Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
No, labour costs are the biggest expense for most businesses.
If you ran the NRL and were concerned about the long term, there's plenty of areas you'd want to spend your extra money before giving more to the players.
Plenty of people aren't getting 40 hours a week.
It would have to.
Despite using the word "no", that's not a rebuttal of what I said, not even close, wages being the biggest expense for most business' and not being the driver for recent inflation are not mutually exclusive statements.
This is also likely true, it's generally not in the interests of capital to increase costs without some sort of benefit for doing so.
The salary cap covers the 510 top 30 players in the game plus however many are counted in the development list (up to $650k per club so maybe ten players each, which is another 170). The quality of the game requires a flow of talent from amateur level to the NRL. This is the area that seems to be in decline.
Also because you were a male prostitute.
We are talking about the decisions made by businesses. They have more control over how much they spend on labour than many of their other costs. Also, businesses were going broke before this recent period of inflation.
Probably explains why my wages decreased in my later working life.
If that means their costs exceeded their revenue then yes.
No it doesn't.
And we get paid extra for it.
Depending on your employment contract.
I'm not sure that I said anything against that.
Well if you were travelling as much as the players do you were getting ripped off.
I think the players know when they sign up to an NRL team that there will be some travel involved.
