Now, I’m not a historian – and technically anything that happened even a second ago is in the past, so therefore part of history – but I am a pedant, so please, indulge me this question: are we really going to let a potential breach that occurred last season be termed a “historical issue”?
By referring to the discrepancies as “historical” – which Cronulla did twice in their 120-word statement – the club was aiming to minimise the impact these issues have on the present.
And they have been successful in this endeavour, with the NRL seemingly comfortable allowing the Sharks to play finals footy, because they’re cap compliant this year.
But the salary cap can’t be treated as a year-at-a-time proposition.
While we hear about players getting x dollars over y seasons, these are rarely flat annual salaries, and it’s where all the talk of front- and back-ended deals come in.
A player might take significantly less in the first year of their contract, because that’s when the club is experiencing cap pressure, but then they’ll get a balloon payment in the final year to make up for that first-season shortfall.
As such, when you’re in a competition that has strict rules over how much financial recompense an entire squad can receive, exceeding that amount gives your club a significant advantage the others don’t get, which helps you recruit and retain quality players.
And when players sign contracts that last multiple seasons, that advantage can last for a number of years, even if you only went over the limit once (or, as the case may be, twice).
Yet, if the Sharks are found to have been doing this in two of the last three completed seasons, the NRL is apparently willing to let it go as far as this season is concerned, because it didn’t happen this year.
It is just a bunch of hypocrite acting hypocritically.
As I sad, I claim back the 2007 and 2009 premiership for the Melbourne Storm