Storm 09/12?

[The EELiminator]

Well to be fair we don't know how many of them had substitute contracts do we? The whole thing was promptly blamed on Waldron and swept under the carpet. All we do know is that there were 4 'false contracts' intercepted (Slater, Smith, Inglis and a 4th unnamed player) - and the NRL investigation found a 'well organised dual contract system'. This is something the Storm officials admitted to on 22nd April 2010.


So, what we DO know here is that the Storm officials admitted to a well organised dual contract system, but only 3 players have ever been named, and 1 bloke was the 'mystery man (worth noting that the amount of their illegal deals was much less than the $1.1mill the Storm were forced to chop in payroll to be allowed to compete in 2011).
I'd suggest that the evidence pointed to more than 4 blokes having dual contracts....

maybe the rest of the money was used to buy other players but the storm couldnt afford them under the cap

 

[The Engineers Room]

what if they all received the payments do the storm just forfeit every match?
and even if players didnt receive payments directly the storm were able to buy players they wouldnt be able to without the slush fund covering the others so its still an indirect benefit

It's irrelevant if it's their fault or not. The squad was undeniably BUILT through cheating. That's what this thread is reminding people of.

You might not care - that's cool. But to say the premiership isn't a bit suss (ala Bulldogs 2004) is silly.

My point is the squad was assembled during this time but they are under the cap now. What the NRL should have done is find the players that received the payments, void their contracts and not allow them to sign with the Storm again. The Storm would then have to go out and sign new players to replace them. If they all received the payments (unlikely) then they would have had to sign an entirely new group of players. Now that would have set them back enough that everyone would be happy that they are no longer benefitting from the cheat.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

So, what we DO know here is that the Storm officials admitted to a well organised dual contract system, but only 3 players have ever been named, and 1 bloke was the 'mystery man (worth noting that the amount of their illegal deals was much less than the $1.1mill the Storm were forced to chop in payroll to be allowed to compete in 2011).
I'd suggest that the evidence pointed to more than 4 blokes having dual contracts....

You are likely right. My original point was that the punishment options open to the NRL are limited by what they can establish in court. If they can't establish that the player signing the deal (and of the 4 dual contracts discovered only 2 were signed by the player involved) was a knowing participant in a sham, they could not rescind/amend the contract in place b/w the Storm and the player. They could not de-register a player contract without pretty hard evidence of that player's knowing involvement in the sham. You and I may well agree that at least some of the player likely knew something dodgy was going on....it's another issue being able to prove that in court.

 

[The EELiminator]

You are likely right. My original point was that the punishment options open to the NRL are limited by what they can establish in court. If they can't establish that the player signing the deal (and of the 4 dual contracts discovered only 2 were signed by the player involved) was a knowing participant in a sham, they could not rescind/amend the contract in place b/w the Storm and the player. They could not de-register a player contract without pretty hard evidence of that player's knowing involvement in the sham. You and I may well agree that at least some of the player likely knew something dodgy was going on....it's another issue being able to prove that in court.

what about the player managers some or all of them had to know what was going on

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

what about the player managers some or all of them had to know what was going on

Absolutely (and 4 of them got suspended). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the player knew what was going on. It would be in the agent's obvious interest not to tell their client what was going on, because the more people who know about a scam the bigger the chance that someone opens their mouth in a pub. Of course, there's a fair chance that at least some of the players did know...but that ain't proof.

 

[oldmancraigy]

My point is the squad was assembled during this time but they are under the cap now. What the NRL should have done is find the players that received the payments, void their contracts and not allow them to sign with the Storm again. The Storm would then have to go out and sign new players to replace them. If they all received the payments (unlikely) then they would have had to sign an entirely new group of players. Now that would have set them back enough that everyone would be happy that they are no longer benefitting from the cheat.

They should've just made the Storm get under the cap and ban anyone cut from playing with them again.
Also should've enforced the contractual amounts (ie, Cam Smith was something like $400k NRL lodged contract and $950k Storm contract --> make him count $950k against their cap unless they choose to cut him, in which case they can't ever sign him again).

