1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2007 Premiers - Is It Time For Recognition

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by bob dylan, Mar 7, 2012.

  1. bob dylan

    bob dylan Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +6,440 /192
    Just putting it out there for comment.
  2. Shoe1

    Shoe1 Well-Known Member

    +7,210 /106
    Yes. I hate how souths count the 1909? forfeit as one of their premierships. They betrayed balmain that day by showing up and kicking off, when the clubs had agreed not to play as the gf as a curtain raiser to a rugby match.

    Our 2007 effort against cheats is like the recent tour de France decisions, or Olympic cheating decisions.
    • Like Like x 1
    • bones

      bones Bones Knows

      +9,037 /102
      That would mean giving Parramatta the 2009 premiership so I say leave it as is.
    • globaleagle

      globaleagle Je saisis mon chapeau. Staff Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

      +13,346 /117
      I think so, and I guess parra for 2009 then as well.

      This is what happens in the olympics, tour de 'farce' and many others.

      Nrl chickened out there I reckon, as you speak to anyone associalted with the storm and they'll all say..."we know we won those premierships."

      To say "Oh we wont award a premiership" is a slap in the face for all the other hard working teams and a get out of embarrassment free card for the storm.

      In the years to come the record will always show 'no premiership awarded" and I think that's a bad thing.

      The usual argument against it being "well what about the teams that the storm beat to get there?" is outweighed by the need to have a consistent record of champions plus the removal of any storm excuses, eg "Well they say we didn't win but they didn't award it to anyone else did they? eh eh eh!" (plus and said above the fact they all still think they won it.) That and they still do it for the olympics and cycling and you don't hear 48th place complaining that second gets moved into first.

      the end.


      edit: Just saw that shoe1 said what I wanted to in much fewer words (damn these slow typing fingers - ha!)
    • Moondog

      Moondog What's up Darth? Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

      +5,271 /51
      In most other sports when a competitor has been caught cheating the runner up is then declared the winner. I don't see it happening while Gallop is still around though.
    • Dan

      Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

      +7,736 /120
      I say forget about it and move on
      • Like Like x 1
      • jbb/james

        jbb/james Well-Known Member Premium Member

        +1,493 /35
        I dont like it. The storm knocked out some worthy contenders during the final series, stopped another team from finishing in the 8. Any number of teams could have beaten Manly on there day. Remember 1997

        I believe Manly should have been given the minor premiership as that is beyond doubt, but there are too many variables to award the title

        For once the NRL has done the only thing they could of
      • DSM5

        DSM5 Well-Known Member

        +516 /0
        I hate it when I hear TV dickheads talk about premiership winners like Smith, as though they won anything fairly. "As a premiership winning captain Cameron blah blah". Daley is one of the worst offenders.
      • Cameron

        Cameron Cambo

        +669 /35
        I think the 2007 and 2009 final series should be deemed null and void.
        The minor premiers of those years should be deemed premiers.
        2007 - that would be manly because Melbourne cheated and 2009 st George.
      • firechild

        firechild Active Member

        +65 /0
        Agreed. In reality Manly probably deserved to win it in 2007 more than Parra did in 2009 but grand finals are funny things, they often don't go as expected. The difference between a finals series and a race is that in a race there are clear and distinct fnishing places as opposed to teams being beaten by different teams at different times. The minor premiership however, is more like a race. They could do it one of 2 ways, remove the Storm and award it to 2nd place (Manly) or award 2 points for every team that lost to Melbourne during the season and Manly would still come out on top. I wouldn't mind seeing Melbourne hand over $200,000 to Manly for '07 and '08 either.
      • DSM5

        DSM5 Well-Known Member

        +516 /0
        The minor premiership is worth 100 grand to the club. Gallop should pay up to the clubs that fairly finished 2nd behind the salary cheats. Did the NRL demand that money back? Probably not.
      • Dan

        Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

        +7,736 /120
        This I think is reasonable. each of the clubs that finished second, should therefore be given the minor premiership, but not the grand final. I don't want our name on the trophy for a game we lost, no matter the reason we lost it
      • DSM5

        DSM5 Well-Known Member

        +516 /0
        Agree here Dan. If we demand it the Parra will get the same. Hate the Slime. But we didn't win it on the playing field, even if it wasn't level..
      • Matabele

        Matabele Well-Known Member

        +516 /14
        Totally agree. I'd rather forgo a Premiership than have the Eels have one in the modern era.
      • MK Eagle

        MK Eagle Well-Known Member

        +247 /0
        Maybe the financial side but losing 07 made Manly that much stronger & determined winning 2 since then including the record 40 - 0 against the Storm the following year. If not for the 07 loss the Seaeagles would not have massacred them by as much in 08 so theres retribution there imo. After 2012 theres a 3rd since 07 so lets go foward.
      • WAMF

        WAMF Well-Known Member

        +408 /0
        I'll have it this way too, thanks.
      • eagles2win

        eagles2win Well-Known Member

        +494 /0
        Here's one from left field, apparently (an article is floating around)the '95 GF dogs side had about 4-5 players that didn't have a registered contract with the ARL. Which should have deemed it illegal[hr]
        This is some what contentious. When do you guys consider 'modern era'?

        For me it's limited tackles and many others - so under that definition they've won 4
      • anthonyb1965

        anthonyb1965 GO Manly Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

        +893 /25
        That beat us in a game of Footy albiet over the salary cap, who in their team from those games that are not there now would have changed that outcome?

        Leave it as is, give the losing teams the prize money. We are still the best team over the last 5 years!!

        GO MANLY
      • Eagles Terrorist

        Eagles Terrorist Active Member

        +32 /0
        Does anyone know what name, if any, is on the trophy for 2007 & 2009?
      • Mark from Brisbane

        Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

        +19,665 /383
        AGREE 150%

      Share This Page