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

[blacktip-reefy]

Between the 2002 and the 2005 seasons the Dogs lose,

Todd Polglase
Gavin Lester
Nigel Vagana
Willie Talau
Brett Howland
Travis Norton
Jonathon Thurston
Paul Rauhihi
Jamie Feeney
Steve Price
Steve Reardon
Denis Scott
Darren Smith
Andrew Emilio
Glen Hall
Glen Hughes
Nathan Sologinkin
Hutch Maiva
Matt Riddle

plus a couple more I can't think of off the top of my head (e.g. Asotasi's brother)

In 2002 the Buldogs were found guilty of a salary cap breach (Undisclosed payments) of $400K over the entire 25 man squad. This breach was not discovered through the salary cap auditing process which gives teams the "all clear" but through a media report. This resulted in a 37 point penalty and elimination from the finals. Fair enough punishment.

On the other hand the Roosters were found guilty of a salary cap breach (Undisclosed payments) of $300K for only one of their 25 players (Wing). This breach was not discovered through the salary cap auditing process which gives teams the "all clear" but through a media report. Penalty a $300K fine. No points. And they got to keep their Clayton's Cup.

Ok, so you have posted 18 player churns over a 4 year period. Not between 02 & 05 , but including 02 & 05. Big deal!
That is less than most other clubs churn. 5 per year.
$400k over = 2 maybe 3 players. Most imprtantly, that was the estimate & it was for that year only. The 400k could have been used across 10 players, to increase their payments 40k each for that year.
So a player who is on $150k sunddenly become $190k, it is a big deal.
The loss of 37 points was not sufficient & the fine was irrelevant. What is the use of fining a club financially who you want to stay in the league? Why make it harder financially for them? It would have been much better to force them to churn 10-15 players that very same year, & make them build from scratch.

Also, the Roosters salaray cap cheating involved half of the amount you quoted. & yes it was a clyatons cup, but it was no fault of the Rorters. It was the fault of the Dogs who were caught out, cheating dogs, who ruined the competition for everybody & prevented good players going to other clubs by paying them more than was legal.

 

[Cammo]

It would have been much better to force them to churn 10-15 players that very same year, & make them build from scratch.

It is illegal to force a company to sack it's employees without proper reason. Any player forced to leave the club could have easily challenged it in court and won.

 

[Dog-E]

Between the 2002 and the 2005 seasons the Dogs lose,

Todd Polglase
Gavin Lester
Nigel Vagana
Willie Talau
Brett Howland
Travis Norton
Jonathon Thurston
Paul Rauhihi
Jamie Feeney
Steve Price
Steve Reardon
Denis Scott
Darren Smith
Andrew Emilio
Glen Hall
Glen Hughes
Nathan Sologinkin
Hutch Maiva
Matt Riddle

plus a couple more I can't think of off the top of my head (e.g. Asotasi's brother)

In 2002 the Buldogs were found guilty of a salary cap breach (Undisclosed payments) of $400K over the entire 25 man squad. This breach was not discovered through the salary cap auditing process which gives teams the "all clear" but through a media report. This resulted in a 37 point penalty and elimination from the finals. Fair enough punishment.

On the other hand the Roosters were found guilty of a salary cap breach (Undisclosed payments) of $300K for only one of their 25 players (Wing). This breach was not discovered through the salary cap auditing process which gives teams the "all clear" but through a media report. Penalty a $300K fine. No points. And they got to keep their Clayton's Cup.

Ok, so you have posted 18 player churns over a 4 year period. Not between 02 & 05 , but including 02 & 05. Big deal!
That is less than most other clubs churn. 5 per year.

Uh - This would be because unlike many clubs - we actually try & look after and NURTURE our players! We have a proven track record of taking GOOD players...and tuning them into CHAMPION players! We help them out, and help them reach their potential...so they repay us in kind quite often for staying at Belmore for LESS than they could get elsewhere....it's called 'Loyalty' ladies 'n gents - and I don't expect many of you to understand the concept, but that's OK!

What we don't have however, is a revolving door 'If they play more than 2 bad games a season - DUMP THEM QUICK...No matter how many games they've won you in return!' policy at our club...

Yes, I'm lookig at YOU Parramatta & the Roosters!! :lol:

 

[blacktip-reefy]

The players are contracted to the NRL.
If they were put on the market & could get picked for equal or better money by another club, they should have done that & could have legally.
The NRL should have made compensations to the rest of the teams who suffered because of the cheating.

The important thing is that the squad that won the comp, was assembled illegally.

They were a strong outfit because they rorted. Cheated. Deceived.

Being strong encourgaes other players to come to the club or stay with the club, perhaps for less money.

The NRL failed to act over an acceptable period. i.e. 4 years.
1 year was not enough.

& if any player went to court to challenge the force in change of employment, good. Go for it. Take the dogs , the cheating dogs, to court & sue their cheating deceitful arrses all the way to bankrupcy.

 

[Cammo]

The players are contracted to the NRL.

