Canterbury.....The great Myth of the new millenium.

[Zef]

Your a very bad loser.

I think he makes a very good loser. After all, he's doing all the losing things like whinging, moaning, bleating etc etc very, very well.

It's like he's an expert, must be all that experience.

 

[DJ1]

This dispicable club cheated the cap 1.5 million dollars!

Not according to the salary cap auditor.

Yes, according to the auditor. The facts along with very good mail, suugest that 2000 was good for another 500k. Also, more mail(very good mail) suggests there are monies still unkown. Lots of monies.

Oh! OK. As long as you assure us all that your mail is in fact very good mail. lol. Seeing as you've quoted many different figures for the same salary cap breach throughout this thread which one is the normal mail, the good mail and very good mail?

There penalty was a fine that equates to .025% of their annual turnover.

What's this Reefy? More of your inflated figures?

So now you are suggesting that the fine (leave out the 37 points) itself ($500M) equals 1 forthieth of a percent of the clubs turnover.

This would mean that the club turns over.

2 Billion dollars a year.

That's $2,000,000,000

oohh sorry!!!!
maybe I meant 0.25%. Now do the sums. Here is the form. $500k/2Xannual turnover(110 mil approx)

So you were only out by a factor of 10? Only $1.8 Billion dollars.

Instead you now state that the fine equated to 0.25% of a turnover of $55 Million. Still somewhat inflated when the reality of a $500K fine equalling 0.25% of yearly revenue would still equal an inflated figure of $400 million dollars over 2 years. Do you actually think before posting this crap? Or on another point, do you understand the difference between turnover and profit?

No wonder you have no credibility quoting multiple breach amounts and now this.

I think I have clearly outsmarted you now on about 10 different issues.
Sure I have made a few typos, but at least I am not perpetuating lies & myths in support of illegal activities.
keep trying. I will slip up soon & you may get a victory.
May.

10 different issues Reefy? Is this another of your inflated figures?

Is this your prophetic slip up? Or did you just get it on very good mail?

 

[Timmah]

Keep trying. I will slip up soon & you may get a victory.
May.

1967 - no victory
1968 - no victory
1969 - no victory
1970 - no victory
...
2002 - no victory
2003 - no victory
2004 - no victory

Now there's some inflation of figures. 37 to be exact.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

This dispicable club cheated the cap 1.5 million dollars!

Not according to the salary cap auditor.

Yes, according to the auditor. The facts along with very good mail, suugest that 2000 was good for another 500k. Also, more mail(very good mail) suggests there are monies still unkown. Lots of monies.

Oh! OK. As long as you assure us all that your mail is in fact very good mail. lol. Seeing as you've quoted many different figures for the same salary cap breach throughout this thread which one is the normal mail, the good mail and very good mail?
.

Consider yourself assured.

So you were only out by a factor of 10? Only $1.8 Billion dollars.

Instead you now state that the fine equated to 0.25% of a turnover of $55 Million. Still somewhat inflated when the reality of a $500K fine equalling 0.25% of yearly revenue would still equal an inflated figure of $400 million dollars over 2 years. Do you actually think before posting this crap? Or on another point, do you understand the difference between turnover and profit?.

I wasnt out at all. I made a typo. The Dogs were convicted of cheating over 2 years. They have not admittedadmitted to cheating for the previous years. They admitted they had plans in place to cheat for the another 2 years.
They admitted to salary cap breaches of 1.5 million dollars. After negotiations & salary cap help from the NRL they found places to hide another 500k to bring it down to 1 million over 2 years. Are you still denying this fact???
That means that the fine of 500K, which is payable to the nrl as a percentage of turnover over numerous years, part of the negotiation deal equates to a percentage of of turnover oover 2 years.
So what percentage is it? I dont know exactly but you can be sure that the leagues turns over somewhere between 50-70 mil per year. Am I right?
Now FFS stop picking me up on where I place my fullstops & come up with some real defense your cheating club.
This is quite ridiculous.
What next? Spelling mistakes?

10 different issues Reefy? Is this another of your inflated figures?

Is this your prophetic slip up? Or did you just get it on very good mail?

1. Dogs cheated & convicted for 2 years not 1 like you said
2. Dogs convicted of $1 million(down from 1.5 after NRL salary cap help using Price, reardon & Hughes benefits) salary cap fraud, not 400k like you said.
3.Trindell paid $120k (+50k in paper bags) as opposed to your $250K as you said.
4. Tv figures. My quote of key advertising markets viewing numbers being down considerably instead of growing, turned into a pay tv replay argument, where you tried to convince that the TV ratings were the best ever. They weren't. Still aren't.
5. Cantebury player churn was no different from any other years despite the fact they had assembled the squad using illegal activities as opposed to you saying they shed 30% of their players over 4 years or some senseless krap.
6. The fact that you picked up a typo as an error & quoted me as saying Cantebury turned over 2 billion dollars. (shakes head in disbelief)

Ok , So I inflated by 4. I think I didnt look back too hard.
But hey, the threads not over yet.

Cantebury are cheats.Not cheats for 1 year, but numerous. They were allowed to keep all of their player players & were penalised for 1 year. They rorted the Salary cap by 1.5 million dollars that they admitted too over 2001 & 2002. They used that period to assemeble 98% of their current squad. Although not investigated, it is assumed that the cheating included the years 99 & 00. Something Cantebury has never denied.
The NRL help showed them that they didnt have to cheat, (even though they were) & found places to put 400k over 3 years. 01, 02, 03.
The same principal was applied to 04. Therefore bring down the amount of the fine & saving the club 300k in extra cheating payments that they had organised to pay for 03 & 04.
This makes the 500k & loss of points in a year they would not have won anyway, nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Through negotiations & many threats to the NRL the final outcome was agreed to. A negotiation in a stand-off.
It will be interesting to see what others opinion will be as even more players come through from the juniors assembled over the illegal years step up with current players they have no right to have, & win a GF or 2 over the next few years.

 

[RB30DETT]

I think you confuse fact with fiction.


I will say that you have quite a vivid imagination though.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

ggeeezzus what a furious, well thought out fact filled rebuttal that was in defense of your cheating, rorting club.
Good job!

 

[Timmah]

This dispicable club cheated the cap 1.5 million dollars!

Not according to the salary cap auditor.

Yes, according to the auditor. The facts along with very good mail, suugest that 2000 was good for another 500k. Also, more mail(very good mail) suggests there are monies still unkown. Lots of monies.

Oh! OK. As long as you assure us all that your mail is in fact very good mail. lol. Seeing as you've quoted many different figures for the same salary cap breach throughout this thread which one is the normal mail, the good mail and very good mail?
.

Consider yourself assured.

So you were only out by a factor of 10? Only $1.8 Billion dollars.

