How long will the Salary Cap last?

[lotm]

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

that's an extremely long bow to draw.

plus, i'm not sure how many people have switched from league to another sport for the money.

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

you see, this is the reasonableness issue again.

i'm not sure you understand the issue completely.

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

i'm sure the nrl has much more information on the respective financial positions of each club and their ability to sustain an increase in the salary cap than you or me or the players association.

 

[ngap]

plus, i'm not sure how many people have switched from league to another sport for the money.

Start looking at union

you see, this is the reasonableness issue again.

i'm not sure you understand the issue completely.

I understand what you are saying but the level of restraint has to be balanced off by the resonableness. So everything that can be shown to be a limit on the earning power of a player will come into it.

i'm sure the nrl has much more information on the respective financial positions of each club and their ability to sustain an increase in the salary cap than you or me or the players association.

True but they are also imposing this onto clubs that are in a position to sustain an increase in salary.

 

[lotm]

Start looking at union

you mean where players go to increase opportunities to play at higher levels, or have the challenge of mastering a different sport?

name one player who's gone to union for the money.

I understand what you are saying but the level of restraint has to be balanced off by the resonableness

how many sponsors do clubs have? 8? 10? how many businesses are there that would be willing to sponsor a high-profile athlete? the restraint isn't as big as you make it out to be.

True but they are also imposing this onto clubs that are in a position to sustain an increase in salary

absolutely, but doesn't the well-being of the competition come first? the evenness of the competition is what distinguishes us from the majority of sporting competitions in australia. that's a key selling point of our game - in fact, it's the basis of our entire marketing strategy for this season.

btw - i appreciate you helping me illustrate my point that this salary cap issue isn't as black & white as some posters think - we both have legitimate, supportable arguments.

 

[nqboy]

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.

If you're going to base your arguments on facts rather than opinions, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

 

[chunk]

The cap must stay for all reasons stated above and besides thats what the fans want.

The League has got it right.

Any extra money from revenue should go to Junior Development and general development of the game in key areas.

I would like to see our great game expand through sound structures and plans put in place which require money.

 

[ngap]

you mean where players go to increase opportunities to play at higher levels, or have the challenge of mastering a different sport?

The exact questions that would come up in a court case and once again players like [SIZE=-1]Tuqiri, who will say pay was part of the reason. Not the total reason.

[/SIZE]

how many sponsors do clubs have? 8? 10? how many businesses are there that would be willing to sponsor a high-profile athlete? the restraint isn't as big as you make it out to be.

Well the roosters have over a hundred by their website and a similar number on the sharks website.
Use of company cars in exchange for appearances at marketing meetings and the like are common things that companies would be willing to do

absolutely, but doesn't the well-being of the competition come first? the evenness of the competition is what distinguishes us from the majority of sporting competitions in australia. that's a key selling point of our game - in fact, it's the basis of our entire marketing strategy for this season.

So you are then saying that anti-competitive collusion between companies is allowed, so we bring in the ACCC as well as the TPA.
The sooner Australia brings in legislation that recognizes the difference between sport competitions and other businesses the better, as is in place for some sports in the US.

 

[STEVE R]

The NRL should be by 'invitation only'. By accepting the invitation, you agree to follow all the rules as set out by the NRL.

This would enable a salary cap, draft, and whatever else they wanted to include for the good of the game.

 

[ngap]

You can't break the law with contracts.

 

[nqboy]

The NRL should be by 'invitation only'. By accepting the invitation, you agree to follow all the rules as set out by the NRL.

This would enable a salary cap, draft, and whatever else they wanted to include for the good of the game.

That's always been my question. Would this be against the law?

 

[lotm]

The exact questions that would come up in a court case and once again players like Tuqiri, who will say pay was part of the reason. Not the total reason

is there some article that i'm missing? did lote ever say money was even a partial reason?

Well the roosters have over a hundred by their website and a similar number on the sharks website

still a fraction of the number of potential sponsors. besides, the only players who'll benefit from third-party sponsorships are high-profile players, who can hardly claim that their the subject of an unreasonable restraint of trade.

regardless, this merely goes towards its nature and extent of the restraint, and can still be countered by the court's determination of its reasonableness.

i'm getting dizzy.

