Storm coach and ex-boss reach settlement

[drake]

The rest of your rant was rubbish but this quote interests me. How does the "rugby league community" prop up the Storm? The only people who finance the Storm are News Limited (owners). Just like Manly and Souths and Brisbane are privately owned.

And how much of the NRL's profits do News get?

And who gives the NRL that money?

The Rugby League Community; the punters, us.

 

[drake]

the difference between the Sharks and Storm crowds over the last 3 years is negligible at best and if you'd like to make a bet about who will have the biggest crowds in 5 years time I'll happily take your money off you!

An "experiment" that will eventually reap huge dividends for RL. When we get an independent body running the game the 400,000 Tv viewers in Vic that otherwise wouldn't be tuning into major Rl games will be worth a fair whack of money on any media deal, also companies want their products shown in teh second biggest city in the country and pay more for that privilage.

Eventually. Like the earth will eventually become too hot to sustain organic life.

5 years for Melbourne to outstrip Sydney and Brisbane for following rugby league is pure fantasy. (Total, not per Sydney club.) 11 years and two premierships and they are still Canberra's bitch.

Do not think that what happened to the Swans will happen to Melbourne; the AFL has not had anything as vile as Super League to turn the Victorians to embrace League. After what happened to rugby League, I doubt they will.

When enough people in Melbourne get to see a live RL match on TV, let me know.
11:50 pm for the local team playing their season opener. People are even arguing that Nein are right to do so.

The News Ltd folks don't want to push it. You know, the visionaries that created the Melbourne Storm.

But Melbourne are gonna blow our minds with their interest.

I wish.

It also arguable that the Storm couldn't survive without the few million that News put in (nobody know how much or little this is by the way!). New stadium with outstanding corporate facilities, a growing fanbase and membership, some pretty heavy hitting sponsors. Seems they would be able to match the lower funded NSW teams ok without News.

They would not exist without News Ltd. They are in the NRL because the paymasters put them there.

You do realise these are all NSW and Q'land players who would be otherwise plying their grubiness in teams in NSW and Q'land don't you?

Sure. Please explain what the hell this has to do with the Melbourne Storm franchise?
I have already said:

I have no issue with Melbourne as a city, or Victoria. I'm glad some Mexicans have gotten behind Rugby League.

It would not be institutional. What Browny said last year was what many people were thinking.

I'm glad you want a Rugby League team in Perth, but are you getting behind Melbourne because you like the team and the club, or because they aren't from NSW or QLD? The enemy of my enemy sort of thing.

so elegant! Who says the art of conversation is dead? .

I don't know who says the art of conversation is dead. Visitors to Perth?

 

[BrisVegas]

I honestly believe that the Storm will be in the top 5 for attendances within a few years of moving into their new ground, behind only Brisbane, the Gold Coast and perhaps N-QLD and Newcastle (once the EAS redevelopment is complete).

The problem the Storm currently face is that they have outgrown Olympic park, their 2008 membership level was over 8,000 members - more members than available seats.

All it will take is some big attendances (25k+) to a few of their grudge matches (Dragons, Broncos, Warriors, Manly) and they will be well on their way. Add to that the Melbourne culture of club membership and the regular games should draw a few thousand better as well.

 

[_Johnsy]

Must be nice to be propped up to the tune of $6-8 million per year by the company who runs the game.

 

[alexc]

Those judicary merkins need to harden the f**k up. Eat some cement or something. Good on the NRL for pissing them off.

 

[Evolution]

If the NRL were fair dinkum... well, they wouldn't be the NRL, would they?

News Ltd have given their orders, and Gallop the inverterbrate has jumped.

Only Peggy Waldron is allowed to sue people.

Funny that that Waldron never actually sued anyone.

I fail to see how the NRL have done anything wrong here.

The stuck up for the judiciary when it happened forced the Storm to apologize and fined them for what they did.

This is where the NRL had to step out of it. They can not continue to be seen taking one side over the other once punishment was handed out. If they do they may just start to look like the ICC.

Are the members of the judiciary upset that they did not get to see any of the money themselves?

On top of that the NRL judiciary will look like a joke if they were allowed to continue to sit on cases once they are actively suing one team, which they have a great power over. How could any of their finding be above questioning? did they suspend someone because they want to get back at the Storm or maybe let somone off as they play the storm the next week.

