A follow up to my comments regarding the NRL salary cap

so the comments and media continue to issue explosive statments about this incident. well here is the bottom line. the Melbourne Storm discoverd the rorts, not the NRL. the storm went the NRL and owned up to it. what happened after? the storm got reamed. now then, annother party that has seems to have escaped suspicion and accusation. thats the player agents. now they are the ones who negotiate and organize all the payments for their clients and even take a healthy 10-20% cut of the players income. so yes the storm did the wrong thing. but as i noted allaredy the penalties issues do not match the crime, based on previous penlaties. but it also sends the message that if you get caught by the NRL they will punnish you but wont have you hisotry for FOUR WHOLE SEASONS be eraised. but if you own up and say "look the people who were in charge did the wrong thing" they will take you to the cleaners. what can i say. News lmtd, thank you, you belive in the storm and what it stands for, but the NRL you have made it perfectly clear that you do not want the storm in your competion. and whats this, a nsw team allraedy to go should the storm fold? well isnt that a bit suspisous!

come on, i know i am sprouting conspiracy theories now but i seem to feel that the punishment is going the wrong way. criminal sanctions will follow for those involed quite possibly and the Players agents will probably be deregisterd. but the punishment to the players and the supporters, the innocent parties in this is unaccptable. punish those responsible not those who are also victims.

oh yeah. i am still behind the Purple fury 100% and will support them.

post script published 29 April 2010
so i heard a wonderful bit of commentary the other day. it was from the ABC. and they made the comment that if the NRL discovers a larger rort, but the team has not been as sucessful how do they make thier penalties equal and matching with precendnet. the contention is that this is where the key inconsitneices are coming from and i have to say that i agree. the precedent of a hard line approach was there. but the penalties do not match with the prior case history. i am a little bit disapointed that the MSRLC are not persuing this, but they are respecting the "referees" decsion.