Why the Storm penalties could be revised
-
Diehard_Storm
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:28 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1bprq.html
Why the Storm penalties could be revised ROY MASTERS
March 11, 2011
A News Ltd draft media release that set out the Storm's penalties for salary-cap breaches was prepared before the club's then chairman, Dr Rob Moodie, was told of the NRL sanctions.
This appears in documents that were set to be tendered in court if a legal action by Melbourne's independent directors had been allowed to proceed. News Ltd, which owns the Storm, sacked the four directors, thereby aborting the case in the Victorian Supreme Court and preventing the tabling of embarrassing evidence, including the original omission of the 2007 premiership from the club's list of penalties.
With News Ltd set to exit the NRL on April 30, handing power to an independent commission, there is a strong feeling among some club officials that a new administration could revise some of the penalties, particularly now that some of the practices that attracted the sanctions are allowed in the NRL.
An email sent by News Ltd director of corporate affairs, Greg Baxter, to the Storm's then media manager, Dave Donaghy, at 1.13pm on Thursday, April 22 last year, attached a draft media release of the proposed sanctions, mentioning the club's ineligibility for last year's finals and the loss of the 2009 premiership. It did not mention a fine or the loss of the 2007 premiership. Moodie says: ''My understanding is that press release was about the fourth draft prepared, yet I was only told around 1.15pm on April 22 of the penalties, by David Gallop [NRL chief executive].''
The NRL admits its first email to Baxter, setting out the full punishment, was sent at 1.44pm, half an hour after the News Ltd executive had emailed Donaghy. Baxter's second email to Donaghy at 2.45pm mentions the additional loss of the 2007 premiership and a ''substantial'' fine while including a paragraph designed to exculpate News Ltd.
The additional paragraph, which Baxter explained to Donaghy in an email, ''deals with Peter [Macourt's] concerns about the positioning of the [Storm] board''. It reads as a quote from News Ltd chairman, John Hartigan: ''This elaborate collusion and the scale of the deception has been concealed from News Ltd, and it is our understanding that it has been concealed from the board of the Storm.''
The emails raise questions about the extent of dialogue between Gallop and News Ltd over the punishment; the media company's need to savagely punish a scapegoat to restore its corporate reputation; the ad hoc decision-making by the NRL executive on the tumultuous day and the possibility a panicked Moodie would not have fallen on his sword had he been aware of the magnitude of the penalties. Gallop insists News Ltd played no role in the sanctions, other than his briefing of Macourt, News Ltd's chief operations officer, who told him: ''Do what you have to do.''
Gallop says: ''Before my meeting with Moodie and [Storm acting chief executive Matt Hansen], I discussed with Macourt what the potential penalties might be, but that is all. After all, News Ltd are the owners of the club.''
He rejects he had any requirement to consult the ARL, the other half-owners of the NRL, saying the punishment was determined by the NRL executive and lawyers. He said he was anxious to confine the breaches to two years if possible, not five, but salary-cap auditor Ian Schubert pointed out that the Storm had been given a moratorium on breaches at the end of the 2006 season, yet continued to rort the cap. Gallop said this forced the NRL to add the 2007 premiership to the sanctions.
He says: ''If it had been possible to restrict the stain over the game to two years, we would have done so.''
Storm coach Craig Bellamy raised the issue of the late addition of the 2007 premiership punishment with Gallop at a meeting at the end of last season. It followed complaints that the NRL chief executive had ignored the club's playing and coaching staff since ''22/4'' as some Storm staffers call the day the bomb dropped on the club. Bellamy compared the Storm's punishment with sanctions against other clubs, principally the Raiders, Warriors and Bulldogs.
He argued Melbourne had been punished for the ''past, present and the future'', saying Canberra had not been stripped of premierships for breaches uncovered in the early 1990s; the Warriors had been allowed to compete for points in the season the breaches were revealed; and Canterbury had been given assistance to retain their entire playing roster.
Canberra did lose players; the Warriors did start the subsequent season on minus points; and the Bulldogs were stripped of points in a season when they were leading the premiership, but did go on to win the title two years later with the same team. ''We copped the lot: premierships, points and players,'' Bellamy told Gallop.
