NRL Salary Cap/CBA -2023 - 2027

[MugaB]

On the surface to me it looks like the RLPA are looking for public support. For either pressuring the NRL or incase they strike.

So ONCE the decision got made they need to share all the details or they seem greedy or unreasonable.

Public sentiment, is that most higher end players like, DCE, Cleary, Munster etc get paid millions, the average punter does not... f**k em

 

[MugaB]

"let the bosses enjoy it" why do they need defending?

Why not, it seems like the world is upset with the bosses here, and these privileged players aren't getting their simple demands aheared too, they aren't getting their voices heard..
It feels very much a staged event to point out how they weren't consulted on how all this money going out was to be spent...
The fans will lose out on this, and the game will suffer for the RLPA dragging their feet with all these bullet points, it seems inevitable that if they strike, that the players will get looked upon as spoilt brats

 

[Timmah]

Public sentiment, is that most higher end players like, DCE, Cleary, Munster etc get paid millions, the average punter does not... f**k em

So you've named three elite players. What about the players on the edge of the top 30? Players on development contracts or train & trial contracts who aren't earning millions? f**k em?

 

[MugaB]

So you've named three elite players. What about the players on the edge of the top 30? Players on development contracts or train & trial contracts who aren't earning millions? f**k em?

Yep, dont be on the edge..... there's always someone on the edge, if those elite players with their millions of dollars are really caring for the on the edge folk they could fork out for them

 

[Timmah]

Why not, it seems like the world is upset with the bosses here, and these privileged players aren't getting their simple demands aheared too, they aren't getting their voices heard..
It feels very much a staged event to point out how they weren't consulted on how all this money going out was to be spent...
The fans will lose out on this, and the game will suffer for the RLPA dragging their feet with all these bullet points, it seems inevitable that if they strike, that the players will get looked upon as spoilt brats

The players are privileged, but the high-level executives and commissioners are not privileged. How does that work?

The only reason it seems inevitable the players will be viewed that way is because the biggest media organisations who cover the game - Fox/Tele and 2GB/Nine - are famously anti-union. They can sway public opinion quite easily (and are already doing so)

 

[Timmah]

The NRL guarantees all women's players will be covered in next month's All-Stars fixture, despite holding no contracts with clubs as the pay war intensifies.

Several high-profile men's and women's players took to social media on Thursday night to declare their unity and that the fight was about more than money, with the female game a key issue.

Players have already begun to boycott NRL promotions in protest, with the potential of skipping broadcaster content another future option.

Included in posts this week from some women's players were concerns they were uninsured until signed with a club, with the NRLW contracting window yet to open.

That fear carries into both pre-season training for the NSW Premiership, as well as the All-Stars fixture on February 10.

However AAP has been told all players will be insured when they take the field for All Stars, as the NRL holds a separate policy for representative games that covers all participants.

That policy is also said to cover players even if they do not have their own insurance outside of the game.

The news comes as Newcastle star Tamika Upton became the first high-profile player to pull out of the match in New Zealand.

Upton told News Corp this week that she feared risking an NRLW contract by playing, given a serious injury could rule her or any other player out for the season.

That is believed to be a concern for several players, who are also uneasy training for state competitions without NRL deals or full-time insurance locked in.

The NRL has long stated it is ready to unveil its 2023 women's draw and open the contracting window to allow players to sign deals, with the 10-team competition likely to start in July.

The Rugby League Players Association, however, is adamant that the contracting window should not open before the collective bargaining agreement is finalised to allow for multi-year deals and other matters outside of remuneration.

Women's players have been particularly impacted by the protracted pay talks, given they did not have a collective bargaining agreement like the men's to roll over from last season.

Insurance is also looming as a battleground in the men's and women's pay dispute.

In the previous CBA, the clubs paid for players' private health insurance and were hit hard on the fringe benefits tax.

The NRL's proposal for the next cycle includes the players paying for their own insurance as part of the increased salary cap, alleviating the tax ramifications on clubs.

That would be included in the game's $1.347 billion total player pool over the next five years, with the latter representing a 35 per cent increase on the last deal.

