The architect of the Melbourne Storm’s cheating of the salary cap, former CEO Brian Waldron, says giving the Eels the chance to play for points this season is “unfair”.
The Storm were found to have cheated the salary cap by at least $1.7 million over five years, whereas the Eels are estimated to have been some $3 million over the cap during a similar period of time.
Yet where Melbourne were stripped of two premierships, three minor premierships, and made to pay back millions in prizemoney, Parramatta have copped a $1 million fine, of which $250,000 has been suspended, and made to return their Auckland Nines trophy from the start of the season.
Granted, you can’t make a team give back premierships if they haven’t won them, but the penalties are vastly different for what appears to be a similar crime.
Parra salary cap scandal
» Press conference: Parra breached the cap by $3 million, players may be investigated
» Parramatta docked 12 points, fined $1 million for salary cap breaches
» Don’t make the innocent pay for Parramatta rorting the salary cap
» Will the Eels take the NRL to court?
» How Parramatta’s punishment compares to previous salary cap breaches
» Read the full statement from the NRL
At the time, Waldron was labelled the “chief rat” of the Storm scandal by News Limited boss John Hartigan – the media company being the owners of the southern club at the time.
But Waldron’s primary beef with the NRL’s sanction is that while the Eels have been stripped of all points gained thus far in 2016, they’re giving the Parramatta club the opportunity to become cap compliant and play for points. Mathematically speaking, they could still win the competition.
By contrast, Melbourne played most of the 2010 season with no chance of accruing points.
“Melbourne Storm had won some premierships, and it happened too quickly. The whole process was quite absurd. They took premierships off… and said Melbourne Storm can’t play for points,” Waldron said on SEN.
“I find it difficult to understand how they (Parramatta) can continue to play for points. I think that’s something that’s very difficult… Melbourne people would say that’s quite unjust.
“Perhaps what it says more than anything is that this is the right decision, and the decision to not let the Melbourne Storm play for points in that year (2010) was a disgraceful thing.”
Addressing the difference in penalties for the two sides (who incidentally faced off in the 2009 grand final, of which the Storm were stripped), NRL CEO Todd Greenberg said, “I didn’t make the decision on the Melbourne Storm, but I’m making the decision today.”
Greenberg also made a point of saying that both the Parramatta club and its officials would have the opportunity to respond to the breach notices.
“The key difference and why everyone at the Storm felt it was so unfair, is that never took place. There was never an opportunity for people,” Waldron said.
“I rang David Gallop myself and said ‘I’ll talk to you about this’.
“You’re never going to be able to put your story to the NRL, because the politics of the time made it nigh on impossible to defend yourself. When they throw you under the bus, you’ve just got to lie in hospital and come good over time. But you’ve got to take accountability.”
Max
Guest
News Ltd, owner of the Storm agreed to the sanctions so Waldron took the bullet for the Board. I hope Parra make the semis and then watch the other teams scream...How the Storm board thought they could afford 10 internationals in a non NRL city and didn't ask qns??
Joe
Roar Rookie
Yes but it looks like they will be allowed to shed players to get under the salary cap and start earning points. Storm were told to play for no points - end of story. Also in the other interview with Chief Rat he said the Storm asked for a moratorium and weren't given one, the eels were offered one without even requesting it. I'm not against this, I think they got it right this time by actually taking the time to make their decisions. Just pointing out that the Storm had no say or no options other than play for no points.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Parramatta players aren't allowed to take pay cuts to get under the cap either though are they?
Joe
Roar Rookie
Bellamy in an interview on the Eels saga has said that they asked if they shed players or took paycuts to get under the cap would they be allowed to play for point and the answer from NRL (Gallop) was a resounding "NO". They were basically forced to play the season for no points....one of the most ridiculous decisions made. Greenberg has done the right thing here by at least giving them a chance to play for points.
