Hypothetical Question

[Noa]

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The key thing is: Any year of substantial breach should have that year's achievements withdrawn.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 This infers, however, that any unsubstantial breach should not be withdrawn.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

250k is still too small an amount in my opinion to strip a title, doesnt even get you Ryan Hoffman, Id be more supportive of big fines i.e. $2 million.

Over 750K I still have reservations about stripping titles. Personally Id fine them $4 million and make them play on a reduced salary-cap for a few years.

 

[seaeagle sam]

250k is still too small an amount in my opinion to strip a title, doesnt even get you Ryan Hoffman, Id be more supportive of big fines i.e. $2 million.

Over 750K I still have reservations about stripping titles. Personally Id fine them $4 million and make them play on a reduced salary-cap for a few years.

It doesn't matter if it is $1 or $5 billion. The club Knowingly cheated. It wasn't a mistake, the Storm rorted the system.

 

[Noa]

Whats that got to do with my answer.

 

[matt]

I would still forfiet all their games as i have for the past 5 years, that's about the time I started to smell the stink of conflict of interest.

they bore the sh*t out of me also.

 

[stormbati]

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?

I actually prefer this didn't happen. We could go on and win the comp! We could have teams refusing to play in the finals, teams suing the Nrl. It would hurt the game even more.
I'd love to support my team in the finals but I just wouldn't feel any good about it.

 

[Noa]

yep, under no circumstances should we be playing in the finals this year.

 

[simostorm]

I hope they do get there points awarded back and there premierships.
Id be at this years GF to watch Storm win again.. and ill shove it up every Sydney wanker i come across. :lol:

 

[The EELiminator]

I hope they do get there points awarded back and there premierships.
Id be at this years GF to watch Storm win again.. and ill shove it up every Sydney wanker i come across. :lol:

even if the resulting sh*tstorm of controversy led to the collapse of the nrl? who would the storm play against then?

 

[Loudstrat]

I hope they do get there points awarded back and there premierships.
Id be at this years GF to watch Storm win again.. and ill shove it up every Sydney wanker i come across. :lol:

Yes - the NRL is made up of Sydney teams only. No one from any other city on the east coast or New Zealand is there you chronic f*cktard!

 

[bartman]

I

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?

I'd predict a riot... and a massive drop in the ratings/attendance/interest in the finals.

It would not be in rugby league's best interest, that's for sure.

Take your medicine Melbourne Directors for your cheating club, and stop whinging!

 

[The EELiminator]

I
I'd predict a riot... and a massive drop in the ratings/attendance/interest in the finals.

It would not be in rugby league's best interest, that's for sure.

Take your medicine Melbourne Directors for your cheating club, and stop whinging!

not to mention sponsors pulling out of the nrl, the media going into overload.....

 

[thorson1987]

Yes - the NRL is made up of Sydney teams only. No one from any other city on the east coast or New Zealand is there you chronic f*cktard!

isnt that what some guys on here want.

 

[Loudstrat]

I don't think anyone here wants that -name them if you like. Plenty want the NRL to have no Sydney teams though.

 

[little_aza]

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.

My apologies for not replying earlier - I had a pretty big uni exam this morning..fingers crossed

Anyway, you've said Gallop indicated that the $200k figure for taking away team achievements was in reference to those 'knowingly over the cap', yet you say because they were 'knowingly went over the cap', even if the breach was less than $200k, premierships should be taken away?

But in all honesty, while systematic rorts leave a bad taste and is pretty nasty, in regards to enhanced on-field performance, it doesn't matter how the rorts are carried out - they still artificially inflate a roster beyond that of the other teams. (now that I have a bit of time of my own) I found this article: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...al-severity-of-cap-penalty-20100426-tnev.html

The league's chief executive David Gallop last night admitted they only had ''ballpark figures'' concerning the size of breaches at the Storm. Gallop also said he believed the level where a club should be stripped of flags was $200,000.

Gallop said any club would face the most severe penalties if it cheated the cap by more than $200,000, adding: ''We believe that once a breach reaches a certain level we have no alternative other than the penalty we imposed on the Storm … anything more than a couple of hundred grand can give you a very big advantage.''

It appears from those statements that Gallop and his cronies basically think it's okay to cheat, as long as it's below $200k. While it's bad policy to send out this message, I guess if there is a figure for when achievements are taken away, it would be around $200k - I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved having Steve Turner at the club...but I'm sure you get my point....lol

It would be so much better for the game if Gallop actually set down the ground rules, and openly told the CEOs that fines would, for example, be ten times that of the breach.

But there was also this in the article:

The Herald was last night told that the amount of undisclosed payments by the Storm in 2007 was $287,000.

