I was initially completely in agreement with this pov, but now I'm really undecided. They would have had to lose more than 8 points initially, but to have absolutely nothing to play for is a powerful disincentive for both the team and the fans. They are already going to have a very tough ride surviving from here, and dwindling crowds will be a heavy kick to a club already on the floor. Keep in mind this is a city in which we really need a presence, and the Storm have made great inroads there.
What about the fact that one team in the comp has absolutely no motivation to win games this year? If Melbourne's on field performance goes arse up, how is it fair some teams to get 2 easier games (the Dogs and Cows for example both play the Storm twice in the next few weeks) while some teams only got to play them once, while they were strong (the Dragons for example). You can argue that the Sharks represent a similar problem, but the NRL is not directly to blame for the Sharks ineptitude.
Obviously the NRL had to be seen by the northern teams to be very very tough on this, and I think a concern about it's core support was behind the punishment, but I think they could have found a way to keep the Storm competitive this year, while also doling out a punishment that would be acceptable to the other teams.
How about a loss of 14 points, and an inability to accrue any more points until they offload enough players to be under the cap?