Warriors salary cap investigation

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Would they risk being foundout mid-season? Given what happened to the Dogs obviously their transparency now can be attributed to how harshly the Dogs were treated.

I am pretty sure that if an audit wasn't imminent that a clever accountant would have been able to juggle the numbers accordingly.

 

[Cammo]

Would they risk being foundout mid-season? Given what happened to the Dogs obviously their transparency now can be attributed to how harshly the Dogs were treated.

They would have been under the cap this year, without a full audit into previous years they would not have had anything they had to show the NRL.

The NRL told them that they were going to do a full audit, the admin looked at the books and saw that they would be in trouble if a full audit is done, so they spoke up before it.

All I am saying is that I wonder if they would have done the same if there was not going to be a full audit. If they had then good on them, but if not then it would have remained hidden.

 

[Goleel]

Anyone else thinking about how dumb this sides administration are? Honestly, after seeing the Bulldogs getting pounded, financially, competition wise (although I believe they still did manage to buy a premiership the next year, even if under the cap), and public opinion wise, did they really think they'd get away with it? How hard could it be for them to stay under the cap anyway? Just name a few nuffy Bartercard Cup players to fill the 25 man squad, pay them minimum wage, you don't have to pay any former NRL players now languishing in reserves their original contracts or fork out for young guns. Honestly, something went seriously wrong here.

 

[The Colonel]

I am pretty sure that if an audit wasn't imminent that a clever accountant would have been able to juggle the numbers accordingly.

They would have been under the cap this year, without a full audit into previous years they would not have had anything they had to show the NRL.

The NRL told them that they were going to do a full audit, the admin looked at the books and saw that they would be in trouble if a full audit is done, so they spoke up before it.

All I am saying is that I wonder if they would have done the same if there was not going to be a full audit. If they had then good on them, but if not then it would have remained hidden.

NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert first got wind of the anomalies at the end of last season, when the previous administration led by Watson was departing.


Schubert warned Watson he would be conducting a full audit in early 2006.

The new Warriors hierarchy, led by Kidd, then decided to go on the front foot. They told the NRL a week ago they had found irregularities themselves.

"The chief executive (Wayne Scurrah) called me last Monday and said 'I think we've got a problem'," Kidd said. "He was preparing for the NRL auditor ... they came across things that looked a bit, uh, unusual." It is understood the club is at risk of a $100,000 fine, although admitting their mistakes will be the one mitigating factor.



http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18227226-23214,00.html

 

[Rise Against]

im agreeing with everything sir knight has been saying. Why on earth should they get away with it?

 

[Cammo]

NRL salary cap auditor Ian Schubert first got wind of the anomalies at the end of last season, when the previous administration led by Watson was departing.


Schubert warned Watson he would be conducting a full audit in early 2006.

The new Warriors hierarchy, led by Kidd, then decided to go on the front foot. They told the NRL a week ago they had found irregularities themselves.

"The chief executive (Wayne Scurrah) called me last Monday and said 'I think we've got a problem'," Kidd said. "He was preparing for the NRL auditor ... they came across things that looked a bit, uh, unusual." It is understood the club is at risk of a $100,000 fine, although admitting their mistakes will be the one mitigating factor.



http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18227226-23214,00.html

QUOTED FROM USER 'Rhythm and Stealth' in the Warriors forum


"From radiosport
Former Warriors marketing manager Dean Lonergan believes the new Warriors administration must have know about salary cap breaches when they took on their new roles.

Lonergan says the current batch of excuses does not wash with him, in fact he is calling for the resignation of long time chairman Maurice Kidd.

He says to blame former CEO Mick Watson is too convenient.

Dean Lonergan says first of all, why was Watson given the latitude by the board to do those deals.

Lonergan says Mick Watson is an easy scapegoat, because the board and chairman can just push the blame on him and say they have got rid of the problem.

He says the current executives can not be very good in their jobs if they have only just discovered salary cap breaches.

Herard Lonergan talk this morning and he said he thinks that they spotted this breach back in October but didnt make it public or tell NRL officials till now becos it would jeopardise season ticket sales. And he said Maurice Kidd should resign becos he knew about all of this and he is trying to pass the buck on to Mick Watson"


Sounds to me like the admin may have known about it and didn't come forward immediately.