Instead you now state that the fine equated to 0.25% of a turnover of $55 Million. Still somewhat inflated when the reality of a $500K fine equalling 0.25% of yearly revenue would still equal an inflated figure of $400 million dollars over 2 years. Do you actually think before posting this crap? Or on another point, do you understand the difference between turnover and profit?.

I wasnt out at all. I made a typo. The Dogs were convicted of cheating over 2 years. They have not admittedadmitted to cheating for the previous years. They admitted they had plans in place to cheat for the another 2 years.
They admitted to salary cap breaches of 1.5 million dollars. After negotiations & salary cap help from the NRL they found places to hide another 500k to bring it down to 1 million over 2 years. Are you still denying this fact???
That means that the fine of 500K, which is payable to the nrl as a percentage of turnover over numerous years, part of the negotiation deal equates to a percentage of of turnover oover 2 years.
So what percentage is it? I dont know exactly but you can be sure that the leagues turns over somewhere between 50-70 mil per year. Am I right?
Now FFS stop picking me up on where I place my fullstops & come up with some real defense your cheating club.
This is quite ridiculous.
What next? Spelling mistakes?

10 different issues Reefy? Is this another of your inflated figures?

Is this your prophetic slip up? Or did you just get it on very good mail?

1. Dogs cheated & convicted for 2 years not 1 like you said
2. Dogs convicted of $1 million(down from 1.5 after NRL salary cap help using Price, reardon & Hughes benefits) salary cap fraud, not 400k like you said.
3.Trindell paid $120k (+50k in paper bags) as opposed to your $250K as you said.
4. Tv figures. My quote of key advertising markets viewing numbers being down considerably instead of growing, turned into a pay tv replay argument, where you tried to convince that the TV ratings were the best ever. They weren't. Still aren't.
5. Cantebury player churn was no different from any other years despite the fact they had assembled the squad using illegal activities as opposed to you saying they shed 30% of their players over 4 years or some senseless krap.
6. The fact that you picked up a typo as an error & quoted me as saying Cantebury turned over 2 billion dollars. (shakes head in disbelief)

Ok , So I inflated by 4. I think I didnt look back too hard.
But hey, the threads not over yet.

Cantebury are cheats.Not cheats for 1 year, but numerous. They were allowed to keep all of their player players & were penalised for 1 year. They rorted the Salary cap by 1.5 million dollars that they admitted too over 2001 & 2002. They used that period to assemeble 98% of their current squad. Although not investigated, it is assumed that the cheating included the years 99 & 00. Something Cantebury has never denied.
The NRL help showed them that they didnt have to cheat, (even though they were) & found places to put 400k over 3 years. 01, 02, 03.
The same principal was applied to 04. Therefore bring down the amount of the fine & saving the club 300k in extra cheating payments that they had organised to pay for 03 & 04.
This makes the 500k & loss of points in a year they would not have won anyway, nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Through negotiations & many threats to the NRL the final outcome was agreed to. A negotiation in a stand-off.
It will be interesting to see what others opinion will be as even more players come through from the juniors assembled over the illegal years step up with current players they have no right to have, & win a GF or 2 over the next few years.

"...because I say so, I don't think the Bulldogs should ever be allowed to win the premiership"

Boy am I glad you don't run the NRL :lol:

Yes, they did cheat in 99 and 00 :roll: What team cheats and finishes 6th and 10th? :roll:

 

[Timmah]

ggeeezzus what a furious, well thought out fact filled rebuttal that was in defense of your cheating, rorting club.
Good job!

geezm what a jealous victory-less prick you are...

 

[DJ1]

This dispicable club cheated the cap 1.5 million dollars!

Not according to the salary cap auditor.

Yes, according to the auditor. The facts along with very good mail, suugest that 2000 was good for another 500k. Also, more mail(very good mail) suggests there are monies still unkown. Lots of monies.

Oh! OK. As long as you assure us all that your mail is in fact very good mail. lol. Seeing as you've quoted many different figures for the same salary cap breach throughout this thread which one is the normal mail, the good mail and very good mail?
.

Consider yourself assured.

No offence, but I will go with the salary cap auditor over your "very good mail". You've stated many different figures throughout this thread and now want to include 2000 figures but you seem to forget that 2000 was still under the notional contract value system. Please remember that most clubs were spending upwards of $5 - $8 million at the time of the SL war. It was the goal of the NRL to move from "No cap" in 1997 to $3.25M for 2001 despite maintaining a $3.25M salary cap from 1998. Which also means that all premiers from 1997 to 2004 accumulated a certain percentage of their squads outside of the $3.25M prescribed cap during previous years.

So you were only out by a factor of 10? Only $1.8 Billion dollars.

Instead you now state that the fine equated to 0.25% of a turnover of $55 Million. Still somewhat inflated when the reality of a $500K fine equalling 0.25% of yearly revenue would still equal an inflated figure of $400 million dollars over 2 years. Do you actually think before posting this crap? Or on another point, do you understand the difference between turnover and profit?.

I wasnt out at all. I made a typo.

Classic comment lol

Using your $55M as the example you got a typo of 0.025% instead of 0.91%. Looks like a typo yeah.

Now the real question would be, what was the $500K fine as a percentage of the "Football" clubs profit margin as turnover of the club is irrelevant?

The Dogs were convicted of cheating over 2 years. They have not admittedadmitted to cheating for the previous years.

...and were not charged or convicted of a breach during the notional contract value era which ended in 2000. Different system Reefy.

They admitted they had plans in place to cheat for the another 2 years.

When the new board came in it found that it did not have a solid understanding of how the cap and it's exemptions worked.

"Peponis said the NRL was pointing out other ways payments could be legally made outside the cap.

"The NRL made available to us documentation we didn't have, that other people in our club had, but we and the management that's left weren't privy to and haven't been able to get our hands on"

In essence the NRL salary cap specialists showed the Dogs new management how the salary cap actually worked with the use of existing exemptions used by all other clubs. The club restructured it's player payments to get within the cap. It did this by utilising the sponsorship servicing allowance which it's previous board had not used despite being eligible, (utter stupidity) and then instituted pay cuts of between 6% to 9% across the NRL squad which brought them into line for 2003 (For those of you with any mathematical skills "Reefy" excused of course, what is 7.5% of $3.25M?). Pop quiz, if a 7.5% pay cut brought the club under the salary cap, compare the $500K fine to 2 years worth of 7.5%. Looks like we have the actual salary cap breach there. Since 2002, the club has not breached the cap for 2003 and 2004.

They admitted to salary cap breaches of 1.5 million dollars.

No they didn't. Even you have quoted statements which refute this claim, in this very thread.

After negotiations & salary cap help from the NRL they found places to hide another 500k to bring it down to 1 million over 2 years. Are you still denying this fact???

