine if they let Melbourne get away with it for this and Telstra say you know what, we don't want our brand tarnished by unethical corruption going on that isn't penalised as it happens. Where does that leave everyone, including Melbourne?

And don't tell me that is not a prospect. Melbourne directly themselves have lost 2-3 major sponsors as a result of their behaviour. You don't need to pull off a move that basically actively encourages the behaviour because of a lack of current action against the club.

The NRL has done the soundest thing possible in the market. I think you need to realise it's not the NRL who are at fault, it is simply the Melbourne Storm. The rules are very clear and they serve a valuable purpose for our game. Just ask Melbourne's sponsors if they understand the value of ethics.

Actively encourages?!? Letting them get away with it?!? Get real. $1.1m in prize money repayments, $500k fine, $700k in player payments for players playing for rival clubs, loss of all points won so far this season, loss of some star players, virtual impossibility to make the finals this season, collateral damage to sponsorships and fan support worth millions more. They are not getting away with it. They'll be lucky to survive even copping just that. Is it really good for the game to put the nail into its own future in Victoria just for the sake of making the sums work against an arbitrary set of rules? The Storm have paid and are paying the penalty. Why prolong the agony for another six months if they can be put back on the same footing as every other playing squad sooner? It's time for the game to start picking up the pieces, not for exacerbating the damage already done.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

You are actively endorsing a team's right to assemble a squad outside of the limitations of the salary cap if you were to allow them to find away after the offence to get it right. Once you rob a bank, you can't go and put the money back in the safe and accept everything is going to be alright. You cannot honestly, with full sense of sanity, support them accruing points when their leadership has been a criminal hotchpot, aside from all the salary cap rorting which has been deliberate, deceptive, and has been totally against the spirit of the competition and has defaced other clubs entitlements at picking up good players by straight up cheating, but not only that, has been completely and utterly criminal in intent and execution. There are people who have run that club who have assembled that squad who have actively signed legal statutory declarations, which is the equivalent of going under oath in court, to say that the books they were submitting were the correct documents, which they never were. And yet, after the point, after all that I've already shown you in how a team would still have a team of $4.7m worth at point of assembly despite renegotiated contracts, even if that were acceptable by way of sacking innocent people from valid contracts, can't see that it is inequitable and untenable for them to be an active participant in the competition.

FFS!

Again, read what El Diablo has posted, and try for the love of God to understand business practices and the realities of how other teams have been denied a fair opportunity at their players. Let alone the criminal aspect of it all. Don't be such a fool to think that allowing them to be full participants in this competition would not affect NRL-sponsorship relationships , the very thing we financially live off to create the friggen competition that Melbourne have defrauded.

they have closed that loophole as that's what the Dogs did

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nr...-1225857168985

Quote:
They are $700,000 over the cap this year.

Asked yesterday what the Storm must to do to be welcomed back as equal contenders next season, Gallop was direct.

"Certainly by the 2011 season they need to be operating within the salary cap," he said.

"How they do that? I'm not sure at this stage."

But Gallop is cluey. In 2002 Canterbury was found to be breaching the salary cap and, in hindsight, the NRL made an error that failed to deal with the breach properly.

Which is why Canterbury's 2004 premiership should be forever marked with an asterisk.

The premiership they won when they shouldn't have.

To understand why, you have to go back to the beginning.

In times of recruitment, no player ever leaves a club where he is happy unless he is offered more to go elsewhere.

The Bulldogs did this to lure the likes of Andrew Ryan, Mark O'Meley, Braith Anasta, Luke Patten and Willie Mason.

All came from other clubs to the Bulldogs.

For those of us with a little hair in our ears, it is not that far back that there was a great gnashing of teeth when Greg Inglis was up for contract and looked ready to try rugby union.

No other NRL club could afford to poach him.

Well, now we know how they got the money to keep him.

Gallop has also moved to close that loophole.

The Storm is not allowed to reduce player payments to retain their roster.

They must sack players.

