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

[Timmah]

Classic quote from your very last post which shows what a sad hyopcrite you are.

"No thanks, I couldn't be bothered with your dribble"

Why are you still trolling us? Go and don a footy jersey mate, go and play somewhere in a local comp in the Shire and at least do SOMETHING to enable to your club to win a premiership instead of sitting here bothering with the "dribble" you claim not to care about. You're pathetic, get a life before it catches up with you.

 

[Zef]

You know Reefy, you should just stick to taking me on because I'm just taking the p.ss out of you. And taking the p.ss out of you can only make you look stupid and that's about it.

But you're taking on DJ over facts when he's got them and your making yours up as you go along... and bending them to suit... and ignoring the ones you don't like... and harping on about insignificant points.... you know DJ's not only making you look stupid but dishonest (in a slimey car-salesman sort of way), petulant and childish too.

As someone said way back - you should quit with DJ while you're behind and just let me take the p.ss out of you.

It'll be better for your credibility.

 

[Timmah]

Looks like some people just don't get it Zef. Poor bloke really is blind. With what, I don't know. Probably works for J Magnay :lol:

 

[DJ1]

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.

Brad Fittlers notional value was $800K. The "Notional Value" calculation in terms of what was cap attributable worked by taking whatever a club had left of their salary cap after all post SL contracts for the squad of 25, and distributing that amount evenly between the "notional value" contracts. Any amounts outstanding after this calculation were then deemed the salary cap exempt portion of the "notional value" contract. If a team could accomodate all of the value, it was all cap attributable, if a team had nothing left under the cap, all of it was salary cap exempt.

Fair current Market value is an even more interesting situation. Particularly in the case of Fittler. Everyone understands that market competition is a key factor in the setting of "fair market value". The primary driver of market competition at the time of the SL war was the race for player signatures between the SL and ARL. This resulted in a bidding war which drove the "fair market value" of a players contract up. Whatever a player managed to get was fair market value. In Fittler's case it was extremely unusual. Firstly the ARL announces that any SL players will not be eligible for selection in the Kangaroo squad. Then it makes Fittler the new captain as Meninga signs with SL. Fittler then announces that he will leave Penrith and stay with the ARL. This declaration of remaining with the ARL without having a club to go to should have dramatically reduced his fair market value as he had just eliminated the key driver behind the bidding war, SL. Despite the elimination of the key competitive force for his signature, he then signs one of the highest value contracts in history with the Roosters. Over $4M for 5 years as per Big League. It's clear from these events that the Kangaroos captaincy and a huge deal were all prior conditions of his media show of "loyalty".

Stack of purchases in 2000?

Remember that the Dogs did not breach the secondary cap in any year. So you can only factor player movements in the 25 man NRL squad which was where the breach occurred.

The 2000 squad was,

A Perry
Britt
C Hughes
Clyde
El Masri
Feeney
G Hughes
Halligan
Hetherington
Lester
Marteene
Murphy
Norton
Peek
Polla-Mounter
Price
Reardon
S Perry
Scott
Sherwin
Silva
Smith
Sologinkin
Talau
Thompson

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.

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

It was a radio interview on 2GB with Ray Hadley where Gallop was asked the question, "How does the NRL ensure that the fine is paid?" Gallops response was "All fines on a club by the NRL, are subtracted from the $2.5M grant to the club. It's written in the conditions of the grant."

& 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?

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."

I am not defending the the cheating element of the breach at all. They cheated, they were caught, they were investigated, the investigation handed back it's findings, the NRL penalised the club, it's players and it's fans, the previous board responsible for the cheating were sacked, the penalty was paid in full.

Which sponsors did not come on board because of the salary cap breach?

The ones which they didn't get.

Which ones?

NTG. Our major sponsor on the front of our jerseys for 2002.

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.

Juniors come to our club because of our culture of devloping players to their potential. The biggest challenge they face is fighting their way into the top team. A much easier task at the Sharks.

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, rorting dispicable club of cheating rorters.

Roosters
Bulldogs
Broncos
Knights
Panthers
Dragons

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.

If you don't want me to attack the multiple positions and media hype speculations and interpretations of an organisation which profits from sensationalism, don't quote their innaccuracies. If you are going to insist on quoting multiple speculations which don't agree from the same organisation, then you should expect that they will be challenged.

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.

...which still meets the $200K Sponsorship Servicing Excemption criteria.

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.

When you continually make inaccurate assumptions as statements of fact, don't get upset when you are corrected.

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?

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

So it seems that you care about turnover.

Yes.
I do.
Muchly.

lol

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.

Re-read: I said that "the better players will always gravitate towards the better clubs" not "the better players will always sign with the better clubs 100% of the time".

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.

Juniors outside the 25 man squad are irrelevant as the Bulldogs were not in breach of the $500K secondary cap. Williams came because we have a professional approach to identification of promising talent. The Sharks didn't even know about him until they met him wearing Blue and White. If you want to complain about juniors, complain to the NRL to bring in a draft.