It's the only equitable way to sort out these issues... force the cheats to pay for their cheatery!

Some people suggest their cap should be reduced by the amount they were over - I dunno about that one.

 

[oldmancraigy]

You are likely right. My original point was that the punishment options open to the NRL are limited by what they can establish in court. If they can't establish that the player signing the deal (and of the 4 dual contracts discovered only 2 were signed by the player involved) was a knowing participant in a sham, they could not rescind/amend the contract in place b/w the Storm and the player. They could not de-register a player contract without pretty hard evidence of that player's knowing involvement in the sham. You and I may well agree that at least some of the player likely knew something dodgy was going on....it's another issue being able to prove that in court.

I don't think I ever said they should rescind the agreement... I said they should enforce that agreement as the cap amount for the Storm (which the NRL is well within its rights to do).

And they could certainly put in a rule that any player cut can never be registered as a STORM player in the NRL again.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I don't think I ever said they should rescind the agreement... I said they should enforce that agreement as the cap amount for the Storm (which the NRL is well within its rights to do).

And they could certainly put in a rule that any player cut can never be registered as a STORM player in the NRL again.

I was referring to your suggestion that the NRL could make the Storm pay a presently contracted player to play for another NRL club (your e.g. included Hoffmann to GC etc). Making the Storm pay player to play for another club (without the player voluntarily agreeing to amend their contract) would require the contract in place to be rescinded or amended....and that requires the player's assent. Under current cap rules, paying a player to play for another club counts toward your own salary cap anyway....so the other club involved would have to stump up a fair proportion of the players salary (in cases where the player was happy to move).

 

[oldmancraigy]

I was referring to your suggestion that the NRL could make the Storm pay a presently contracted player to play for another NRL club (your e.g. included Hoffmann to GC etc). Making the Storm pay player to play for another club (without the player voluntarily agreeing to amend their contract) would require the contract in place to be rescinded or amended....and that requires the player's assent. Under current cap rules, paying a player to play for another club counts toward your own salary cap anyway....so the other club involved would have to stump up a fair proportion of the players salary (in cases where the player was happy to move).

That's not what I said.

I said that they should enforce the Storm to pay the players the agreed amount, even if they have to cut them, ie, not let them weasel out of the agreed upon contracts.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

That's not what I said.

I said that they should enforce the Storm to pay the players the agreed amount, even if they have to cut them, ie, not let them weasel out of the agreed upon contracts.

To be able to simply 'cut' them (assuming no player breach) requires the player's agreement, unless there is specific provision for it in the player's contract (e.g. 'the employer, on X days, notice can terminate the agreement by paying the balance owing for the remaining term of the contract including all unvested bonuses + $X'). Such clauses may well be in many players contracts. But in the Hoffmann example you gave, you had him only being paid $55K by the GC. If he'd been genuinely cut he'd be getting paid market value by the GC (so something closer to the $350K), as well as his termination payment by the Storm (which receives regardless of what he does next). If he's only getting $55k by the GC, that suggests that his original contract is somehow 'live' (or that markets don't work).

Do we know for sure that amounts promised to players who stayed at the Storm (promised in contracts actually signed by both sides) have not been paid (that is a genuine question)? If so, was that because the player agreed to waive their claim on those items?

Again, I agree that the Storm should have been hit harder (and for longer). But when a 3rd party directly interferes with a contract in place, and one of the parties to that contract don't like the outcome, the courts typically have something to say about that behaviour. The NRL's scope for punishment was thus pretty much restricted to a) affecting Storm's ability to sign new contracts with existing or other players b) $$$$ c) reducing future salary cap etc. In cases where the player can be shown to have knowingly participated in the sham, they can have their additional agreements set aside.

