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

[blacktip-reefy]

You's on the other hand are really nice guys.

let me guess where you are from.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

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..

you wouldnt. because Gogs supporters dont care how much their club cheats & rorts or even if people are raped bashed or killed playing in their club. they dont care if criminals run the club. They dont care. That is a Canteburies supporters nature.
They only care about not getting caught.

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.

I didnt thinik noises would bother a Cantebury supporter. Geez with their cars going pppfffsshhhh! every gear change & the soul music base sounds vibrating the paint jobs of their luxurios, stylish Classy cars , I thought I could get a way with it.
go for a drive in your "wheels" & relax. Homey.

 

[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

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

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks skip.

 

[Zef]

Gogs supporters
cheats
rorts
criminals
Homey.

So... you don't like us then? That's OK, we can live with it. Mind you, it doesn't change our opinion of your lot, we really like you's.

You's are really nice guys.

PS: In your spitting rage, there's some stuff in there that'd probably get you banned from most boards if someone were to report it to the admin. Not that I would mind you, because I couldn't give a fat rat's arse what you think anyway (apart from the entertainment value). But I thought I might offer you the chance to change it before someone more sensitive happens across it.

Because I don't want to see you banned, your a nice guy. And good fun too.

 

[gregstar]

you's.

You's are really nice guys.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Dogaholic]

you's.

You's are really nice guys.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:roll:

I bet you really believe it as well.

 

[gregstar]

I bet you really believe it as well.

:lol:

 

[blacktip-reefy]

PS: In your spitting rage, there's some stuff in there that'd probably get you banned from most boards if someone were to report it to the admin. Not that I would mind you, because I couldn't give a fat rat's arse what you think anyway (apart from the entertainment value). But I thought I might offer you the chance to change it before someone more sensitive happens across it.

Because I don't want to see you banned, your a nice guy. And good fun too.

You seem to confuse rage with persistence & a beligerent repetition of the facts.
I am not enraged at all.
I'm merely doing my part at spreading the word. Perhaps if enough people care, one day, maybe next year, maybe in 10 years, the Dogs will fall back to their old tricks. People will remember how they rorted the cap & together with over lenient penalties, used an illegally assembled squad to win a premiership.
You can bet your bottom dollar the Dogs will continue to be thge scum of the league in all of their behaviours & actions. It's what they are, what they alwyas will be.

They are the scorpions.

 

[Dogaholic]

Think I might call all my boys and go cruising to Cronulla. Think that will be our new hang-out. :lol: :lol:

 

[DJ1]

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.

Re-read my statements. I never said that the notional value system was in place in 2001.

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

Brad Fittlers notional value was just over $800K in 2000. He signed a 5 year deal worth just over $4M for 96-00.

Bulldog players with notional value contracts in 2000 were,

Darryl Halligan
Rod Silva
Craig Polla-Mounter
Jason Hetherington
Darren Britt

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.

Understand enough to have edited my post to mean something different. The original was,

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.

Show me where that is the case, Anywhere.

All fines levied by the NRL to a club are taken out of the NRL grant of $2.5M per year.

& 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.

First you stand by the figure, now it's only an example?

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.

Good to see you concede this point. Unfortunately your example is technically wrong.

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?

The ones which they didn't get.

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.

The experts in salary cap rorts, systems and methods were not caught. The amateurs were.

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.

If we were able the fit Smith and Rauhihi under the cap in our 2003 squad we would have. We couldn't. The Bulldogs were found to be in breach of only the primary cap not the secondary $500K cap. Therefore it is only about the squad of 25.

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?

I can understand you point of view here as no player in his right mind would take a pay cut in an effort to win a premiership at Cronulla.

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.

Don't forget that a member of the SMH reporting team involved in this issue did not even know that a rugby league team has 13 players on the field. A draft document is just that, a draft. It is not the final document which can be relied upon.

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!

Notional values were not in place for 2001. Question for you, was the 3rd party Oasis sponsorship eligible for the $200K sponsorship servicing exemption as Braith Anasta was used on all of the billboards and promotional material? Don't think too hard now.

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.

Wrong. The Pokie tax which is pending introduction is calculated on Poker Machine Revenue not total club turnover.

e.g. using your example a club with a turnover of $10M per year with only one pokie which generates $25K pokie revenue per year will pay more pokie tax than a club with a turnover of $5M with 100 pokies which generate $2.5M in pokie revenue.

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.

Good to see you've re-read my comments and modified your statement.

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.

Maybe they should have been forced to let go 50% of their players. Seeing how they had an illegal team

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.

The NRL set the punishment. You should be bitter at them.

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)

Your quote which this is in response to is,

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.

So it seems that you care about turnover.

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.

No, irrelevant because a salary cap without a draft is not a true distributor of playing talent. The better players will always gravitate towards the better clubs who can provide the player with a greater chance of them achieving their professional playing goals.

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.