But it might well have been the admissions throughout the course of April 22 by Hansen and Moodie that prompted this. The first News Ltd media release on April 22 refers to ''secret payments to up to 11 players over about four years totalling an estimated $900,000 in excess of the NRL salary cap'', while the second media release, 90 minutes later, refers to ''breaches of $1.7m over five years''.
Moodie, who first met News Ltd lawyer Ian Philip at 10.15am, was advised by him to ''take it on the chin''. He says: ''We made a few mistakes throughout the course of that day. I'm not sure now that honesty is always the best policy. We went there for a frank and open discussion and not a trial.''
Gallop says: ''The penalties were only finally decided after the meetings with Moodie and Hansen when, by their admission, it became clear that the systematic approach to deceiving the NRL went back to 2006 and escalated from there, meaning that the only fair result was to strip them of both premierships. Moodie's candour on the day was admirable but his subsequent desire to blame everyone else is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of how the events of April 22 are viewed by the former directors of the Storm.''
The Storm have subsequently ''moved on'', as the saying goes, with a new administration, including a chief financial officer recruited from the corporate regulatory arm of KPMG.
However, eyebrows were raised when the NRL endorsed what brought attention to the Storm in the first place - captain Cameron Smith's contract with Fox Sports. Smith had a $100,000 agreement with Fox Sports, guaranteed by the club. It was a breach on two counts. While clubs could source a third-party sponsor, it could not approve more than $150,000 in payments, or $50,000 each for three players. Nor could it guarantee it if the sponsor reneged.
This year, the ceiling has been lifted to $300,000, and a club can guarantee these deals. In other words, what was once illegal is now allowed. No wonder one rival club chief executive said, upon looking at the premiership trophy: ''I see the notation for 2007 and 2009 has 'premiership withdrawn' and I wonder if some future administration might review that aspect of the punishment.''
-----------------------------
Good on Roy for keeping the focus on this dark day, and darker dealings involving the current owners of the Storm, and the person who is set to become the new CEO of the Independent Commission.
Its for this reason that there will be no chance the Storm can have their overly harsh penalties revised while this man is in charge.
Gallop is overly sensitive and clearly defensive when questioned on his dealings during the scandal. As highlighted in bold above, he immediately goes on the attack using the same tactics he's used against Manly. Throwing it back in Manly's face and getting testy with the media. He's looking more and more like a guy under pressure. And deservedly so. Without the club's support, he'll be on the way out quicksmart. News Ltd won't be able to protect him any longer.
*lima lima lima duck* Gallop.
Why the Storm penalties could be revised ROY MASTERS
March 11, 2011
A News Ltd draft media release that set out the Storm's penalties for salary-cap breaches was prepared before the club's then chairman, Dr Rob Moodie, was told of the NRL sanctions.
This appears in documents that were set to be tendered in court if a legal action by Melbourne's independent directors had been allowed to proceed. News Ltd, which owns the Storm, sacked the four directors, thereby aborting the case in the Victorian Supreme Court and preventing the tabling of embarrassing evidence, including the original omission of the 2007 premiership from the club's list of penalties.
With News Ltd set to exit the NRL on April 30, handing power to an independent commission, there is a strong feeling among some club officials that a new administration could revise some of the penalties, particularly now that some of the practices that attracted the sanctions are allowed in the NRL.
An email sent by News Ltd director of corporate affairs, Greg Baxter, to the Storm's then media manager, Dave Donaghy, at 1.13pm on Thursday, April 22 last year, attached a draft media release of the proposed sanctions, mentioning the club's ineligibility for last year's finals and the loss of the 2009 premiership. It did not mention a fine or the loss of the 2007 premiership. Moodie says: ''My understanding is that press release was about the fourth draft prepared, yet I was only told around 1.15pm on April 22 of the penalties, by David Gallop [NRL chief executive].''
The NRL admits its first email to Baxter, setting out the full punishment, was sent at 1.44pm, half an hour after the News Ltd executive had emailed Donaghy. Baxter's second email to Donaghy at 2.45pm mentions the additional loss of the 2007 premiership and a ''substantial'' fine while including a paragraph designed to exculpate News Ltd.
