A precedent had already been set by the NRL with the Bulldogs and the ARL with the Raiders as to how to deal with salary cap "cheats". Both teams were allowed to keep the players that they brought to the club by cheating the cap (an offence much worse than breaking the cap to keep players that Melbourne had brought up through their systems) and Canberra were even allowed to keep their premiership.
No other team was subjected to a complete audit of salary payments when Melbourne were found to be "cheating". You'd think the NRL would be concerned that maybe other teams might be "cheating" when they had no idea Melbourne were "cheating" until someone literally handed them proof.
During 06-09 the NRL made constant rule changes to effectively try to hamper the success of Melbourne.
etc etc.
Bullshit Butters.
the storm got away with wrestlemania week in, week out.
the game slowed from an attacking spectacle in 2005 to a comparative snails pace in 2006 and beyond.
I'd hardly call what had come before a precedent, a precedent being part of law and based on previous cases in the legal system, most notably to do with contractual frustrations and other areas.
The NRL are not a court of law and can change their minds whenever they damn well see fit, as is evidenced by what is not a penalty one week being a penalty the next.
They may have decided, in retrospect, that allowing the dogs to keep what was essentially an illegally assembled squad was not a good look.
Canberra's breach was hardly of the same level as either dogs or storm and if memory serves me correctly had more to do with rep payments etc.
As for players melbourne had brought up through "their system", please - ingli$ was always going to succeed in spite of who he played for and he was a star at junior level long before he was flown up to QLD for a few games in seniors (although if anyone are going to test this theory it is souths)
