NRL Salary Cap/CBA -2023 - 2027

[Diesel]

“Given there are about 750 NRL and NRLW players, the $3 million in funding equates to roughly $4000 a year for each player. If the funding was withdrawn, players would, presumably, need to pay a similar amount each year.

It is unlikely all players would choose to join the RLPA if they had to pay fees, so the union would need to increase that amount to fund its operations.
The RLPA has baulked at the $15 million on the table for the next five years and wants closer to $20 million to cater for the increased number of players involved in the expanded NRLW competition.”

If the NRL offered $20m, they’d say it’s not enough and want $25m.

 

[Maximus]

If the NRL offered $20m, they’d say it’s not enough and want $25m.

Well apart from the fact that they are just asking for pre-Covid funding despite going from managing 20 teams to 27 in that time.

 

[Perth Red]

If the NRL offered $20m, they’d say it’s not enough and want $25m.

You do know they got more funding pre covid?
And that they are now covering more clubs and plAyers on nrl and nrlw?

bit again the decision on how much of the players fund goes to the rlpa should be up to the players, not the nrl. It’s their money.

 

[Iamback]

You do know they got more funding pre covid?
And that they are now covering more clubs and plAyers on nrl and nrlw?

bit again the decision on how much of the players fund goes to the rlpa should be up to the players, not the nrl. It’s their money.

It is $100k off each teams cap.

If the players want more why can't they fund it directly?

 

[Wb1234]

You do know they got more funding pre covid?
And that they are now covering more clubs and plAyers on nrl and nrlw?

bit again the decision on how much of the players fund goes to the rlpa should be up to the players, not the nrl. It’s their money.

If each player had to choose between keeping the 4K that gets taken out of their wages or they got to keep it how many do you think would choose the rlpa ?

Ryan matterson sat out 3 nrl games rather than pay a fine of a similar amount

 

[Chimp]

It is $100k off each teams cap.

If the players want more why can't they fund it directly?

The way it is worked currently, on proposed numbers, the membership fee is the equivalent of $4k per year per player ($3m divided by 750 players).
If the NRL decided to scrap the current funding model, and just added the $3m to the cap and put it over to the players to pay their $4k each, I bet they’d struggle to even get 50% membership.

 

[Chimp]

If each player had to choose between keeping the 4K that gets taken out of their wages or they got to keep it how many do you think would choose the rlpa ?

Ryan matterson sat out 3 nrl games rather than pay a fine of a similar amount

We posted the same thing almost simultaneously

 

[Maximus]

It is $100k off each teams cap.

If the players want more why can't they fund it directly?

The way it is worked currently, on proposed numbers, the membership fee is the equivalent of $4k per year per player ($3m divided by 750 players).
If the NRL decided to scrap the current funding model, and just added the $3m to the cap and put it over to the players to pay their $4k each, I bet they’d struggle to even get 50% membership.

This has already been explained. Pre-covid the funding was $4m which was made up of 100k from each of the 16 teams and then the NRL paid image rights up to a total of $4m in funding. During covid, the total funding dropped to $3m (so the amount the NRL paid for image rights dropped by $1m). Post covid, the NRL want to keep total funding at $3m, which is resulting in an actual decrease in payments for image rights of 100k due to the extra team. This is despite the RLPA now being responsible for 11 extra teams.

The players can increase the amount that they contribute, but all that does is reduce the amount that gets paid for image rights. If the contribution is doubled to 200k for every team, that results in them giving away their image rights for free as total funding would be over $3m.

How is there anyone here that thinks that is reasonable?

 

[Iamback]

The way it is worked currently, on proposed numbers, the membership fee is the equivalent of $4k per year per player ($3m divided by 750 players).
If the NRL decided to scrap the current funding model, and just added the $3m to the cap and put it over to the players to pay their $4k each, I bet they’d struggle to even get 50% membership.

That is it.

Correct it is their money, If players want to put in $20m then they should.

No reason the NRL need to pay it directly

 

[Chimp]

This has already been explained. Pre-covid the funding was $4m which was made up of 100k from each of the 16 teams and then the NRL paid image rights up to a total of $4m in funding. During covid, the total funding dropped to $3m (so the amount the NRL paid for image rights dropped by $1m). Post covid, the NRL want to keep total funding at $3m, which is resulting in an actual decrease in payments for image rights of 100k due to the extra team. This is despite the RLPA now being responsible for 11 extra teams.

The players can increase the amount that they contribute, but all that does is reduce the amount that gets paid for image rights. If the contribution is doubled to 200k for every team, that results in them giving away their image rights for free as total funding would be over $3m.

How is there anyone here that thinks that is reasonable?

But… ‘it’s not about money’……

The players are handsomely rewarded, they’re getting more than their fair share - I couldn’t care less whether it’s about image rights, their GPS data or money that they think the NRL are going to magically make from their medical data, given the size of the salary increase, the improved terms and conditions/leave etc, the amount of additional funding for other funds, they’re getting a fair whack, and they shouldn’t be going to war with the NRL for even more.

As for the RLPA funding - just move it back to a proper membership with player subscriptions, see how they go then - I guarantee they won’t see anywhere near $3m even!

 

[Maximus]

That is it.

Correct it is their money, If players want to put in $20m then they should.

No reason the NRL need to pay it directly

But… ‘it’s not about money’……

The players are handsomely rewarded, they’re getting more than their fair share - I couldn’t care less whether it’s about image rights, their GPS data or money that they think the NRL are going to magically make from their medical data, given the size of the salary increase, the improved terms and conditions/leave etc, the amount of additional funding for other funds, they’re getting a fair whack, and they shouldn’t be going to war with the NRL for even more.