 

[oldmancraigy]

To be able to simply 'cut' them (assuming no player breach) requires the player's agreement, unless there is specific provision for it in the player's contract (e.g. 'the employer, on X days, notice can terminate the agreement by paying the balance owing for the remaining term of the contract including all unvested bonuses + $X'). Such clauses may well be in many players contracts. But in the Hoffmann example you gave, you had him only being paid $55K by the GC. If he'd been genuinely cut he'd be getting paid market value by the GC (so something closer to the $350K), as well as his termination payment by the Storm (which receives regardless of what he does next). If he's only getting $55k by the GC, that suggests that his original contract is somehow 'live' (or that markets don't work).

Do we know for sure that amounts promised to players who stayed at the Storm (promised in contracts actually signed by both sides) have not been paid (that is a genuine question)? If so, was that because the player agreed to waive their claim on those items?

Again, I agree that the Storm should have been hit harder (and for longer). But when a 3rd party directly interferes with a contract in place, and one of the parties to that contract don't like the outcome, the courts typically have something to say about that behaviour. The NRL's scope for punishment was thus pretty much restricted to a) affecting Storm's ability to sign new contracts with existing or other players b) $$$$ c) reducing future salary cap etc. In cases where the player can be shown to have knowingly participated in the sham, they can have their additional agreements set aside.

I'm thinking you misunderstand the NRL salary cap system a little bit?

Take the example of Inu.
He was on ~$325k with the Warriors. They wanted to offload him - they managed to arrange for another team to take him.
The Dogs took him at $50k for this year (2nd tier) and then a 3 year $225k deal. So the Warriors had to cover the remainder of his salary THIS season, and would be on the hook $100k each for next year.
Rumour has it that because the Dogs signed him for a 3 year deal, the NRL is willing to waive the $100k excess from the Warriors cap number. But we'll see.


The Hoffman example was to make a hypothetical case. Regardless, the NRL has the right to register contracts at their leisure. They can and do refuse if the contract has too large an increase between years (so much for the 'heavily backloaded' talk that gets bandied around) etc etc.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I'm thinking you misunderstand the NRL salary cap system a little bit?

Take the example of Inu.
He was on ~$325k with the Warriors. They wanted to offload him - they managed to arrange for another team to take him.
The Dogs took him at $50k for this year (2nd tier) and then a 3 year $225k deal. So the Warriors had to cover the remainder of his salary THIS season, and would be on the hook $100k each for next year.
Rumour has it that because the Dogs signed him for a 3 year deal, the NRL is willing to waive the $100k excess from the Warriors cap number. But we'll see.

I'm pretty sure I understand the essence of the salary cap system (and agree 100% with your interpretation of the Inu case). Not sure which bit of my post suggested anything different? In the stylised Hoffmann example, if the Storm pay him either a) a termination payment or b) part of his salary at another club, those $$$ have to be counted towards the Storm's salary expenditure (the specific years that they affect will depend on the circumstances....but b) is pretty much the INU situation).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

They can and do refuse if the contract has too large an increase between years (so much for the 'heavily backloaded' talk that gets bandied around) etc etc.

The refusal to allow substantial back loading of contracts is to stop clubs from getting into salary cap trouble. Far different, and far more common, is clubs front loading contracts when they already have room to move under the cap. This is essentially treated as a signing bonus, and allows clubs a future advantage for managing their cap well. Note also that back loading does still occur, just not at ridiculous levels.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I'm pretty sure I understand the essence of the salary cap system (and agree 100% with your interpretation of the Inu case). Not sure which bit of my post suggested anything different? In the stylised Hoffmann example, if the Storm pay him either a) a termination payment or b) part of his salary at another club, those $$$ have to be counted towards the Storm's salary expenditure (the specific years that they affect will depend on the circumstances....but b) is pretty much the INU situation).

Ok good!

So all I'm suggesting is that in place of a breach, the 'breaching' club be kept on the hook for all contracts (they were signed, fair enough), and they need to release players and replace them (with minimum salary guys?) until they are under the cap number. So they're not paying anyone to play somewhere else, they're paying the person the contract they agreed upon. Said player could easily be banned from playing with that club again, and so they'd seek new employment.
In theory they could take a minimum deal elsewhere because they have financial stability provided by the breaching club paying them the contract they agreed upon!