So you are then saying that anti-competitive collusion between companies is allowed, so we bring in the ACCC as well as the TPA

wtf? i hate it when people put words in my mouth - especially when they're bull****. the uniqueness of sport has been recognised at common law.

 

[OVP]

I think there can be an easy compromise and there doesnt even need to be a raise in the cap to achieve harmony.

The cap was designed to stop clubs going broke was it not ? So if thats the case then why do they stop players looking after themselves by doing ads and stuff for advertisers who WANT to be a part of the game?. The NRL is punishing themselves and also reducing potential sponsors by forbidding players to do this.

Simple solution ... allow players to do anything they want for sponsors who WANT them to be a part of their business and everyone wins. Perhaps players can then donate 10% of their fee for avertising monies earnt into a Trust fund for the players themselves. This fund would help ALL players ... i.e. they can use it for players on the verge of retirement or seriously injured players to be re-trained in other areas of employment etc.

The NRL shouldnt have the right to forbid any player to make money. This is not China or Cuba. Perhaps if they allowed this to happen, then no player would want to leave for England or Yawnion and in the end everyone wins. Then they wouldnt even need to raise the Cap perhaps.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

The cap was designed to stop clubs going broke was it not ?.

Yes in part. The other thing it is supposed to (and is) is levelling out the field. close competition and to make it far harder for teams to buy a team.

You keep jocking for change on this, but why?

Is change really needed? NO. The comp is in the best state it ever has been.
Is the cap going it's job? Yes, most squads compare well.

I don't see the problem in increasing a small amount on the cap as planned. I don't see a problem in rewarding loyalty.

Frankly a more serious effort should be made to stop teams hoarding junior talent. How would you feel about that OVP? That's the one area you are still legally exploiting the cap at the Roosters.

 

[OVP]

You keep jocking for change on this, but why?

Why ? Because how would you feel if the Govt passed a law that you werent allowed to have a second job yourself, and couldnt make extra money on the side, and were only allowed to have just one job to live on and support your family on ? Rugby League is the ONLY job where this happens. If you cant see how its wrong, then thats not my problem. We DONT live in a communist country, so why do we allow something this unjust to happen to our players ?

The Salary Cap is a false reality anyway. How is having a different premier every year different to having the same premier every year ? Quite frankly its just as boring.

 

[Perth Red]

A salary cap must serve two purposes
1. To stop clubs going broke
2. To create an even competition

for me the NRL has acheived both of these and should be applauded.

wasn't their a finacial report out recently about the finacially perilous state of a number of NRL clubs?

 

[Balmain_Boy]

What a surprise it's only the Rooster's fans after abolishing the cap. Blatant self interest.

 

[Garts]

I think there can be an easy compromise and there doesnt even need to be a raise in the cap to achieve harmony.

The cap was designed to stop clubs going broke was it not ? So if thats the case then why do they stop players looking after themselves by doing ads and stuff for advertisers who WANT to be a part of the game?. The NRL is punishing themselves and also reducing potential sponsors by forbidding players to do this.

Simple solution ... allow players to do anything they want for sponsors who WANT them to be a part of their business and everyone wins. Perhaps players can then donate 10% of their fee for avertising monies earnt into a Trust fund for the players themselves. This fund would help ALL players ... i.e. they can use it for players on the verge of retirement or seriously injured players to be re-trained in other areas of employment etc.

The NRL shouldnt have the right to forbid any player to make money. This is not China or Cuba. Perhaps if they allowed this to happen, then no player would want to leave for England or Yawnion and in the end everyone wins. Then they wouldnt even need to raise the Cap perhaps.

I can see why the NRL dont allow players to have deals with club sponsors, if they allowed them to do whatever they want it is just a open invitation to rort the cap imo.

 

[Razor]

That's always been my question. Would this be against the law?

Yes it would be.

 

[Razor]

So if thats the case then why do they stop players looking after themselves by doing ads and stuff for advertisers who WANT to be a part of the game?

They don't. However if the company also sponsors the club then it needs to be part of the salary cap. That is common sense, as otherwise clubs would tell sponsors "Instead of giving us $500,000; give us $400,000, and the other $100,000 to John Doe who'll do a small advert for you so it doesn't look suss"

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Yes it would be.

How so?

 

[Razor]

How so?

Because the conditions of entry that they'd impose are a restraint of trade. Same as if Telstra impose certain conditions on other companies using their network - also a restraint of trade.