The additional paragraph, which Baxter explained to Donaghy in an email, ''deals with Peter [Macourt's] concerns about the positioning of the [Storm] board''. It reads as a quote from News Ltd chairman, John Hartigan: ''This elaborate collusion and the scale of the deception has been concealed from News Ltd, and it is our understanding that it has been concealed from the board of the Storm.''
The emails raise questions about the extent of dialogue between Gallop and News Ltd over the punishment; the media company's need to savagely punish a scapegoat to restore its corporate reputation; the ad hoc decision-making by the NRL executive on the tumultuous day and the possibility a panicked Moodie would not have fallen on his sword had he been aware of the magnitude of the penalties. Gallop insists News Ltd played no role in the sanctions, other than his briefing of Macourt, News Ltd's chief operations officer, who told him: ''Do what you have to do.''
Gallop says: ''Before my meeting with Moodie and [Storm acting chief executive Matt Hansen], I discussed with Macourt what the potential penalties might be, but that is all. After all, News Ltd are the owners of the club.''
He rejects he had any requirement to consult the ARL, the other half-owners of the NRL, saying the punishment was determined by the NRL executive and lawyers. He said he was anxious to confine the breaches to two years if possible, not five, but salary-cap auditor Ian Schubert pointed out that the Storm had been given a moratorium on breaches at the end of the 2006 season, yet continued to rort the cap. Gallop said this forced the NRL to add the 2007 premiership to the sanctions.
He says: ''If it had been possible to restrict the stain over the game to two years, we would have done so.''
Storm coach Craig Bellamy raised the issue of the late addition of the 2007 premiership punishment with Gallop at a meeting at the end of last season. It followed complaints that the NRL chief executive had ignored the club's playing and coaching staff since ''22/4'' as some Storm staffers call the day the bomb dropped on the club. Bellamy compared the Storm's punishment with sanctions against other clubs, principally the Raiders, Warriors and Bulldogs.
He argued Melbourne had been punished for the ''past, present and the future'', saying Canberra had not been stripped of premierships for breaches uncovered in the early 1990s; the Warriors had been allowed to compete for points in the season the breaches were revealed; and Canterbury had been given assistance to retain their entire playing roster.
Canberra did lose players; the Warriors did start the subsequent season on minus points; and the Bulldogs were stripped of points in a season when they were leading the premiership, but did go on to win the title two years later with the same team. ''We copped the lot: premierships, points and players,'' Bellamy told Gallop.
But it might well have been the admissions throughout the course of April 22 by Hansen and Moodie that prompted this. The first News Ltd media release on April 22 refers to ''secret payments to up to 11 players over about four years totalling an estimated $900,000 in excess of the NRL salary cap'', while the second media release, 90 minutes later, refers to ''breaches of $1.7m over five years''.
Moodie, who first met News Ltd lawyer Ian Philip at 10.15am, was advised by him to ''take it on the chin''. He says: ''We made a few mistakes throughout the course of that day. I'm not sure now that honesty is always the best policy. We went there for a frank and open discussion and not a trial.''
Gallop says: ''The penalties were only finally decided after the meetings with Moodie and Hansen when, by their admission, it became clear that the systematic approach to deceiving the NRL went back to 2006 and escalated from there, meaning that the only fair result was to strip them of both premierships. Moodie's candour on the day was admirable but his subsequent desire to blame everyone else is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of how the events of April 22 are viewed by the former directors of the Storm.''
The Storm have subsequently ''moved on'', as the saying goes, with a new administration, including a chief financial officer recruited from the corporate regulatory arm of KPMG.
However, eyebrows were raised when the NRL endorsed what brought attention to the Storm in the first place - captain Cameron Smith's contract with Fox Sports. Smith had a $100,000 agreement with Fox Sports, guaranteed by the club. It was a breach on two counts. While clubs could source a third-party sponsor, it could not approve more than $150,000 in payments, or $50,000 each for three players. Nor could it guarantee it if the sponsor reneged.