However, the union claims the inclusion of insurance and other financial matters, combined with the increase in players through the NRLW and Dolphins NRL franchise, does not equate to the 25 per cent revenue increase the game has experienced.

"The devil is in the detail," RLPA CEO Clint Newton told SEN this week.

"In the last CBA we only covered around 600 players, this one we are talking about 1000.

"When you increase at that rate, of course the amount that goes to players is going to go up."

Women's players insured for All-Stars

The NRL guarantees all women's players will be covered in next month's All-Stars fixture, despite holding no contracts...

www.northerndailyleader.com.au

 

[MugaB]

The players are privileged, but the high-level executives and commissioners are not privileged. How does that work?

The only reason it seems inevitable the players will be viewed that way is because the biggest media organisations who cover the game - Fox/Tele and 2GB/Nine - are famously anti-union. They can sway public opinion quite easily (and are already doing so)

World cup buddy its not about privilege, its common sense to let the game runners watch the sport at international level...
Media didn't sway me, the fact that might go to strike, already has me off... youre getting 5 times what i get on the work site, yet your bitching over the CBA, howbout figure it out behind close doors and roll out what these plans are for next year, how bout dont interrupt this forth coming year

 

[Timmah]

Media didn't sway me, the fact that might go to strike, already has me off... youre getting 5 times what i get on the work site, yet your bitching over the CBA, howbout figure it out behind close doors and roll out what this plans are for next year, how bout dont interrupt this forth coming year

Hot tip: the RLPA have never said the players will go on strike, that's the media - so yes, the media are swaying you.

The extent of any action so far is boycotting NRL.com headshots, which at this point isn't a particularly impacting anybody.

They tried figuring it out behind closed doors and clearly the NRL wasn't budging. And if you're suggesting they play with no CBA this year and just "leave it for next year" oh dear

 

[bad boy bubby]

So the players at the moment do not even pay for the own personal Health Insurance, their clubs do.
The NRL want them to pay their own Health Insurance (like the rest of us mere mortals), so the clubs can use that money elsewhere (maybe like on junior leagues???), and due to their increase in wages.
Are the players disputing the fact that they will now have to pay their own personal insurance?

 

[Timmah]

So the players at the moment do not even pay for the own personal Health Insurance, their clubs do.
The NRL want them to pay their own Health Insurance (like the rest of us mere mortals), so the clubs can use that money elsewhere (maybe like on junior leagues???), and due to their increase in wages.
Are the players disputing the fact that they will now have to pay their own personal insurance?

To me it seems clear that despite the "increase to the cap" player wages won't actually go up much (if at all) to cover players needing to do things like take out their own insurance, because the number of players has increased by some margin (due to the Dolphins coming in).

 

[bad boy bubby]

To me it seems clear that despite the "increase to the cap" player wages won't actually go up much (if at all) to cover players needing to do things like take out their own insurance, because the number of players has increased by some margin (due to the Dolphins coming in).

OK, once again, are the players disputing the fact that they have to pay for their own personal insurance?
Keep in mind, they would already be insured for anything to do whilst "at work". They are talking about the every day Health Insurance, not work related, that the rest of us have to pay ourselves.

 

[siv]

Reading through the RLPA's stuff it seems most of the sticking points are about protecting the players on the edges, not the ones earning the most coin.

Yet the CBA does not cover NSW Cup, Qld Cups, RMC, U21, U19 or U17 players or country/grassroots players

Only the NRL Top 30 and NRLW Top 25

 

[siv]

So the players at the moment do not even pay for the own personal Health Insurance, their clubs do.
The NRL want them to pay their own Health Insurance (like the rest of us mere mortals), so the clubs can use that money elsewhere (maybe like on junior leagues???), and due to their increase in wages.
Are the players disputing the fact that they will now have to pay their own personal insurance?

Its a taxation issue

It does just cost $X it actually costs $X plus FBT which goes to government

 

[bad boy bubby]

Its a taxation issue

It does just cost $X it actually costs $X plus FBT which goes to government

You aren't getting what I am asking.
I read that article and it looks to me like that the players are disputing that they aren't really getting that much of a pay rise because they are taking into account that they will now have to pay their own personal Health Insurance, which was previously looked after by the clubs.
That very same Health Insurance that the rest of us normal public people pay for ourselves. I could never imagine myself going into an employers office and saying:
"that pay rise you just gave me doesn't cut it as I have to pay for Health Insurance out of my pay. I end up with only a little more"
I'd look like a real fool if I did that.
Now I'm actually hoping I am seeing it wrong, and would happily be corrected if this is not the case. Hence why I am asking if this is happening, then I will form my opinion.

