How long will the Salary Cap last?

[Johns Magic]

In years past I've been against raising the salary cap because I knew it would single-handedly destroy my club. But now that our financial future has been secured I'm beginning to see it a bit differently. If all clubs can afford to do it now, then I see no reason why the salary cap shouldn't be increased.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

I say lets have another super league war and create a new competition. RNRL. Rooster-less National Rugby League.

 

[nqboy]

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.

Yeah, I accept it's probably illegal but it's for the good of the game, something the rich have trouble understanding.

 

[nqboy]

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.

Wrong. I have the good of the game as my first priority. I guess that's just the difference between you and me.

 

[Dr Crane]

Raise it. Don't eliminate it. We'd have something like the Superleague (the UK one) on our hands. Its hard to believe they have a cap.

 

[nqboy]

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.

I don't agree that an upper limit will ever satisfy everyone. There will always be a Chelsea, or a Politis and packer backed Roosters, that think that (financial) might is right. The only difference between Chelsea and the Roosters is the the amount of they can afford.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

I am a multi-trillionaire. I go for Manly. I will buy every international and let them play for Manly. We win 10 comps in a row.

Boring comp.

 

[nqboy]

I say lets have another super league war and create a new competition. RNRL. Rooster-less National Rugby League.

What, instead of the National Roosters League as it is now?

 

[nqboy]

I am a multi-trillionaire.

Can I be your friend? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[LRC]

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.

Youve got that the wrong way around.
Hill was picked by the roosters to play with them but the magpies who were bank rolled by Jim Masterton and had Warren Ryan as their coach wanted Hilland Hill wanted to play with the Ryan so they took the ARLto court.Now the Magp[ies and other clubs are less financialthena the formerly struggling roosters , everybody wants a draft.

Stuff that...nobody remembers when the roosters were struggling and had poor administration during the 80s.
Instead of wingeing and bitching trying to bring the rest of the field back to them , they overhauled their complete operations to be able to compete with the one team towns and the Manlys and Canterburys who were controlloing the game to suit their needs.
Their was a report commisioned along time ago(I think it was the Kevin Humphries era) basically saying that teams need to change or else they would die while Canberra and the Broncos set the standards ..yet so many teams just sat back and done nothing and some did change and stayed competetive.Noone complained when Trigaboff bankrolled the Tigers.Or when Moore and Arko used to offer players rep tours to play at the dogs or Manlyand they pillaged roosters or wests players or other poorer clubs.

Yet you all see the roosters as some kind of ogre who has always had its own way... bugger that.They made huge changesin the early 90s and have spent loads of money trying to keep rugby league alive in the city against the swans and warratahs ...they deserve all the success they can getand someof the lesser clubs need to have a look at themselves and get there act together.

What we do need is an administration bloody draft and for someCEOs to recognise that the leagues club is there to fully fund the football team and not their CEOs lifestyle((like the former roosters boss Ron Jones)

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

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.

It was the other way around, he was drafted by the Roosters and wanted to play for Wests.. Which was until he wanted to play for Manly and before he wanted to play for the Tigers, which was before he wanted to play for Souths but eventually decided he would prefer to be back at Manly. :roll:

 

[nqboy]

Succinctly put.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Interesting article here about the NFL Salary Cap and the prospect that it could be on the way out.

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18355930-23210,00.html

 

[Razor]

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.

Nothing to do with states. It's to do with companies(football teams) having rules set that are trade related(player movement) by another body(NRL) that prohibit them from performing to their potential.

 

[Kiwi]

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.

Thats a bit rich when one considers the roosters idea of "developing" players and increasing their depth and improving their roster generally consists of buying talented players from other clubs. The only reason you are against the cap is because the roosters are nothing more than chequebook champions.

It's funny how it seems to be mainly Rooster boosters calling for the cap to be ditched, I guess like their club, they don't care how they win the comp, just as long as they win it, even if it means buying it.

 

[Fairfax]

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.

Nice work, but I think you'll find it was the other way around. Why did Hill go to Wests the moment the case was decided and stay there?

Don't let your Rooster hating get in the way and post a retraction will you?

 

[lotm]

the people here who are claiming that the salary cap is blatantly illegal and wouldn't stand a chance if challenged in court are being naive (or ignorant). the phrase being bandied around as evidence of its illegality is 'restraint of trade'. that's not entirely true. the way the courts will approach the issue is not as shallow as that. as with most aspects of the law, reasonableness is a key issue.

the people who also use the draft example may not realise that it was only successful on appeal to the full federal court - and not because it was merely a restraint of trade, but rather because it went too far as a restraint and had the effect of not allowing the players to choose for whom and where they worked. and in the judgment, the court emphasised that there would be circumstances where such a scheme would be justified.

i think that an important issue that will be considered if the cap is taken to court is the evenness of the competition. a restraint of trade that has the practical effect of levelling competition (as the nrl cap does) would be considered more reasonable than one that didn't. another issue is that the salary cap isn't being used in conjunction with another restraint of trade (e.g. a draft).

overall, it's a very complicated issue that is certainly not as clear as some posters (probably through ignorance) would have you believe. imo, if the cap is challenged, there is enough evidence to support its reasonableness.

 

[ngap]

It is not black and white but the NRL will also have to refute the players who claim they had to go overseas to continue their profession, the lack of salary increases because the cap hasn't been raised for so long, comparison of wages with other similar professions and not being able to go into 3rd party agreements.

 

[lotm]

players who claim they had to go overseas to continue their profession

that's part of the prima facie case of the cap being a restraint of trade (of which there is no doubt) - nothing to do with reasonableness, which is the key issue in the case.

the lack of salary increases because the cap hasn't been raised for so long

actually, concessions have been increased. but that may be an issue as to its reasonableness.

comparison of wages with other similar professions

that's got nothing to do with anything.

not being able to go into 3rd party agreements

wtf? the only third party agreements that aren't allowable under the cap are those with club sponsors (for which there are $100 000 worth of concessions for two players). otherwise, they're completely legit.

 

[ngap]

that's got nothing to do with anything.

By using examples who were forced out to other sports because of the salry cap and the salary cap is artificially keeping peoples wages down from these levels is where this comes into it.

wtf? the only third party agreements that aren't allowable under the cap are those with club sponsors (for which there are $100 000 worth of concessions for two players). otherwise, they're completely legit.

Doesn't matter who they are with, if they are banned they come into it.

As I said, it isn't black and white and yes it is a balance but there is going to have to be a very good arguement why the cap has only raised from 3.25 in 98 to 3.366 this year.