Roosters 2002 victory now even more hollow.

[dice]

You are 100% correct McSharkie it's your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to mine.

IMO the Sharks will NEVER again appear in a Grand Final let alone win one. :lol:

Sharkies did appear in one GF recently. .... oh thats right it was the one that didn't count.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jealous because out of the 4 teams who made the GF that year, your team just couldn't cut it?

Me jealous of a Sharks achievement? ... Sharks achievement is an oxymoron.

 

[Macca]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Glad I got you all going. Ridiculous thread and everyone knows it. I just wanted to show my mate how easy it was to fire people up in this forum and I did it.

Roosters deserved the comp last year, the were the best side over the last 15 or 16 weeks and I doubt anyone could have stopped them. They beat the Sharks twice in two weeks and did it easy. They deserved the comp this year too but were beaten by a more tenacious and determined young outfit on the day.

Good luck to you all next year and thanks for the passionate and insulting replies. You have proven my point. Thankyou.

 

[CliffyGC]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Glad I got you all going. Ridiculous thread and everyone knows it. I just wanted to show my mate how easy it was to fire people up in this forum and I did it.

Roosters deserved the comp last year, the were the best side over the last 15 or 16 weeks and I doubt anyone could have stopped them. They beat the Sharks twice in two weeks and did it easy. They deserved the comp this year too but were beaten by a more tenacious and determined young outfit on the day.

Good luck to you all next year and thanks for the passionate and insulting replies. You have proven my point. Thankyou.

The point being that you are a total wanker

Like most sharks fans i might add

 

[Macca]

Thankyou Cliffy GC, you are illustrating my point even further. :lol:

 

[DJ1]

I just have a little jibe at the Roosters, who by the way were over the cap in 2002 also, and you get all upset and start calling me names. Grow up.

Ah u dikhead, do you have any proof that the roosters were over the cap in 2002. No you dont so stop trying to make excuses to back yourself up with. This post is one of the stupidest i have ever seen.

What do you mean, apart from the Craig Wing payments?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/rugby/league/news/2003/01/29/nrl_aus/

The Roosters were fined for breaches of undisclosed payments to Craig Wing.

$150,000 over 2 years 2001 and 2002

Yes DJ1 but if you knew the story it was because of something to do with souths juniors. It was more of a mistake. Yet our team was still formed LEGALLY

So let me clarify this.

My understanding of the situation is this,

The Roosters failed to disclose to the salary cap auditor and past Roosters legend, payments of $150K which took the Roosters over the cap in 2001 and 2002 ($75K each year).

This information was leaked to the media by someone at Souths Juniors who was party to the original contract deal when Wing went to the Roosters.

This breach would not have been accounted for unless it was leaked to the media (SMH) and would never have hit their salary cap.

If these payments were disclosed earlier you may not have been able to field Craig Wing in your 2001 and 2002 line ups.

Whilst the $ value is much lower than the Dogs $400K breach in 2002, I cannot see much difference in the methodology of hiding payments can you explain how this is just a mistake?

 

[melon....]

I just have a little jibe at the Roosters, who by the way were over the cap in 2002 also, and you get all upset and start calling me names. Grow up.

Ah u dikhead, do you have any proof that the roosters were over the cap in 2002. No you dont so stop trying to make excuses to back yourself up with. This post is one of the stupidest i have ever seen.

What do you mean, apart from the Craig Wing payments?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/rugby/league/news/2003/01/29/nrl_aus/

The Roosters were fined for breaches of undisclosed payments to Craig Wing.

$150,000 over 2 years 2001 and 2002

Yes DJ1 but if you knew the story it was because of something to do with souths juniors. It was more of a mistake. Yet our team was still formed LEGALLY

So let me clarify this.

My understanding of the situation is this,

The Roosters failed to disclose to the salary cap auditor and past Roosters legend, payments of $150K which took the Roosters over the cap in 2001 and 2002 ($75K each year).

This information was leaked to the media by someone at Souths Juniors who was party to the original contract deal when Wing went to the Roosters.

This breach would not have been accounted for unless it was leaked to the media (SMH) and would never have hit their salary cap.

If these payments were disclosed earlier you may not have been able to field Craig Wing in your 2001 and 2002 line ups.

Whilst the $ value is much lower than the Dogs $400K breach in 2002, I cannot see much difference in the methodology of hiding payments can you explain how this is just a mistake?

Let me correct you.

The Wing payments were discolsed by the club to the NRL when Moffat was in charge. Eatss given the all clear. Gallop enters the fray and wants to review the case to familiarise himself with the details. The NRL reverse their initial decision and fine the club accordingly as the disclosure was incomplete/unclear, not as you state undisclosed. Melbourne, Brisbane and Newcastle were also fined for minor or accidental breaches. By accidental I mean un-intended, unlike Canterbury who plotted to rort and did so on the largest scale the game has seen.

You have to understand the difference DJ1. Ian Schubert being an auditor has nothing to do with the penalties Easts copped. As a matter of fact it was he that has audited the Canterbury club in recent times and had not found anything outwardly wrong, until greed got the better of you.