NRL Salary Cap/CBA -2023 - 2027

[siv]

How would NRLW Maternity Leave work in RL or in other sports?

 

[Captain Apollo]

If my job was only a job because those "outside individuals" chose to spend money watching me do that job I'd probably be bit more understanding. Especially if I'm in my 20s earning money my 'skills' could never achieve in the real world.

Of course never forget these lads can quit the entertainment business tomorrow and be f**ken no one's again earning average wage any time they like.

Oh yea. All professional rugby league players are on contracts paying them a few hundred thousand a year None of them are ever paid the code's minimum wage, which is (IIRC) under A$100,000 p/a.

Also by that logic, you are effectively syaing in any field where people pay to watch others perform entitles them to a say in that person's emplyment entitlemnets means professional tennis players, basketball players, golfers, actors can all be dictatde to by fans when something happens they don't like? I mean, really?! What next, fans vote on who should be in the starting side next week? Sorry but your logic on this point is rather ridiculous.

 

[Captain Apollo]

How would NRLW Maternity Leave work in RL or in other sports?

Well they have maternity leave in women's cricket and in women's basketball to name two I know of.

 

[snickers007]

How would NRLW Maternity Leave work in RL or in other sports?

Maybe paid leave not counted in the salary cap? Allows them to be replaced, but still paid.

 

[Colk]

Couldn’t find many comments which supported their views

everyone was saying they could cut the cap and pay for all the extras they were asking for or just pay for it out of their wages

I don’t have a problem with all that. But they have to give something back. It’s a negotiation.

 

[siv]

Well they have maternity leave in women's cricket and in women's basketball to name two I know of.

Interesting read

CA and the Australian Cricketers Association (ACA) have been working on the policy for two years and it came into action earlier this year. Alongside 12 months of parental leave, players who fall pregnant will be guaranteed a contract extension for the following year. Other points include:

• Players who have a partner who gives birth will be entitled to three weeks paid leave upon the birth or adoption of a child
• At any time after giving birth, the player can return to the game subject to medical clearance
• Travel support for players who are primary carers including flights, accommodation and other applicable travel expenses for the child and a carer will be available until the child is four years of age.

 

[Iamback]

I don’t have a problem with all that. But they have to give something back. It’s a negotiation.

Fair to me is say x% is the players share,
That includes NRLW, salary cap, Expanded injury cover etc. take less cap to pay for it

 

[Colk]

Fair to me is say x% is the players share,
That includes NRLW, salary cap, Expanded injury cover etc. take less cap to pay for it

Good point.

 

[Wb1234]

Fair to me is say x% is the players share,
That includes NRLW, salary cap, Expanded injury cover etc. take less cap to pay for it

Exactly

players negotiate this huge dollar increase then say they want extras on top

so they are asking for a huge increase in their share of funds despite how they are trying to portray it as anything but about money

 

[Iamback]

Good point.

12 months seemed like a fair blanket rule, Not sure you can find one. So let the players decide who gets it but it shouldn't come at the expense of funding to other areas

 

[Timmah]

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

Your simple level of comprehension is astonishing.

How you jumped all the way to "profits going up must mean all that extra money goes to players" from what was said is just wild. It screams of either not understanding the situation, or not wanting to have an honest, reasoned debate.

Either way, I'll explain it - the players deserve a percentage of the increase in revenue. According to the RLPA, what's currently on offer is below the historical average which means they aren't getting that increase.

 

[Wb1234]

Your simple level of comprehension is astonishing.

How you jumped all the way to "profits going up must mean all that extra money goes to players" from what was said is just wild. It screams of either not understanding the situation, or not wanting to have an honest, reasoned debate.

Either way, I'll explain it - the players deserve a percentage of the increase in revenue. According to the RLPA, what's currently on offer is below the historical average which means they aren't getting that increase.

What he said was spot on imo

i dont even believe the players on that calculation of revenue

they already agreed to a figure for the salary cap

this is just a power trip which is undermining the game

and an attempt to take money from other areas because they know the arlc is making profits

 

[Timmah]

What he said was spot on imo

i dont even believe the players on that calculation of revenue

they already agreed to a figure for the salary cap

this is just a power trip which is undermining the game

and an attempt to take money from other areas because they know the arlc is making profits

This is just shows you haven't read anything about what the RLPA is campaigning for - and if you have you're choosing to ignore it because it doesn't suit your world view.

 

[Iamback]

Your simple level of comprehension is astonishing.

How you jumped all the way to "profits going up must mean all that extra money goes to players" from what was said is just wild. It screams of either not understanding the situation, or not wanting to have an honest, reasoned debate.

Either way, I'll explain it - the players deserve a percentage of the increase in revenue. According to the RLPA, what's currently on offer is below the historical average which means they aren't getting that increase.

So what is the % they are after?

 

[Iamback]

This is just shows you haven't read anything about what the RLPA is campaigning for - and if you have you're choosing to ignore it because it doesn't suit your world view.

You are doing the opposite, You don't like current management. So your default position is players are in the right. The limited details we have aren't enough to make a decision either way

 

[Timmah]

So what is the % they are after?

It was in one of the RLPA twitter threads I posted a few pages ago while responding to you. Did you actually bother to read it? Aren't you the one who wants more details?

Here:


---

Also, whoever said the players agreed to the Cap is perhaps not paying attention either:

 

[Iamback]

It was in one of the RLPA twitter threads I posted a few pages ago while responding to you. Did you actually bother to read it? Aren't you the one who wants more details?

Here:


---

Also, whoever said the players agreed to the Cap is perhaps not paying attention either:

Ah but it isn't about money though

That fixes the 12 month cap on injury coverage how?

 

[Timmah]

You are doing the opposite, You don't like current management. So your default position is players are in the right. The limited details we have aren't enough to make a decision either way

Not necessarily, I just don't think the debate in its current format is healthy. Noel Cleal and Ben Elias' "back in my day" routine doesn't help anyone, nor does 2GB hosts going hard against the very players they'll no doubt want to be interviewing every weekend from March to October.

I think the right result here is likely somewhere between where the two parties sit, but at the moment on the information available I don't think the players are being offered a fair deal.

 

[Timmah]

Ah but it isn't about money though

That fixes the 12 month cap on injury coverage how?

Capewell's quote literally points out that it's not just about the money.

 

[Iamback]

Not necessarily, I just don't think the debate in its current format is healthy. Noel Cleal and Ben Elias' "back in my day" routine doesn't help anyone, nor does 2GB hosts going hard against the very players they'll no doubt want to be interviewing every weekend from March to October.

I think the right result here is likely somewhere between where the two parties sit, but at the moment on the information available I don't think the players are being offered a fair deal.

On the surface it seems like that BUT what are they after exactly. It is hard to see the reason middle atm, even with the players social media campaign