It's quite clear that you do not really understand the issues you are posting about.
Eventual winners, the Cantebury club, broke very rule in the book to assemble a squad to win the premiership, or perhaps many.
Rubbish! The Dogs broke the cap in 2002. One rule, different squad. They were within the reduced cap (penalty imposed) in 2003 and the reduced cap in 2004. They return to the standard cap for 2005.
The 2002 breach of $400K was through the use of third party payments for players which were not declared to the NRL. This $400K breach was the overall figure for the entire squad. The squad in question was not rated by the main RL commentators as being a chance for the finals at the beginning of 2002.
Whilst the uninformed like yourself claim it was a brilliant squad which would not have been assembled to the detriment of other teams, many RL insiders understand that there were a number of key issues which led to the breach.
a)The club officials simply paid far too much for certain players (i.e. $250K for Trindall)
b)They had no real understanding of the complexities within the salary cap itself.
i.e. The sponsor serving allowance had effectively lifted the cap for the 2002 season from $3.25M to $3.45M. Despite being able to fully utilise this cap exemption as they met that criteria, the club did not take advantage of this. This alone would have halved their breach to $200K. Thus reducing a 12.3% breach ($400K over $3.25M) to a 5.8% breach ($200K over $3.45M). In effect, a simple accounting practice change which they were eligible to receive would most likely have resulted in the club receiving a much lower penalty.
c)Key accountablity at the clubs board comes down to the advice provided by the clubs legal counsel at the time, McIntyre. It was reported that when questioned by the board as to the legality of all player payment structures, McIntyre informed then CEO Hagan that it was all above board.
d)It was later revealed that it was highly likely that the leak to the media came from McIntyres aquaintances. It was also alleged that McIntyre was attempting to use the salary cap breach as a means to oust Hagan and assume the CEO role himself. It would seem that McIntyre also assumed that the NRL would adhere to it's own precedents of previous cap breaches and simply fine the club an amount equivalent to the breach and possibly deduct a maximum of 4 points as per the NRL memorandum which outlined all the penalties for breaches.
Having been exposed by whistle blowers in the media after passing internal NRL investigations, they were eventually fined in 2002 & stripped of their points, for that year only.
They were forced to operate on a reduced cap for 2003 (the reduction of $400K from their 2003 cap matched the amount of the cap breach in 2002)
Many think that they were premature that year & would not have won anyway.
....but the majority think they would have won.
But when you are $1 million over the cap, anything is possible.
.....but as yet, no-one has been found to be in breach by $1M. The highest has been the Doggies 2002 with $400K, Raiders 1994 $250K and Roosters 2002 $150K (per year Craig Wing contract).
Commercial restraints & the continuation of that years competition restricted the removal of the club altogether from the competition & the dissemination of the cantebury contracted players amongst the other clubs.
If the NRL had attempted to do this we would have no salary cap now. The Bulldogs had every right to challenge the legality of the penalty but did not to assist the healing process. Key challenge points,
a)Restraint of trade. All legal opinion states that the cap would not stand up to this challenge.
b)Precedent of penalty. All previous penalties for breaches of all types resulted in a monetary penalty only.
c)Points provision. The most up to date memorandum to the clubs at the time stated a maximum 4 point penalty for breaches and it was not effectively clarified to all participating clubs that a higher penalty was likely.
d)Despite the claims of a club chairman (George Piggins) that many clubs had similar if not identical undisclosed payment processes in place, the NRL refused to complete the same third party audit on all clubs. (It was later revealed that the Roosters had only disclosed 50% of Craig Wings $300K contract over 2 years, this resulted in a penalty of $300K, no points or handing of the 2002 premiership trophy to the Warriors)
In the end, most believe the final penalty was nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Not having achieved a premiership, I can understand why you would see it as a slap on the wrist. Supporters which have experienced a premiership win clearly understand that the penalty in 2002 was devastating to the club, players and fans.
With 80% of their squad in tact & the majority of their payments out of the way i n2002, the dogs regrouped & brought through the juniors, who more than likely would not have been on their books at all, if not for the rorting & cheating. They won the 2004 premiership.
Losses from 2002 to 2004 seasons,
Darrell Trindall
Darren Smith
Nigel Vagana
Willie Talau
Paul Rauhihi
Travis Norton
Steve Reardon
Gavin Lester
Brett Howland
Glenn Hall
Todd Polglase
Andrew Emilio
9 of these were in the 25 man squad of 2002.
This is effectively a 36% reduction in the squad of 2002.
A 36% reduction for what was accounting wise a 5.8% breach.
For 2005 we lose a further 6 players (24%) from our current squad.
Steve Price
Jamie Feeney
Dennis Scott
Jonathan Thurston
Hutch Maiava
Glen Hughes
That year NRL TV viewing public voiced the disapproval with their remote controls, with the 2004 GF being the lowest TV audience since the turn of the century & perhaps even, the ARL superleague split.
You clearly have no understanding on this issue.
This year has been the greatest in history regarding overall TV audiences.
FTA will continue to decline due to increasing PTV audiences. We now have close to 1.5M household with a PTV service. Every game, every week.
![[furrycat]](/data/avatars/m/6/6602.jpg?1213416722){kind=avatar}
