This weekend’s NRL grand final features 2012’s two best teams, who also happen to be the past decade’s worst salary cap cheats. Well matched foes indeed.
The Bulldogs were found to be in breach of the cap in 2002, resulting in the loss of 37 competition points and a $500,000 fine. The Storm got done in 2010, in the process losing two premierships, three minor premierships, one World Club Challenge, the 2010 season, and $1,689,000.
The Dogs made the grand final qualifier in 2003 and had the premiership won by 2004, while the Storm made the grand final qualifier in 2011 and have made the decider in 2012. In both cases success immediately followed the breaches.
Of the 17 players who played in the 2004 grand final for Canterbury, 13 were in the squad of 2002. The numbers in the case of Melbourne are far less pronounced but when three of the the names retained are Cronk, Smith and Slater, it’s not hard to see why the team succeeded. Bellamy isn’t included in the cap, but he hung around too.
In pure football terms, what the Storm and Bulldogs achieved is amazing, however there is more to it than that. Every time Melbourne and Canterbury win, another team loses. Another team which was not able to hang onto starts initially attracted to the club through dodgy deals. Another team which wasn’t able to draw on an NRL sponsored persecution complex as motivation. Another team who played by the rules.
Regardless of whether a club attracts and retains players legally or illegally, once a team is assembled, the less sinister aspects of the situation take root. Players purchase property in the area, they put their kids into local schools, they make friends with their teammates and learn each others games.
They come to love their club. In short, they are able to build a far more complex relationship with their surrounds than salary alone would explain. And it is here that the club “benefits” from having cheated.
By drawing on a reservoir of relationships formed amongst each other, players are prepared to stay for less, so they can continue to enjoy the non-monetary aspects of life at the particular club. Compliant clubs are not able to get their players into such a position. Neither Melbourne nor Canterbury is responsible for these rules, but they do profit from them.
I’m not arguing that the penalties are not severe enough. They are. But nuanced they are not. It’s not good enough for these clubs to simply fall under the cap and continue go about their business.
That approach fails to appreciate the issues involved in the cheating initially, and the factors that will come into play as the club rebuilds. What must be the goal of any penalty is that the club must derive no benefit whatsoever from the breaches.
Juventus was relegated to Serie B, and Floyd Landis was banned from cycling for two years for doping. Two very different examples, sure, but some thought went into preventing their future success in the short-term.
It is not my job to come up with specifics; it’s the ARLC’s. But when the next club strays, let that be the objective of any sentence handed down.
If such a philosophy is adopted, hopefully the days of winning the premiership within two seasons of a breach will be over.
steven waters
Guest
how do you value a team. if you look at the cowboys they have tamou, Cooper, Taumalolo, Johnson, Scott, Hall and the Sims bros in their pack as well as Thurston, Tate, Bowen, Winterstein and Graham in the backs are they over. pretty good side. souths Asotasi, Luke, Lima, Crocker, Ben Te'o and Burgess bros all rep players as well as Merritt, king, Inglis, Reynolds, sutton and Champion in the backs. they also have a host of good players who have proved themselves in the nrl and are getting into future rep sides like McQueen, everingham and peats. sharks gallen, Lewis, bukaya, Heighington, fifta, Ross, Gibbs, tupou and De Gois and carney, Gordon, Ryan, wright, robson, gardner and Pomeroy in the backs. the same can be said for the roosters, Newcastle, saints more so last year broncos, titans, tigers more so last year, manly and now the warriors as their players emerge and they buy a few big names like Mateo, Nielsen and Leuluai. yet no body is saying anything about their caps, that's because people like to bring down the tall poppy. if they win a comp they want to dismantle the team and destroy it. the thing is it depends on your point of view. i would say most teams have pretty good line ups and should do good but they don't. that's because you cant buy a comp there are other factors like the coaching and systems in place, the atmosphere and spirit at a club. some clubs like the dogs, storm, broncos and raiders have good systems in place to develop young players better than others. some coaches are able to bring out the best in players and turn has beens and average players into great players. now how do you put a value on all this who says one team is more valuable than another on paper and is over the cap. its something you cant put a cap or price on. maybe the cap is stunting growth in the game and is actually destroying the full potential a club and team can have in developing a culture that makes champions.
Andy
Guest
I would offer you both a tin foil hat but, offering one to delusional whingers seems wrong.
Meesta Cool
Guest
Whilst others found loopholes around it ... same result (Players on more money than the cap allowed), but not classed as RORTING??? WHY?. And you ask, why we feel aggrieved, Just maybe because there have been a lot of accusations on different clubs that have not been followed through with the intensity that was used on Storm. We are now 3 years on. Time to forget. and let the game LIVE rather than follow the path of self destruction by innuendo........ . If I never see the words Cheats or Rorters ever again I will be the happiest man in Oz and I will not be tempted to throw mud back at people who are being stirred and stirred again by the media and press!.