This year, the ceiling has been lifted to $300,000, and a club can guarantee these deals. In other words, what was once illegal is now allowed. No wonder one rival club chief executive said, upon looking at the premiership trophy: ''I see the notation for 2007 and 2009 has 'premiership withdrawn' and I wonder if some future administration might review that aspect of the punishment.''
-----------------------------
Good on Roy for keeping the focus on this dark day, and darker dealings involving the current owners of the Storm, and the person who is set to become the new CEO of the Independent Commission.
Its for this reason that there will be no chance the Storm can have their overly harsh penalties revised while this man is in charge.
Gallop is overly sensitive and clearly defensive when questioned on his dealings during the scandal. As highlighted in bold above, he immediately goes on the attack using the same tactics he's used against Manly. Throwing it back in Manly's face and getting testy with the media. He's looking more and more like a guy under pressure. And deservedly so. Without the club's support, he'll be on the way out quicksmart. News Ltd won't be able to protect him any longer.
*lima lima lima duck* Gallop.
-
Melbourne & Bears
- Squall
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:20 pm
You are kidding, it's happen and let's move on without hearing about it over and over.
-
Diehard_Storm
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:28 pm
Mate - that's you're opinion and that's fine.
But perhaps you're a little used to your team getting a raw deal by the NRL, considering you're two for two.
For some of us, it's still raw and hurts and it's being rubbed in our face daily. It will take years to move on, as much as we'd all like to say 'it's in the past'.
But perhaps you're a little used to your team getting a raw deal by the NRL, considering you're two for two.
For some of us, it's still raw and hurts and it's being rubbed in our face daily. It will take years to move on, as much as we'd all like to say 'it's in the past'.
-
Michael :P
- Tropical Cyclone
- Posts: 3090
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:34 am
I got no doubt our name will go back on at least one of the trophies in the future.
Again i agree with M & B, i just want to move on without hearing it constantly. Things like this just make the topic more constant and i don't think we will see results from it.
There's a Storm brewing in Melbourne and it's forecast to hit Sydney on October 2
-
Diehard_Storm
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:28 pm
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I swear we have some members of the Storm's administration on this site...
-
your kettle is black
- Squall
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 1:47 pm
As a fan of another club, and a fan of the game in general, I had this to say last May:
The penalties should stand (as harsh as they are) - for the good of the game. Anything less would be a green light for someone else to try something sneaky and wrong because they can get penalties overturned in court.your kettle is black wrote:
Fans and some players have been penalised horribly for the acts of the few, but that's no excuse for those few, and the unfortunate truth for the rest of the staff, fans and players is that they cop it as well.
Disgressions like this MUST be punished. After the bulldogs did it in 2002, I thought there was no way known any club would try this again, in any form. Occasional genuine mistakes, yes, but systematic rorting over not a season, but years?
Who would take such a terrible risk? Storm fans are rightfully gutted, but how about the rugby league fan in general?
We feel deeply dissapointed in the whole affair as well. We'd never know how it really feels for a Storm fan in this, and I hope no fan of any team has to go through this again. EVERYONE in EVERY TEAM must have learnt the lesson by now.
Any team found to have not learnt that lesson deserves even harsher treatment, andsadly, all that's left is expulsion from the NRL. (for a season, or more - I'd never want it to come to that)
It's been that harsh on the Storm.
I hope it never comes to that, for any club.
Like M&B, I can't believe people are still banging on about this. It's been almost 12 months, it's water under the bridge, it's time everyone moved on, Storm fans jus as much as the NRL public in general...
-
Michael :P
- Tropical Cyclone
- Posts: 3090
- Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:34 am
Fair enough you dont give a rats but to basically say you dont know why Storm fans are still bitter is a weird thing to say for a Storm fan.J-Storm wrote:Like M&B, I can't believe people are still banging on about this. It's been almost 12 months, it's water under the bridge, it's time everyone moved on, Storm fans jus as much as the NRL public in general...
-
The Mauritian
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:15 pm
- Location: VICTORIA
Good call Michael, I'm still bitter I don't care what anyone says. It is hard to think that we will be tainted forever with being called cheats.Michael :P wrote:Fair enough you dont give a rats but to basically say you dont know why Storm fans are still bitter is a weird thing to say for a Storm fan.J-Storm wrote:Like M&B, I can't believe people are still banging on about this. It's been almost 12 months, it's water under the bridge, it's time everyone moved on, Storm fans jus as much as the NRL public in general...
