Was it breaches that made the Melbourne Storm successful?

[little_aza]

Today Ben Cross said that Melbourne were successful because of "doing the hard yards", not because of the cap breaches.

The total breaches are $1.7mil, with $400k in 2009 and $700k in 2010. That mean that means the breaches in the previous three years were $600k, or an average of $200k a season for those years. $200k is such a small amount of money - it represents LESS than 5% of the cap. Surely 95% of the Storm would have still be a strong force in those years. Surely the Melbourne Storm would have still be strong in 2007 without ONE middle-range player, such as Anthony Quinn.

So I think Ben Cross has a point for the earlier years of the (now defunct) "dynasty". I'm in the firm belief that Melbourne would have almost as successful in the early years if things were done honestly and above-board. But the more recent and more more significant breaches of 2009 and 2010 are a different story.

 

[Hanscholo]

Your forgetting that every other side to win a comp over the last 10 years has crumbled nearly instantly due to cap pressure. They didnt, so while it doesnt appear that they built the side out of the cheating, it certainly looks as though they kept it together by cheating. Nor has the full extent of their rorting been uncovered yet, i think the full audit conducted by news will uncover that this has been going on for the entire existence of the club.

 

[flamin]

I am of the same opinion aza. Melbourne breached the cap to keep the players they had turned into superstars, not buy new ones. Their achievements in 2006 and 2007 are not tainted in my view until there is more information that shows otherwise.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

$400 - $500k is one superstar or two rep standard players. It may not seem like a lot of cash in the whole scheme of things but its blatantly obvious that this relatively small amount has allowed the Storm to jump to the head of the line and stay there. Other clubs have developed and then lost super stars, why shouldn't the Storm have to do the same?

 

[nathanbrown'sghost]

The point is that you are never going to know now. Even if they did only cheat by say 200k a season for the first three years of the known infringements, that could be the difference between one or two class players staying at the storm or signing elsewhere. It certainly seemed to a few around here that the Storm managed to keep players after GF wins whereas other clubs seemed to lose them in contract negotiations because a premiership medal usually boosts the asking price.

Also these figures that are being thrown around are for the last 5 years and only able to be calculated because of the figures in the two sets of books. What if other payments were going on that are not known yet. I would not be surprised if this goes further back than the last 5 years.

 

[cupid]

500k could buy you Thurston

 

[jc155776]

700k over for this year, probably back loaded all their stars contract.

Test the waters for a couple of years with minor breaches with promises of more cash once they figure out how to get away with it. Scumbags.

 

[Charlie124]

500k could buy you Thurston

exactly, you have to look at how much better that 500k odd has improved the teams and their performances. How would the storm have gone over the last few years without Cameron Smith there at all?

 

[DJShaksta]

Of course Ben Cross would say that. "We didn't win cos we cheated"................... "We won cos we put in the hard yards"

My a$$ they did, the only guys putting in the hard yards were the ones covering up the salary cap breaches!

Melbourne are cheats, they won cos they cheated every year for the last 5 years - that we know of.
They do not deserve 1 shred of respect for anything they have achieved in that time.

 

[flamin]

You have to remember that none of these players which are superstars now would have commanded that sort of money at the start of 2006. Its only because they have been successful have the players been able to ask more money.


200k per season is not a lot (you could not sign Thurston for 500k over 3 seasons - he'd demand that much for 1 season) and multiple clubs have gone over the cap but similar amounts during the last decade and only faced a fine, as you can see here:

http://www.nrl.com/news/news/newsar...1/history-of-salary-cap-breaches/default.aspx


Definitely Melbourne should be punished for what they have done, especially because it was a carefully thought out breach that they kept hidden, but really I can't view the rort that was 2009 the same way as their early success until there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[Ike E Bear]

Even if it didn't make them successful, it contributed greatly to them staying successful.

The Storm did soooooo many things well, but all of that is now irreparably tainted by this acting of blatant cheating.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

500k could buy you Thurston

And look at how the Cowboys are going without him...

The fact of the matter is that $4.1mill allows you to recruit a handful of test / rep players and then you have to basically rely on young blokes that you develop or you may be lucky and fluke a bargain outcast from another club to build a team around them, but all in all, you have to then make do with what you can put together for your $4.1mill.

I would say that at most clubs, half a dozen players would take half your cap and then you spread the rest on another 19.

Those big 6 would be the players you would essentially build your team around. If you can squeeze another one or possibly even two marquee players into that group then that is a massive advantage over other teams.

If Storm had have been operating on the level, you would have to imagine that they would have lost at least one of Cronk, Smith, Inglis, Slater and probably have been unable to pick up a bloke like Brett Finch on top of that. Thats a fairly substantial difference to a team.