 

[Iamback]

Exactly. They want to be treated differently from the rest of us, and expect us to side with them.
They are obviously hearing from ex-players and "how hard they are done by"
Welcome to the real world to them.

How long until the game is broke if they are paying every ex players surgery until the end of time?

 

[Iamback]

If the administration are going to keep trumpeting revenue increases and profit, then they're telling the fans and players they kinda do.

That isn't the issue, So because they have profits it should all go to current and ex players?

No expansion ever, No money to invest in other areas of the game - Women's game in particular doesn't make much money.

Just to current and past players pockets?

I am all for the players getting their fair share but the game needs to be viable doing it

 

[Iamback]

You aren't getting what I am asking.
I read that article and it looks to me like that the players are disputing that they aren't really getting that much of a pay rise because they are taking into account that they will now have to pay their own personal Health Insurance, which was previously looked after by the clubs.
That very same Health Insurance that the rest of us normal public people pay for ourselves. I could never imagine myself going into an employers office and saying:
"that pay rise you just gave me doesn't cut it as I have to pay for Health Insurance out of my pay. I end up with only a little more"
I'd look like a real fool if I did that.
Now I'm actually hoping I am seeing it wrong, and would happily be corrected if this is not the case. Hence why I am asking if this is happening, then I will form my opinion.

That is how I read it, hence my questions to about what exactly are the players after.

 

[bad boy bubby]

How long until the game is broke if they are paying every ex players surgery until the end of time?

Thats why if they go by the laws of Australia and iCare Workers Comp, they are actually getting a good deal with the 12 month extra as it is. I would add in that any existing injury should still be covered, just like it is to you and I.
The problem is the injuries that may have been caused by playing but do not come to the surface until years later.
Under how iCare Workers Comp works, these would not be covered by the NRL as they did not happen whilst they were "at work". Only if the ex-player injures their own self at a new employer will it be covered.
If they wake up one day at home and this problem has occurred then I'm sorry they will have to deal with it the same as the rest of us.
This is what happened to myself, and I could say I got screwed by iCare, but they were in their rights as my injury did not "happen" at work, but at home. The cause was 100% because of long standing work related, this was not disputed, but that line was "it didn't happen at work".
Now I actually feel for the players, and get what they are trying to do here, the problem is how the law for every single one of us is structured, and they are looking to go beyond those laws. My feeling then goes towards them still thinking they are outside of what us public have to deal with every day.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

So you've named three elite players. What about the players on the edge of the top 30? Players on development contracts or train & trial contracts who aren't earning millions? f**k em?

This is the issue that the RLPA is always going to run into. They may well be working for these lower tier players but they use higher paid players as the face of the union.

The general public are always going to see them as rich people asking for more.

 

[Iamback]

Thats why if they go by the laws of Australia and iCare Workers Comp, they are actually getting a good deal with the 12 month extra as it is. I would add in that any existing injury should still be covered, just like it is to you and I.
The problem is the injuries that may have been caused by playing but do not come to the surface until years later.
Under how iCare Workers Comp works, these would not be covered by the NRL as they did not happen whilst they were "at work". Only if the ex-player injures their own self at a new employer will it be covered.
If they wake up one day at home and this problem has occurred then I'm sorry they will have to deal with it the same as the rest of us.
This is what happened to myself, and I could say I got screwed by iCare, but they were in their rights as my injury did not "happen" at work, but at home. The cause was 100% because of long standing work related, this was not disputed, but that line was "it didn't happen at work".
Now I actually feel for the players, and get what they are trying to do here, the problem is how the law for every single one of us is structured, and they are looking to go beyond those laws. My feeling then goes towards them still thinking they are outside of what us public have to deal with every day.

The years later part is what will destroy the NRL, Unless it is a set amount of money every player to ever train with an NRL side will be putting in claims.