Onlooker
I can't speak on behalf of all members from both 2007 and 2009, however I can confidently speak on behalf of the members from that time that I have regular communication with. Now you may be able to move on, however we actually and physically cannot. As supporters from those years, those two premierships mean a lot to us. We attenended the majority of matches, including all the finals and there is no way that we as individuals can forget and accept what we've been handed. You trust and echo the thoughts and advice from the current News Ltd appointed administration, however we are echoing the thoughts of the sacked four independent directors, the playing group from those years as well as our coach. It is this group of people that we indeed trust and respect, as we believe that these people are the ones who actually do understand the supporters pain from 2007 and 2009.
Articles such as this one from Fairfax journalists only go to strengthen our brlief. The fact that a News Ltd appointed administration are the ones insisting that we move on, in my eyes is a real conflict, given what is contained in not only this article, but many other independent ones that have surfaced.
I can't speak on behalf of all members from both 2007 and 2009, however I can confidently speak on behalf of the members from that time that I have regular communication with. Now you may be able to move on, however we actually and physically cannot. As supporters from those years, those two premierships mean a lot to us. We attenended the majority of matches, including all the finals and there is no way that we as individuals can forget and accept what we've been handed. You trust and echo the thoughts and advice from the current News Ltd appointed administration, however we are echoing the thoughts of the sacked four independent directors, the playing group from those years as well as our coach. It is this group of people that we indeed trust and respect, as we believe that these people are the ones who actually do understand the supporters pain from 2007 and 2009.
Articles such as this one from Fairfax journalists only go to strengthen our brlief. The fact that a News Ltd appointed administration are the ones insisting that we move on, in my eyes is a real conflict, given what is contained in not only this article, but many other independent ones that have surfaced.
And that is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'd just like to point out to you that I don't see myself as an idiot, just extremely passionate about this football club. However, I ask that you please be aware of the facts before you make such claims.onlooker wrote: I think the guy is an idiot. He has got himself into a lot of trouble over something that should never have gone this far, just because of fixed ideas and a that a relentless personal attack on the Storm CEO.
Good on the Storm for taking legal action, it may stop defamatory comments on social site including forums and the like.
Thanks:)
I know that some one who claims to love the club as much as you wouldn't further tarnishing the name of the Storm after all the extent of the name of the storm has already been tarnished by the actions you are making. Good luck with it, it's not doing the club any good however.JAMIE wrote:And that is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'd just like to point out to you that I don't see myself as an idiot, just extremely passionate about this football club. However, I ask that you please be aware of the facts before you make such claims.onlooker wrote: I think the guy is an idiot. He has got himself into a lot of trouble over something that should never have gone this far, just because of fixed ideas and a that a relentless personal attack on the Storm CEO.
Good on the Storm for taking legal action, it may stop defamatory comments on social site including forums and the like.
Thanks:)
There's a Storm brewing in Melbourne and it's forecast to hit Sydney on October 2
-
Diehard_Storm
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:28 pm
This is an insane comment. Who are you onlooker? Deadset you make me suspect your actually Ron himself j)onlooker wrote: I know that some one who claims to love the club as much as you wouldn't further tarnishing the name of the Storm after all the extent of the name of the storm has already been tarnished by the actions you are making. Good luck with it, it's not doing the club any good however.
I find it laughable to suggest jamie is tarnishing anything, other than maybe making a few people decidedly uncomfortable.
Whilst I don't agree with everything that people like Jamie have said in the past - I know and appreciate where they are coming from. From the heart.
All we want is full transparency in process. And whilst news ltd still own and run our club, but continue to act like things can conveniently be 'swept under the carpet', the more people like myself will dig in.
It does not mean we don't support the team any less than you. We want success and we want to move forward. But not by simply rolling over and accepting it.
If there's nothing to hide, why hasn't everything been disclosed in a full, frank and transparent manner? It stinks and the smell aint getting any sweeter.
