Salary Cap to be risen $199,999.99 in 2010 onwards...

[Lowdown]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/storm-saga-destined-to-claim-more-victims-20100514-v4ey.html

Gallop has said any premiership-winning club guilty of overspending by $200,000 in a season should be stripped of its title

There you go guys....we now know what the real cap is...dont we?

Discuss......

 

[Timmah]

Real cap? You still get epic fines and potential other punishments if you cheat by less than $200k.

Regardless, the fact some Storm fans still think this is Gallop fault is f**king hilarious.

YOUR CLUB CHEATED. End of story.

 

[jc155776]

Lowdown is a suitable name for someone lower then Snakes Belly.

 

[Lowdown]

Didn't take you long to miss the point of the post did it?

Gallop's set a $200k breach limit on what it takes now to lose a premiership. I just think that's a very interesting line in the sand to draw.

Last time I checked, you got $300k for winning the premiership (add $100k for the minor), plus a trophy and millions in sponsorships and memberships.

Now if you sign a Gasnier (as an example) and go over by < $200k, you get to keep your trophy, your sponsors' millions, your increased memberships and greater TV exposure on FTA TV (assuming your not the Sea Eagles Warriors, Raiders or the Storm). You just pay a fine and prob lose a few points like the Warriors did.

But for any budding CEOs out there...just dont go over $200k! You have been warned.

Of course...this all depends on Gallop being around at the time you're caught...and let's face it...that could take some time at the speed and efficiency of the current 'team' led by Schubert plus Gallop's probably going to be lucky to see the end of 2010.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

So what is the point of your post Lowdown ?

Gallop making an off the cuff statement suggesting an arbitary figure means nothing. Every breach will have different circumstances and the penalties applied can be as far reaching or limited as the governing body determines.

Ill ask again, what is the point of your post ?

 

[Keysee]

So what is the point of your post Lowdown ?

Gallop making an off the cuff statement suggesting an arbitary figure means nothing. Every breach will have different circumstances and the penalties applied can be as far reaching or limited as the governing body determines.

Ill ask again, what is the point of your post ?

If Gallop has made the comment and is reported accurately (which has been an issue on this scandal) - Melbourne Storm are supposedly $100k over for 2006 and 2007, $400k for 2008, $700k for 2009, this means that Storm could argue for the 2007 premiership.

If Gallop made the comment and the 2007 number is accurate, this would be another case of foot-in-mouth for him on this matter.

 

[RockWheel]

If Gallop has made the comment and is reported accurately (which has been an issue on this scandal) - Melbourne Storm are supposedly $100k over for 2006 and 2007, $400k for 2008, $700k for 2009, this means that Storm could argue for the 2007 premiership.

If Gallop made the comment and the 2007 number is accurate, this would be another case of foot-in-mouth for him on this matter.

The Storm were still intentionally cheating in '06-'07. Doesn't matter by how much, they knowingly cheated to gain an advantage.

 

[Keysee]

The Storm were still intentionally cheating in '06-'07. Doesn't matter by how much, they knowingly cheated to gain an advantage.

Totally agree with you, my comment (and the topic of the thread) is more about how stupid would Gallop be IF he put the number out there. He would be saying go over the salary cap by less than $200k and you can keep the premiership.

 

[RockWheel]

Totally agree with you, my comment (and the topic of the thread) is more about how stupid would Gallop be IF he put the number out there. He would be saying go over the salary cap by less than $200k and you can keep the premiership.

Fair enough.

 

[Lowdown]

So what is the point of your post Lowdown ?

Gallop making an off the cuff statement suggesting an arbitary figure means nothing. Every breach will have different circumstances and the penalties applied can be as far reaching or limited as the governing body determines.

Ill ask again, what is the point of your post ?

Do we really need to ask again for a 3rd time, crackerjack?

So...we should only listen to Gallop when he doesn't make off the cuff statements? Hang on...how do we know it was off the cuff?

Oh...that's right. Only when the argument suits you can we use it.

 

[Fui!!!]

Interesting that it's not actually a quote by Gallop.

He probably said something like "Anyone who cheats the way Melbourne cheated should be stripped of their premiership."

Not a direct Gallop quote = thread fail.

