How long will the Salary Cap last?

[ngap]

It seems the Players association is going to challenge it if it doesn't get rasied and other things in the next collective bargaining agreement.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/p...ry-cap-in-court/2006/03/04/1141191887185.html

 

[Stranger]

*sigh*

 

[Hurriflatch]

Simply put if ever challenge in any sport the Salary Cap like the draft will be deemed illegal.

 

[melon....]

Simply put if ever challenge in any sport the Salary Cap like the draft will be deemed illegal.

The salary cap IS illegal. Its effectively a restraint of trade. When Politis threatened to take the NRL to court over it, you all jumped and cried. Politis or anyone challenging it would win in a canter. It is not legal. Its only a matter of time. I mean the NRL use aa different excuse for it. Firstly its to protect clubs from going broke, then the credit the "close" comp to it. It does neither. It punishes success. It demotes loyalty. The cap needs to go, or at least be raised by 1 million. We are a professional sport. Lets start acting like it.

 

[Perth Red]

Given that a number of sports around the world (including the biggest ie NFL and NBA) operate a salary cap I find it hard to believe it is illegal. Surely it is a condition of membership of the NL. Clubs do not have to adhere to the salary cap but if they don't they willl lose their membership.

The salary cap is doing a great job (7 different GF winners in 7 years, what more could you ask for?)

Given the recent report about the state of most club's finances it would seem the salary cap is needed more now than ever before. Agreed the salary cap needs to be increased in line with inflation but does your heart really bleed for footy players on 2-450 grand a year?

 

[Cletus]

So Politis was challenging it in the interest of League? Spare me the self interest.
I'm all for players getting paid more. But the problem is that the only players who are goiing to get paid more are the players who are involved in a bidding war between clubs. The first players who should be sorted out by an increase in the salary cap are those on the base wage. That's where I'd like to see the salary cap increases used. Let's face it, there are plenty of players on the fringe of first grade who aren't going to make it and who will have very little to show after their NRL careers. They should be the first people looked after by increases in the cap. Not in-demand players.

 

[melon....]

So Politis was challenging it in the interest of League? Spare me the self interest.
I'm all for players getting paid more. But the problem is that the only players who are goiing to get paid more are the players who are involved in a bidding war between clubs. The first players who should be sorted out by an increase in the salary cap are those on the base wage. That's where I'd like to see the salary cap increases used. Let's face it, there are plenty of players on the fringe of first grade who aren't going to make it and who will have very little to show after their NRL careers. They should be the first people looked after by increases in the cap. Not in-demand players.

Politis was looking after himself...LIKE EVERY OTHER CLUB WOULD DO and like YOU and I would do. Stop kidding yourself. Clubs look after themselves first. But he has support from other CEO's. Doust from Saints was one. You see, when sides purchase, build or otherwise acquire depth, youth and experience, why should they prop up the dud clubs...eg Souths, by being forced to release so many good players? **** the cap and **** dud teams that go broke or cant win games.

 

[bartman]

Punsihes success my arse. Success is how well you continue to manage a club within the rules, not a sucessful club getting greedy or believing it deserves more.

How does the salary cap not promote an even competition? That's it's sole purpose, and if some clubs are willing to break it or whinge about it then it must be doing well!

Without it (or by raising it) the richer clubs will be able to keep everyone they want as well as buy more stars from clubs that can't afford inflated prices. Then we'll have the same few teams sharing the premiership honours between them, and what reason would anyone else have to have hope at the start of a season?

Onan makes a good point that it's the lower paid players that should benefit from any increase, not the prima donnas with slimy managers trying to milk the life out of the game. But you won't hear many clubs will go into bat for that, because there's no "success" in it for them.

 

[Cletus]

Very food point Melon. Clubs look after themselves.
The reason why the salary cap was introduced was because a lot of clubs couldn't compete with the money being paid for players by other clubs. It was a catch-223, they could either try to pay the money the top clubs could pay and go broke, or they could not pay that money and go broke because they couldn't get the sponsorship that the top clubs got.
There are 14 other clubs in the comp at the moment. As much as I want them all to get the spoon, it's far more interesting if they are competitive.
The cap should be made so that the most financially destitute club can still compete.
Maybe Easts (Sydney, Roosters) can start their own comp. They can get the spoon and a premiership after playing one game and a final against Newtown.

 

[Hurriflatch]

The reason other sports haven't had any problems is because the clubs have agreed that they will not challenge it

just like in other sports they have a draft but in RL due to Terry Hill it's been ruled illegal if anyone from the NBA, NFL, NHL or AFL challenged their sport's draft the same result will happen.

Just like if anyone from NRL, AFL, NHL, NBA, NFL etc challenged their sports salary cap it would be proven illegal.