Yes, the NRL doesn't hide $500K of a clubs salary cap breach. They show club management how to structure payments within the cap. Something the previous board did not know how to do.

That means that the fine of 500K, which is payable to the nrl as a percentage of turnover over numerous years, part of the negotiation deal equates to a percentage of of turnover oover 2 years.
So what percentage is it? I dont know exactly but you can be sure that the leagues turns over somewhere between 50-70 mil per year. Am I right?

No, your wrong again. The $500k fine was a one off fine based on the breach. Like all previous breaches, the fine was the equivilent of the breach itself. There is no aspect of percentage of turnover (Revenue) included. Revenue would be an erroneous figure to utilise as it is no indicator of profitability or capacity to pay. i.e. What would hurt a club more, a fine of $500K where the club had a turnover of $50M and a profit of $1M or a club with a turnover of $10M with a profit of $3M. Of particular note would be the fact that it was the "Football" club which attracted the fine and not any leagues club. Profitability of the football club would be a maximum of $3-5M per year.

Now FFS stop picking me up on where I place my fullstops & come up with some real defense your cheating club.
This is quite ridiculous.
What next? Spelling mistakes?

No, punctuation. When using numeric values, it's called a decimal point not a full stop.

1. Dogs cheated & convicted for 2 years not 1 like you said

Where have I stated that they only cheated for 1 year. I haven't. I have only focussed on the 2002 season as you continually imply through ommission of detail that the dogs 2002 squad was in excess of $1M over the cap when it wasn't.

It would be like me reminding you that the Sharks were over the cap by $2M in 1998 but omitting to state that notional contract values were in place for salary cap calculations for that year so no breaach notice was issued.

2. Dogs convicted of $1 million(down from 1.5 after NRL salary cap help using Price, reardon & Hughes benefits) salary cap fraud, not 400k like you said.

The Dogs 2002 breach was approx $400K. Half of this was eligible for the sponsorship servicing allowance if the previous board had of bothered to find out how the cap actually worked instead of cheating. The remainder was brought into line with a 7.5% pay cut. The long service allowance for 10 year plus players you are referring to regarding Price, Reardon and Hughes did not become part of the cap until 2003. This allowance was for a maximum of $100K across the entire squad regardless of the number of 10Yr+ players. BTW, Price only became eligible this 2004 year and Hughes 2006 I believe.

3.Trindell paid $120k (+50k in paper bags) as opposed to your $250K as you said .

My anecdoetal feedback conflicts with yours info here, I won't concede this point and I wouldn't expect you to concede yours either.

4. Tv figures. My quote of key advertising markets viewing numbers being down considerably instead of growing, turned into a pay tv replay argument, where you tried to convince that the TV ratings were the best ever. They weren't. Still aren't.

First you claim it's the worst result since 2000 or maybe 1997

The figures are the worst since 2000. Estimates agree that quite possibly the worst since the 97 split Gf's.

I provide the figures which clearly show that the total TV audience is the best it has ever been and the best FTA since 2001.

You then claim that it is the worst since the new rating system

Worst result in viewing audience since the new system.

You also claim that the new ratings system came in around 1997

Estimates agree that quite possibly the worst since the 97 split Gf's. I'll give you a hint, the new system came in somewhere in there.

I provide the documentation which clearly shows that the new total TV ratings system first began in Aug last year which makes the 2004 season the first complete season under the new ratings system.

You then quote only the FTA totals (which now only make up 52.2% of rugby league viewing patterns) in an attempt to back up your claim,

Look at it this way. Oztam took over the stats from AC Neilson in 2001. However, a total TV audience rating system including PTV was not available until Aug 2003.

If we look at the key stats from each area being major caps plus the indicated shift in Foxsports 2 viewership prior to the GF.

2004
FTA
Total 2.107M
Syd 1.045M
Mel 389K
Bri 617K
Ade 26K
Per 31K

Foxsports 2 viewership also shows an increase in share from 1.8% of total viewing time in week 40 to 5.9% in week 41. This increase equates to an additional 478K viewers. Total for Foxsports 2 1.925M (Viewers not households as per FTA)

Total 2004 combined viewers 4.032M


2003
FTA
Total 2.352M
Syd 1.152M
Mel 489K
Bri 638K
Ade 36K
Per 35K

Total for Foxsports 2 1.633M (Viewers not households as per FTA)

Total 2003 combined viewers 3.985M



2002
FTA
Total 2.177M
Syd 1.025M
Mel 428K
Bri 653K
Ade 35K
Per 35K



2001
FTA
Total 2.097M
Syd 1.136M
Mel 315K
Bri 542K
Ade 50K
Per 55K

Which even in isolation still show that it was the best since 2001,

but then go on to claim that it was now the worst TV viewership result since 97/98 now across all 5 capital cities,

That is why it was the worst rating result across 5 capitals since 97-8

If you actually look at the figures, it's quite plain to see that it was the best result in Sydney since 2002 and best in Melbourne and Brisbane since 2001.

5. Cantebury player churn was no different from any other years despite the fact they had assembled the squad using illegal activities as opposed to you saying they shed 30% of their players over 4 years or some senseless krap.

How much churn would you expect when only a 7.5% pay reduction brought them under the cap? Let me guess, 50%?

6. The fact that you picked up a typo as an error & quoted me as saying Cantebury turned over 2 billion dollars. (shakes head in disbelief)

Ok , So I inflated by 4. I think I didnt look back too hard.
But hey, the threads not over yet.

$500K is a large fine. The largest in league history in fact. Add to this the 37 point penalty, which excluded the Dogs from $100K minor premiership and a potential GF prize pool plus revenue from a home semi final and your looking at close to a $1M impact excluding sponsorship and merchandising impacts. Your attempt to downplay the size of the penalty is ludicrous.

You play down your error as inflating it by only a factor of 4! That would be like me saying that there was no salary cap breach at all because the salary cap is $13 Million. In truth, your error was not a typo as it didn't match your own calculation which was based on $55M. This made your error a factor of 40 using your own figures. Using real figures based on profitability, it would be more like a factor of 400. (For context that would be a salary cap of $1.3 Billion. Nice backpedal attempt though.

Cantebury are cheats.Not cheats for 1 year, but numerous. They were allowed to keep all of their player players & were penalised for 1 year. They rorted the Salary cap by 1.5 million dollars that they admitted too over 2001 & 2002. They used that period to assemeble 98% of their current squad. Although not investigated, it is assumed that the cheating included the years 99 & 00. Something Cantebury has never denied.

Allowed to keep all of their players? Wrong.

Penalised for 1 year? Wrong. They had to operate on a reduced cap remember.

Admitted to $1.5M? Wrong.

98% of their current squad? Wrong.

99 and 00 cheating? Wrong. The salary cap was operated under notional contract values from 98 to 00.