Paul D
Roar Guru
The NRL doesn't, he just needs to be off the books, but I'm not sure Parra have the money sitting around to pay out Watmough for whatever is left on his contract. Not sure Parramatta Cash Converters will advance them that amount of money with only a few days notice either.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Is this true? To claim the money under insurance this is yes, but I'm not sure the NRL necessarily requires this.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It's not "hidden". The NRL has no power to compel the parties to provide them. The idea is essentially for the players and managers to find these TPA's, not necessarily the club. Though providing the third party is not a club sponsor and there are no formal arrangements between the club and the third party then the club has complied. It's when the club starts getting involved in other arrangements with the third parties (such as providing goods and services below market rate) and guaranteeing third party agreements that the problems start.
Sammy
Guest
T.W.A.S, how do Clubs find Third Parties (ie wealthy donors) and at the same time ensure that these Third Parties are deemed to be totally independent from the Club so that the money is not counted toward the Salary Cap ? Do all players have a real Contract that is registered with the NRL and a second TPA Contract that hidden from the NRL ?
MikeTV
Guest
Good point - Parra can only play for points if they get under the Cap. In 2010, there was never any mention of the Storm making the necessary mid-season changes to get under the Cap for the remainder of the season.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Also relies on Parra convincing their medical insurer that Watmough's pending "retirement" was due to a new injury, rather than due to the existing ravaged knees he was standing on when he walked into Parramatta and they foolishly offered him 4 years at $700,000 or whatever it was. .
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But penalties won't be consistent unless the crime is. Did the Storm get under the cap the year their points were stripped? Who says the Eels can? It relies on the players agreeing to leave despite having zero obligation.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Because it's related to Third Party Agreements in many cases. The NRL cannot control what a player earns outside the NRL and cannot control it legally. Most importantly it's not because of Third Party Agreements. It's because the club has made agreements with the companies that have provided the Third Party Agreements, which is what's not legal under the cap. A player can earn basically anything they can get under a Third Party Agreement provided it is independent of their club. This therefore does not penalize players who are able to earn outside the game. If the club has any involvement in this, or guarantees payments, or in this case provides contra to the company who the agreement is with, then this is money that should be counted under the salary cap.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It was never spoken of again because Gee was the only evidence. Once he was no longer employed by an NRL club, the NRL had no power to compel him to answer questions.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Not really. It only restrains the players earning capacity to the full extent of the cap. But restraints of trade are only illegal anyway if they are found not to be in the interests of the greater good. What it does do is prevent salary inflation.
johnnyball
Guest
I think Waldron has every right to ask the question in the clod light of inconsistency. you can talk about greater degree of crime etc as much as you like but penalties should still be consistent. Little bit pregnant is still pregnant unfortunately. Having said that I never want to see another club play a season unable to earn points. You completely alienate the fans from the NRL Without pointing the finger I hope another club is being scrutinized as well
pete bloor
Guest
Not really there was some case many years back that had a line that went something like "all contracts bind the parties therefor by their very nature restrain." So to say restraint of trade is inherently unfair is to say exclusive contracts are inherently unfair and players should be free to change teams mid game if they see fit. Now the question is generally if the restraint is reasonable to protect the business of the league. I think got acknowledged during the case against the draft where the judge basically went you've got a salary cap which controls costs and helps ensure a measure of parity a draft doesn't seem to be a reasonable requirement here.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Unlimited tackles had more to do with it, but I agree, the restraint of trade argument against a salary cap is dead and buried. There's no legal stomach for that fight anymore and virtually no-one believes that argument to be true.
Arnold Krewanty
Guest
The past 6 NRL seasons have seen 6 different Premiers. 1956-1966 St George had a stacked team, and won it year after year after year. You want that to happen again, get on your restriction of trade soapbox.
Jacko
Guest
Yoy know what else is unfair? Having a restraint of trade placed on a person. Thats what a salary cap is
Joe
Roar Rookie
I think if they were actually playing for points and a place in the finals they might have won a lot more than 10. We'll never know now but I think that theory will be tested by this Parramatta team who will actually be playing for points. They're not as good as that Melbourne Storm team was but they have enough talent and now more than enough motivation to get them to the 8.