While I don't agree with anyone challenging the cap because I think it does more good then harm, regardless of if it's Politis, the players or another club the fact remains that it is a restraint of trade and is therefore illegal and it's only a "Gentleman's agreement" between all parties that the cap hasn't been challenged in the courts.

 

[Cletus]

Hurrifalch said:

just like in other sports they have a draft but in RL due to Terry Hill it's been ruled illegal

Please explain.

 

[Razor]

Given that a number of sports around the world (including the biggest ie NFL and NBA) operate a salary cap I find it hard to believe it is illegal. Surely it is a condition of membership of the NL. Clubs do not have to adhere to the salary cap but if they don't they willl lose their membership.

No the NFL and the NBA clubs realise it's best for the game to have a salary cap. They also have the draft for the same reason. Remember if other clubs suffer, they also suffer.

The salary cap, like the draft is illegal.

 

[Razor]

Hurrifalch said:


Please explain.

There used to be a draft in the ARL competition. In the early-90s Hill was drafted to Wests. But he wanted to play for the Roosters. So he took it to court(with the support of the Roosters) and won.

 

[Cletus]

There used to be a draft in the ARL competition. In the early-90s Hill was drafted to Wests. But he wanted to play for the Roosters. So he took it to court(with the support of the Roosters) and won.

He's a dirty dog.
I'm sure the Roosters could win a legal action on restraint of trade. As far as I understand it, that's how Souths got back in.
I still don't think certain clubs should be able to bid as much as they want on selected players. It's not in the interest of the majority of clubs.

My understanding of restraint of trade was that it was based on the constitution and the states. As far as I understand it it was based on resticting trade between states, and allowing the states to compete on a level playing field. And zero to do with football and whether teams survive.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Politis was looking after himself...LIKE EVERY OTHER CLUB WOULD DO and like YOU and I would do. Stop kidding yourself. Clubs look after themselves first. But he has support from other CEO's. Doust from Saints was one. You see, when sides purchase, build or otherwise acquire depth, youth and experience, why should they prop up the dud clubs...eg Souths, by being forced to release so many good players? **** the cap and **** dud teams that go broke or cant win games.

Why should other clubs prop up your disgrace of a club by producing juniors? Go ahead, tell us how many of your top 17 played in the Eastern suburbs JRL or were unwanted by other clubs? Ryan Cross, that's about all you have. He's **** and looks like a mongie anyway.

So like I said, why should clubs like Souths who actually produce juniors (like Craig Wing and Braith Anasta) have to prop up your filthy, sickening club.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

BTW, I love the fact that some of you think the salary cap would be thrown out of court the day it was challenged. It simply isn't the case.

 

[humpy]

Why is it that success both on and off the field needs to be punished so we can look after the lowest common denominator??

Should it not be a case of having the poor performers (on and off the field) have to bring their game up to what probably 75% of the clubs in the comp can manage.

While I agree that their should be a cap for the clubs to stop clubs spending above their means, and all contracts divulged so their is no uncertaintity, why on earth should we include 3rd party contracts under the cap.

You could probably go through every club and pick 1 - 5 welathy supporters that would be happy to provide private sponsorship to marquee players, and by including this under the cap, we are just discouraging them from being sponsor of the club as well as sponsors of the players.

Look at the ridiculous situation of Benji last week, when he did an ad for a sponsor (and to promote league), but could not get paid for this exposure as the company was already a sponsor of the club and any payment would be included under the cap and run the risk of going over.

While there are exemptions under the cap, there is too many and no one is sure who gets what. If a player can earn more money outside of his club contract, then good on him as this is what we should be promoting.

 

[Sharkie™]

the cap should be raised to atleast 5 million with small increases as the game grows to reach about 7 million, if u have a cap of 7 million that could deffinatly stop the whole clubs bitching about not having enough money or players being dissloyal because they know they arent going to get what they are worth if they stay at a particular club.

but of course the raising to 7 million totally depends on the climate at the time and the finanical state the game is in. i think the league has the financial capactiy to raise the cap to 5 million a club as clubs are doing alot better financially now then say 5-6 yrs ago.

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

didnt the nrl say that it cant afford to run the league if the cap was increased a little?

 

[jed]

the cap should be raised to atleast 5 million with small increases as the game grows to reach about 7 million, if u have a cap of 7 million that could deffinatly stop the whole clubs bitching about not having enough money or players being dissloyal because they know they arent going to get what they are worth if they stay at a particular club.

but of course the raising to 7 million totally depends on the climate at the time and the finanical state the game is in. i think the league has the financial capactiy to raise the cap to 5 million a club as clubs are doing alot better financially now then say 5-6 yrs ago.

Increasing the cap to $7M won't look after the majority of players, it will be used to increase the salaries of the marquee players.

What is needed, rather than the cap being increased across the board, is for clubs to be given concessions for players that have been at the club long-term (reduce it from 10 to 8 years, and allow concessions on up to 5 players), as well as adding incentives for clubs to use locally produced players.