Salary Cap

[supercoach]

While we have the current system it will be rorted, and rorted by all clubs. Some clubs have the means to rort it better than others.

There are so many ways to rort the system. Jobs for family, contracts for families, opportunities x football and a million others. Even if the NRL showed some real intent to crack down on the rorting of the cap, nothing much would happen because most of the rorting is a arm’s length from the cap and would be very difficult to pin it down as a cap breach.

So what’s the answer?? Everyone has a idea, mine is some point system, but I have floated that in the past and a lot of people think it would not work. I guess with any system you will get rorting and the higher the stakes, the more rorting.

Has anyone got a idea on a system that might achieve a level playing field and be basically rort proof?

 

[Garrry]

I don't doubt there are many breaches happening but that isn't exactly what Smith said. He wasn't 'promised' anything after football (according to his quote).

They are set up for life after football, minichello is doing well thanks to uncle Nick

 

[gallagher]

They are set up for life after football, minichello is doing well thanks to uncle Nick

So are Benji and Farah by Wests. Both given high paying jobs with no qualifications.

 

[Kaito]

Has anyone got a idea on a system that might achieve a level playing field and be basically rort proof?

Audit clubs annually. Get NRL to
approve 3rd party agreements it's
really that simple. I don't agree that
market value is a restraint of trade
as Cochise has mentioned here TBH

 

[Kaito]

Yes it is and doubt it would stand up if challenged.

All due respect I think that's nonsense

 

[Garrry]

So are Benji and Farah by Wests. Both given high paying jobs with no qualifications.

Didn't benji complete a media course and work at fox? Doesn't farah have a sports touring company?

 

[gallagher]

Didn't benji complete a media course and work at fox? Doesn't farah have a sports touring company?

Great qualifications for coaching.

 

[Champ1]

What you can prove players are being paid is what matters in this discussion, this is a legal discussion not a suspicion discussion.

Of course it is a restraint, you are telling a player he can't play for a club despite the 2 parties agreeing to a salary and having room for that salary. What if it means he has to move because if that? What if his kids are in school and he doesn't want to move? What if that is enough difference for him to take the lower wage.

As I said the salary cap is also a restraint of trade but it hasn't been challenged in court, even then I believe it could be argued it is a fair and reasonable restraint.

Your system would no be agreed to by the RLPA, and would be challenged and I don't see how it could be argued that it is fair and reasonable.

I get you are looking at this from a footy angle and what you deem to be unfairness in the system. Problem is this would become a legal matter, so you can't ignore the legal ramifications. To be honest your post is a little naive in relation to this.

I dont believe it is naive. So what stops any club challenging thesalary cap as we know it? According to your logic/argument it too is restraint of trade.

 

[Kaito]

I dont believe it is naive. So what stops any club challenging thesalary cap as we know it? According to your logic/argument it too is restraint of trade.

Suggesting the salary cap is a restraint
of trade is absolutely crazy talk haha.
3rd party deals should be approved by the governing body. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with earning
money as an athlete, the CBA allows for
it so long as it doesn't go over the
salary cap. I'm not an employment
lawyer but it hasn't got anything to
do with restraint of trade. If teams
are circumventing the cap they
should be punished. Severely.
Players' salary should be published
as well, the speculation doesn't help.
The NFL has a live salary cap tracker,
and teams are audited once a year.
Even in college football they publish
how much teams/players are making
With NIL deals (name, image, and likeness)
which are player endorsements ...
The NRL keep everyone stupid and
are stone age operators when it comes
to professional sports, the new CBA
hasn't even been hashed out its nuts

 

[cochise]

I dont believe it is naive. So what stops any club challenging thesalary cap as we know it? According to your logic/argument it too is restraint of trade.

It 100% is a restraint of trade, I have said that many times. Many people believe that if it was challenged that it would be thrown out. Rules have been thrown out in rugby league in the past due to being an unreasonable restraint of trade., look up

Tutty vs NSWRL
"Tutty commenced legal action in May 1969. He fought for over two years for the right for players to transfer to another club. The New South Wales Equity Court granted Tutty's application to have the League's transfer system declared invalid, deeming it an 'unreasonable restraint of trade'. The League appealed to the High Court of Australia but on 13 December 1971, the High Court's judgement upheld the Equity Court's decision. The implications of Tutty's successful legal action were quickly felt throughout the game. In the first two months, South Sydney lost three internationals, John O'Neill, Ray Branighan and Ron Coote."

