DJ1 said:
It's quite clear that you do not really understand the issues you are posting about.
Its quite clear you are quite good at promoting the lies that transpired in the salary cap breach. Well done.
But alas, you have not a clue at the deals that were done.
Eventual winners, the Cantebury club, broke very rule in the book to assemble a squad to win the premiership, or perhaps many.
DJ1 said:
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.
Actually, complet & utter rubbish by you.
the majority of the ley players payments were out of the way in 2002. Freeing up large amounts for the rest of the 3 year(the cheating period minimum) contracts(s)
DJ1 said:
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.
the agreed amount was 400k. Big difference.
DJ1 said:
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.
Oh so you are an insider!!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
If you were, you would have more insight into the negotiations & threats during the $1 million salary cap rort debacle.
DJ1 said:
a)The club officials simply paid far too much for certain players (i.e. $250K for Trindall)
yep thats right. Tell us all again, how much was Trindall on?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! YOU GULLIBLE GOOSE!!!
DJ1 said:
b)They had no real understanding of the complexities within the salary cap itself.
They had every unbderstanding. There were none better than the cantebury club & rorting the system, systematically, over a period of years.
DJ1 said:
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.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA!!!!!
You forgot about the other 700k!
You honestly think that if they could have slid payments from one account to another(which all sounds completely legal) that the NRL would have continued with prosecution!!! Even the tax department isnt that hard.
heres a tip, go for a walk through a jail, you should be pretty close to some & you might even recognise a few faces, & have a listen to the hard luck stories.
THEY WILL BREAK YOUR HEART with THE DAMN BAD LUCK HONESTY!!
DJ1 said:
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.
Oh yes the scapegoats. Enter the world of Cantebury backstabbing.
It is impressive to watch & it never stops. Coaches, family, players, admin always laying into each other.
DJ1 said:
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.
Nothing more than conjecture. The story was incredibly well done & the research was deep & spot on. The NRL was asking the SMH team for information nearly all of the way.
they prolonged the story for 14 days as leading story, each day adding another chapter of rorting & howdeep into the community it went.
DJ1 said:
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)
But like you said, they found new accounts to slide money into.
Actual cap difference ended up being around 100k.
Or 2 Trickies.
DJ1 said:
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).
you are right. Nobody has been "convicted" of being $1 million over. Could you imagine what would happen if somebody did exceed by that much?
Self managed superannuation trusts are a beautiful thing aren't they?
DJ1 said:
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,
DJ1 said:
a)Restraint of trade. All legal opinion states that the cap would not stand up to this challenge.
The salary cap is in complete contradiction to work practices. Any idiot knows that. That is why it is more of an agreement in place between the NRL admin & the honest clubs. Something which Cantebury admin, players & supporters thought they were higher or better than.
DJ1 said:
b)Precedent of penalty. All previous penalties for breaches of all types resulted in a monetary penalty only.
But you dont know everything about the money trail do you.
DJ1 said:
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.
So what is the penalty for taking a loaded gun onto the feild to kill the ref if he penalises you?
What a fuggin lame excuse. Typical.
DJ1 said:
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)
Because, if you fail to see, the Dogs situation was far worse than has been revealed. why do you think they jumped at the chance to take the fine.
because G & F wanted them gone for good.
Great men!
DJ1 said:
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.
They should be called the Cantebury Cats from now on. They have used up a couple of lives now.
it was hardly even a slap on the wrist.
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.
DJ1 said:
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.
that is normal player churn & no different to your own club over previous years when you retired & lost the likes of Britt et al.
DJ1 said:
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
again normal player churn. It helps that when you are so far over the cap, that the players you are churning are not always deadwood & are in fact quite decent players.
DJ1 said:
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.
Show me the figures?
Get me the litmus test which is the 5 capital result.
Compare it with each year since the new ratings method came in.
Now, who has no idea?
DJ1 said:
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.
What has pay tv or free to air got to do with a live & exclusive event????
When decent teams get into the GF, teams which the public dont know or suspect as cheats, the GF will rate the house down.
It ws poised for a 300k 5 capital improvement this year & failed.
Thanks cheats.