 

[The Colonel]

Sounds to me like the admin may have known about it and didn't come forward immediately.

Could also be the former administration throwing blame back the other way. ;-)

Who knows......

 

[Cammo]

Could also be the former administration throwing blame back the other way. ;-)

Who knows......

Very True

 

[JoeD]

If the Warriors get under the cap before the season starts then what is the difference between that and the Dogs in 03?

nothing imo

i don't often agree with el diablo but i do in this case

 

[Cammo]

i don't often agree with el diablo but i do in this case

The difference was that The Dogs had already copped their punishement and done their time before the start of the 2003 season. The Warriors have not copped any punishment yet.

 

[El Diablo]

The difference was that The Dogs had already copped their punishement and done their time before the start of the 2003 season. The Warriors have not copped any punishment yet.

but if they get under the cap before the season starts then why take points off them?

why would a player take a salary cut if he knows it will achieve nothing for season 06?

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

You cant punish them for the previous years indescretions so they must be punished this year.

Common sense really.

 

[The Colonel]

You cant punish them for the previous years indescretions so they must be punished this year.

You can punish them and they will be - they will have a fairly hefty fine to pay.

 

[El Diablo]

You cant punish them for the previous years indescretions so they must be punished this year

then why take a pay cut?

 

[Cammo]

but if they get under the cap before the season starts then why take points off them?

why would a player take a salary cut if he knows it will achieve nothing for season 06?

Taking 6 points off them is not giving them nothing to achieve. It punishes them heavily for breaching the cap but still gives them something to play for. While the other sides who have not breached the cap should not be in the same boat.

If The Warriors were stripped of points last year then no problem, but they weren't so therefore I believe it has to happen this year. Given the circumstances I do think 6 points is fair enough. It gives them an extremely tough mountain to climb but not an impossible one.

Imagine by some fluke The Warriors lose no points and then get into the top 8 at the expense of another club who had not breached the cap, that I think would not be fair. If they did it after starting the season at a disadvantage due to their punishment for indescretions then good on them.

 

[El Diablo]

Imagine by some fluke The Warriors lose no points and then get into the top 8 at the expense of another club who had not breached the cap, that I think would not be fair. If they did it after starting the season at a disadvantage due to their punishment for indescretions then good on them.

but if the players take a cut before the season starts, they're not over the cap. exactly like the Dogs were in 03 and they were gien special bonus dispensations to do it.

 

[Cammo]

but if the players take a cut before the season starts, they're not over the cap. exactly like the Dogs did in 03.

But the players took a pay-cut before the next season began and also were docked premiership points in the season they were found out. The Warriors I believe should cop both as well.

The fact that the points and the pay cuts happen to fall in the same season for The Warriors means nothing.

 

[El Diablo]

But the players took a pay-cut before the next season began and also were docked premiership points in the season they were found out. The Warriors I believe should cop both as well.

they lost no points in 01 and were over by 600k

and can someone please explain why they would take a cut if they'll lose points anyway?

there's no incentive to.

 

[douglasallen91]

They lost 37 points so as to ensure they could not play in the finals as they had played the season with a roster over the cap. This I am sure you already know so I don't know why you are asking the question.

What this has to do with The Warriors starting this season at a disadvantage is that they are also being penalised for breaches, but they are not being totally taken out of the equation because they will have got their books back in order, but they are still being punished with the loss of competition points.

The Dogs were punished in the year they were found out, they could not make the finals and finished with the wooden spoon. The Warriors look like facing the same fate but due to the fact that they will be under the cap before the season starts they will be able to (albeit unlikely) avoid the same fate depending on their results on the field.

i was more refering to why 37 points why not 50 points or 31 points. the warriors have got 0 points out of the games they have played this season out of 0 games with an illegal team. fine them for past offences but the bulldogs didn't get points taken off them in 2001 so why do the warriors get points taken off them in 2006 for 2004 -05 offences

 

[Cammo]

they lost no points in 01 and were over by 600k

They were not found out in 01. They were found out in 02 and lost points in 02. The Warriors have been found out in 06 and therefore I believe should lose points in 06.