 

[bartman]

If I was drawing a line in the sand, I'd make it $55K over the cap costs you the premiership.

That's the value of an extra (minimum wage) player on your books. Sounds a fair thing to limit it too, forces clubs to manage their squads and depth and contracts better.

Oh, and the Storm can never get those premierships back, they are rightly tainted. 1999 came from a dodgy penalty try call while we're at it. And any belief that the club is being hard done by in all this is laughable :lol:.

 

[Keysee]

Interesting that it's not actually a quote by Gallop.

He probably said something like "Anyone who cheats the way Melbourne cheated should be stripped of their premiership."

Not a direct Gallop quote = thread fail.

Gallop has said any premiership-winning club guilty of overspending by $200,000 in a season should be stripped of its title.

Sounds like a quote to me BUT I AM HAVING A CRACK AT GALLOP IF HE SAID IT, not to get the premierships back.

 

[Keysee]

Interesting that it's not actually a quote by Gallop.

He probably said something like "Anyone who cheats the way Melbourne cheated should be stripped of their premiership."

Not a direct Gallop quote = thread fail.

Gallop has said any premiership-winning club guilty of overspending by $200,000 in a season should be stripped of its title. This statement is quoted in the link in the original post.

Sounds like a quote to me BUT I AM HAVING A CRACK AT GALLOP IF HE SAID IT, not to get the premierships back.

 

[Fui!!!]

Gallop has said any premiership-winning club guilty of overspending by $200,000 in a season should be stripped of its title. This statement is quoted in the link in the original post.

Sounds like a quote to me BUT I AM HAVING A CRACK AT GALLOP IF HE SAID IT, not to get the premierships back.

They don't have Gallops actual words in there. It could just be what they interpreted his words to be.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Do we really need to ask again for a 3rd time, crackerjack?

So...we should only listen to Gallop when he doesn't make off the cuff statements? Hang on...how do we know it was off the cuff?

Oh...that's right. Only when the argument suits you can we use it.

It would very much appear off the cuff:

The article suggests he said it, it didnt quote him (ie "........."). So No. Not set in stone.

The article isnt titled "Gallop sets cap breach limit" now is it. No.

Has the procedural manual been amended to reflect this new edict. No

Is there a place where we can find this arbitrary $200k figure in some rule book. No.

And no, it isnt a case of the argument suiting me. You are the one putting forward a very large assumption that can have many holes shot through it.

 

[melbourne_belle]

1999 came from a dodgy penalty try call while we're at it.

Your f**king kidding me right? Maybe Ainscough should've learnt to tackle the man not his head.

 

[myanonymoususername]

If I was drawing a line in the sand, I'd make it $55K over the cap costs you the premiership.

That's the value of an extra (minimum wage) player on your books. Sounds a fair thing to limit it too, forces clubs to manage their squads and depth and contracts better.

Oh, and the Storm can never get those premierships back, they are rightly tainted. 1999 came from a dodgy penalty try call while we're at it. And any belief that the club is being hard done by in all this is laughable :lol:.

If Gallop was being quoted as talking about $200k tolerance I'm sure he would have meant the sort of technical breaches clubs do - like for higher than expected rep bonuses, having something ruled under the cap when they treated it as exempt, that sort of thing. That is what most clubs get fines for breaching the cap by.

I would think deliberate cheating by even $1 over the cap would see you scrubbed.

As for the penalty try in 1999, what was dodgy about that? Obvious penalty try if ever I've seen one in my opinion.

 

[Keysee]

Your f**king kidding me right? Maybe Ainscough should've learnt to tackle the man not his head.

And because Anthony "The Girl" Mundine doesnt know that he had to ground the ball before celebrating.... LOL

 

[dollyhands]

If I was drawing a line in the sand, I'd make it $55K over the cap costs you the premiership.

True that, all this crap about other clubs going over by heaps,but it all bein ok coz it was an accident is rubbish. Do these clubs have monkeys runnin their books? unless they fess up in the season they are over (ie had to sign another player because of injury or something) they shouldn't win a thing. You can't determine how much over a club spends will win them a premiership so make it if they are found just over they're out. no one would be fined again for a cap breach coz they would keep the books tight, unless they tried to hide it like the storm