It’s history now that in 2010, the Melbourne Storm were stripped of their 2007 and 2009 premierships, along with their 2006, 2007 and 2008 minor premierships, after being found guilty by the NRL of large-scale and systematic salary cap breaches.
This article doesn’t consider whether the Storm were guilty, or whether the punishment they received was appropriate, as that argument has now been done to death. What it does consider, however, is whether it’s high time to look at righting some of the wrongs resulting from the Storm’s breach and subsequent punishment.
The first issue for me is that the NRL website shows a list of premiers and minor premiers from 1908 to 2021, which is great, but there’s a nasty little hashtag next to Melbourne’s name in the breach years which refer to a note at the bottom of the list that says: “Melbourne Storm were stripped of 2007, 2009 premierships, 2006, 2007 and 2008 minor premierships, due salary cap breaches.”
So, that’s a bit of an embarrassment for the NRL, and if Melbourne didn’t win in those years, maybe their name should just be deleted where appropriate?
But rather than leave it blank, if Melbourne’s breach was significant enough to influence the outcome of the competition in the 2007, 2008 and 2009 years, and accordingly be stripped of their titles, why not award the title to the team that would have won except for the Storm’s salary cap advantage?
Makes sense to me. The Storm were retrospectively disqualified so the title goes to the next eligible team.
Accordingly, the 2007 premiership should be awarded to the grand-final runners-up in Manly, and the 2009 premiership awarded to Parramatta, who finished runners-up that year. Job done, the right team wins the premiership and takes their rightful place on the list.
Similarly, the minor premierships should be awarded to the second highest-placed team on the ladder in each year in question. So the 2007 and 2008 minor premierships would be awarded to Manly, and the 2009 minor premiership awarded to St George Illawarra.
While we’re at it, and righting these past wrongs, the elevated teams should also receive the winner’s prize money for those years, currently standing at $100,000 for winning the minor premiership and $400,000 for winning the premiership outright. I’m sure those clubs could use the cash.
Yes, there is the argument that if Melbourne hadn’t gained an unfair advantage under the salary cap in 2007 and 2009 that perhaps another side other than Manly in 2007 and Parramatta in 2009 may have been runners up, but we’ll never know.
What we do know, however, is that Manly and Parramatta made it to the grand finals in those years and were beaten by a team subsequently found guilty of cheating. That, to me, is sufficient grounds to award the title and the prize money to the runners-up.
Should other clubs be rewarded prize money for Melbourne’s illegally won titles? (Photo by Robert Prezioso/Getty Images)
Is it too late to do this? I don’t think so, as it should have been done in the first place. If it’s good enough to strip premierships years after the event, it’s good enough to award them on the same basis. There are a number of precedents for this in sport, most notably in relation to Olympic medals being retrospectively awarded as a result of doping findings well after the event.
Let’s face it: it’s the only fair thing to do, not only for the clubs that have missed out on a premiership, but also for the players in those sides.
From a player’s perspective, it’s hard enough to win a premiership in your career, and even harder when your team loses a grand final in dubious circumstances.
Consider 2007 Manly players Chris Hicks, Michael Monaghan, Luke Williamson, Jack Afamasaga, and Adam Cuthbertson, who played a combined total of 46 years in the NRL without winning a single premiership between them. I’m sure they’d like both the kudos and the premiership ring for their efforts in 2007.
Similarly, when you look at the 2009 Parramatta grand final team, only Daniel Mortimer, Todd Lowrie and Joe Gulavao were fortunate enough to win titles in their careers. To be fair, and to set the record straight, the Melbourne Storm players should be required to return their 2007 and 2009 premiership rings, and new rings awarded to the rightful recipients for those years.
That then brings us to the prestigious Clive Churchill Medal, awarded to the best on ground in the grand final.
History shows that Melbourne’s Greg Inglis was awarded the medal in 2007, while club mate Billy Slater took it out in 2009. Now, it defies logic that a player from a team that shouldn’t have even been allowed to play in the grand final can hold the award as best player in that game.
Clive Churchill himself would be horrified.
So, to correct the record, the medals awarded to the Storm players in 2007 and 2009 should be returned, and new medals awarded to the best player from Manly and Parramatta in those deciders.
I think that just about tidies up the mess.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Well I do know that the only team that was going to beat us that year was the Storm, no one else was beating us, such was the roll we were on. It took Smith, Slater, Cronk & Inglis to beat Hayne. No one else got close.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Super League doesn’t count, no one was sticking to the cap.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Because Parramatta’s breach, along with with a number of other clubs that season, we’re considered technical in nature, probably from a miscalculation of bonuses rather than intentional rorting. Let’s remember the Storm intentionally kept two sets of books & contracts to deceive the NRL.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Actually the CBA does guarantee a certain number of jobs every season.
