KeepingTheFaith
Referee
- Messages
- 25,235
So, if they make changes to get under the salary cap, it isnt acceptable?:?
Why wouldn't it be acceptable. As long as they're under the cap for 2011 they'll be fine. Forget 2010.
Last edited:
So, if they make changes to get under the salary cap, it isnt acceptable?:?
Everybody is happy then.
Gallop's going to be worried in some ways. Or at least I think he will be. With his idea, the big players could all leave the NRL if they are all committed to wanting to stay at the Storm, and that probably won't be possible if pay cuts simply aren't allowed. I can't see all of the "Big Four" staying.
I think Gallops argumanet to that was that Storm wont play for points this year no matter what.. He said it would be unfair to say for example Inglis if it meant he sit out the season or he couldnt go to another club as it would put them over the cap.
What im worried about with this.. is now will we see GI and Slater
goto Union or the UK.
If so.. i think thats a absolute mistake we dont want these stars leaving.. or Folau.
Read as promised
Agreed the big four will more than likely be forced from the storm and maybe/possibly from the NRL. Best guess is that one will leave the code and the others will change clubs only.
I would prefer they didnt but if thats what it takes to get through this scandal then so be it.
No, a small vocal minority is happy. Everybody else is pissed off because they were caught blatantly cheating during a season and were then allowed to play again 5 seconds later! Just come back next year ffs.
What Gallop RIGHTLY points out is that the opportunity to take pay cuts rides on the back of cheating in the first place.
Example:
Cronulla spends $17million next season to get a premiership winning squad. They get busted in 2012 and given 0 points and their 2011 premiership is stripped.
Because the players want to win a premiership, they all take a pay cut to remain together for the 2013 season so that they can have a red hot shot at winning the comp that year.
To allow the players to take a pay cut is completely farcical. They ought to be paid their current salaries, whether at the club or not; and those needing to be cut so that the Storm can get under the cap, get cut (but still paid).
It's a fair penalty.
Mascord made a good point today
Kingston wanted to take a pay cut to stay at Parra and wasn't allowed
same thing should happen to the Storm players
And 6 of his teammates offered to take paycuts. No dice.
And 6 of his teammates offered to take paycuts. No dice.
Good points.
(makes the Bulldogs "premiership" in 2003 all the more shonky...)
a) Storm have to offload a superstar and a few middle tier players within the next month
b) they have absolutely no chance at making the finals this year
c) teams playing the Storm this year are actually playing against a team under the cap and have a better chance of beating them
d) the fans in Victoria get to see their team playing again, thus increasing the value of rugby league, in turn revenue for your club in the next tv rights.
Agree but the year was 2004 .
When some go, others come!Gallop's going to be worried in some ways. Or at least I think he will be. With his idea, the big players could all leave the NRL if they are all committed to wanting to stay at the Storm, and that probably won't be possible if pay cuts simply aren't allowed. I can't see all of the "Big Four" staying.
not in this forum :crazy:I don't think anyone wants the stars leaving, but hard to blame the NRL when the Storm made the mess.
But if Slater accepts an offer of 60 grand to go play for the Cowboys because he wants to be nearer to home. And Inglis accepts 80 grand to play for the Titans because he wants to take up surfing and Cronk accepts 70 grand to go to Penrith because his brother lives there and Smith accepts 100 grand to go to Brisbane to keep his wife happy - then thats OK right?