The NRL help showed them that they didnt have to cheat, (even though they were) & found places to put 400k over 3 years. 01, 02, 03.
The same principal was applied to 04. Therefore bring down the amount of the fine & saving the club 300k in extra cheating payments that they had organised to pay for 03 & 04.

You mean the NRL explained to the club how salary cap exemptions and sponsorship servicing allowances are supposed to be structured?

This makes the 500k & loss of points in a year they would not have won anyway, nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

If you believe that the Dogs would not have won in 2002 that's your opinion. A minority one.

Through negotiations & many threats to the NRL the final outcome was agreed to. A negotiation in a stand-off.

Rubbish.

 

[Dogs Of War]

This is the funniest thread ever :lol:

Keep up the entertainment Reefy!

 

[DJ1]

Funny or sad?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

No offence, but I will go with the salary cap auditor over your "very good mail". You've stated many different figures throughout this thread and now want to include 2000 figures but you seem to forget that 2000 was still under the notional contract value system. Please remember that most clubs were spending upwards of $5 - $8 million. at the time of the SL war.
.

Bullshyte!
So now you are saying that the merged clubs who got the advantage & bonus would put up with a club who did not merge spending the same as them??
The salary cap was in place. & the Dogs were not anywhere near it. As usual.

It was the goal of the NRL to move from "No cap" in 1997 to $3.25M for 2001 despite maintaining a $3.25M salary cap from 1998. Which also means that all premiers from 1997 to 2004 accumulated a certain percentage of their squads outside of the $3.25M prescribed cap during previous years.

More bullshyte. The only clubs that had any type of salary cap exemption from 2000 were the merged clubs.
None of the eventual winners of the premierships in 99, 00, 01, 02 , 03 were over the cap at anytime during those years. Clubs like Brisbane churned players like Pearl, Carroll, Thorne, Lazarus in an attempt to stay under during this period. St George who were benefactors of the exemption shedded players like nothing else during this period. All clubs shed players except for Cantebury who purchased more & locked up juniors.

Instead you now state that the fine equated to 0.25% of a turnover of $55 Million. Still somewhat inflated when the reality of a $500K fine equalling 0.25% of yearly revenue would still equal an inflated figure of $400 million dollars over 2 years. Do you actually think before posting this crap? Or on another point, do you understand the difference between turnover and profit?.

Do you know the difference between them is a better question. Or even better , do you know how it is paid & what it is a percentage of?
& I stand by the rate of 1/4 %(is that better) of turnover for 2 years.
After the NRL showed them where to place the illegal payments monies(consultancy fee free) it benefited them to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So how big was the fine really? Sure they will eventuall have to pay the NRL 500k, but how much has been saved? What about the $120k for winning the title with an illegal team that the NRL helped them keep together?

There were no problems with sponsors either, except for Nike when the board were considering getting players to sign counterfeit Nike apparrell.
Apperntly, sponsors think you should not use fakes of their products.
Weird huh?

The Dogs were convicted of cheating over 2 years. They have not admitted to cheating for the previous years.

...and were not charged or convicted of a breach during the notional contract value era which ended in 2000. Different system Reefy.

There was a salary cap system in place & they were not entitled to be over it. They were.

When the new board came in it found that it did not have a solid understanding of how the cap and it's exemptions worked.

"Peponis said the NRL was pointing out other ways payments could be legally made outside the cap.

"The NRL made available to us documentation we didn't have, that other people in our club had, but we and the management that's left weren't privy to and haven't been able to get our hands on"

In essence the NRL salary cap specialists showed the Dogs new management how the salary cap actually worked with the use of existing exemptions used by all other clubs. The club restructured it's player payments to get within the cap. It did this by utilising the sponsorship servicing allowance which it's previous board had not used despite being eligible, (utter stupidity) and then instituted pay cuts of between 6% to 9% across the NRL squad which brought them into line for 2003 (For those of you with any mathematical skills "Reefy" excused of course, what is 7.5% of $3.25M?). Pop quiz, if a 7.5% pay cut brought the club under the salary cap, compare the $500K fine to 2 years worth of 7.5%. Looks like we have the actual salary cap breach there. Since 2002, the club has not breached the cap for 2003 and 2004.

So what? The dirty work was done. The Squad was assembled. They lost no players they didnt want to.
Would any of those players have signed for 10% less when first approached by Cantebury? Would anasta have gone to the Rabbits for 50k more? Would Williams have been picked up another club? Who knows? They were all there & they all agreed to take the lower income together & if they win a few more premierships they will probably not be a cent out of pocket.

They admitted to salary cap breaches of 1.5 million dollars.

No they didn't. Even you have quoted statements which refute this claim, in this very thread.

Here it is for you. A document which is at NRL HQ & the Herald. A document from the leagues club.

The Herald has now obtained documents showing "non-salary cap payments" dating back five years by the Bulldogs. It had already reported that the club exceeded the $3.25 million salary cap by $1.5 million over the past two years.
The Bulldogs' chairman, Barry Nelson, chief executive, Bob Hagan, and leagues club president, Gary McIntyre, told the NRL that the document the Herald relied on was a draft.

But they admitted to breaches of $400,000 for the 2002 season and $600,000 last season.

So , here we have documents at SMH, NRL, from Cantebury leagues own printers & you are disputing claims that;
a)They were over the cap for years leading up 02
b)That they were over by 1.5 mil for 01-02(adjusted to 1 mil courtesy of NRL)

& you also say that all they did wrong was spend 400k too much because they were "not very good money keepers"?

Yes, the NRL doesn't hide $500K of a clubs salary cap breach. They show club management how to structure payments within the cap. Something the previous board did not know how to do.

Or just perhaps they were the best at it. & all this bullshyte was part of the process to get to a resolution that kept the dogs in the game & kept the NRL dormant until injunctions were lifted.

No, your wrong again. The $500k fine was a one off fine based on the breach. Like all previous breaches, the fine was the equivilent of the breach itself.

Ok, so they were 500k over were they? I thought you said 400k? I also thought I showed you they were over by 1 million over 2 years.

Somebody doesnt know what they are talking about. At all.

There is no aspect of percentage of turnover (Revenue) included. Revenue would be an erroneous figure to utilise as it is no indicator of profitability or capacity to pay. i.e. What would hurt a club more, a fine of $500K where the club had a turnover of $50M and a profit of $1M or a club with a turnover of $10M with a profit of $3M. Of particular note would be the fact that it was the "Football" club which attracted the fine and not any leagues club. Profitability of the football club would be a maximum of $3-5M per year.

OK mr slow. I did not mean that is how the fine was calculated.
It was merely a demonstration of how pathetically low the fine was.
What was it again 1/4 ? !/2 % of turnover for the 2 years breech agreed to with the NRL?
& before you go on, tell me what you know about the new pokie tax.
(ohh. it is slightly off topic & slightly relevant)

No, punctuation. When using numeric values, it's called a decimal point not a full stop.

hahahahahaha!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
tOO FUNNY!