Conversely, imagine the difference a bloke like any of those four would make to a team like Raiders or Knights who have some legitimate money left under their cap for this year. You throw Cronk or Smith into any fringe 8 team and they suddenly become top 4 material imo.

 

[Didgi]

Obviously the players worked f**king hard for those premerships, but that doesn't negate the fact that they had an extra Anthony Quinn, or Cameron Smith, working f**king hard alongside them. Would the Storm have been at least mildly successful without cheating? Yes. Would they have made 4 straight grand finals, winning 2, a WCC, and 3 Minor Premierships without cheating? No.

I dont 100% support taking '07 away from them, but last year definitely. I see the need for a massive example so that the other clubs know the NRL means business. Not being able to score for the rest of this year, however, is only going to drive away fans, money, and support for the game. What's int he past is the past really.

 

[Eels Dude]

I thought it was 1.7m over the past 4 years PLUS a projected breach of 700k in 2010.

So what if they used that money to keep players as opposed to signing them, they wouldn't have been able to keep those players had they not rorted and therefore not won those competitions. You take a Smith, Inglis, Cronk, Slater out that side for the entire past 5 years and who knows what could have happened.

 

[flamin]

Even if it didn't make them successful, it contributed greatly to them staying successful.

The Storm did soooooo many things well, but all of that is now irreparably tainted by this acting of blatant cheating.

Agreed.

 

[Eels Dude]

You have to remember that none of these players which are superstars now would have commanded that sort of money at the start of 2006. Its only because they have been successful have the players been able to ask more money.


200k per season is not a lot (you could not sign Thurston for 500k over 3 seasons - he'd demand that much for 1 season) and multiple clubs have gone over the cap but similar amounts during the last decade and only faced a fine, as you can see here:

http://www.nrl.com/news/news/newsar...1/history-of-salary-cap-breaches/default.aspx


Definitely Melbourne should be punished for what they have done, especially because it was a carefully thought out breach that they kept hidden, but really I can't view their early success in the same way as the rort that was 2009 until there is evidence to the contrary.

What you fail to understand is that there is a difference between breaching the salary cap and rorting it.

All those breaches you've provided would have occured to rep bonuses being paid, exceeding the second tier cap, having a huge injury toll and being forced to pay more match payments than excepted. These kind of breaches are completely different and accidental. It's a lot different to a club creating an illegal system to deliberately cheat the salary cap.

 

[sting]

700k over for this year, probably back loaded all their stars contract.

Test the waters for a couple of years with minor breaches with promises of more cash once they figure out how to get away with it. Scumbags.

spot on.

also, peopl keep saying rorting the cap by let's say 400k get's them 1 superstar.

wrong.

it's an extra 100 grand to 4 superstars helping them all stay.

f**k me dead, i wish storm people (fans, players, coaches, etc) would stop making excuses and stop trying to make this seem like it's not the worst thing that has ever happened to OUR game

 

[DRAGONZ_RULE]

It's true that the players put in the hard yards .... if they didn't, they wouldn't win ....



But it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in this situation ......


It's like saying "Australia beat Bangladesh in the cricket because they put in the hard yards."

Well sure, they did train hard and try hard on the field .... but the quality of player was better to begin with .... what did anyone really expect?

 

[little_aza]

spot on.

also, peopl keep saying rorting the cap by let's say 400k get's them 1 superstar.

wrong.

it's an extra 100 grand to 4 superstars helping them all stay.

f**k me dead, i wish storm people (fans, players, coaches, etc) would stop making excuses and stop trying to make this seem like it's not the worst thing that has ever happened to OUR game

You're missing the point of this entire thread. The point is: what if in 2006, Melbourne didn't re-sign a $200k player? That extra $200k WOULD have been there to provide for other superstars to remain. What if in 2007 Anthony Quinn wasn't signed? That extra ~$200k WOULD have been there to provide for other superstars to remain.

The discussion is merely to raise some "What-If" statements regarding whether a Storm at ~95% strength would have still been successful in 2006 and 2007. Retaining our stars beyond the initial years of success was the downfall. The Cap was there not to stop clubs from doing well, but to stop dynasties. The later years were a slap in the face to this, and we were punished for the cheating accordingly. But the early years had significantly less rot.

The thread is actually NOT excuses, and it's actually NOT trying to cover up the vicious disaster that has occurred.

 

[nqcowboy87]

kmanly seemed to be able to beat melbourne in 08 so id say that the cap breach didnt produce the success but it certainly helped them maintain it. lets say youve got someone like slater who is payed 350k a season, and then somone like tandy when realistically there paying him like 80k so to the random observer they seem to be fitting under the cap but in reality they're saying that the lower paid stars are not getting what theyre relly getting so people wont do the maths.

and in no way am i insinuating that slater or tandy are involved or have knowledge of this i was using those two broad spectrums of melbourens roster as an example