0
It would have to be seen as a very token penalty if the offenses were anywhere near as heinous as alleged - does tend to indicate that they were in fact just differing interpretations, especially in conjunction with O'Neill's comments below.
------------------------------------------------
"But he [O'Neill] said he believed there was a distinct misunderstanding about what constituted "protocol".
He said the ARU must work "with the states on tidying up some of the perceived grey areas where people think there is a bit of ambiguity, as to what is a protocol and what is a guideline and what is a convention".
"Protocols … they were in place when I was [last] here. We brought them in '96 and '97 basically to save the Brumbies," he said. "Because the Brumbies got away to a good start on the paddock, NSW and Queensland were going to flex their muscles and wipe them out."
O'Neill said those protocols included a player salary limit of "$100,000 to $105,000" and all deals being ratified by the ARU. This led to the creation of a standard player contract and a collective bargaining agreement with the players' union. (Except that I'm sure I saw $150,000 quoted for Lote)
He said "the only third-party deals were those approved by the ARU, and the only deals permitted [then] where those done with ARU-compatible sponsors. Much of the thrust of those conventions hasn't changed".
The ARU, O'Neill added, must "spell out plainly that these conventions are actually protocols and have been around for a while"." (Maybe it's just me, but actually calling it a protocol would have probably been a good start)
--------------------------------------------------
But best of all, they are still not rules - who can forget:
"Under ARU rules, the Super 14 provinces are not allowed to solicit third-party agreements, although sponsors are permitted to approach players directly. The ARU used its discretion to waive this rule for Tuqiri because it was feared he would be lost to rugby league."