Where have I stated that they only cheated for 1 year.

Everywhere Mr figures. you said they were only guilty of 400k breach. The year of 2002. & for that they were penalised for that year.

It would be like me reminding you that the Sharks were over the cap by $2M in 1998 but omitting to state that notional contract values were in place for salary cap calculations for that year so no breaach notice was issued.

Sharks were over the cap. We were fined. I think the amount was $20k
This was very disappointing for us as we pride ourselves on our clubs honesty at trying to acheive a title. I don't know if it was intentional or not. But 20k is a junior player on the books for 1 year that we were not entitled to.

3.Trindell paid $120k (+50k in paper bags) as opposed to your $250K as you said .

My anecdoetal feedback conflicts with yours info here, I won't concede this point and I wouldn't expect you to concede yours either.

Dont worry I will concede this point. There is no way of telling just how much money went around the clubs players in paper bags over 5 years.
Trindell probably did get 250k, maybe even more.
Who would ever know the true amount or rorting that went on with the systems they had in place.

How much churn would you expect when only a 7.5% pay reduction brought them under the cap? Let me guess, 50%?

Dead right. At least 50 % but in all fairness, if they were not booted out of the league, they would need players, so they would have been allowed to bid on the players they released in a closed tender process run by the NRL.
Player would have shown a very good reason for not electing to go to a club offering considerably more money.

$500K is a large fine. The largest in league history in fact. Add to this the 37 point penalty, which excluded the Dogs from $100K minor premiership and a potential GF prize pool plus revenue from a home semi final and your looking at close to a $1M impact excluding sponsorship and merchandising impacts. Your attempt to downplay the size of the penalty is ludicrous.

They got off lightly because they are still in the league.
Even 1 million is slap on the wrist for a club that turns over as much as that club.

Allowed to keep all of their players? Wrong.

they kept all they wanted to keep.

Penalised for 1 year? Wrong. They had to operate on a reduced cap remember.

But they had the same player value playing for that amount. meant nothing then, means nothing now.
They were penalised for 1 year where they missed out on 2 semi final matches of revenue + $500k fine

Admitted to $1.5M? Wrong.

Admitted to 1 mil even though their own draught document says 1.5 mil.

98% of their current squad? Wrong.

So who is new? oh thats right, you bought some more players last year under a reduced salary cap.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

99 and 00 cheating? Wrong. The salary cap was operated under notional contract values from 98 to 00.

I think you are under some kind of notional denial.

You mean the NRL explained to the club how salary cap exemptions and sponsorship servicing allowances are supposed to be structured?

No, I mean, the NRL told them that paper bags was a very good way to cheat & rort, but some of the bags arent needed because they can go into different legitimate accounts., Still not enough room for all the bags though & some just disappeared into another dimension.

If you believe that the Dogs would not have won in 2002 that's your opinion. A minority one.

Is it? Would that be because of the influence of pay tv in regional markets?

Through negotiations & many threats to the NRL the final outcome was agreed to. A negotiation in a stand-off.

Rubbish.

So you wish.
But you seem smart enough to know that is what the truth is.

 

[DJ1]

No offence, but I will go with the salary cap auditor over your "very good mail". You've stated many different figures throughout this thread and now want to include 2000 figures but you seem to forget that 2000 was still under the notional contract value system. Please remember that most clubs were spending upwards of $5 - $8 million. at the time of the SL war.
.

Bullshyte!
So now you are saying that the merged clubs who got the advantage & bonus would put up with a club who did not merge spending the same as them??
The salary cap was in place. & the Dogs were not anywhere near it. As usual.

1997 Super League war. No salary cap in place.

1998 NRL formed and proposes $3.25 million salary cap for 1999. Cap acknowledges "notional values" of players from contracts signed during the Super League war.

http://www.nrl.com.au/about/salarycap.cfm?page=2

All contracts signed during the Super League War were acknowledged as "Notional Values". Most clubs at the time, spent between $5M and $8M for their playing squads.

It was the goal of the NRL to move from "No cap" in 1997 to $3.25M for 2001 despite maintaining a $3.25M salary cap from 1998. Which also means that all premiers from 1997 to 2004 accumulated a certain percentage of their squads outside of the $3.25M prescribed cap during previous years.

More bullshyte. The only clubs that had any type of salary cap exemption from 2000 were the merged clubs.
None of the eventual winners of the premierships in 99, 00, 01, 02 , 03 were over the cap at anytime during those years. Clubs like Brisbane churned players like Pearl, Carroll, Thorne, Lazarus in an attempt to stay under during this period. St George who were benefactors of the exemption shedded players like nothing else during this period. All clubs shed players except for Cantebury who purchased more & locked up juniors.

See above explanation of notional values due to SL war signings. Due to notional values, only new contracts were attributable to the salary cap.

Instead you now state that the fine equated to 0.25% of a turnover of $55 Million. Still somewhat inflated when the reality of a $500K fine equalling 0.25% of yearly revenue would still equal an inflated figure of $400 million dollars over 2 years. Do you actually think before posting this crap? Or on another point, do you understand the difference between turnover and profit?.

Do you know the difference between them is a better question.

Why? Because you don't?

Or even better , do you know how it is paid & what it is a percentage of?

It's not a percentage of anything, and it was taken out of the 2002 NRL grant.

& I stand by the rate of 1/4 %(is that better) of turnover for 2 years.

I can't argue with dumb.

After the NRL showed them where to place the illegal payments monies(consultancy fee free) it benefited them to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The NRL assisted the clubs new board in their entire player payment system. All monies.

So how big was the fine really? Sure they will eventuall have to pay the NRL 500k, but how much has been saved? What about the $120k for winning the title with an illegal team that the NRL helped them keep together?

The fine was $500K. The fine was paid. The Bulldogs haven't won a title with an illegal team.

There were no problems with sponsors either

Except for the ones who never came on board due to the bad press from the scandal.

The Dogs were convicted of cheating over 2 years. They have not admitted to cheating for the previous years.

...and were not charged or convicted of a breach during the notional contract value era which ended in 2000. Different system Reefy.

There was a salary cap system in place & they were not entitled to be over it. They were.

You clearly don't understand the notional value salary cap system which was in place up to 2000.

When the new board came in it found that it did not have a solid understanding of how the cap and it's exemptions worked.

"Peponis said the NRL was pointing out other ways payments could be legally made outside the cap.