As for the RLPA funding - just move it back to a proper membership with player subscriptions, see how they go then - I guarantee they won’t see anywhere near $3m even!

It's not surprising that neither of you are willing to say it's reasonable for the NRL to reduce the value of image rights despite covering hundreds more players. It's not surprising that neither of you are willing to say it's reasonable for the NRL to say that if the players increase their contribution, the NRL get image rights for free.

It's not surprising you both dodged the actual issue so you can blindly defend the NRL.

 

[Wb1234]

But… ‘it’s not about money’……

The players are handsomely rewarded, they’re getting more than their fair share - I couldn’t care less whether it’s about image rights, their GPS data or money that they think the NRL are going to magically make from their medical data, given the size of the salary increase, the improved terms and conditions/leave etc, the amount of additional funding for other funds, they’re getting a fair whack, and they shouldn’t be going to war with the NRL for even more.

As for the RLPA funding - just move it back to a proper membership with player subscriptions, see how they go then - I guarantee they won’t see anywhere near $3m even!

That’s a home run

excellent

 

[siv]

If each player had to choose between keeping the 4K that gets taken out of their wages or they got to keep it how many do you think would choose the rlpa ?

Ryan matterson sat out 3 nrl games rather than pay a fine of a similar amount

Why would a player on $80k pay $4k to be in a union?

 

[siv]

It's not surprising that neither of you are willing to say it's reasonable for the NRL to reduce the value of image rights despite covering hundreds more players. It's not surprising that neither of you are willing to say it's reasonable for the NRL to say that if the players increase their contribution, the NRL get image rights for free.

It's not surprising you both dodged the actual issue so you can blindly defend the NRL.

So what items fall into image rights?

 

[Iamback]

So what items fall into image rights?

This.

hard to have an opinion on something as broad as image rights.

Are we talking having photos on NRL websites?

On ads for the games?

Again it isn't about blindly following the NRL, Alot of the stuff I have falling into the the clubs ownership.

IF this is the image rights, Then the players are in the wrong

 

[Wb1234]

Why would a player on $80k pay $4k to be in a union?

I doubt the guys on 300k would pay the 4K

So what items fall into image rights?

Jdb and brown on the turps

photos of the barbie at vaunies place

 

[Captain Apollo]

This is incorrect. The players agreed that 100k from each teams salary cap would go towards funding the RLPA. The NRL has no legal leg to stand on if they withheld that. The NRL are merely paying on behalf of the players.

The remainder of the funding is from the NRL purchasing image rights for the players. Sure they can break that contract, but good luck promoting the game without the consent of the players to use their image.

Sorry mate, but industrial relations is one area I have a lot of practical experience in. The NRL could legally do as I alluded. I know as it happened in Victoria (iirc) when the Victorian Liberal Government unilaterally ceased all union fee payroll deduction payments for its public sector unions. Thus all victorian unions had to spend months getting members to set up direct payments arrangements with them as otherwise they were all but insolvent. They had no legal leg to stand on.

As there was a fear this would spread, many unions in other states and at Federal level followed suit moving away from payroll deduction methods where it was paid thru the employer deducting the fees.

Secondly, the agreement that permits this is the CBA. Come 1 November that agreement has expired and is no longer enforceable.

Further the problem with the RLPA's funding model is if you had a player or two objected to it on grounds it is defacto compulsory unionism, it could be legally challenged. Rightly or wrongly, that is the law.

If the RLPA had to get direct fees from its members, they'd be selling the fact that the fees are tax deductible. I know that union fees are tax deductible as even the ATO has said that for decades.

 

[Wb1234]

Sorry mate, but industrial relations is one area I have a lot of practical experience in. The NRL could legally do as I alluded. I know as it happened in Victoria (iirc) when the Victorian Liberal Government unilaterally ceased all union fee payroll deduction payments for its public sector unions. Thus all victorian unions had to spend months getting members to set up direct payments arrangements with them as otherwise they were all but insolvent. They had no legal leg to stand on.

As there was a fear this would spread, many unions in other states and at Federal level followed suit moving away from payroll deduction methods where it was paid thru the employer deducting the fees.

Secondly, the agreement that permits this is the CBA. Come 1 November that agreement has expired and is no longer enforceable.

Further the problem with the RLPA's funding model is if you had a player or two objected to it on grounds it is defacto compulsory unionism, it could be legally challenged. Rightly or wrongly, that is the law.

If the RLPA had to get direct fees from its members, they'd be selling the fact that the fees are tax deductible. I know that union fees are tax deductible as even the ATO has said that for decades.

Buckleys chance majority of players would pay for it since it’s so expensive

rlpa would be shut down without the nrl guaranteeing it’s funding

 

[Perth Red]

Buckleys chance majority of players would pay for it since it’s so expensive

rlpa would be shut down without the nrl guaranteeing it’s funding

Then who negotiates the CBA with the NRL? They going to go to individual contract agreement with 750 different players? Theres a reason NRL are happy to pay out, one its not their money its the players, two its easier (usually) to negotiate with one rep body than 750 employees.
End of day players are happy for it to come out of the players funding allocation. It should be up to them how much of it goes to the RLPA, if they want more or less is their choice.

 

[Wb1234]

Then who negotiates the CBA with the NRL? They going to go to individual contract agreement with 750 different players? Theres a reason NRL are happy to pay out, one its not their money its the players, two its easier (usually) to negotiate with one rep body than 750 employees.
End of day players are happy for it to come out of the players funding allocation. It should be up to them how much of it goes to the RLPA, if they want more or less is their choice.

Doesn’t seem to be easy now

since Clint has said the rlpa is a union what they are doing is actually illegal not giving players a choice of joining