General Sport Discussion (non-AFL)

Remove this Banner Ad

winged1 said:
Yeah wouldn't pay for it.

That has been everybody's game plan fighting mayweather, hasn't worked yet.

Mayweather would not have taken this fight if he didn't believe everything was firmly in his favour
Click to expand...

The difference is Mayweather wasn't 40 then and no one has had about a 9kg weight advantage on him before. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's a case of an amateur boxer fighting the best boxer in the world but it all depends on whether the ref is okay with letting the mix of styles making a fight and a half decent spectacle or is going to ref it like it is supposed to be two pure boxers and take points off McGregor left right and centre, break up clinches pretty much straight away and just let Mayweather have his run of it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mikey127 said:
Yeah I would go Bellamy over Bennett or Lethal personally because he has developed his own talent where as the Broncos just brought players and Lethal was a great coach but couldn't rebuild either of the teams he coached. Apart from 2010 Bellamy has not missed finals and even in 2010 he won enough games to finish about 4th or 5th and that was with a team playing for no points.

Another one to throw up along these lines could be Michael Voss v Cameron Smith
Click to expand...

This statement is completely nonfactual. The Broncos are perhaps the biggest developer of young talent in the NRL (and rightly so given they've had a whole state for the large part of their existence). Its actually pretty rare that they go out and buy gun players from other clubs, most of their lineup have been with the broncos since they were early teens. The Storm actually buy more players, albeit they tend to pick up value players who are underdeveloped or underutilised elsewhere.
 
mikey127 said:
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that just pointing out that cheating the cap doesn't give you a flag and that Bellamy and the players still worked very hard to win it.
Click to expand...

no doubt but if you're looking at the record you pretty much have to dismiss those years. If they had 1-2 million less per year at the very least one of Smith, slater, inglis, folau and probably a couple as well as a few others. Now that's not saying he wouldn't have done it as I think he's an excellent coach, but no doubt it would have been much harder.
 
Fatcat08 said:
no doubt but if you're looking at the record you pretty much have to dismiss those years. If they had 1-2 million less per year at the very least one of Smith, slater, inglis, folau and probably a couple as well as a few others. Now that's not saying he wouldn't have done it as I think he's an excellent coach, but no doubt it would have been much harder.
Click to expand...
in 07 we still win easily IMO. Only lost 3 games for the year, the most dominant NRL season I can recall in recent times
 
mikey127 said:
in 07 we still win easily IMO. Only lost 3 games for the year, the most dominant NRL season I can recall in recent times
Click to expand...
impossible to say really. You take Inglis, King and a Hoffman, Geyer or White out of that side for the whole season and GF and it gets a bit murky. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Perhaps they don't lure a player or two or re-sign a player or two because there's not quite the promise of a premiership on the table, maybe it doesn't matter. The knock on affect of not having one or two guns could have been massive to the makeup of the whole squad. Too many whatifs to say really.
 
Fatcat08 said:
impossible to say really. You take Inglis, King and a Hoffman, Geyer or White out of that side for the whole season and GF and it gets a bit murky. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Perhaps they don't lure a player or two or re-sign a player or two because there's not quite the promise of a premiership on the table, maybe it doesn't matter. The knock on affect of not having one or two guns could have been massive to the makeup of the whole squad. Too many whatifs to say really.
Click to expand...
You also gotta remember we don't know how many clubs were over the cap. Their was a lot of talk around at the time that the paper shereders were working overtime the day Storm got caught and whilst it doesn't make it right everyone was doing it and Storm is just the club that got caught, yes I know nothing was proven but there was plenty of speculation.
 
mikey127 said:
You also gotta remember we don't know how many clubs were over the cap. Their was a lot of talk around at the time that the paper shereders were working overtime the day Storm got caught and whilst it doesn't make it right everyone was doing it and Storm is just the club that got caught, yes I know nothing was proven but there was plenty of speculation.
Click to expand...
I know for a fact that multiple Broncos players received huge $$$ not included in the salary cap up until mid to late 2010 in the guise of services rendered that never were.
 
mikey127 said:
You also gotta remember we don't know how many clubs were over the cap. Their was a lot of talk around at the time that the paper shereders were working overtime the day Storm got caught and whilst it doesn't make it right everyone was doing it and Storm is just the club that got caught, yes I know nothing was proven but there was plenty of speculation.
Click to expand...

Speculation means nothing though. Melbourne were the ones who were caught. The rules were there to be enforced. Melbourne's executives deliberately and knowingly broke those rules to give their team a genuine and unfair advantage over everyone else. And any conspiracy theory regarding other clubs are baseless. It isn't as though Melbourne is the only club to have ever been caught breaching the cap so they were hardly singled out. Before the Storm, Canterbury were busted and after the Storm, Parramatta were caught. They also catch a bunch of lower level breaches every year. It is also worth noting that the owners of the Storm, News Limited, were also the 50% owners of the NRL at the time. If any club was likely to have a blind eye turned to dodgy dealings, it was Melbourne.