"The NRL made available to us documentation we didn't have, that other people in our club had, but we and the management that's left weren't privy to and haven't been able to get our hands on"

In essence the NRL salary cap specialists showed the Dogs new management how the salary cap actually worked with the use of existing exemptions used by all other clubs. The club restructured it's player payments to get within the cap. It did this by utilising the sponsorship servicing allowance which it's previous board had not used despite being eligible, (utter stupidity) and then instituted pay cuts of between 6% to 9% across the NRL squad which brought them into line for 2003 (For those of you with any mathematical skills "Reefy" excused of course, what is 7.5% of $3.25M?). Pop quiz, if a 7.5% pay cut brought the club under the salary cap, compare the $500K fine to 2 years worth of 7.5%. Looks like we have the actual salary cap breach there. Since 2002, the club has not breached the cap for 2003 and 2004.

So what? The dirty work was done. The Squad was assembled. They lost no players they didnt want to.

They wanted to lose Trindall. No-one would want to lose Paul Rauhihi and Darren Smith. Oh my, that's 12% of a 25 man squad there.

Would any of those players have signed for 10% less when first approached by Cantebury? Would anasta have gone to the Rabbits for 50k more? Would Williams have been picked up another club? Who knows? They were all there & they all agreed to take the lower income together & if they win a few more premierships they will probably not be a cent out of pocket.

Most likely they would have signed for less for a chance at a premiership. Seems to be happening more and more. Except at Cronulla.

They admitted to salary cap breaches of 1.5 million dollars.

No they didn't. Even you have quoted statements which refute this claim, in this very thread.

Here it is for you. A document which is at NRL HQ & the Herald. A document from the leagues club.

The Herald has now obtained documents showing "non-salary cap payments" dating back five years by the Bulldogs. It had already reported that the club exceeded the $3.25 million salary cap by $1.5 million over the past two years.
The Bulldogs' chairman, Barry Nelson, chief executive, Bob Hagan, and leagues club president, Gary McIntyre, told the NRL that the document the Herald relied on was a draft.

But they admitted to breaches of $400,000 for the 2002 season and $600,000 last season.

So , here we have documents at SMH, NRL, from Cantebury leagues own printers & you are disputing claims that;
a)They were over the cap for years leading up 02
b)That they were over by 1.5 mil for 01-02(adjusted to 1 mil courtesy of NRL)

& you also say that all they did wrong was spend 400k too much because they were "not very good money keepers"?

So you have the Herald quoting it's own report of $1.5M over 2 years. They state they have documents for 5 years but the figure doesn't go up from $1.5M. Why not? It would have sold more papers. Earlier you quoted the same paper stating $1.5M from 1999 to 2002. The NRL salary cap auditors did not agree with this reported figure of $1.5M. The Bulldogs did not agree with this reported figure of $1.5M. More than likely the reporter did not understand how the salary cap worked either in regards to the $500K secondary cap, salary cap exempt sponsorships or the $200K sponsors servicing allowance.

Yes, the NRL doesn't hide $500K of a clubs salary cap breach. They show club management how to structure payments within the cap. Something the previous board did not know how to do.

Or just perhaps they were the best at it. & all this bullshyte was part of the process to get to a resolution that kept the dogs in the game & kept the NRL dormant until injunctions were lifted.

You would expect the NRL to know the most about their own cap wouldn't you? There are no court imposed injunctions in place.

No, your wrong again. The $500k fine was a one off fine based on the breach. Like all previous breaches, the fine was the equivilent of the breach itself.

Ok, so they were 500k over were they? I thought you said 400k? I also thought I showed you they were over by 1 million over 2 years.

Somebody doesnt know what they are talking about. At all.

The club was found to be in breach through a systematic payment system of $600K for 2001 and $400K for 2002. Once the audit was completed and all legitimate exemptions were actually used instead of ignored they were left with a total breach of $500K. This was the equivilent of the fine as per all previous precedents.

There is no aspect of percentage of turnover (Revenue) included. Revenue would be an erroneous figure to utilise as it is no indicator of profitability or capacity to pay. i.e. What would hurt a club more, a fine of $500K where the club had a turnover of $50M and a profit of $1M or a club with a turnover of $10M with a profit of $3M. Of particular note would be the fact that it was the "Football" club which attracted the fine and not any leagues club. Profitability of the football club would be a maximum of $3-5M per year.

OK mr slow. I did not mean that is how the fine was calculated.
It was merely a demonstration of how pathetically low the fine was.
What was it again 1/4 ? !/2 % of turnover for the 2 years breech agreed to with the NRL?
& before you go on, tell me what you know about the new pokie tax.
(ohh. it is slightly off topic & slightly relevant)

More like a demonstration of how pathetic your arguement is.

No, punctuation. When using numeric values, it's called a decimal point not a full stop.

hahahahahaha!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
tOO FUNNY!

Classic.

Where have I stated that they only cheated for 1 year.

Everywhere Mr figures. you said they were only guilty of 400k breach. The year of 2002. & for that they were penalised for that year.

re-read. I have not disputed the $600K from 2001 anywhere.

It would be like me reminding you that the Sharks were over the cap by $2M in 1998 but omitting to state that notional contract values were in place for salary cap calculations for that year so no breaach notice was issued.

Sharks were over the cap. We were fined. I think the amount was $20k
This was very disappointing for us as we pride ourselves on our clubs honesty at trying to acheive a title. I don't know if it was intentional or not. But 20k is a junior player on the books for 1 year that we were not entitled to.

That breach did not account for notional value contracts but contracts signed after SL.

How much churn would you expect when only a 7.5% pay reduction brought them under the cap? Let me guess, 50%?

Dead right. At least 50 % but in all fairness, if they were not booted out of the league, they would need players, so they would have been allowed to bid on the players they released in a closed tender process run by the NRL.
Player would have shown a very good reason for not electing to go to a club offering considerably more money.

Is restraint of trade a good reason for a player to reject the NRL attempting to transfer a player from one club to another?

$500K is a large fine. The largest in league history in fact. Add to this the 37 point penalty, which excluded the Dogs from $100K minor premiership and a potential GF prize pool plus revenue from a home semi final and your looking at close to a $1M impact excluding sponsorship and merchandising impacts. Your attempt to downplay the size of the penalty is ludicrous.

They got off lightly because they are still in the league.
Even 1 million is slap on the wrist for a club that turns over as much as that club.

Turnover of a leagues club or holding company is irrelevant. The issue here was between the "Football Club" and the NRL. If it was the Storm, would that mean that the NRL would fine them $12 Billion because of the turnover of News Ltd?

Allowed to keep all of their players? Wrong.

they kept all they wanted to keep.

lol

Penalised for 1 year? Wrong. They had to operate on a reduced cap remember.

But they had the same player value playing for that amount. meant nothing then, means nothing now.
They were penalised for 1 year where they missed out on 2 semi final matches of revenue + $500k fine

Player value is irrelevant. Salary cap attributable value is how the system works. That's why Andrew Johns doesn't take up $1M of Newcastles cap.