The players are contracted to their clubs, not to the NRL. As far as I know it does not work like cricket or Union.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

no they are contracted to the NRL.
The NRL has the power to permit or not permit players to play in the competition.
In regards to payments, they are contracted to the club.

the current contract system will therefore prevent another situation where all the players walk out on a club & join a rival competition.

the NRL failed to correctly punihs the cheating dogs.

They cheated, they rorted & their punishment was to win a grand fianl with an illegaly assembled squad.

 

[Cammo]

They cheated, they rorted & their punishment was to win a grand fianl with an illegaly assembled squad.

No it wasn't, they were kicked out of the finals that year. From that year on they were under the cap according to the NRL. If they could not have got their team under the cap by the next season then they wouldn't have been entitled to play that year either. They did so they were allowed to play.

The administration that presided over the whole debacle was sacked and the club got itself under the cap (with restrictions to boot). Any player from the club was enititled to go wherever they liked but they decided to stay. The players had every right to choose not to take the pay cut and go somewhere else.

 

[Timmah]

Oh how jealousy gets the best of some people.

blacktip_reefy

it goes a little something like this:

Get over it, you can't change it. We won fairly. Run along now

 

[blacktip-reefy]

They cheated, they rorted & their punishment was to win a grand fianl with an illegaly assembled squad.

No it wasn't, they were kicked out of the finals that year. From that year on they were under the cap according to the NRL. If they could not have got their team under the cap by the next season then they wouldn't have been entitled to play that year either. They did so they were allowed to play.

So after attracting all of the players they wanted by offering more than other clubs could, you say the legitimacy is that they took a paycut to stay!!!???
Your naivety is blind.
Bullfrog himself had a famous quote where he said "the biggest battle in signing players is getting their feet in the door of the club"
That is why most signings happened on his terms.
Dont forget the players that the club lost were the ones they wanted to lose. Imagine if every club was allowed to spend 1 million more than the cap allowed, then pick & choose who they wanted to keep out of that bunch.

The administration that presided over the whole debacle was sacked and the club got itself under the cap (with restrictions to boot).

Well that makes all of supporter of honest clubs whose team were assembled within the law of the game feel real good doesnt it.


You see, here is a simple formula.

Buy players to the MAX. Go $1 million over. pay all of those players the majority of their money in the "over the cap" year. Admit your guilt to the NRL. Cop the fine from the NRL & lose all of your points. Then pick & choose who you want from the squad to stay.
Go on & win grand final with an illegally assembled team.

Easy peasy.

 

[Stomp]

get back in the condom cogburn!

:lol: :lol:

Funny but sad..still can't help laughing though :lol: :lol:

Stomp

 

[Cammo]

Then pick & choose who you want from the squad to stay.

No one got to pick and choose at all. As I said which you have not replied too, every player had the right to choose not to take the pay cut and go somewhere else. They chose to stay with the new administration and help the club out. If they were offered enough money elsewhere then a fair few of them would have left. Just as Roosters fans state, players want to play for a successful club and will take less to do so. They stayed, the club copped the biggest penalty in NRL history being stripped of 37 points, and the new admin got themselves under the cap.

Nearly everyone else has been able to accept that fact but you want to go on about "illegal" Grand Final teams. If it is that big an issue for you then take it to the NRL. As for me, I will continue to celebrate the premiership.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

I'm sure you will continue to celebrate the premiership.
Just as Riaders fans did when they won the GF & were way over the cap.
Doesnt change the truth of the matter. Every player in the Bulldogs squad barre Tonga, was there illegally.
If it wasnt for cheating, the likelihood of all those players being present together & make a play for this years premiership was less than zero.

Yes they all took a paycut. Yes they wanted to be successful , but most importantly, none of them in the wash up will lose out financially in the long term.

It is a rort of monumental proportions.

& dont kid yourself for a second that the majority think that the dogs won it fairly.

 

[RB30DETT]

Do you have evidence of these claims?

If you do please feel free to show everyone or STFU!

 

[Zef]

& dont kid yourself for a second that the majority think that the dogs won it fairly.

A don't kid yourself for a second that any Dog fan cares.

Though I see it has had an effect on you...

Good.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

A don't kid yourself for a second that any Dog fan cares.

.

what somebody from those despicable areas that follow a dispicable cheating club with an ounce of decency or honesty.!!!???

I wouldnt expect decency from that club or its supporters ever.

 

[Zef]

a dispicable cheating club with an ounce of decency or honesty.!!!???

... and Premiers.

 

[Cammo]

what somebody from those despicable areas

What despicable areas? Is the Blue Mountains a despicable area?

 

[The Grouch]

Reefy give it up, the more I read the more you sound like a sour bitter little boy

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Reefy give it up, the more I read the more you sound like a sour bitter little boy

I am very bitter.
Cantebury may have won it within the constrainst of the law of the time, but that is where it ends.
Tarnished victory. Same as the Rorters in 02. Not because the dogs werent there, but because the dogs players were no distrubuted throughout the comp.

 

[Zef]

I am very bitter.

Very good.

Have a tissue.