Again, how can you sack a person from a period of contractual obligation when the players themselves have valid, LEGALLY BINDING contracts. You say the NRL can bend around it. Well let's see what the courts would have to say about that.

How would the players miss about by your method of wrangling?

• You are asking them to just walk away from contractual obligations they are fairly entitled to. Who in their right mind would do that? This isn't a situation whereby you work for an employer and can be made redundant. It is a period based contract - in other words, the club has an agreement to keep said player for a particular period of time.
• For them to mutually agree to releases, the Melbourne Storm would have to pay the players out. They simply won't be able to afford it given NOT the penalties that have been imposed, but the fact their revenue streams have been savaged by sponsors walking away from them because they are unethical and they view it as brand damaging to be associated with them.
• I can only think of the Sharks who can realistically pick up any of their players under the cap restrictions. The problem is, the Sharks CAN'T financially afford to pick up those players.
• Other clubs have been denied realistic chances to negotiate with marquee players in the past by manipulative coercive corruption. Irrespective of whether they can bring all 25 contract values down, the squad has been illegally assembled. There would be quite a few players who would have accepted contracts elsewhere but the Storm kept negotiating outside the means of the salary cap that all other clubs were playing by. Irrespective of whether they illegally manipulate things to get their contract value down, other clubs have already been denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to have picked those players up, and therefore the squad is illegally assembled.

For the love of God, see the forest for the trees. The Melbourne Storm themselves have accepted the punishment. Why? Because the punishment is just. Do you honestly think News Limited, the OWNERS of the Melbourne Storm would deliberately over-penalise them? Get real.

 

[Quidgybo]

Yes, I can find the big font too.

I'm not asking any player or the Storm to walk away from their contractual commitment. Until you address the fact that legally the Storm can choose or be directed by the NRL to not select players to play first grade that would put them over their cap for the remainder of the year and legally the NRL can change at its own discretion whether or not payments to such non playing employees count in the cap for the Storm, I have nothing more to add to what I've already written.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

Yes, I can find the big font too.

I'm not asking any player or the Storm to walk away from their contractual commitment. Until you address the fact that legally the Storm can choose or be directed by the NRL to not select players to play first grade that would put them over their cap for the remainder of the year and legally the NRL can change at its own discretion whether or not payments to such non playing employees count in the cap for the Storm, I have nothing more to add to what I've already written.

Leigh.

Firstly, cool, the big font is wick. Colours go good too. ;-)

The point of saying players X, Y, Z, A, B and C are no longer eligible for first grade, and we will not count them to the salary cap doesn't work going forward. Otherwise, what is to stop a club in the future stock piling their club with superstars, and then when caught go woe was me, I'll deregister X, Y, Z, A, B and C. You're leaving the competition open to severe rorting moving forward.

The salary cap is an accepted regulatory principle in the league. It doesn't need to be amended because an executive management team committed legal perjury and various forms of deception to create an illusion. If they had not done this, this discussion would not even be happening. In other words, the changes you are proposing are designed to allow a team who has cheated recklessly to become tangible again, rather than, for all teams who are playing fairly, we have a genuine problem with the salary cap regulations.

 

[adamkungl]

Since when is an NRL contract the be all and end all...contracts are broken by both parties every yea without fail, and suddenly it would be impossible for Melbourne to shop a couple of the best players in the game around?

 

[nqcowboy87]

Since when is an NRL contract the be all and end all...contracts are broken by both parties every yea without fail, and suddenly it would be impossible for Melbourne to shop a couple of the best players in the game around?

exactly i raised the point in another hread (i cant seem to find it, theres so many), ben ross had a year to go on his contracxt at penrith, was told to look elsewhere. last year luke priddis had a year to go on his contract and wayne bennett suggested he retire. if they can come toi an agreement for the better of the club and maybe have a loan system to the superleague, similiar to the one liam fulton did with huddersfield, they come back next year if the storm can keep them, if not they find another club simple as that, and the storm can play for points.