Meesta Cool
Guest
Agree Anakin... do we all believe that the Manly team that beat Storm by 40 points was legally held together???. I don't!, but good luck to them, no one checked and they built a great team, --- Did Hssler get out before someone found out?.. I leave it up to the masses to think for themselves.. What I do know is that Manly had more bought players (On bigger wages than their original Clubs could offer) playing in the two finals games than Storm had!.. yet no one questioned HOW!.
Meesta Cool
Guest
Damoinaus. Wake up and use common sense mate, do you really believe that Storm are the only team that rorted?, how naive for a person that is proud enough to have "PRO" under his pen name!. Yup just keep raking the shit, it's what most punters want to hear to excuse the pitiful efforts of their own clubs.. As for your last comment, -- we have admitted that we were guilty, but comments and articles from "PROS" (and I use the word laughingly) will not allow us to 'MOVE ON"... GO STORM!.
81paling
Roar Rookie
This is easy to solve, if any club breaches the salary cap by more than 10 percent all players are d immediately free to walk away from their contract whilst the club is still bound to honor the players contract. The club's nrl license is immediately removed for 5 years in which time they will play in the QLD or Nsw cup competitions. Added to this the 5 top players in terms of gross salary may never play for that club ever again (harsh on the players but, unfortunately unavoidable despite this not being any players fault). Whilst the club may hold the rest of their players they may only name a squad that fits under the salary cap. The result here is no lawyers, no dragged out bad publicity, no officials have to make controversial decisions, the offending club if it is worth saving will survive like the bears, south Sydney, Newtown and I am sure the dogs would. However the real result would be that no club would ever again cheat the salary cap no matter who their lawyers are, what tricks they posess nor how deep the pockets of the owner. The fact is you cheat you do not deserve an nrl license so you do not get one.
bbt
Guest
The obvious conclusion is the fact that Storm "cheated". But was it just one individual "cooking the books" possibly in collaboration with another 2 or 3? Was it the "owners", News Ltd turning a blind eye to such rorting? Was it the whole club? Were individuals ripping off the club and News Ltd? In this case they may have covered their tracks with salary cap transgressions. (I once worked at a business where the accountant ripped off $100K (approx) and put it through the pokies. He covered his tracks by handing out "bonuses".). The punishment should fit the crime, and to this extent we don't know the "crime" apart from the fact that salary cap cheating took place. The first question in such circumstances should be - who benefited? Was it the CEO? Was it News Ltd? Eventually it was the club. Until the final report is made public, who knows.
Bee Bee
Guest
Campaign........ I half agree with you. "The Storm wanted to pay its players what they were worth." Problem is. There is this thing called a cap which I agree is silly but its kind of important. You see other clubs might want to buy those players too. But when you have lots of good players you either can't afford to pay them their value or you have to dump a few on the market. Simple really. Oh sure it sucks. Me myself, I have to go through the indignity of watching Broncos juniors rise through the ranks and blossom into great players only to dissappear and help other clubs win premierships year after year. But thats socialism for you. Equality and fairness are fun unless your the guy that has to give up stuff to make it fair. Its strangely unfair really. You can hate the cap all you want but ironically if you completely dismantle it I guarantee, Mr Slater, Mr Cronk and Mr Smith would have all been Broncos 6 years ago. Thats the irony of what Melbourne did. They cheated a system that enables them to survive. I
marco
Guest
in most sporting competitions , if you cheat you can't compete. The fact that the storm were caught rorting the system over a number of years is a very serious offence. It stopped many clubs from building up their teams and it also stopped clubs like my beloved south's from success in the seasons that the storm cheated. Really the storm should not of been allowed to field the same team that it cheated with , even though they didn't get any points. they are very lucky that they have gotten away with keeping many of their players.
Dreamcrusher
Guest
Yes, it is a hypothetical but so too is your entire article! You're assuming that either Slater, Smith or Cronk would have moved on earlier in their career should the Storm not have breached the cap. There's evidence throughout the league of players choosing to stay at a particular club for a lower wage for a myriad of reasons. Brett Finch didn't want to leave, yet he was at the Storm for less than 12 months, how you do fit that into your hypothesis? Your conclusions are based entirely on assumptions on what decisions a player will make. Effectively, you're guessing. How could you ever hope to penalise a club over a long period of time for something that is not only impossible to prove, but for which the outcome could change entirely based upon the mindset of a different playing group. Oh, and yes, Melbourne should have received cap concessions and should have continued to do so over a longer period of time, especially after winning the comp in 1999. The intention of cap concessions are not to purchase new players but to enable a club in an emerging market to maintain their roster in the face of the greater appeal to move home. This is an aspect that clubs in NSW and Queensland do not have to combat.