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.

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

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.

That must be why this year was the most successful season ever for,

Average Crowd Attendence.
Total TV Audience (FTA and PTV combined).
Merchandise sales.

All players there now were assembled because of cheating.

All players now?

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

Sorry, Tonga excluded.

lol. Is that the best you can do? One player? No wonder you are unable to get the facts right.

 

[JK]

It was a radio interview on 2GB with Ray Hadley where Gallop was asked the question, "How does the NRL ensure that the fine is paid?" Gallops response was "All fines on a club by the NRL, are subtracted from the $2.5M grant to the club. It's written in the conditions of the grant."

Fines are subracted from the following years NRL grants.

It is a fact and not even a significant one in terms of the argument. Why is Reefy still fighting on it?? :roll:

 

[JK]

And the claim that we are the only team to win a premiership in the last 5 years that has breached the cap in that period!!! :lol:

What planet are you on Reefy?

Do you need a bulldogs chip on your shoulder to balance the won f**k all chip on the other shoulder??

 

[Dr Crane]

Canterbury: Nobody is f**king near them in 2005

 

[Timmah]

I'd go as far as to agree with IanRitchie - they look very much the strongest team, their greatest loss didn't even play in the Grand Final that we won so I don't see us being too weak next year.

 

[DJ1]

Fair current Market value is an even more interesting situation. Particularly in the case of Fittler. Everyone understands that market competition is a key factor in the setting of "fair market value". The primary driver of market competition at the time of the SL war was the race for player signatures between the SL and ARL. This resulted in a bidding war which drove the "fair market value" of a players contract up. Whatever a player managed to get was fair market value. In Fittler's case it was extremely unusual. Firstly the ARL announces that any SL players will not be eligible for selection in the Kangaroo squad. Then it makes Fittler the new captain as Meninga signs with SL. Fittler then announces that he will leave Penrith and stay with the ARL. This declaration of remaining with the ARL without having a club to go to should have dramatically reduced his fair market value as he had just eliminated the key driver behind the bidding war, SL. Despite the elimination of the key competitive force for his signature, he then signs one of the highest value contracts in history with the Roosters. Over $4M for 5 years as per Big League. It's clear from these events that the Kangaroos captaincy and a huge deal were all prior conditions of his media show of "loyalty".

This may be of interest to some regarding the Fittler show of loyalty,

I've just stumbled across some court documents relating to the legal issue which ensued between Penrith, Brad Fittler and Matt Sing.

These details are all quoted from court documents and sworn under oath by the relevant parties,

Regarding orignal Panthers Contracts

On 26 August 1993, Bradley Scott Fittler entered into an employment
agreement with the Penrith Club, a company limited by guarantee, as is the
League. The agreement was in he standard form of Playing Contract approved by
and uniformly used by the Leagues. On 25 July 1994 Matthew Charles Sing
entered into such an employment agreement with the Penrith Club. This also was
in the standard form in use by the Leagues.

Matt Sing gets paid $50K for loyalty prior to the Panthers move to SL

Thus on 3 April 1995, Mr Sing, for a
payment of $50,000 from the League, agreed to what were described as
"commitments to the League Competition" contained in clause 2 thereof
Essentially the commitments required the player for up to eight years not to
enter into any "Contractual Arrangement" relating to playing in any "Match" or
"Competition" other than the Rugby League Competition which the ARL and the
League "do and will in the future conduct".

Fittler gets paid $800K for loyalty prior to the Panthers move to SL

Mr Fittler on 4 April 1995 for a consideration of $300,000 and for a
further guarantee to meet any shortfall between the payment received by the
player under his contract to play in the League Competition and $500,000,
undertook equivalent obligations to those of Mr Sing.

The ARL went behind Penriths back to buy Fittler and Sing

I accept the evidence given that neither player entered into these
further Loyalty Agreements at the request of the Penrith Club or with the
knowledge of the Penrith Club at the time they were entered into, nor in a
form which mirrored any condition the Penrith club sought to attach to its
Commitment Agreement.

Panthers sign with SL

The next significant event is Penrith Club's entry into what I will
conveniently call the Super League arrangements. These involved a Deed of
Indemnity and Heads of Agreement both dated 3 May 1995. Under these
arrangements speaking generally, Penrith Club in conjunction with an only
partially associated entity and licensee AH PE Pty Limited, committed itself
to supporting the competing Rugby League football competition called
colloquially "Super League" set up under the control of News Limited and its
associated entities.

So, in a nutshell, it seems that loyalty came at a price and was negotiated and paid for even before the Panthers made the move.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

How many of the players in this years Cantebury squad, came to the club during the years 2000, 2001 & 2002? Regardless of whether they were a junior or senior.

Conversely, how many new signings(players signed in 2003), took part in this years Grand Final?

 

[Timmah]

Prior to 2000 we had El Masri, Price, Sherwin, Corey Hughes, Glen Hughes

We also had Tony Grimaldi but I believe he was a re-sign in 2002 or 2003.

