CBA signed; Salary Cap to Rise to $7 million by 2017

[flamin]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...y-cap-hits-seventh-heaven-20130513-2ji1f.html

The cap will rise from $5.85 million in 2013 to $6.3m in 2014, to $6.55m in 2015, $6.8m in 2016 and then $7m the following year. However, the CBA states that by March 1, 2015, the NRL and RLPA ‘‘shall jointly undertake a review of the profitability of the game with a view to ascertaining whether payments and/or allowances can be increased’’ for the final two years of the agreement. The clause effectively allows for the players to potentially benefit should additional cash flow into the game’s coffers.
The other key points to arise from the new CBA include:
■ Player payments for State of Origin appearances rising to $30,000 per game;
■ Player payments for stand-alone Tests involving Australia, England and New Zealand rising to $40,000 per match, with members of the the winning of the World Cup or Four Nations teams earning $50,000 ($40,000 for second and $30,000 for third);
■ The minimum wage will rise from $75,000 to $85,000 over the course of the agreement;
■ The minimum wage per NRL match is $3000 for players outside the top 25 squad;
■ Clubs will no longer be able to terminate the contract of a player who is ‘‘not playing the game or training conscientiously and to the best of his ability and skill’’.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...enth-heaven-20130513-2ji1f.html#ixzz2TE4Kzdvj

 

[Dogs Of War]

I thought this part was very interesting as well

The ongoing ASADA investigation has raised fears that players could be left out of pocket if the outcome causes a club - such as Cronulla, for instance - to fold. Those fears will be allayed under the new agreement, which states: ‘‘If a Club Licence Agreement is terminated by the NRL, the NRL will assume liability for the payment of the Playing Fee, Match Fees and any sums guaranteed or underwritten by the Club that was a party to that Club Agreement in relation to a Marquee Player Allowance or a Motor Vehicle Allowance which are due to each Player of that Club under any NRL Playing Contracts that are current and registered at the time of termination (not option years)’’.
The caveat is a player ‘‘accepts all reasonable direction from the NRL in relation to his future employment as a player at a replacement Club, which may be situated anywhere in Australia or New Zealand. The NRL will pay the costs of all reasonable relocation costs.’’


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...enth-heaven-20130513-2ji1f.html#ixzz2TE4mJo6M

 

[The Gambler]

I find it odd that a club can't terminate the contract of a player who is ‘‘not playing the game or training conscientiously and to the best of his ability and skill’’.

 

[gronkathon]

It is an odd one. But it also means a player can't intentionally dog it on hopes of being released and their may instead be financial provisions in contracts to allow for keeping that behaviour out

 

[Misanthrope]

That last clause shall be known as the 'Kirk Reynoldson Clause'. Apparently a player cannot be held accountable for their lack of ability or dedication anymore.

 

[Card Shark]

I find it odd that a club can't terminate the contract of a player who is ??not playing the game or training conscientiously and to the best of his ability and skill??.

They are making the game like a business but this is opposite to the way a business would operate. If you don't perform, you'll be gone, usually after a few official warnings.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I find it odd that a club can't terminate the contract of a player who is ??not playing the game or training conscientiously and to the best of his ability and skill??.

It's too subjective IMO.

Performance standards for athletes are pretty hard to judge.


You'd have clubs punting players left and right.

 

[herbert henry1908]

They are making the game like a business but this is opposite to the way a business would operate. If you don't perform, you'll be gone, usually after a few official warnings.

Except in business it's much easier to define a set of performance standards.

Sport involves more variables.

 

[Just This Bloke]

It's too subjective IMO.

Performance standards for athletes are pretty hard to judge.


You'd have clubs punting players left and right.

This was my first thought.

 

[Card Shark]

True

 

[DC_fan]

■ Clubs will no longer be able to terminate the contract of a player who is ‘‘not playing the game or training conscientiously and to the best of his ability and skill’’.

Could mean that we don't have as many long term contracts being signed.

 

[The Gambler]

It's too subjective IMO.

Performance standards for athletes are pretty hard to judge.


You'd have clubs punting players left and right.

This is true. But this is what happens in the NFL for instance.

It is about risk and reward - the players want the big BIG bucks, then they need to be held accountable if a team feels as if they are not earning their keep.

Just my opinion anyway.

 

[herbert henry1908]

This is true. But this is what happens in the NFL for instance.

It is about risk and reward - the players want the big BIG bucks, then they need to be held accountable if a team feels as if they are not earning their keep.

Just my opinion anyway.

So many players are signed on potential though.

If they don't live up to the hype , who's at fault?

 

[cleary89]

The bucks arent that big tho

 

[The Gambler]

So many players are signed on potential though.

If they don't live up to the hype , who's at fault?

Some portion of the contract could be guaranteed, with another portion incentive based. The forces the players to put in the effort and they want to achieve their financial goals.

I subscribe to the theory that a lot of players are underpaid currently - however I don't think they are entitled to hand outs either.

 

[The Gambler]

The bucks arent that big tho

No they aren't - but the players are always wanting more. But it also sounds like they want to sign big money contracts and then not worry about having to perform at their best.

 

[myanonymoususername]

I find it odd that a club can't terminate the contract of a player who is ??not playing the game or training conscientiously and to the best of his ability and skill??.

I thought that too, but in reality its probably just about unenforceable so they're not giving anything away really.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

Good to see test matches rate higher than origin. A step in the right direction

 

[Perth Red]

Disappointed that the min wage isn't going up more.

Wonder if nzrl can match those test payments, may see more players ditching NZ for Australia if not?

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

Disappointed that the min wage isn't going up more.

Wonder if nzrl can match those test payments, may see more players ditching NZ for Australia if not?

I thought it included NZ and England.. The way it is worded implies it does.

Player payments for stand-alone Tests involving Australia, England and New Zealand rising to $40,000 per match, with members of the the winning of the World Cup or Four Nations teams earning $50,000 ($40,000 for second and $30,000 for third);

I read that as any game that involves any of those 3 teams no matter what the combination is gets those payments.

If that is not the case it should have been worded differently.

The broadcast deal includes test matches so the players playing in those test matches no matter what team they play for should be eligible for those payments