[strictly talking about breach situations here, not about mid-season transfers - which could also use some tidying up - but that's a whole other thread!)

 

[oldmancraigy]

The refusal to allow substantial back loading of contracts is to stop clubs from getting into salary cap trouble. Far different, and far more common, is clubs front loading contracts when they already have room to move under the cap. This is essentially treated as a signing bonus, and allows clubs a future advantage for managing their cap well. Note also that back loading does still occur, just not at ridiculous levels.

Not so easy since the Andrew Ryan/ Patten cheatery! "Substantial variance" between years isn't allowed. An overly large signing bonus then simple match payments is also frowned upon - the deals of Big Dell and Gas are examples there. The Dragons created a different loophole for Gas, wonder if they'll close that one up too!

I'd say CPI increase is the extent of backloading (although surely it's a daft club which follows that route since they never have a guarantee of a CPI increase in the cap number).

 

[The Engineers Room]

They should've just made the Storm get under the cap and ban anyone cut from playing with them again.
Also should've enforced the contractual amounts (ie, Cam Smith was something like $400k NRL lodged contract and $950k Storm contract --> make him count $950k against their cap unless they choose to cut him, in which case they can't ever sign him again).

It's the only equitable way to sort out these issues... force the cheats to pay for their cheatery!

Some people suggest their cap should be reduced by the amount they were over - I dunno about that one.

Yep. In the same ballpark as I was thinking. I don't know how many go the payments but my point was that if it was only the big 4 then they should have been taken away and never returned.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Ok good!

So all I'm suggesting is that in place of a breach, the 'breaching' club be kept on the hook for all contracts (they were signed, fair enough), and they need to release players and replace them (with minimum salary guys?) until they are under the cap number. So they're not paying anyone to play somewhere else, they're paying the person the contract they agreed upon. Said player could easily be banned from playing with that club again, and so they'd seek new employment.
In theory they could take a minimum deal elsewhere because they have financial stability provided by the breaching club paying them the contract they agreed upon!

[strictly talking about breach situations here, not about mid-season transfers - which could also use some tidying up - but that's a whole other thread!)

We're not far from being on the same page here (maybe we are already on it?). My central point is that it's perfectly ok for the NRL to say 1) here's the amount you are allowed to spend next year 2) here are the salaries of current players that we are going to count towards that cap 3) negotiate with your players to get yourself within the cap next year, or you accrue zero points for another 12 months. What it can't do is direct the Storm to vary/rescind any particular contract (e.g. Hoffmann's), unless that contract is in itself invalid (and the fact that the Storm didn't disclose the contract to the NRL does not automatically make the contract invalid....it only necessarily means that the Storm cheated the NRL). The effect of 1,2,3 should be the same if done properly, but with the subtle difference being that the player has right of refusal (the Inu case is a good example...because the player was perfectly happy to move).

WRT to the idea that the Storm wouldn't be paying someone to play elsewhere, I think you've got to remember that a contract includes multiple promises from both parties (e.g. how much the player gets paid, what the player promises to do, for which teams the player may be required to play if selected). A standard contract in the NRL does not give the club the power to assign the player's labour to a competing club (like Major League Baseball contracts do).

And with respect to the why a player would take a minimum deal elsewhere......the question is why would other clubs not compete and force the players second salary up towards the players value to that club. If GC somehow offered $55K, why wouldn't NQ say 'hell, we can get an international player for $100k and outbid them, and so on until the $$$ are what the player is worth to the club'.

 

[The EELiminator]

if you really wanted to hurt them you would add the two contracts together and make them pay that figure

 

[Poupou Escobar]

if you really wanted to hurt them you would add the two contracts together and make them pay that figure

If the NRL had wanted to apply the salary cap as it stands, with the Storm's double contracts continuing to count against the cap for their duration, they would have been over the cap (and thus playing for zero points each week) for the next two or three years.

Justice for us opposition fans, sure. But hardly conducive to the development of rugby league in Melbourne.

 

[bartman]

And so on that basis, they can get away with murder....