Oh dear indeed.
You seem to be a tad confused between 3rd party and extra-cap payments.
You also don't seem to be aware that if the player could end up at any club that this what the High Court has ruled against. Restricting players and clubs negotiating directly is a clear restraint of trade. It's illegal, not allowed, naughty.
I fail to see where club members came into it at all.
Your final line sums it all up really. It's a restraint of trade.
Im a little bit lost as to the debate in the thread re salary cap, but will weigh in with a layman's opinion. If contested the cap would be quashed. Just my opinion. Im pretty sure 5 out of 10 legal eagles would agree.
The issue lies in the "purpose" of the cap. What is it meant to achieve, and by doing so does it breach the ability of those under the cap to maximise their potential.
1. Protecting the interest of the NRL.
2. Reasonableness in reference to the parties.
3. The interests of the public.
Here is a very intersting paragraph for those whom have an interest.
A ‘level playing field’ is a fundamental aim of the salary cap. However, when considering the results of the regular season and the Final Series it is debatable as to whether the salary cap has achieved this goal.
The results illustrate that from 1979-89, ten years prior to the salary cap’s introduction, the Premiership was shared amongst five clubs. In the ten years following the salary cap’s introduction, this increased to seven teams. This is only a superficial analysis and fails to take into account the increase in teams during this period from ‘12… in the 1970’s to a peak of 20 in the mid-1990’s’ which might account for the higher pool of clubs experiencing Premiership success.
Other factors could be considered as indicative of a more level playing field, like the number of draws, greater propensity for a team finishing in the bottom half of the ladder one year, to rise to the top half of the ladder the next and the spread of points scored and conceded between teams.
None of these however have differed markedly in the post, compared to the pre-salary cap era. Indeed, there is little agreement as to methods to evaluate the evenness of competition with differing results dependent on the measure used. This suggests that perhaps the salary cap has not led to a more even competition.
Many will say the cap has saved clubs from extinction.
In my humble opinion, the cap hasn't saved anyone from extinction without the governing body dipping into their pockets.
This is only one part of a very complex puzzle when it come to salary caps and one more example of its fragility below.
For players, the starting position must be, that prima facie, the salary cap restricts their ability to maximise their earning capacity playing rugby league in Australia; their choice trade.
It could also be argued that the salary cap prevents players moving to their choice club. This was demonstrated in the case of Brett Kimmorley when he wanted to join the St George-Illawarra Dragons due to his club, the Northern Eagles, being unable to fulfill their contractual obligations.
While St-George Illawarra was willing to remunerate Kimmorley similarly to the Northern Eagles, the move could not happen because of St George-Illawarra’s position under the salary cap.
The situation was resolved by Kimmorley moving to the Cronulla Sharks and having to sign a reduced contract. This scenario clearly illustrates a situation where a player had ‘to reduce his income [and] also [had] to choose another employer’.
These arguments are persuasive as to why the salary cap is an unreasonable restraint of trade in regard to the players. The restraint becomes even more questionable when it is remembered that such restraints are extremely rare for any other profession.
[/B]
Food for thought.