Darrell Trindall (released due to off field issues)
Darren Smith (Originally wanted to retire then wanted to play again, better deal in England)
Nigel Vagana (much better deal at Sharks, no pay cut for a premiership there)
Willie Talau (better deal in England)
Paul Rauhihi (better deal in NQ)
Travis Norton (better deal in NQ)
Steve Reardon (retired 03)
Gavin Lester (better deal in latte land)
Brett Howland (better deal at Penrith)
Glenn Hall (better deal at Souths)
Todd Polglase (better deal at Souths)
Andrew Emilio (better deal at Sharks)

You seem to believe that every player who is released, has been released because they are unwanted. Most players get released because they can't be fit under the cap.

What's 2% plus 98%?

Juniors outside the 25 man squad are irrelevant as the Bulldogs were not in breach of the $500K secondary cap.

Therefore the 2004 squad was only 64% of the 2002 squad.

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.

Why does it hurt Rugby League that the Bulldogs were within the cap in 2003 and 2004?

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.

Just another thing you need to go back and re-read as you've got it wrong.

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.

All players now?

The truth is you can't even stick to your own delusions.

 

[El Diablo]

Who were Canterbury's top 25 when they were busted for rorting in 2001 and 2002?

 

[Zef]

Perhaps if enough people care

Perhaps. I'm told there is a place, somewhere.

You can bet your bottom dollar the Dogs will continue to be thge scum of the league

And proud of it... and Premiers. You's meanwhile will still be nice.

And Gregstar, I've used the word "you's" all over the net, including here, for some time now. And I've been ridiculed, questioned, dismissed etc etc by the best so don't go thinking a couple of stupid f***in' smiley faces is gonna put me off (even though I HATE stupid f***in' smiley faces).

As I've argued before, it'll be in the dictionary by common usage by the end of the decade and until someone can point out to me how to say "You's can all go and get f*****" or even "You's are all really nice guys you Sharkies" without using "you's" - I'll continue to use it.

 

[gregstar]

You's can all go and get f*****" or even "You's are all really nice guys you Sharkies" without using "you's" - I'll continue to use it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And Gregstar, I've used the word "you's" all over the net, including here, for some time now. And I've been ridiculed, questioned, dismissed etc etc by the best so don't go thinking a couple of stupid f***in' smiley faces is gonna put me off (even though I HATE stupid f***in' smiley faces).

:lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Zef]

... and I should've added that it's very hard to take a f***in' hand puppet seriously.

 

[gregstar]

... and I should've added that it's very hard to take a f***in' hand puppet seriously.

so much anger Zef! :lol:

 

[DJ1]

Who were Canterbury's top 25 when they were busted for rorting in 2001 and 2002?

2001
Anasta
Britt
C Hughes
El Masri
Feeney
G Hughes
Hetherington
Howland
Marteene
Mason
Norton
Patten
Polla-Mounter
Price
Rauhihi
Reardon
S Hughes
Scott
Sherwin
Silva
Smith
Talau
Trindall
Vagana
Ward


2002
Anasta
C Hughes
El Masri
Feeney
G Hughes
Grimaldi
Hall
Howland
Lester
Marteene
Mason
Norton
O'Meley
Patten
Polglase
Price
Rauhihi
Reardon
Scott
Sherwin
Smith
Talau
Trindall
Utai
Vagana


The 2004 squad is
Anasta
Asotasi
Brideson
C Hughes
El Masri
Feeney
G Hughes
Grimaldi
Harris
Lolesi
Maiava
Maitua
Mason
Oliver
O'Meley
Patten
Perry
Price
Ryan
Scott
Sherwin
Thurston
Tonga
Utai
Williams

In 2005 we lose
Feeney
G Hughes
Maiava
Price
Scott
Thurston

 

[Zef]

so much anger Zef!

How can anyone be cranky at a hand puppet (even with stupid f***in' smiley faces)? Everyone loves a puppet - you just can't take them seriously.

That'd be like being cranky at a Sharky - everyone loves The Sharkies.

They're nice.

 

[gregstar]

How can anyone be cranky at a hand puppet (even with stupid f***in' smiley faces)? Everyone loves a puppet - you just can't take them seriously.

That'd be like being cranky at a Sharky - everyone loves The Sharkies.

They're nice.

:lol: good stuff Zef!

 

[RABK]

You's :lol: :lol: :lol: no good stuff gregstar, you've really got him worked up :lol:

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Re-read my statements. I never said that the notional value system was in place in 2001.
Brad Fittlers notional value was just over $800K in 2000. He signed a 5 year deal worth just over $4M for 96-00.

Bulldog players with notional value contracts in 2000 were,

Darryl Halligan
Rod Silva
Craig Polla-Mounter
Jason Hetherington
Darren Britt

Brad Fittlers notional Value was not 800k. No players value was 800k becaue it was impossible for that to be fair current market value.
His notional value was calcualted using market value taking into consideration rep status etc .etc.
In regards to the 5 you mentioned, tell me how Cantebury managed a stack of purchases that year if they were already over the cap with the players unpaid final year. The notional value may have kept them under the cap, but the massive spending spree they embarked on, there was no way they stayed under the cap. You seem to be under the delusion that existing contracts were ingnored.
They were not ignored, they were given a notional value.