Admitted to $1.5M? Wrong.

Admitted to 1 mil even though their own draught document says 1.5 mil.

The $1.5M is the SMH journalists interpretation of a draft document. The same journalists couldn't even agree on a figure or the number of years. The club and the NRL salary cap auditors ascertained the accurate figures of what was salary cap attributable.

98% of their current squad? Wrong.

So who is new? oh thats right, you bought some more players last year under a reduced salary cap.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

These are the players from the 2002 squad who were not part of the 2004 squad.

Darrell Trindall
Darren Smith
Nigel Vagana
Willie Talau
Paul Rauhihi
Travis Norton
Steve Reardon
Gavin Lester
Brett Howland
Glenn Hall
Todd Polglase
Andrew Emilio

2% huh?

99 and 00 cheating? Wrong. The salary cap was operated under notional contract values from 98 to 00.

I think you are under some kind of notional denial.

Think what you like. It doesn't change the facts about the Notional contract values.

You mean the NRL explained to the club how salary cap exemptions and sponsorship servicing allowances are supposed to be structured?

No, I mean, the NRL told them that paper bags was a very good way to cheat & rort, but some of the bags arent needed because they can go into different legitimate accounts., Still not enough room for all the bags though & some just disappeared into another dimension.

The Bulldogs were within the cap for 2003 and 2004. This hurts you doesn't it?

If you believe that the Dogs would not have won in 2002 that's your opinion. A minority one.

Is it? Would that be because of the influence of pay tv in regional markets?

Another good example of your knowledge of the impacts of Pay TV.

Through negotiations & many threats to the NRL the final outcome was agreed to. A negotiation in a stand-off.

Rubbish.

So you wish.
But you seem smart enough to know that is what the truth is.

Fortunately, you don't have to deal with those burdens.

 

[Zef]

You still beating yourself up Reefy? Look, I don't know what you've been going on about because that high-pitched squealing of yours really grates my ear-drums, but as I guess you're still whinging about The Dogs, let me give you a tip -

You could take our whole player roster from 1st to 3rd grade over to The Sharks and we'd take yours in a direct swap - and at the end of the year we'd still be challenging for a Premiership and you's would still be also-rans... again.

Why? Because it's got nothing to do with the talent, it's the heart. It's all to do with what's in the walls of our place, it's the culture. And if you's want to know what that is then I'd suggest you's ask Ando, but then again you's did and when you's didn't like the answer, you's punted him.

That's because you's didn't want to lose your "nice guy" image - it's important to you's. And yes, you's are nice guys - I mean everyone likes The Sharkies (except Dragon fans, but that's a sibling thing). And of course that's why Ando went - because he wasn't so likeable, and Sharks can't have that. Because everyone likes you's, you's are great, and it's important to you's that everyone likes you's.

You's are really nice guys.

And at the end of the year, you's always finish with the rest of the nice guys (but at least you's are nice).

And Us - The Dogs? Well, we're not that nice - and we don't give a f*** what anyone thinks about that either (especially nice guys).

 

[blacktip-reefy]

You still beating yourself up Reefy? Look, I don't know what you've been going on about because that high-pitched squealing of yours really grates my ear-drums, but as I guess you're still whinging about The Dogs, let me give you a tip -

You could take our whole player roster from 1st to 3rd grade over to The Sharks and we'd take yours in a direct swap - and at the end of the year we'd still be challenging for a Premiership and you's would still be also-rans... again.

Why? Because it's got nothing to do with the talent, it's the heart. It's all to do with what's in the walls of our place, it's the culture. And if you's want to know what that is then I'd suggest you's ask Ando, but then again you's did and when you's didn't like the answer, you's punted him.

That's because you's didn't want to lose your "nice guy" image - it's important to you's. And yes, you's are nice guys - I mean everyone likes The Sharkies (except Dragon fans, but that's a sibling thing). And of course that's why Ando went - because he wasn't so likeable, and Sharks can't have that. Because everyone likes you's, you's are great, and it's important to you's that everyone likes you's.

You's are really nice guys.

And at the end of the year, you's always finish with the rest of the nice guys (but at least you's are nice).

And Us - The Dogs? Well, we're not that nice - and we don't give a f*** what anyone thinks about that either (especially nice guys).

Nothing to do with nice or bad guys.

Just cheats.

The dogs rorted the Salary cap for up to & including 5 years. Through negotiations with the NRL they agreed to a penalty & a conviction.
the conviction was not enough because with all of the players they asembled during the rorting years they won the premiership. It has nothing to do with heart & soul it has to do with 3 things.
Money, power & influence.
A team that was assembled during a salary cap rorting process has had an immoral victory & will probably continue to have more.
Tell me the names of the players at the club that were not ther eduring the rorting years. Tell me the names of the players that came to the club possibly due to the player strength at the club. Players they had no right to have & therefore had no right to attract the newer players as a result.
the club salary cap cheated their way to 04 premiership. & will probably win another 1 with that squad.

 

[Zef]

Nothing to do with nice or bad guys.
Just cheats.

And Premiers - don't forget that bit, and winners with a winning culture, that's important also. You's on the other hand are really nice guys.

Tell me the names of the players at the club that were not ther eduring the rorting years. Tell me the names of the players that came to the club possibly due to the player strength at the club.

Why would I bother with that Reefy? - I don't care. But for the sake of it, why don't you tell me. And remember, be detailed (I like detail) and show some passion and anger - it makes me feel good..

But, quit with the high pitched squeaky voice will ya - it grates. Take your time, don't rush your words and you'll find you'll have a more deeper tone.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

1997 Super League war. No salary cap in place.

1998 NRL formed and proposes $3.25 million salary cap for 1999. Cap acknowledges "notional values" of players from contracts signed during the Super League war.

http://www.nrl.com.au/about/salarycap.cfm?page=2

All contracts signed during the Super League War were acknowledged as "Notional Values". Most clubs at the time, spent between $5M and $8M for their playing squads.

from your own link.

NRL provides guidelines for breaches of the salary cap including fines and the loss of competition points for breaches from 2001 and beyond.

So, for SL in 97 we would have a year contract ending in 1999. Who at at Cantebury was on a longer than 3 year contract?
The notional value applied in 99-00 & just perhaps 01 for 5 year contracts. How many were there? All contracts in ARL & SL were resigned in 96.
& the notional value of say a brad fittler in 00 would have been the market value or the final years payment which ever was less.
So in 2001, there was no notional value system in place? So you were wrong about that?
Tell me the name of 1 player at Cantebury who had a notional value contract amount in 2000. Go on , dare ya.

See above explanation of notional values due to SL war signings. Due to notional values, only new contracts were attributable to the salary cap.
No they weren't. You don't understand the thing you go on about the most. The notional values were applied & were part of the cap.
St George is an example.