Do you have a point reefy because it looks like you've fallen into a deep deep hole.

You still haven't answered - why do you hate the Dogs so much? Something mustve happened to you before the SC rort and CH allegations for you to be fuelled with this much hate for something so trivial as a Rugby League club

 

[Zef]

Poor ol' Reefy - nobody listens, nobody cares.

Where's the hoards of fellow fans that share your outrage you were telling us all about Reefy? It's pretty sad when you start an uprising and nobody follows you know.

Guess you're just no Che Guevarro.

 

[anastabation]

Cogburn you stupid old pensioner. Who is laughing now? For the last 2 years you have been poisoning online forums with your disgracful arrogance and bullshit and look whats bitten you in the arse! KARMA. You and your mate tri colours have a motto... that cheats never prosper.... if the last 2 seasons are anything to go by, you are spot on!

It must be really painful watching my club dominate yours since the late 70's. We've beaten you in 2 grand finals and we've won 17 of our last 21 games against your club, not to mention our 6 premierships, yes 6 as opposed to your clubs 1/2 a title.

I'm gonna enjoy this allllll off season and for most of 2005. Get used to this cogburn:

BULLDOGS PREMIERS 2004

and thats it.

 

[Rooster Cogburn.]

Let's see now.
Premierships
Easts 12
cheats 8
Runners up
Easts 14
cheats 8
Minor premierships
Easts 16
cheats 6
Head to head
Easts 72 wins
cheats 69 wins
Easts points scored against cheats 2445
Easts points conceded against cheats 2181
Easts biggest win against the cheats 87-7
cheats biggest win against Easts 40-12
Australian reps
Easts 65 (Highest number in the NRL)
cheats 38
World Club Championships
Easts 2 wins
cheats 0 wins
Pre season wins
Easts 4
cheats 2
Midweek Comps
Easts 2
cheats 0
Sevens
Easts 1
cheats 0
Reserve grade premierships
Easts 9
cheats 8
3rd grade premieships
Easts 14
cheats 5
Club championships
Easts 11
cheats 4
Accusations of rape against players
Easts 0
cheats 2
Amount of times had 37 comp points deducted for cheating
Easts 0
cheats 1

 

[Zef]

Hey Ferris, are you aware that out of the last 21 meetings between The Dogs and Roosters it stands at something like 17-4 in our favour.

That's a very embarrasing strike rate of 80% odd you know.

And did I ever tell you I've seen six, six, six, six, six, six Dog Premierships in my lifetime? Did I ever mention that?

And what about 2 of those Premierships being won by flogging The Roosters in GF's - did I ever talk to you about that?

And has anyone ever mentioned that judging by recent history it appears The Roosters are two-time losers? Anyone ever mention that one?

Actually how many GF's has your lot ever won anyway? Weren't most of them Premierships the old "first past the post" variety? I think I've herad someone mention you've only won 3 GF's out of about a dozen attempts - just out of interest, is that true?

 

[DJ1]

Let's see now.

Interesting stats for a team with a 28 year headstart.

You seem to have conveniently left out grand finals?

Better yet, how many since compulsory grand finals?

As a Rooster supporter, I'm sure your clubs proudest moment was being awarded the 1937 premiership after achieving 6 wins from 8 games and not playing a grand final?

 

[anastabation]

Hey cogburn, i thought that canterbury were the greatest myth of the new millenium, suddenly your resorting to the mid 30's

 

[Timmah]

Let's see Coggy.
2004 Telstra Premiership Grand Final
Cheats 16
Rorters 13

:lol:

these boots were made for walkin....

 

[SOULS 04]

Canterbury: Nobody is f***ing near them in 2005

I dont know about no one being near them but they are the benchmark for sure.... There are alot of good teams out there next year.

and goburn shutup. you really are an arrogant toss. You can look for as many stats as you want but the dogs beat you in this years grand final making them the champions. so no matter what your stats say they are still the chapions and you just lost your best player. you think you're going to beat them without him..... I dont think so

 

[DJ1]

How many of the players in this years Cantebury squad, came to the club during the years 2000, 2001 & 2002? Regardless of whether they were a junior or senior.

Conversely, how many new signings(players signed in 2003), took part in this years Grand Final?

After a full and complete investigation by the NRL, the Dogs were found to be over the primary cap in 2001 by $600K and 2002 by $400K.

The Dogs did not breach the primary cap in 2000. Speculations and sensationalism by journalists with a vested interest in selling papers, don't realise that a Rugby League team has 13 players on the field not 15 and have no clear understanding of the workings of the cap at that time in terms of primary cap of $3.25M, secondary cap of $500K, Sponsors servicing allowance $200K or salary cap exempt sponsorships (uncapped), hold no credibility compared to a full and complete audit by the NRL who actually understood the workings of the cap and it's exemptions.

The Dogs did not breach the $500K secondary cap in any year.