totally! gh ear marked That cash for win bonuses for the lads. as seen as we played a team who cheated their way to the wcc the lads should be rewarded for their efforts as the storm default on the prize money for the win!

I'll bet Mr Eastwood had him in a head lock by 8.30 this morning demanding his cash.

Jamie Peacock will do the same about 12 midday tomorrow once he has chance to understand what has happened.

That sums up Gawy

But at least they will still have the moral high ground over other Super League clubs.

Bearing in mind they got to play this match, playing within the rules, unlike previous super league clubs before them.

The article only mentions stripping Melbourne of the cash. No mention of awarding it to other people. In fact, it would be in keeping with what Gary says about "winning on the day" for the money to be returned to the sponsors.

...but that is in a diffferent article altogether and is not what Gary Hetherington was either talking about or sugghesting.

That's right those Leeds mercenaries! not like the stains faithful who play for the love of the club! I bet soliola is pi$$ing himself, loads more cash than he can get in oz for a year off, some comfort for been injured? Gidleys no better! half a good season in the second half of 08. other than that crap for a marque player. Flannery average at best! Meli(does he count) less said about him the better.

If the RFL want somewhere to put the £50k prize money from the WCC then give it to the Rugby League International Federation to fund a development officer somewhere for a year.

Much more worthwhile than giving it to a team that got beat fair and square on the day.

Really?

Yes.

Leeds played Melbourne, 17 versus 17 on the field of play, and lost.

What Melbourne did to put that squad together and whether that breached the rules of another competition they play in doesn't affect the fact that they won the match.

of course it does, I agree about the money though.

That's a good call re-the prize money or put it into the Leeds rugby foundation.
As for calling getting beat fair and square how so if the team put together earned that right to contest the WCC by cheating?

What chance of any money ever been repaid to anyone. I don't know the finances at the Storm, but i suspect that there's more chance of them going into admin than repaying the aggrieved.

Give the money to charity

They are 50% owned by News Limited, and have the sort of funds that enable them to pay almost £200k per year over the salary cap for 5 years.

Getting £50k back out of them won't send them scuttling off to the poor house, unlike some clubs in SL I could think of.

Ouch i wonder if Adeybull will reply to that one AG!

Your statement contradicts itself. If they broke the rules to put the team together then in what way, shape or form is that fair? So you're saying that you can pull together any team you like but as long as you play to the rules [uon the day[/u, then all is good and happy?

As long as you play to the rules of the competition you are playing in, yes.

Does the WCC have a salary cap?

I wasn't aiming it at Bradford specifically.

I would suspect there are a number of SL clubs much deeper in the financial mire than the Bulls are and with much lower assets they could cash in if needed.

No but the Comp they won to earn the right to compete for the WCC does and they have cheated that system thus the knock on effect of been able to compete for the WCC.
Whichever way you look at it mate they "cheated" in a comp which has a direct effect on the WCC.

In effect, yes. The Super League has a salary cap, the NRL has a salary cap. To play in the WCC you need to win your respective competition. They haven't stuck to the rules of the NRL and as such did not play to the rules to get to the WCC.

So next time we're in the WCC, we could take a pick of the best players on British soil, register them in time and play them for the WCC and you would see this as being fair?

Shame really


Fair point overall there are only a select few who could afford such a hefty fine and payback demand.