Storm for Wooden Spoon - Betting Suspended
- Thread starter Flutterby
- Start date
- Status
robbie mustoe
QCup Player
- Mar 24, 2008
- 395
- 0
broncospwn said:
That's right. If the numbers are equal its fair game, regardless of all other factors.
Im off to play LeBron James 1-on-1 later. Expecting to win obviously.
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
LOL! I reckon I should be the next AUS captain, it's 1 on 1 so it shouldn't be a problem if I can't tackle, run, kick or pass anywhere near as good as even a reserve grader.
Or maybe I'll take on Roger Federer, should get even odds as well because after all it is an even game..
If it's xbox 360 tennis that is.
Or maybe I'll take on Roger Federer, should get even odds as well because after all it is an even game..
If it's xbox 360 tennis that is.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 30,193
- 19,228
The Brizz said:
Shittest isn't censored.
- Thread starter
- #946
Donny said:
BINGO!!!!! Football clubs are a business. Like any business they will try to pay their employees the least they can in order to keep them. If these players all wanted to stay at the Storm purely because of their 'love for the club' or 'love for one another', then the Storm would not have made arrangements to pay them overs - if the players would have stayed for less money, the Storm would have paid them less money.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
WOW...I laughed so hard at the responses I hurt my back. It seems most of the respondents are unable to consider things from any point of view not congruent with their own. Melbourne did not pay extra or buy players at high rates rather, as you all know, developed players. These players went up in value with the growing success of Melbourne. This you all know as well. By the way, calling my opinion retarded is uncalled for and I expect the admins to stamp out the abuse immediately. When I have been in error I have withdrawn my remarks and apologised so I expect to be treated the same.
Melbourne player values increased with the concomitant success they enjoyed and subsequently they were offered more money by rival clubs. Most Storm players chose to stay with Melbourne for a little extra rather than move for a lot extra. They could have earned more but stayed out of a sense of family and not having their every move scrutinised living a fish-bowl existence elsewhere. They stayed because they loved their lives where they were and playing for a club which meant a lot to them. I cannot see how you people do not understand that.
Melbournes' breaches are not major over the course of time and it did mean they paid their players a bit more than was publicly known. Those same players could have earned much more elsewhere.
Brisbane developed players who in turn were lost to other clubs however some stayed at Brisbane for less money than they could have made elsewhere. Melbourne has done the same. Brisbane retained some who stayed for the same reasons as stated previously in Melbournes case. Brisbane skirted the salary cap on occasion and poked a toe over at times as did Melbourne. The difference is Brisbane did not have a Whaldron who was prepared to push the limits so far and there's the rub.
What is retarded is thinking that my statements meant that any one person was as good as any one other person, a claim I did not make. Melbourne did not buy a team of superstars and pit them against some fat old pub junkies in thongs. Man on man. Melbourne created good players just like Brisbane did and does. Where they went wrong was at the administrative level.
Melbourne player values increased with the concomitant success they enjoyed and subsequently they were offered more money by rival clubs. Most Storm players chose to stay with Melbourne for a little extra rather than move for a lot extra. They could have earned more but stayed out of a sense of family and not having their every move scrutinised living a fish-bowl existence elsewhere. They stayed because they loved their lives where they were and playing for a club which meant a lot to them. I cannot see how you people do not understand that.
Melbournes' breaches are not major over the course of time and it did mean they paid their players a bit more than was publicly known. Those same players could have earned much more elsewhere.
Brisbane developed players who in turn were lost to other clubs however some stayed at Brisbane for less money than they could have made elsewhere. Melbourne has done the same. Brisbane retained some who stayed for the same reasons as stated previously in Melbournes case. Brisbane skirted the salary cap on occasion and poked a toe over at times as did Melbourne. The difference is Brisbane did not have a Whaldron who was prepared to push the limits so far and there's the rub.
What is retarded is thinking that my statements meant that any one person was as good as any one other person, a claim I did not make. Melbourne did not buy a team of superstars and pit them against some fat old pub junkies in thongs. Man on man. Melbourne created good players just like Brisbane did and does. Where they went wrong was at the administrative level.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
robbie mustoe.....Before you attempt to correct other peoples mistakes you might like to take the time to proof-read your own work and apply that towering intellect to the use of correct English. The following is a quote from you containing an error. Hint, it's in the last nine words of the second sentence . Just does not make grammatical sense.
the fact that they had the same amount of players as anyone else. It seems the magnitude of breaches we are talking about with the Storm can (and have) result in significant distortions.