 

[gong_eagle]

Defamation storm hits roadblock ahead of rematch

Brad Walter | May 1, 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/defamation-storm-hits-roadblock/2009/04/30/1240982346518.html


MEMBERS of the tribunal that banned Melbourne captain Cameron Smith from last year's premiership decider are proceeding with legal action against Storm officials after negotiations to resolve their dispute ahead of tonight's grand final rematch broke down.
Former judiciary chairman Greg Woods and panel members Darrell Williams and Royce Ayliffe have begun legal proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court to sue Storm coach Craig Bellamy and chief executive Brian Waldron over comments they made about Smith's suspension for a grapple tackle. However, talks have been going on behind the scenes to settle the matter out of court and it is believed the parties had hoped to reach some sort of agreement before tonight's game at Brookvale Oval as Bellamy and Waldron had made the comments in the lead-up to the grand final. It is understood the two parties recently met in a bid to find a settlement.
But Andrew O'Brien, the solicitor representing the judiciary members, yesterday told the Herald his clients intended pressing ahead with their defamation case against Bellamy and Waldron.
"At this stage, we are proceeding to court," O'Brien said. "There is always the possibility of a settlement being reached before then but both parties have been working to try and find a resolution without success so far."
Bellamy and Waldron apologised in the week after the Storm's grand final loss for questioning the integrity of the judiciary members but it was considered too little, too late to appease Woods, Williams and Ayliffe. The Storm pair issued the apology via a written statement but the judiciary members had wanted it to be at a press conference broadcast on television - as their initial comments had been.
After fining Melbourne $50,000, the NRL felt the public apology was sufficient and ruled out funding any legal action by the judiciary members. The NRL's attempts to end the impasse also failed, leading to Woods, Williams and Ayliffe being stood down from their roles on the tribunal to help avoid any accusations of conflict of interest if they sat on judiciary cases involving Storm players or their opponents.
Darren Britt, the third panel member on the Smith case, has retained his position after withdrawing from the legal action against the Storm. If the matter proceeds to court, it will be up to a jury made up of members of the public to determine whether Woods, Williams and Ayliffe were defamed by Bellamy and Waldron.
Waldron refused to comment about attempts to resolve the dispute and the possibility of court action when contacted last night.

 

[Evenflow]

FFS talk about being precious little bitches. I reckon these blokes overstate their own importance for too much if they actually think that anyone even remembers what was said (without it being brought up) let alone anyone giving a toss.

IMO they're doing their reputations more damage and making themselves look even worse by pursuing such a trivial matter that everyone forgot about a week after it happened. At least Darren Britt manned up and got on with things, i hope these two other pussies take it as far as they can in court and get sweet f**k all out and are made to look even more stupid than they already do.

 

[kia ora storm]

Money grabbers...

 

[Twizzle]

precious much ?

what do these guys think they are, referees or sumfin ?

 

[Dummy Spit Johns]

If Melbourne didn't bitch about Smith getting a justifiable sentence, none of this would have happened, so continue on!

 

[Evenflow]

If Melbourne didn't bitch about Smith getting a justifiable sentence, none of this would have happened, so continue on!

I see we have another little bitch amongst us.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/nrl/story/0,27074,25417036-14823,00.html

Sorry doesn't cut it in judiciary libel stoush

Russell Gould | May 02, 2009 12:00a

MELBOURNE Storm coach Craig Bellamy and chief executive Brian Waldron yesterday made the apology to NRL judiciary members Royce Ayliffe and Darrell Williams they didn't want to make last year.

But it wasn't enough to end the defamation case against the Storm pair for comments they made after the suspension that cost Melbourne captain Cameron Smith a finals spot last year.

Storm was fined a record $50,000 after Bellamy criticised the judiciary, suggesting it had pre-judged Smith's grapple tackle before banning him and had let bookmakers know its opinion.

The judiciary members were not satisfied by the fine and demanded a public apology before the grand final.

When that didn't arrive they pursued the matter in court.

Then yesterday, before a directions hearing in the New South Wales Supreme Court, Richard Keegan, acting for Bellamy and Waldron, read a statement giving the apology.

"The defendants unreservedly withdraw those statements, which they recognise were ill-considered and wrong," Keegan said.

