labinator said:
DJ1 said:
labinator said:
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?