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. [/quote]

All fines levied by the NRL to a club are taken out of the NRL grant of $2.5M per year.[/quote]

Again, show me a link where it confirms that is what happened..

First you stand by the figure, now it's only an example?

Yes I stand by my example figure. If its not spot on, it close enough for an example. Like this figure, "99% of everything you say is regurgitated, manipulated figures that desperately try to defend a cheating rorting club , that everybody & his dog knows, assembled the current squad using rorting cheating methods."

Good to see you concede this point. Unfortunately your example is technically wrong.

Yes you are right. The chances of a Ferrari being anywhere near this club are slim. Perhaps after the "wheel boys" picked up a lazy parked one on a Sunday night whilst cruising the more affluent suburbs like Bondi, Cronulla, even Hurstville is more stylish than the Cantebury area. Apparently. I wouldnt know, I have never been to either, so don't quote me.

The ones which they didn't get.

Which ones?

If we were able the fit Smith and Rauhihi under the cap in our 2003 squad we would have. We couldn't. The Bulldogs were found to be in breach of only the primary cap not the secondary $500K cap. Therefore it is only about the squad of 25.

It is about every player in the club. Especially Juniors who signed to be with the club because it was strong. ARtificially strong. Illegally strong.

I can understand you point of view here as no player in his right mind would take a pay cut in an effort to win a premiership at Cronulla.

Oh thats right. How many clubs have players who take pay cuts because they want to win a premiership? Seems to be only a common theme at the cheating, rortin,g dispicable club of cheating rorters.

Don't forget that a member of the SMH reporting team involved in this issue did not even know that a rugby league team has 13 players on the field. A draft document is just that, a draft. It is not the final document which can be relied upon.

OOhh here we go! Time to start attacking the SMH. The great team that exposed the cheating rorting club for what it has been for decades. A club of lowlife cheating rorters. Imagine if the Great SMH had not have exposed the cheats? The NRL would be a bigger debacle than what is now with the cheating rorters having won this years comopetition with an illegally assemble team.

Notional values were not in place for 2001. Question for you, was the 3rd party Oasis sponsorship eligible for the $200K sponsorship servicing exemption as Braith Anasta was used on all of the billboards and promotional material? Don't think too hard now.

No. It was obvious it was a blatant payment scheme of something that the cheating rorters had a financial stake. It was a rort.

Wrong. The Pokie tax which is pending introduction is calculated on Poker Machine Revenue not total club turnover.

oohh another technicality. Of course I meant pokie revenue.
Get some anti fogg onto your glasses, you seem to be losing the plot.

Good to see you've re-read my comments and modified your statement.

Umm I havent reread anything. Once is enough.
If I wanted to listen to somebodies emotional denial stories I would have been a shrink.
Your club are cheats. They illegally assembled their current squad.

Maybe they should have been forced to let go 50% of their players. Seeing how they had an illegal team

We should have been made to purge 3 times the amount of the breach in players. At least. We had a player we were not entitled too. Maybe more.

The NRL set the punishment. You should be bitter at them.

They did all they could do. Unfortunately, & much to the displeasure of quite a few.

So it seems that you care about turnover.

Yes.
I do.
Muchly.

No, irrelevant because a salary cap without a draft is not a true distributor of playing talent. The better players will always gravitate towards the better clubs who can provide the player with a greater chance of them achieving their professional playing goals.

Right. That is why people like Luke Priddis go to last placed Penrith.
what a load of utter fuggin bullshyte. Another excuse to defend the club who's team this year was assembled illegally through cheating & rorting the NRL & all other clubs in the system for around 5 years.

Juniors outside the 25 man squad are irrelevant as the Bulldogs were not in breach of the $500K secondary cap.

No they are not. Juniors are drawn to a club mainly for the idealogy of career growth. If you had a strong club that was illegally & cheatingly(love that word) assemebled, perhaps juniors were attracted that should not have been. e.g. Williams came when the Warriors were struggling.

Therefore the 2004 squad was only 64% of the 2002 squad.

a Squad of 25.
Now tell me the percentage Mr Figures. How many of this years team was purchased by the club in any grade during the rorting years.

Why does it hurt Rugby League that the Bulldogs were within the cap in 2003 and 2004?

It hurts the game of rugby leage to have such a low class club in its fold.

The club scares a higher class of people away from the game because it is always grabbing headlines for behaviour which is ingrained in them. It is their nature. They are scorpions.

Just another thing you need to go back and re-read as you've got it wrong.

Not thanks, couldnt be bothered with your dribble.
Tell me, do you watch todays news tomorrow on pay tv?

All players now?

The truth is you can't even stick to your own delusions.

Sorry, Tonga excluded.

 

[Timmah]

None of the eventual winners of the premierships in 99, 00, 01, 02 , 03 were over the cap at anytime during those years.

That's pretty funny. YOU DICKHEAD. Forgotten that Sydney was one of the 5 or 6 clubs fined after 2002 for being in minor breach of the cap? Quit spouting shit mate you're looking more sad pathetic and disjointed by the minute.

You just have this pathetic hatred and seem to believe everyone who doesn't support our proud, premiership winning club doesn't. You're wrong.

Move on you sad f**k.