The salary cap in 2009 was $4.1M. Melbourne were proven (and admitted) to have spent $1M over that amount in that year. That's an advantage of significant proportions. It is a quarter of the cap. The players whose contracts were illegally inflated included Cameron Smith, Billy Slater and Greg Inglis - hardly journeymen of the comp. One of those players' contracts was registered to a value of $400,000, despite the Storm agreeing to pay them $950,000.

The sad part of all this is that perhaps the Storm were good enough to win the comp in 2007 and 2009 without the salary cap breaches. Perhaps Bellamy deserves to be a 3 time premiership coach. But the fact that the club (via its most senior executives) cheated to give the club an illegal and substantial advantage means that the players and coach were denied the right to be recognised as such.

None of this changes Bellamy as a coach. But it does change his record.
 
POBT said:
Speculation means nothing though. Melbourne were the ones who were caught. The rules were there to be enforced. Melbourne's executives deliberately and knowingly broke those rules to give their team a genuine and unfair advantage over everyone else. And any conspiracy theory regarding other clubs are baseless. It isn't as though Melbourne is the only club to have ever been caught breaching the cap so they were hardly singled out. Before the Storm, Canterbury were busted and after the Storm, Parramatta were caught. They also catch a bunch of lower level breaches every year. It is also worth noting that the owners of the Storm, News Limited, were also the 50% owners of the NRL at the time. If any club was likely to have a blind eye turned to dodgy dealings, it was Melbourne.

The salary cap in 2009 was $4.1M. Melbourne were proven (and admitted) to have spent $1M over that amount in that year. That's an advantage of significant proportions. It is a quarter of the cap. The players whose contracts were illegally inflated included Cameron Smith, Billy Slater and Greg Inglis - hardly journeymen of the comp. One of those players' contracts was registered to a value of $400,000, despite the Storm agreeing to pay them $950,000.

The sad part of all this is that perhaps the Storm were good enough to win the comp in 2007 and 2009 without the salary cap breaches. Perhaps Bellamy deserves to be a 3 time premiership coach. But the fact that the club (via its most senior executives) cheated to give the club an illegal and substantial advantage means that the players and coach were denied the right to be recognised as such.

None of this changes Bellamy as a coach. But it does change his record.
Click to expand...

Look a lot of what you say is correct but lets remember that Parra were let off far more lightly then us. I think its like the ASAD thing, as much as I can't stand Essendon I think they were just the club that got caught.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mikey127 said:
difference is the players weren't onvolved in the cheat only the admin were.
Click to expand...

I still find that difficult to believe, and doubly so for the agents involved. I accept nothing was proven but getting a bunch of random stuff paid to you (gift cards, home renos, boats, cars for partners) in lieu of salary would surely raise an eyebrow at a minimum which is the same standard people hold the Essendon players to.
 
dlanod said:
I still find that difficult to believe, and doubly so for the agents involved. I accept nothing was proven but getting a bunch of random stuff paid to you (gift cards, home renos, boats, cars for partners) in lieu of salary would surely raise an eyebrow at a minimum which is the same standard people hold the Essendon players to.
Click to expand...
yes but if you are told its part of your package then why would you be suss.
 
mikey127 said:
Look a lot of what you say is correct but lets remember that Parra were let off far more lightly then us.
Click to expand...
Were they? The primary difference is that Parramatta were allowed to accrue points once they got under the salary cap. But they lost all points in that year and were stripped of whatever titles they had won during the breach period. Fundamentally, the punishments were the same - it is just that Melbourne had more to lose.
 
POBT said:
Were they? The primary difference is that Parramatta were allowed to accrue points once they got under the salary cap. But they lost all points in that year and were stripped of whatever titles they had won during the breach period. Fundamentally, the punishments were the same - it is just that Melbourne had more to lose.
Click to expand...
Parra were allowed to play for points, they also had no titles to be stripped.
 
mikey127 said:
Parra were allowed to play for points, they also had no titles to be stripped.
Click to expand...
They were allowed to play for points once they had their salary cap under the limit. It was conditional. They got their salary cap under control by the end of round 9 and so were allowed to play for points after that. Melbourne weren't given that option admittedly but I'd argue that they would have struggled to reduce their wages by over $1M during the course of that season anyway so it is probably a moot point.

That Parramatta had no titles to be stripped (other than the Auckland Nines) doesn't change the fundamental nature of the punishment. That's like saying two offenders got 10 years jail time but the bloke with a really awesome life got a worse punishment than the homeless guy. One might feel worse than the other but it is still the same punishment.
 
Well that's a hell of a trade...

Kyrie Irving's next cross-over will come against the Cavaliers.

Cleveland's All-Star guard, who asked owner Dan Gilbert to trade him earlier this summer, was dealt Tuesday night to the Boston Celtics in exchange for star Isaiah Thomas, forward Jae Crowder and [Brooklyn's] 2018 first-round draft pick, a person familiar with the deal told The Associated Press.
Click to expand...

http://www.nba.com/article/2017/08/...s-discussing-isaiah-thomas-kyrie-irving-trade
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top