Do you know the difference between them is a better question.

Why? Because you don't?

I understand them quite well thankyou.

Or even better , do you know how it is paid & what it is a percentage of?

It's not a percentage of anything, and it was taken out of the 2002 NRL grant.

Show me where that is the case, Anywhere.

& I stand by the rate of 1/4 %(is that better) of turnover for 2 years.

I can't argue with dumb.

You seem to be stuck on this point that I think the NRL used this formula for the fine. Idid not. I used that figure as an example of how soft the penalty was, nothing more. if my percentage was a 1/4 of a percent out, big deal. .25, .5, .75, 5% even, are all too soft.

The fine was $500K. The fine was paid. The Bulldogs haven't won a title with an illegal team.

technically, you are right.
Like the drug dealer with a Ferrari in his driveway says he paid for it with his laundromat money.

There were no problems with sponsors either

Except for the ones who never came on board due to the bad press from the scandal.

Geez, if Nike stayed onboard after the attempted fake NIKE wear saga, then I am pretty sure it is good as read there were no problems with sponsors. Coffs Harbour was where the sponsor damage was.
Which sponsors did not come on board because of the salary cap breach?

You clearly don't understand the notional value salary cap system which was in place up to 2000.

I completely understand it. Probably not well enough as Cantebury did. But they are the experts in salary cap rorts systems & methods.

They wanted to lose Trindall. No-one would want to lose Paul Rauhihi and Darren Smith. Oh my, that's 12% of a 25 man squad there.

Darren Smith was not lost & he was 32 years old. Rauhihi was on the bench for PL. What about all the lower graders like Williams, Asotasis, Thurston, Utai. its not just about the 25 man squad. Its about every player at the dogs during those years.

Most likely they would have signed for less for a chance at a premiership. Seems to be happening more and more. Except at Cronulla.

Yeah right. Are there pixies in your garden too?

So you have the Herald quoting it's own report of $1.5M over 2 years. They state they have documents for 5 years but the figure doesn't go up from $1.5M. Why not? It would have sold more papers. Earlier you quoted the same paper stating $1.5M from 1999 to 2002. The NRL salary cap auditors did not agree with this reported figure of $1.5M. The Bulldogs did not agree with this reported figure of $1.5M. More than likely the reporter did not understand how the salary cap worked either in regards to the $500K secondary cap, salary cap exempt sponsorships or the $200K sponsors servicing allowance.

You are right. The reporting team probably did not know how the cap worked. The reporting team relied on documents from Cantebury.
It was their own internal document(s). One that was quickly changed & then referred to as a draught.

Ok, so they were 500k over were they? I thought you said 400k? I also thought I showed you they were over by 1 million over 2 years.

Somebody doesnt know what they are talking about. At all.

The club was found to be in breach through a systematic payment system of $600K for 2001 and $400K for 2002. Once the audit was completed and all legitimate exemptions were actually used instead of ignored they were left with a total breach of $500K. This was the equivilent of the fine as per all previous precedents.

What was used again, notional values? That would have to have been an agreed to amount? & 3rd party (oasis) sponsorship?
Yep, all sounds above board.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAA!

More like a demonstration of how pathetic your arguement is.

Pokie tax increases being introduced are calculated on turnover. Not profits, ability to pay, current balances. A percentage of turnover.

re-read. I have not disputed the $600K from 2001 anywhere.

No you just dont mention it. You say that Cantebury cheated by 400k( or was it 500k now) in 2002 & were penalised.
They were convicted & admitted to cheating 1 million over 2 years.

That breach did not account for notional value contracts but contracts signed after SL.

I have no idea. I am just disappointed that the Sharks are mentioned in such scum behaviour. Even if it was for a measley 20k.

Is restraint of trade a good reason for a player to reject the NRL attempting to transfer a player from one club to another?

There is no restraint of trade if the Dogs were made pay out their contracts in full & then put them on the market.
who cares if it cost the Cantebury club 10- 20 million?
Who really cares if it sent the club broke?
Nobody except for Dogs supporters.

Turnover of a leagues club or holding company is irrelevant. The issue here was between the "Football Club" and the NRL. If it was the Storm, would that mean that the NRL would fine them $12 Billion because of the turnover of News Ltd?

What? Who cares about turnover? It was just an example.
for the 50 millionth time(exaggeration)

Player value is irrelevant. Salary cap attributable value is how the system works. That's why Andrew Johns doesn't take up $1M of Newcastles cap.

Sure its irrelevant when you have an assembled squad of players who came to a club looking for a premiership because the club was so strong, who then go on & win a premiership.
Yeah irrelevant except for the fact that probably 12 of the players in the squad had no right to be there.

These are the players from the 2002 squad who were not part of the 2004 squad.

Darrell Trindall (retired)
Darren Smith (retired)
Nigel Vagana (left injured)
Willie Talau (unwanted) premier league
Paul Rauhihi (unwanted) premier league
Travis Norton (unwanted)
Steve Reardon (retired 03)
Gavin Lester
Brett Howland (unwanted) premier league
Glenn Hall (killing it at Souths)
Todd Polglase (killing it at Souths)
Andrew Emilio We picked him up for 45K in 2002 before cap rorting.

2% huh?

3 seasons is a squad of 75. Where did I quote 2% again.
I thought I said 98% of current squad assembled through the rorting years. Including 00-01-02.
Tell me which players this year out of the top 25 were no purchased through those years. including the juniors like Asotasi, Williams etc.

The Bulldogs were within the cap for 2003 and 2004. This hurts you doesn't it?

No, it hurts Rugby league. As do the Cantebury club, it's scum officials, out of control players & lowlife violent supporters.
There are exceptions, but only a few.

Another good example of your knowledge of the impacts of Pay TV.

Tell us again, its a beauty of a story. What was it again? You dont watch the Grand final live because you can watch the replay later that night on pay tv? after the kids have gone to bed.

Fortunately, you don't have to deal with those burdens.

The truth hurts. Your club are cheats. Certified cheats. Convicted cheats. All players there now were assembled because of cheating. Whether u pay 3.5 million for the Squad or 2.5 million is irrelevant. They should not have been there.
Hopefully the club will stick to its tried & tested forumals of rorting & cheating & fugg up again. Would be good to see a club with decent supporters & officials, like Newtown, returning to the fold.

 

[JK]

But even that figure does surprise me. But still, 75k difference is a lot. The majority of the Sharks back line dont earn $75K.

That explains all those years where you won f*ck all

 

[wittyfan]

But even that figure does surprise me. But still, 75k difference is a lot. The majority of the Sharks back line dont earn $75K.

That explains all those years where you won f*ck all

I'd rather that than to cheat. ;-)

 

[gregstar]

I'd rather that than to cheat

agreed - hollow victory when you cheat!