Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Morkel, post: 2516137, member: 8215"] Well clearly you haven't argued with [I]me [/I]on the matter, otherwise you'd know by now that you are wrong... 'Notional' values has nothing to do with it. The values that count towards the cap (concessions & 3rd parties excluded) are what a player/club is willing to agree to in order for a player to play for them. Nothing notional about that. Even the cases where the auditor has had to step in, it was never about a notional value, it was because the player[I] was[/I] getting paid X dollars, but they were trying to get those payments cap-excluded via incorrect means. What will always sell it for me, the reason I am absolutely sure that the Storm would not have been held together if it wasn't for the rorting, is the example of Cam Smith. He was off to the Titans, no question. Nathan Friend was told to move on because they'd effectively signed him. It was only an 11th-hour counter-offer by the Storm that kept him in Melbourne, the increase in contract value we know now was outside the cap. Again, there is no 'notional' value about it. You could argue that Smith was worth, hypothetically, $750k to the Titans, while only being worth $600k to the Storm, because that's what each were willing to agree on in order for him to sign. But that's[I] not[/I] what they agreed on. Smith was [I]not [/I]willing to sign for that $600k. Otherwise he would have. Whatever he eventually signed for was what his cap value should have been. Without cheating, Cam Smith would not be at the storm. Whether he was enticed by illegal money to remain at the Storm, or bought from outside the club and paid overs off the record (as per your example), it's the same thing. Developing or buying a player, in this argument, is irrelevant. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now