If we accept that, at this stage, no one really knows whether Greg Inglis' extremely complicated contract with the Broncos is fully salary cap compliant, we have to take it on trust that News/the Broncos/Inglis would not be trying to rort the system and, if they were, that the NRL wouldn't let them.
But on the basis of what News Ltd have dished up to the fans in recent times, why do they deserve our trust? It is only the fact that News Ltd own half the competition that they still allow themselves to own clubs. If Souths had been caught rorting the cap by over $2 million, do you think that the NRL would still assess Russell Crowe as being fit to own a club? If Manly had been caught for the same amount, do you think the NRL would still say it is OK for Delmege to own a club?
News Ltd have owned a club which, on their watch, has systematically abused the cap for about 4-5 years in a row. The 'excuse' given by News is "we only own the club, we have no control over the employees working there". The excuse is pathetic, but if you swallow it hook, line and sinker, and believe that News has no responsibility for Melbourne adhering to the salary cap, then they also believe that they have no responsibility for Brisbane adhering to the salary cap.
On the Inglis deal there is no smoking gun, but there is:
- Club owner (News) with a recent history of massive salary cap rort on their watch (Storm).
- Club with a history of somehow managing to consistently get up to a dozen Origin players under the cap at the one time (Broncos).
- Player with a recent history of being happy to sign one contract for the salary cap auditor and another side contract for his true contract, which is a lot extra (Inglis).
- Player has knocked back what appears to be a larger offer (in cap terms) from a non-News Ltd club, the Titans.
- Reason given for 'having' the choose the Brisbane offer is that Inglis and his girlfriend can't live without each other, yet she somehow accepted a job in Brisbane when he was playing for, and contracted to, Melbourne. No one knows the terms for this job, but it is either (1) a regular-paying run of the mill job, in which case why did she accept it when he was contracted to live in Melbourne? or (2) it is an unbelievable salary paying way over the odds "money you can't refuse" contract, in which case why did someone offer her such a lucrative contract?
There are so many things about the Inglis to the Broncos deal that are highly suspicious, but there is of course no smoking gun and therefore no can necessarily say that the deal is not cap compliant.
But we are asked to believe that no one is committing a murder here, and the parties who are telling us to believe it are a someone who has just been an accessory to a murder (Inglis), a crime lord whose minions have just been done for murder (News Ltd - Storm) and someone who looks like they must have gotten away with murder in the past many times but has never been convincted (the Broncos).
Trust a News Ltd owned club not to break the salary cap? News Ltd have just told us that they no control over the clubs they own and that they will bear no responsibility themselves if one of their clubs has breached the cap. It looks like history repeating itself.
But on the basis of what News Ltd have dished up to the fans in recent times, why do they deserve our trust? It is only the fact that News Ltd own half the competition that they still allow themselves to own clubs. If Souths had been caught rorting the cap by over $2 million, do you think that the NRL would still assess Russell Crowe as being fit to own a club? If Manly had been caught for the same amount, do you think the NRL would still say it is OK for Delmege to own a club?
News Ltd have owned a club which, on their watch, has systematically abused the cap for about 4-5 years in a row. The 'excuse' given by News is "we only own the club, we have no control over the employees working there". The excuse is pathetic, but if you swallow it hook, line and sinker, and believe that News has no responsibility for Melbourne adhering to the salary cap, then they also believe that they have no responsibility for Brisbane adhering to the salary cap.
On the Inglis deal there is no smoking gun, but there is:
- Club owner (News) with a recent history of massive salary cap rort on their watch (Storm).
- Club with a history of somehow managing to consistently get up to a dozen Origin players under the cap at the one time (Broncos).
- Player with a recent history of being happy to sign one contract for the salary cap auditor and another side contract for his true contract, which is a lot extra (Inglis).
- Player has knocked back what appears to be a larger offer (in cap terms) from a non-News Ltd club, the Titans.
- Reason given for 'having' the choose the Brisbane offer is that Inglis and his girlfriend can't live without each other, yet she somehow accepted a job in Brisbane when he was playing for, and contracted to, Melbourne. No one knows the terms for this job, but it is either (1) a regular-paying run of the mill job, in which case why did she accept it when he was contracted to live in Melbourne? or (2) it is an unbelievable salary paying way over the odds "money you can't refuse" contract, in which case why did someone offer her such a lucrative contract?
There are so many things about the Inglis to the Broncos deal that are highly suspicious, but there is of course no smoking gun and therefore no can necessarily say that the deal is not cap compliant.
But we are asked to believe that no one is committing a murder here, and the parties who are telling us to believe it are a someone who has just been an accessory to a murder (Inglis), a crime lord whose minions have just been done for murder (News Ltd - Storm) and someone who looks like they must have gotten away with murder in the past many times but has never been convincted (the Broncos).
Trust a News Ltd owned club not to break the salary cap? News Ltd have just told us that they no control over the clubs they own and that they will bear no responsibility themselves if one of their clubs has breached the cap. It looks like history repeating itself.