Adam
Roar Guru
Lucky we did get PNG otherwise we might have invaded NZ
Sammy
Guest
In 2009, if we eliminate Melbourne before the Finals Series, then we can statistically prove that the most likely outcome would have been a Paramatta vs Brisbane Grand Final, and that Parramatta would have most likely won the Grand Final. The Ladder would have been: 1 . St. George Illawarra 2. Canterbury 3. Gold Coast 4. Manly 5. Brisbane 6. Newcastle 7. Parramatta 8. Wests Tigers Under the McIntyre Finals Series: QUALIFYING FINALS --------------------------- St. George Illawarra vs Wests Tigers (Winner = St George Illawarra, 1W) Canterbury vs Parramatta (Winner = Parramatta, 4W) Gold Coast vs Newcastle (Winner = Gold Coast, 2W) Manly vs Brisbane (Winner = Brisbane, 3W) * Newcastle (3L) and Wests Tigers (4L) depart, as the lowest ranked losers. * St George Illawarra (1W) and Gold Coast (2W) earn a week off, as the highest ranked winners. SEMI FINALS ----------------- 4W / 2L = Parramatta vs Manly (Winner = Parramatta -> move on to play 1W) 3W / 1L = Brisbane vs Canterbury (Winner = Brisbane -> proceed to play 2W) PRELIMINARY FINALS ---------------------------- Brisbane vs Gold Coast (Winner = Brisbane) based on actual 2009 Week 1 Final Parramatta vs St George (Winner = Parramatta) based on actual 2009 Week 1 Final GRAND FINAL ------------------- Brisbane vs Parramatta (Winner = Parramatta)
Maxtruck
Roar Rookie
Bit rich pumping up Parra's claims when they admitted cash in brown paper bags was there preferred untraceable payment method, Not to mention 1996 signing of the Canterbury four at $1.7m per season with a salary cap of $1.8m ?
Tony
Roar Guru
How, exactly, is this in anyway a negative article?
Brendon
Roar Rookie
I wouldn't suggest they were the same magnitude, but its still an accurate comment. Both teams were cheating, so why should either win?
criag
Roar Rookie
Maybe I should’ve said in athletics all the finalists face each other in one race. If one the winner is disqualified, you know who second best is. In rugby league, you just don’t. The Storm beat a number of teams on their way to the GF in those years.
Mel Storm
Guest
Come on, you chose to write a negative article on the storm when there are a million positove stories you could have written about the greatest Australian sporting organisation.
Mel Storm
Guest
Ok, outsider, we are agreed on storm being the best and most processional organisation. Good start. You'd also agree tjere is zero likelihood that this organisation will ever breach the cap again. Finally, if a term of a contract is an unreasonable restraint of trade it is void and not binding on tbe parties that signed up to it. That said i accept that its unreasonbleness is my opinion, not a fact. Because News Corp was hopelessly conflicted and put the NRL ahead of the team means we will never know the answer to that question. Cheers!
Adam Bagnall
Roar Guru
As opposed to rugby league where all teams are in one race for the premiership?
Greg
Roar Pro
I understand its more than the players that gain employment from a club. Nor am i saying every club should be kept alive simply to give people employment. Just that it is in the best interest of the players, collectively, to keep the clubs alive and that the RLPA in doing what is best for the players as a collective support a salary cap. Sure the top 2% of players would probably prefer a 10-12 team comp with a big 2-4 clubs that get in to a bidding war for their services. And there may be an argument for less teams and a stronger competition. Though I would argue against this. Even though a slightly stronger competition may be a better product, less games means the NRL’s total product would likely be worth less. Particularly if fans of collapsed clubs turn away from the game. In turn the value of the game diminishing would reduce the value (of the now hypothetically inflated) player contracts to the point where the net gain for the better players may be minimal.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
John Maynard Keynes objected to the verdict saying it would lead to a far worse war in the future. Only the South African delegate agreed with Keynes while the Australian representative Billy Hughes, a Pom, wanted to get the USA's money but all he got was Papua New Guinea.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
1. I agree that someone should be credited with the premiership but the teams that lost to Melbourne earlier do have a valid claim so it has to be left as an asterisk. The 2009 minor premiership should be awarded to St George Illawarra. 2. I have argued successfully that St.George-Illawarra were beaten by the NRL in the 1999 Grand Final. The NRL wanted the Storm to be successful and hopefully turn Victorians away from their no tackling game. 3. The 1999 Grand Final 2nd half was when holding down became a tactic. St.George-Illawarra were penalised for it and Melbourne were allowed to do it. The previous three games were won by St.George-Illawarra in a total of 62-26 and it was 14-2 at half time.
Tony
Roar Guru
I started The Reivers once upon a time but can't remember what it's about so maybe I didn't get through it
Redcap
Roar Guru
I've never attempted to read it cover-to-cover - just flicked through it and used the index. Have you ever had a go at William Faulkner - another who manages to make English almost unintelligible at times?
Tony
Roar Guru
Try reading The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes while you're at it
Tony
Roar Guru
Now we're getting somewhere Tim :happy: