Cantebury Bulldogs Win! (1 Viewer)

[ohwhenthesaints]

Noun: fact
1. A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
2. A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
3. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed
4. A concept whose truth can be proved

You continue to say you know for a fact that the rape occured, well guess what buddy, your witholding evidence and thats an offence, so quicksmart, get to your local police station and let them know your 'facts', because i for one do not want rapists roaming our streets and becoming idols for young children.

Now can you quit with the "i know for a fact a rape occured" you imbeciles..... you can asssume what you like, got nothing wrong with that, but saying that you know for a fact the incident occured is deadset moronic.

Hahaha. I am witholding evidence???? Haha. I don't go to the police because when I do, the particular sponsors who passed on the information deny it and the administrators who passed on the information deny it. Does that stop me knowing that it happened? No. Same reason this particular sponsor didn't go forward. Firstly they were told after the investigation was concluded, and secondly the administrators would deny the conversations ever happening. If you can provide an explanation for certain former administrators contacting sponsors and telling them that a rape HAD occurred, if in fact it hadn't, I would love to hear it. Until then I will continue knowing for a fact that it happened.

 

[Shifty]

You cant be serious man, no one can know for a fact rape occured unless they were there and saw it happen, now were ur "administrators" and "sponsors" there?, or did they got told by the players????.... Poor reasoning dude, ive come to expect better off you.... Oh well just re-affirms that you should never hold high expectations of anything to do with the Stain George Dragqueens ay...

 

[ohwhenthesaints]

You cant be serious man, no one can know for a fact rape occured unless they were there and saw it happen, now were ur "administrators" and "sponsors" there?, or did they got told by the players????.... Poor reasoning dude, ive come to expect better off you.... Oh well just re-affirms that you should never hold high expectations of anything to do with the Stain George Dragqueens ay...

Hang on, hang on. So to know something for a fact you have to have been there and seen it? How can any criminal jury decide that someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then? And does that mean everything I read in the newspaper is only speculation? Alot of things came out at their infamous "truth meeting". I will add to your job of explaining why the administrators would lie to sponsors. I now need convincing of why it was in the player's best interests to tell management they had gang raped a girl if in fact they hadn't at all???????

As for your last point, well I can't really disagree with you there. Latham and Howard are both 'Saint George Dragons' supporters and I'm not expecting much of them. Similarly you learn not to expect too much when following the 'Saint George Dragons', especially when alot of your players are injury prone, overpaid and overrated, and the club isn't run professionally. We will one day though, one day, one... day.... Oh well, at least we have a good team on paper

 

[nerd2die4]

nope, not right. el masri got the try because he still had momentum, so it wasnt counted as a double movement. if the tackle stopped and then he reached out, it wouldn't have been a try.

edit: i'm replying to tistula's post, about the double movement in goals.

 

[timbk2]

if he were properly held in goals in the first place, he wouldnt have been able to jump out and plant the ball as he did.

 

[theone123]

damn that gif image is hectic

 

[Suney_J]

If these 11 or 12 weren't being paid extra, their money would have come from the rest of the squad. The fact that the rest of the squad had their full contracts listed under the cap does not mean a thing.

it wouldnt mean a thing if they were all still playin with the club, but the fact that 8 of those 12 overpaid players no longer play with the club is very significant! combine them with the other players that also left, and together it made it possible for the club to keep its players

They were being paid above their market value, which was made possible by the cheating, and also meant that when the Bullcheats were caught, they were able to take "cuts" back to their actual value.

first you said there was no way the Bulldogs could assemble their squad if they didnt cheat, and now you're saying they were being paid above their market value? these two statements contradict eachother, and just shows your talkin BS, and also shows even if we didnt cheat it was still possible to assemble our current sqaud because as i said above 8 of the 12 overpaid players left aswell as other players, and that wouldve even made it possible to stay under the cap in 2002

In 2002 the Dog's had the following players in the sides selected in Round 15:
1ST GRADE: Patten, El Masri, Utai, Anasta, Sherwin, Hughes, Mason,Feeney, Perry, Grimaldi.
RESERVE GRADE: Thurston, Asotasi, Maitua.
FLEGG: Sonny Bill-Williams
O'Meley was injured
Add Ryan & Tonga and there is the 17 from the grand final 2004.
So 15 players WERE at the club in 2002 plus Price

oh please, sonny bill was playing Flegg, there was no was he in the top 25 paid players in 2002, the same goes for maitua, and we gained tonga at a low price (as you mentioned earlier)

I like it how you break up my sentences to put them out of context. I don't think any of us missed the point? We stated that he was in fact well known. If Brian Smith his coach had realised this, the club would have made a bigger offer which would have increased his value. I know Saints were very interested but already had Gaz and Coops, oh and that salary cap thing. You said he wasn't well known, we said he was. How is that missing the point?

i break up your sentences so i can show exactly what im replyin to!
Tonga made himself WELL-KNOWN this year (it really took-off in rd 13 against the roosters when he gave hodges a footy lesson), if you compare his popularity last year to this year you will understand my point, and because people knew of him last year but wasnt WELL-KNOWN the Bulldogs were able to offer a relatively low offer (as you mentioned earlier and was my whole point)

 

[ohwhenthesaints]

it wouldnt mean a thing if they were all still playin with the club, but the fact that 8 of those 12 overpaid players no longer play with the club is very significant! combine them with the other players that also left, and together it made it possible for the club to keep its players

Kind of my point, will be explained below.

first you said there was no way the Bulldogs could assemble their squad if they didnt cheat, and now you're saying they were being paid above their market value? these two statements contradict eachother, and just shows your talkin BS, and also shows even if we didnt cheat it was still possible to assemble our current sqaud because as i said above 8 of the 12 overpaid players left aswell as other players, and that wouldve even made it possible to stay under the cap in 2002

No, there is no way you would have been able to assemble your current squad (2004 squad which includes Price, Thurston, Scott, Hutch etc). Yes, during the time you were cheating the salary cap you were paying players above their market value. Because of that, you were able to keep them even after you actually stopped cheating, because they had already gotten more money than they would have anywhere else and therefore were willing to accept reduced deals. Why wouldn't a club like Souths do the same thing? Build a strong squad through cheating, paying all players more than they would get elsewhere. Then, if they get caught, they sacrifice that year and win the premiership 2 years down the track. They do this by keeping virtually all their top players on 'reduced' contracts and then cut any un-needed players and reserve graders. Sounds better than fighting off the wooden spoon every year.

My main 2 points are:
1) Bullcheats were not effectively punished by the NRL as they won 2 years later with virtually the same squad (even though you tried to claim it was a completely different team)
2) The Bulldogs squad would not have been assembled if they didn't cheat the cap. The talent at the club would have probably been spread amongst 4 clubs.

I don't see how you have disproved either of these points? You keep saying you sufferred because you lost all these players (you always seem to include Price even though he was there all year) but not many other sides except possibly the Rorters could have a Kiwi international running around in PL for most of the year, as well as Thurston. Not bad for a side struggling to hold onto players after being caught cheating! The cap will start to bite next year (surely you can't resign a back row of Willie Mason, Andrew Ryan AND Sonny Bill), although you already have your premiership, so it was all worth it.

oh please, sonny bill was playing Flegg, there was no was he in the top 25 paid players in 2002, the same goes for maitua, and we gained tonga at a low price (as you mentioned earlier)

Your point?

i break up your sentences so i can show exactly what im replyin to! Tonga made himself WELL-KNOWN this year (it really took-off in rd 13 against the roosters when he gave hodges a footy lesson), if you compare his popularity last year to this year you will understand my point, and because people knew of him last year but wasnt WELL-KNOWN the Bulldogs were able to offer a relatively low offer (as you mentioned earlier and was my whole point)

A little pedantic and a little off topic. Although I agree, he is more popular this year. He obviously didn't give Hodges the best lesson because he still has no idea. Perhaps more an exhibition? I'm sure we could go on picking one word out of each post but who can be bothered?

 

[Suney_J]

My main 2 points are:
1) Bullcheats were not effectively punished by the NRL as they won 2 years later with virtually the same squad (even though you tried to claim it was a completely different team)

this is where you're wrong! (now it feels like im goin round in circles)

there's a BIG difference between our 2004 25 man sqaud and 2002 25 man squad, because the club lost most of the players whose salaraies were over the cap plus even more players. Now considering we were over the cap by $700K in 2002, the loss of those players made it possible to keep our 2004 squad and PROVES it would of easily been possible to be under the cap in 2002 with our 2004 squad since most of the 'overpaid' players wernt there this year

so quite simply;
(2002 squad) - (most players over cap + others) = 2004 squad and under cap

you seem to think that losing these players is no big deal, but losing the burden of having to pay them is very significant because it makes it possible to keep other players

2) The Bulldogs squad would not have been assembled if they didn't cheat the cap. The talent at the club would have probably been spread amongst 4 clubs

see above

A little pedantic and a little off topic. Although I agree, he is more popular this year. He obviously didn't give Hodges the best lesson because he still has no idea. Perhaps more an exhibition? I'm sure we could go on picking one word out of each post but who can be bothered?

call it what you like, but 1 thing's for sure, Hodges is a slow learner!

 

[ohwhenthesaints]

this is where you're wrong! (now it feels like im goin round in circles)

Lol that's exactly how I feel every time I reply. We're just going back and forth, both basically using the same arguments each time. How about agreeing to disagree? Because nothing you say is going to make me believe any different, and I can't see anything I say changing you're mind. I understand where you're coming from though, if I was in your position I'd probably be defending my team just as strongly. Anyway, regardless of how you're team was assembled, you were the best team in the comp this year, all year, without doubt. Congratulations and enjoy the victory. Look forward to arguing with you sometime soon, hopefully about something different though. Need to spend more time studying and less arguing with you.

call it what you like, but 1 thing's for sure, Hodges is a slow learner!

LOL I'll pay that

 

[Suney_J]

How about agreeing to disagree?

ok agreed.

 

[happyme]

i soooooo wanted the bulldogs to LOSE : ( too bad roosters lost.

Good work on bulldogs, they did well chasing back.