So I guess that kinda kills my argument (if it's true), but I'd be interested to see what the breaches were for 2006 and 2008. Perhaps I'm biased, but I still think if Melbourne had assembled a team that was within the cap ($287k less in 2007), the team would have still been successful - I really believe we had something special here in our Golden Era. And that's the most frustrating thing for me as a Storm fan - I feel we still could have done some pretty special things, while still operating within the rules.

 

[Ulysseus]

250k is still too small an amount in my opinion to strip a title, doesnt even get you Ryan Hoffman, Id be more supportive of big fines i.e. $2 million.

Over 750K I still have reservations about stripping titles. Personally Id fine them $4 million and make them play on a reduced salary-cap for a few years.

Ok then, so the storm get fined 4 million by News Ltd, this fine is then paid for by......................... News Ltd!
I see a f**king problem already!
By all means yes, if News exits the club and they need to raise the funds themselves, but lets be honest, 4 million dollars would f**k the storm without news's support , unless that private owner thing gets happening and he foots the bill, which would also be kind of unfair.
As for the over 750K limit to strip a title, No.
The line in the sand is there for a reason, and stepping over the line = a fine, stepping over the line on purpose for several years, backing up to the line and dragging you arse over it a few times then hiding this conduct = the storms punishment.

As for 250K not being enough, it was not the amount that is the problem, it is the intent, and the events that followed it.

 

[Red'n'White]

it would be open slather for all clubs to spend what they wanted on players and the stronger/richer clubs would prosper and poorer teams would die..... not being accountable for your actions will be the norm for the NRL if the storm were given back their points and prenmierships. Cant happen and wont happen.

 

[simostorm]

I don't think anyone here wants that -name them if you like. Plenty want the NRL to have no Sydney teams though.

Ive never read anyone on here saying they want no sydney teams.

 

[seaeagle sam]

My apologies for not replying earlier - I had a pretty big uni exam this morning..fingers crossed

Anyway, you've said Gallop indicated that the $200k figure for taking away team achievements was in reference to those 'knowingly over the cap', yet you say because they were 'knowingly went over the cap', even if the breach was less than $200k, premierships should be taken away?

But in all honesty, while systematic rorts leave a bad taste and is pretty nasty, in regards to enhanced on-field performance, it doesn't matter how the rorts are carried out - they still artificially inflate a roster beyond that of the other teams. (now that I have a bit of time of my own) I found this article: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...al-severity-of-cap-penalty-20100426-tnev.html





It appears from those statements that Gallop and his cronies basically think it's okay to cheat, as long as it's below $200k. While it's bad policy to send out this message, I guess if there is a figure for when achievements are taken away, it would be around $200k - I mean, don't get me wrong, I loved having Steve Turner at the club...but I'm sure you get my point....lol

It would be so much better for the game if Gallop actually set down the ground rules, and openly told the CEOs that fines would, for example, be ten times that of the breach.

But there was also this in the article: So I guess that kinda kills my argument (if it's true), but I'd be interested to see what the breaches were for 2006 and 2008. Perhaps I'm biased, but I still think if Melbourne had assembled a team that was within the cap ($287k less in 2007), the team would have still been successful - I really believe we had something special here in our Golden Era. And that's the most frustrating thing for me as a Storm fan - I feel we still could have done some pretty special things, while still operating within the rules.

No apology needed, bit slow myself. I loved exams, especially walking out thinking oh well, that was a waste of a unit and probably added hecs, more stress... stupid Wednesday nights at the Bistro instead of studying...

Look I agree, I have no doubt Melbourne would still have been successful if they stayed within or on the cap. Maybe not to the extent of their golden run but one of the best teams in the comp. All I was trying to get across, fairly poorly was, IMO, Gallop was refering to breaches like those reported in the past couple of days. To me, in this situation, it's not the amount, its the intent to cheat.

I do also think Gallop was a bit stupid picking out a figure of $200,000, that's a lot of money in anyones language.

I used to like the Storm a lot but only because I have a mate who used to play for them in the early days and I have no problem with Storm supporters who intelligently put points across. I just can't come at the conspiracy of the whole thing. The fact a couple of people have decided to take it upon themselves to ruin a club in a bid to win every season and the few supporters (not you) who defend it with stupid arguments.

Hopefully Storm will get rid of their News influence sooner rather than later, have a decent owner and they can get on with it.

 

[thorson1987]

I don't think anyone here wants that -name them if you like. Plenty want the NRL to have no Sydney teams though.

Rockin Ronny maybe.

 

[Loudstrat]

Ive never read anyone on here saying they want no sydney teams.

Most will allow one.