JayBob
Guest
Couldn't have said it any better, I must say I do get a bit defensive when someone has a go at my team, and I was just about to react to this article lol, but after reading this you have made me realise exactly what I was thinking in the first place. Awesome post. Let's just hope the best team wins on the weekend and it is a great game, I can't wait!!!
Matt
Guest
You guys have almost convinced me - that because Melbourne do have some good attributes - we should bend the rules in their favour. Furthermore - even if we haven't adjusted the rules in their favour, they should take it upon themselves to do this anyway via salary cap breaches. Such failures should not be held against them either. (I was almost sold - but I think even Bellamy would struggle to say this with his hand on his heart). In fact - if you Storm-crowd talk about everything other than the key issue of punishment/reward - and whether they are comensurate/linked to certain key events (Salary cap infringements), it is quite easy to not purvey anything but goodness, sunshine, and innocence towards the Melbourne Club. For those ducking the issue - enough with the goose steps and tangents. Engage on the basic premise in the article. Is the game sending the right message to clubs around salary cap? Are the incentives right? Did the Storm gain an advantage from their ongoing breaches in 2011 and 2012? If so - is this fine, or do we need to change? Let's stop treating Melbourne Storm with some affirmative action, or apologetic rosy-coloured frame. Salary Cap is a strict liability issue - a lot like speeding. Putting emotion aside - what about the current set of arrangements makes us confident the League is taking the right steps to prevent the same issues marring our game in 2015? If we are not confident - let's start working towards taking constructive action. As the author puts it - he is not on RL boards/committees, or employed by the game day-day. Let those people deal with the minutiae. But on the Helicopter point - the big picture we are engaging in; it is pretty clear our game has not got the right response to a salary cap breach. It has a very reactionary response, and a poor track record (Dogs - into heavily delayed Storm response, with little actual prospective damage to either). Alternatively - we could choose to reward teams for breaching the salary cap - in which case the only change I'd make to the current policy to achieve the hypothetical 'reward' objective, is a historical amnesty. Prospective treatment for breachers can remain largely as it presently is.
vivalasvegan
Guest
Other codes would protect and nurture an outfit like The Storm, like they were giant pandas, rare and wonderful. The way The Storm promote the code in Melbourne is fantastic. The lads stay well under the radar in terms of behaviour and are an ornament to the game. This parochial code, run by old pokie toting amateurs and bent lawyers, couldn't find its ar$e with both hands and have not got a clue how to manage a unique resource that it might not get again. Fantastic club, fantastic players and great coach, all in the AFL heartland, with a passionate crowd too.
vivalasvegan
Guest
Absolutely correct. Without sounding like Oikee, the way this code has treated Melbourne is shocking. Absolutely no vision has been shown and it blows my mind that the greatest game of all seems to be run for the benefit of a clique of badly run Sydney clubs, led by led by dinosaurs who don't want the game to grow... If we poached half the talent running the AFL for our game, you could guarantee that Melbourne would be better supported, better promoted and better respected. The club fights the fight in Melbourne despite the administration, not with its help. God help a club trying to develop in the Perth, despite its obvious need.
vivalasvegan
Guest
Spot on...! Any system that punishes developing your own talent and rewards sucking up other clubs hard work is desperate and unfair. Why do we protect mediocrity like this? And, with no proof whatsoever, I cannot believe that some of the squads going around this year are under the salary cap... Clubs need to be rewarded with exemptions or salary cap exclusions for talent developed in house. Fans want to see kids coming through and developing into cracking players for the club, not poached superstars...
Muzza
Guest
Anakin, It's just my opinion but i'm basing it on history and human nature. Most players in the history of the game will leave a club for an offer too good to refuse and it's human nature to take the bigger dollars on offer. The fact that Melbourne kept trumping the big offers from other clubs even though they knowingly were way over the cap is just plain cheating. I don't understand how you can defend or make excuses for that.
Anakin
Guest
> I’ve got no doubt that at least one of the ‘big 3′ would have taken an offer from another club had the Storm not just wacked on another couple of hundred thousand dollars to keep them. Now they’re happy to stay for less just to prove a point. And on what basis do you present this stand point Muzza?
Campaign to return Melbournes lost Premierships
Guest
Well said
Dreamcrusher
Guest
Where's your source for where most breaches come from? From what I understand, most cap breaches are due to clubs not registering all their third party agreements or a dispute with the NRL on what constitutes as a payments that should be included within the cap. Perhaps the players and Bellamy did know, who's to say, but I find it highly doubtful that they players know how much each other is being paid In that regard I suspect it's no different to any other workplace. How is it that you categorically know these things?
Dreamcrusher
Guest
Stiffarm, you say it's not good enough that clubs simply fall under the cap and go about their business, but then avoid presenting any solution to the problem at all because that's not for you to determine. That can be more simply interpreted as "The Storm cheated a few years ago and now they've a chance at a GF win...that's not fair!" You're trolling...aren't you?