Does the Storm situation taint our 2004 title?

[Shanked]

Guys take your goggles off and try and see his point.

He's saying that we were allowed to have players take pay cuts whereas Melbourne aren't.

Now that clearly doesn't taint our title in 2004 as we were under the cap and eventually lost players in the coming years because they couldn't take those pay cuts any longer, but what is inconsistent is that Gallop and the NRL have ruled that Melbourne players cannot take pay cuts while ours could.

So from that viewpoint, it is unfair on Melbourne in that regard considering what precedent was set when the NRL ruled on a similar situation. This is a question of consistency and following protocol on precendent, and as usual from Gallop and the NRL, there is none.

its not like all the players took pay cuts ben, as bear said we sold players to get under the cap, what were we to do? start a whole new team?

 

[bLaQDoG..]

lol some tool has spammed 11,000+ votes

Laughing is good in Moderation

 

[B-Train]

Gallops already come out and said that allowing us to take pay cuts was a mistake on the NRLs behalf.

I can see their pain and understand where they're coming from. But it's not our problem, nor should we feel like our title is "tainted".

What's the issue?

No, I agree, I said there's no way our title is "tainted". That's a terrible word to use by the person who started the thread. But I can see their point in regards to the inconsistencies by the NRL.

its not like all the players took pay cuts ben, as bear said we sold players to get under the cap, what were we to do? start a whole new team?

Yeah we did. And Melbourne would have to as well. But they aren't given the same opportunity we were.

Personally I don't agree with any of this sympathy for Melbourne and think they've made their bed and should lie in it no matter how over the top the penalties are. If you rort the cap so badly then you are open to excessive and irrational punishment and only have yourself to blame for putting yourself in that situation.

However, the consistency issue is what I'm referring to here. Again, a precedent was set and no matter whether Gallop admits it was a mistake or not, and whether the current punishment is apt or not, I feel they should stand by the precedent set with our penalties.

 

[bLaQDoG..]

No, I agree, I said there's no way our title is "tainted". That's a terrible word to use by the person who started the thread. But I can see their point in regards to the inconsistencies by the NRL.

It's definitely ridiculous. I don't know about the punishment being fair on the team, but it was fair on the rest of the NRL because of the fact there was no other way to punish them.

I think the NRL were way too quick to make their decision as well, even if it was the right one.

I'm not surprised either. They rarely seem to do things right under Gallop.

 

[BaYry Ward]

There's never been consistency.

The Warriors punishment, considering the scale of their rorts, was pretty tame compared to others. We complied with what was allowed by the league at the time. There was nothing more we needed to do.

In my opinion, in 2004 we defeated arguably the most blatant cap cheating protected species in the comp in the GF so nothing could ever taint that.

 

[habs]

No because we lost so many players e.g:

Paul Rauhihi
Shane Marteene
Steven Hughes
Nigel Vagana
Travis Norton
Brett Howland

 

[Mr Beast]

Over it don't know why you want to bring this up again

 

[Berries]

We were paying overs for players who were not superstars

 

[Captain Kickass]

It certainly made me re-evaluate the achievement.
Having said that ... I'm satisfied we paid our dues.

I look back at 2004 as the "footballing gods" doing the right thing by us fans.
We endured "37pts" in 2002. We endured "Coffs" in 2004.

... and still won it :becky:

 

[VAI]

we had dumped off a number of players from 2002 and apparently our salary cap was blown over mainly due to large contracts to mid range players, to which apparently quite alot of them were playing in reserve grade?

in short, my answer is no, it's not tainted

 

[Aristidiz]

lol at the poll

0.02% say yes

 

[BulldogStar]

Guys take your goggles off and try and see his point.

He's saying that we were allowed to have players take pay cuts whereas Melbourne aren't.

Now that clearly doesn't taint our title in 2004 as we were under the cap and eventually lost players in the coming years because they couldn't take those pay cuts any longer, but what is inconsistent is that Gallop and the NRL have ruled that Melbourne players cannot take pay cuts while ours could.

So from that viewpoint, it is unfair on Melbourne in that regard considering what precedent was set when the NRL ruled on a similar situation. This is a question of consistency and following protocol on precendent, and as usual from Gallop and the NRL, there is none.

Well then his thread title and framing of the question was wrong.

 

[B-Train]

Well then his thread title and framing of the question was wrong.

I agree. I said something along those lines to Rami in this thread a few posts later.

 

[NuffSed]

The Dogs took a paycut to play together in 2003. Our 2004 team was completly different to our 2002 team. We lost Nigel Vagana, Willie Talau, Darren Smith, Travis Norton, Paul Rauhihi amd Steve Rearson and replaced them with rookies Ben Harris, Willie Tonga, Reni Matua, Roy Asotasi and SBW who were all on small money. The only big name we bought was Andrew Ryan who Parramatta didn't need anymore.

 

[BulldogStar]

I agree. I said something along those lines to Rami in this thread a few posts later.

im too lazy to read that far lol.. but good on the same page!

 

[Dognacious]

We were over the cap in 2002. We didnt win the comp in 2002, in fact not for 7 years before that either, so we havent won a comp while over the cap.

Not even in the same ballpark as the Storm situation

And lolz @ the poll on tilt....yeh i believe 11,000 people voted haha

 

[JayBee]

No chance

We had players in our 2004 Premiership winning side that had either debuted that year or the year before.

Matuia, SBW, Asotasi, Thurstan - pretty much our bench - all debuted either that year or the year before and would of still be considered on peanuts. Remember - the minimum salary back then for players was around the 50 k mark. And by then who had we lost?

Vagana and Talau - both on decent coin. Had Norton as well who was played pretty well too. As well as a host of other stars. Not to mention the pay cuts they took - some taking up to 8%. We were under the cap - we lost a fair host of stars and we relied HEAVILY on a group of youngsters.

 

[X factor]

2002 and 2004 team was heaps different

 

[~stacie]

Now when we went through our cap rort in 2002, our players were allowed to take a pay-cut to stay at the club. Going by the NRL's stance that Storm players will not be allowed to take pay-cuts, it seems as though the NRL has learnt from the mistakes it made with us.

I think most logical Dogs fans could appreciate that allowing players to take pay cuts to stay at a club that rorted the cap is simply wrong since those players would not even have been there in the first place if the club had not cheated to attain them. Players taking pay cuts to stay means that the club is still making a net gain from its cheating.

Given this information, I am sad to say that I feel our 2004 title to be a tainted one. It hurts to say it, as it was one of the greatest nights in my life. But given the way the NRL has dealt with the Storm, I just feel as though we got away with a big one. We should not have been able to keep our players in the way that we did and this knowledge is going to haunt me for a long time, or at least until we win again.

Thoughts?

No.

 

[Mike B]

The Dogs took a paycut to play together in 2003. Our 2004 team was completly different to our 2002 team. We lost Nigel Vagana, Willie Talau, Darren Smith, Travis Norton, Paul Rauhihi amd Steve Rearson and replaced them with rookies Ben Harris, Willie Tonga, Reni Matua, Roy Asotasi and SBW who were all on small money. The only big name we bought was Andrew Ryan who Parramatta didn't need anymore.

Exactly. Smith, Norton, Talau and Vagana would all have been on big coin.