"And they apologise for any hurt and distress which their remarks have caused to the chairman and panel members of the judiciary."

Andrew O'Brien, acting for the judiciary members, said they would continue to seek compensation.

"An apology doesn't end the matter," he said.

The matter goes before the court again on May 25.

 

[MsStorm]

I see we have another little bitch amongst us.

Spit the Dummy Johns cetainly suits.

 

[MsStorm]

Money grabbers...

Really embarrassing themselves now.

 

[kia ora storm]

I reckon Bellamy should take it to court on principal...these guys are nothing more than opportunists.

 

[skeepe]

I hope they milk Waldron and Bellamy for all they're worth. You can't make those sorts of accusations in public and get away with it.

And AILD, wake the f**k up. It was, in all honesty, the most blatant grapple tackle ever seen on a football field. I thought Thaiday's head was about to come clean away from his body.

 

[_Johnsy]

I wonder who is next in line with threats of a law suit, when Peggy Sue feels he is being harshly treated, or has commentds made about him or his club that he does not like.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/...diciary-members/2009/05/01/1240982406953.html

Bellamy and Waldron apologise to judiciary members

Brad Walter | May 2, 2009



STORM officials issued a formal apology on the eve of last night's grand final rematch against Manly to the judiciary members who suspended Cam Smith from the premiership decider.
However, the apology - read in a Sydney court yesterday - is unlikely to dissuade judiciary chairman Greg Wood and panel members Darrell Williams and Royce Ayliffe from proceeding with defamation action against Melbourne coach Craig Bellamy and chief executive Brian Waldron for comments they made about the two-match ban imposed on Smith for a grapple tackle.
Neither Woods, Williams or Ayliffe were present when a lawyer representing Bellamy and Waldron made the apology. In the statement, Bellamy and Waldron - who weren't in attendance either - admit they were wrong to imply that the short odds being offered by betting agencies on Smith being suspended suggested he had no hope of being cleared at the hearing. They also said their comments at a post-match press conference after Melbourne's semi-final defeat of Cronulla were "ill conceived and wrong" and apologised for any hurt or distress they had caused the judiciary members.
"At a post-match press conference on Friday, 26 September 2008, the defendants made some statements condemning the NRL judiciary hearing the previous Wednesday relating to disciplinary charge against Cameron Smith," the statement said. "The defendants unreservedly withdraw those statements, which they recognise were ill-considered and wrong, and they apologise for any hurt and distress which their remarks have caused to the chairman and panel members of the judiciary.
"The defendants withdraw any reflection on the judiciary's integrity, and in particular they recognise that there was no basis for the suggestion that the outcome of the proceedings against Cameron Smith had somehow been decided beforehand.
"The defendants should never have made any suggestion and it's acknowledged that the judiciary members made their decision honestly, based on what they saw as the merits of the case. On that occasion, reference to a betting market on the outcome of the judiciary hearing was also made. The defendants were incorrect in suggesting any such betting had relevance to any situation concerning the judiciary members whether by way of influence or otherwise. The defendants particularly apologise for any hurt that suggestion made."
The apology follows a report in yesterday's Herald that mediation talks between the two parties had broken down and the judiciary members intended following through with proceedings started in the NSW Supreme Court earlier this year.
Wood, Williams and Ayliffe have since been stood down from the NRL judiciary but Darren Britt, the other panel member in the Smith case who is not involved in the legal action, remains on the tribunal.
If the matter proceeds to court, a jury will be asked to decide whether the judiciary members had been defamed. Should they do so, it will then be up to a judge to determine if damages should be awarded and how much.

 

[Evenflow]

The irony is that IMO these 2 being petty little bitches by pursuing legal action is making them look much worse than anything Bellamy and Waldron said at the time. I mean would anyone even remember or talk about the incident now if they weren't initiating court proceedings? Of course not, nobody could give a sh*t :crazy:

 

[El Diablo]

The irony is that IMO these 2 being petty little bitches by pursuing legal action is making them look much worse than anything Bellamy and Waldron said at the time. I mean would anyone even remember or talk about the incident now if they weren't initiating court proceedings? Of course not, nobody could give a sh*t :crazy:

well all Wally and Bellamy had to do was apologise immediately. they chose not to and so it continues. blame them