Also, use of apostrophes needs improvement.[/quote]
the fact that they had the same amount of players as anyone else. It seems the magnitude of breaches we are talking about with the Storm can (and have) result in significant distortions.
Also, use of apostrophes needs improvement.[/quote]
- Mar 5, 2008
- 55,057
- 35,621
Is that really all you have to counter what I said? I guess I'm not doing to bad then.
But yeah. Do you remember when we beat the cheating team in 06. Again. That was pretty good.
PS. If you are too thick to get it. I'm not attempting to argue with what you're saying. Truth be known, I really don't give a flying **** what you have to say.
But yeah. Do you remember when we beat the cheating team in 06. Again. That was pretty good.
PS. If you are too thick to get it. I'm not attempting to argue with what you're saying. Truth be known, I really don't give a flying **** what you have to say.
robbie mustoe
QCup Player
- Mar 24, 2008
- 395
- 0
Huge. said:
You do not seem to understand the notion of a "salary cap" and its intended purpose.
A salary cap is intended to impose a constraint on clubs in terms of the money they can pay their players in an attempt to facilitate an EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF TALENT THROUGHOUT THE LEAGUE. Regardless of where talent was developed, paying your group of 25 players significantly more than the level permitted under the salary cap prevents this objective (that all the other clubs - as far as we know - comply with) from being achieved and thereby constitutes cheating.
That is the end of the story. Everything else you posted was completely irrelevant.
I would, however, like the pick out this passage:
"Most Storm players chose to stay with Melbourne for a little extra rather than move for a lot extra. They could have earned more but stayed out of a sense of family and not having their every move scrutinised living a fish-bowl existence elsewhere. They stayed because they loved their lives where they were and playing for a club which meant a lot to them."
That would have to be the most horribly incorrect and nauseating passage I have read out of everything associated with the Storm's salary cap scandal period. Awful stuff. "Loved their lives", "sense of family". Lol, get me a sick bucket and GTFOH.
FYI, using words like "concomitant" does not make your retarded opinions sound more intelligent.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 55,057
- 35,621
Oh God. Do you have any idea what your reply to this idiot is going to cause?
I'll tell you. It's going to cost us all some time out of our lives, just to realise that Huge has decided to go on yet another Kevin Rudd sized rant about an idea that popped into his head one day.
It's going to be far too long for most to read, and it's certainly going to be far too stupid for anyone to reply to.
I'll tell you. It's going to cost us all some time out of our lives, just to realise that Huge has decided to go on yet another Kevin Rudd sized rant about an idea that popped into his head one day.
It's going to be far too long for most to read, and it's certainly going to be far too stupid for anyone to reply to.
robbie mustoe
QCup Player
- Mar 24, 2008
- 395
- 0
Nashy said:
This is basically Huge's argument:
1) They didn't cheat by that much
2) They love each other
3) There is still only 25 of them, therefore its ok.
I cover everything off sufficiently Huge?
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
Mr Seldom Poster robbie mustoe, you covered everything off? whatever that means.....as I said(wrote) Melbourne cheated. Never disagreed. The salary caps purpose is not debated either. You are correct. My argument is sound and will stand examination.Initially melbournes players were paid correctly then they enjoyed success, is that not the case, is this something all agree on ???
In order to keep them Whaldron cheated by allowing them to be paid over and above what they declared, is this not an agreed and known fact ???
No, if you paid Cronulla 1.3 million extra it would not give them 10 cents worth of ability. If you were assembling a team to play for Cronulla and you had an extra 1.3 million to spend you could buy talent and have an unfair advantage but that is not what happened in Melbourne is it ??. Another fact all agree on.
If Cronulla were paid in exactly the same way as Melbourne were and continued to be unsuccessful it would be expected because they don't improve simply because you paid them more. Nashy , don't reply please. Simply abusing me proves nothing to me other than you lacking the capacity for reasoned debate.
In order to keep them Whaldron cheated by allowing them to be paid over and above what they declared, is this not an agreed and known fact ???
No, if you paid Cronulla 1.3 million extra it would not give them 10 cents worth of ability. If you were assembling a team to play for Cronulla and you had an extra 1.3 million to spend you could buy talent and have an unfair advantage but that is not what happened in Melbourne is it ??. Another fact all agree on.
If Cronulla were paid in exactly the same way as Melbourne were and continued to be unsuccessful it would be expected because they don't improve simply because you paid them more. Nashy , don't reply please. Simply abusing me proves nothing to me other than you lacking the capacity for reasoned debate.
- Status
