Hypothetical Question

[stormbati]

How would you feel if the courts rule that all points earned this season by the Storm to be reinstated while the Nrl/News Ltd and Melbourne Storm battle it out in court?

 

[CMUX]

I would feel cheated. Whether the rules are fair (according to the law) or not doesn’t matter because Melbourne broke the rules whilst all other 15 clubs adhered to them (as far as we know).

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

I'd be tempted to forfeit.

 

[gronkathon]

Isn't there a subsection to quarantine all the rubbish to do with that clubs abortion of an administration?

 

[stormbati]

Isn't there a subsection to quarantine all the rubbish to do with that clubs abortion of an administration?

Yep sorry about that I though I posted in that section. Move please admin

 

[Fein]

How would you feel if the courts rule that all points earned this season by the Storm to be reinstated while the Nrl/News Ltd and Melbourne Storm battle it out in court?

Won't happen.

End of thread./

 

[Gus22]

It'd be like releasing Ivan Milat on bail whilst his appeal is heard.

 

[Gus22]

On second thoughts that analogy is a bit insensative and unfair.

My apolgogies to Ivan.

 

[TheDalek079]

I'd be happy as my Roosters thrashed the cheating merkins

\\\\/\\\\/\\\\/\\\\/

 

[Gus22]

I'd be happy as my Roosters thrashed the cheating merkins

\\\\/\\\\/\\\\/\\\\/

Would you also be happy with them leap froggin your Roosters on the ladder?

 

[Doomednow]

Cheated. The storm would be even more hated than ever before. Empathy for the fans would drop to near zero, especially those that paraded it around.

How would you feel, stormbati?

 

[little_aza]

Very disappointed in all honesty. I've been thinking about the following for a long time, and have waited until the right time and place to post it; I'd appreciate to hear what everyone else (Storm and anti-Storm) thinks in response.

The key thing is: Any year of substantial breach should have that year's achievements withdrawn. That's something that is paramount to the viability of the Salary Cap. This infers, however, that any unsubstantial breach should not be withdrawn. Gallop drew the line and defined 'substantial breach' as over $200k (don't remember the source), so he's set the bar and that's the precedent.

Therefore if 2007 is found to be a breach of more than Gallop's magic $200k figure, I support the NRL's stance (even though it breaks my heart) of the removal of the 2007 NRL Premiership. If the breach is found to be less than Gallops magic $200k figure, I have no issue with my club (or any other going less than $200k over) keeping their silverware. Some may say it was made possible by contact back-ending, but I see that as a non-issue, as clubs who practice this are still operating within the game's rules: the NRL allows back-ending in player contracts. And under normal circumstances, clubs will naturally pay the price for back-ending contracts anyway.

The 2009 NRL Premiership we did not deserve; the breach was in excess of $900k by latest estimates - so I have no qualms about the removal of that. We did the wrong thing, by a massive amount, and on the balance of probabilities, that cheating led directly to the winning of the premiership. Under no circumstances should that be reinstated to the Storm, nor given to anyone else. This breach has screwed over 2009 for the rest of history, so needs a pretty massive fine too.

And subsequently, 2010 does not deserve the accrual of competition points either. It's a year of cheating, so should be a year of no achievement.


Just my two cents

 

[Loudstrat]

I'd be ok with it considering they havent EARNED diddly for 5 years. Getting something by cheating is NOt earning.

 

[bubblesunlimited]

I'd be ok with it considering they havent EARNED diddly for 5 years. Getting something by cheating is NOt earning.

I have said all along, Melbourne have prospered while other clubs have bled.

Other clubs have shed, lost and missed out on players due to the cap.

Storm deserve nothing.

 

[The EELiminator]

Very disappointed in all honesty. I've been thinking about the following for a long time, and have waited until the right time and place to post it; I'd appreciate to hear what everyone else (Storm and anti-Storm) thinks in response.

The key thing is: Any year of substantial breach should have that year's achievements withdrawn. That's something that is paramount to the viability of the Salary Cap. This infers, however, that any unsubstantial breach should not be withdrawn. Gallop drew the line and defined 'substantial breach' as over $200k (don't remember the source), so he's set the bar and that's the precedent.

Therefore if 2007 is found to be a breach of more than Gallop's magic $200k figure, I support the NRL's stance (even though it breaks my heart) of the removal of the 2007 NRL Premiership. If the breach is found to be less than Gallops magic $200k figure, I have no issue with my club (or any other going less than $200k over) keeping their silverware. Some may say it was made possible by contact back-ending, but I see that as a non-issue, as clubs who practice this are still operating within the game's rules: the NRL allows back-ending in player contracts. And under normal circumstances, clubs will naturally pay the price for back-ending contracts anyway.

The 2009 NRL Premiership we did not deserve; the breach was in excess of $900k by latest estimates - so I have no qualms about the removal of that. We did the wrong thing, by a massive amount, and on the balance of probabilities, that cheating led directly to the winning of the premiership. Under no circumstances should that be reinstated to the Storm, nor given to anyone else. This breach has screwed over 2009 for the rest of history, so needs a pretty massive fine too.

And subsequently, 2010 does not deserve the accrual of competition points either. It's a year of cheating, so should be a year of no achievement.


Just my two cents

kudos to you that is the most intelligent post i have ever seen in this forum :thumb

 

[Lowdown]

I'd feel just fine.

 

[seaeagle sam]

kudos to you that is the most intelligent post i have ever seen in this forum :thumb

EELiminator, 75% of it was. Sorry aza, I didn't agree with 2007 part of it. The 'magical $200k' quoted by Gallop (also can't find the original story) was in regard to teams being penalised whether they knowingly went over the cap or it was a result of unseen circumstance (as in no-names being selected for SOO activating bonuses.)

The Storm knowingly went over the cap in 2007 and not only didn't they rectify it or come clean at the time they systematically rorted the system for years to follow.

So to answer the topic question, I'd be mighty peeved if they were to be given anything.

 

[The EELiminator]

I'd feel just fine.

i suspect your joy would be shortlived the court case is based on the storm's penalty being decided without a full meeting of the nrl board first if the case was successful there is nothing to stop gallop from calling a full meeting and punishing the storm a second time...or third...or fourth

 

[The EELiminator]

EELiminator, 75% of it was. Sorry aza, I didn't agree with 2007 part of it. The 'magical $200k' quoted by Gallop (also can't find the original story) was in regard to teams being penalised whether they knowingly went over the cap or it was a result of unseen circumstance (as in no-names being selected for SOO activating bonuses.)

The Storm knowingly went over the cap in 2007 and not only didn't they rectify it or come clean at the time they systematically rorted the system for years to follow.

So to answer the topic question, I'd be mighty peeved if they were to be given anything.

hey i never said it was correct just intelligent :lol:

 

[Loudstrat]

Gotta also little azza - it's refreshing to see someone from Melbourne cop it sweet. Lots of respect to you Azza.