Dennis Tutty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Terry Hill Vs NSWRL
"South Sydney centre Terry Hill had agreed to join Western Suburbs but he was drafted by the Roosters in a move that resulted in 127 players acting as plaintiffs in a legal case against the NSWRL.

"We ended up in the High Court and the High Court supported the players' position that it was taking over their lives and taking over their careers," Ryan said.

"The High Court found that the proposed draft was a restraint of trade, and an interference with a person's right to negotiate their own lives and future and so on."

How the draft legal challenge galvanised players

The 127 players who put their homes on the line to successfully challenge the draft system in court have been praised for giving the Rugby League Players Association credibility and purpose.

www.nrl.com

I believe it could be argued that a salary cap is a fair and reasonable restraint of trade as it could be argued it prevents clubs from going broke ensuring that the players can maintain their future earnings. If clubs started going broke it would limit players earning potential, the NRL has plenty of evidence of club going broke. Your system can not argue this point.

Now creating an even playing field could potential be used as an argument for a fair and reasonable restraint but I think in your case this would be seen as not required and an over reach which would see the argument and the system thrown out.

The only way to get this system in would be for the RLPA to agree to its implementation, do you think that would happen?

 

[cochise]

Suggesting the salary cap is a restraint
of trade is absolutely crazy talk haha.
3rd party deals should be approved by the governing body. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with earning
money as an athlete, the CBA allows for
it so long as it doesn't go over the
salary cap. I'm not an employment
lawyer but it hasn't got anything to
do with restraint of trade. If teams
are circumventing the cap they
should be punished. Severely.
Players' salary should be published
as well, the speculation doesn't help.
The NFL has a live salary cap tracker,
and teams are audited once a year.
Even in college football they publish
how much teams/players are making
With NIL deals (name, image, and likeness)
which are player endorsements ...
The NRL keep everyone stupid and
are stone age operators when it comes
to professional sports, the new CBA
hasn't even been hashed out its nuts

The Salary Cap is a restraint of trade, that can not be argued. You are limiting the earning potential of players. The thing is not all restraints of trade are illegal, if it can be shown to be fair and reasonable in a court of law then it is legal to impose a restraint of trade. Non compete clauses in an employment contract are an example of a fair and reasonable restraint. I believe that the salary cap would be found to be fair and reasonable.

I do not believe that a system that allows a competitor to determine a players value and could prevent them from choosing their own workplace would be deemed fair and reasonable. I think it would be determined to be too wide reaching than is reasonable.

 

[Garrry]

Great qualifications for coaching.

Bloody oath it is.

 

[Kaito]

The Salary Cap is a restraint of trade, that can not be argued. You are limiting the earning potential of players. The thing is not all restraints of trade are illegal, if it can be shown to be fair and reasonable in a court of law then it is legal to impose a restraint of trade. Non compete clauses in an employment contract are an example of a fair and reasonable restraint. I believe that the salary cap would be found to be fair and reasonable.

I do not believe that a system that allows a competitor to determine a players value and could prevent them from choosing their own workplace would be deemed fair and reasonable. I think it would be determined to be too wide reaching than is reasonable.

Yep your first paragraph hits the
nail on the head. if it can be shown to be fair and reasonable in a court of law then it is legal to impose a restraint of trade. Non compete clauses in an employment contract are an example of a fair and reasonable restraint. I believe that the salary cap would be found to be fair and reasonable. That's the crux of it

I do walk back my earlier post in
regards to signing players from
clubs on market value, I remember
the NRL talking about it last year,
I don't think that would hold up.

3rd party deals are what gets
me riled up about this, and that
is my real issue. Regulation of it

 

[cochise]

Yep your first paragraph hits the
nail on the head. if it can be shown to be fair and reasonable in a court of law then it is legal to impose a restraint of trade. Non compete clauses in an employment contract are an example of a fair and reasonable restraint. I believe that the salary cap would be found to be fair and reasonable. That's the crux of it

I do walk back my earlier post in
regards to signing players from
clubs on market value, I remember
the NRL talking about it last year,
I don't think that would hold up.

Yes in regard to the salary cap I agree fully, the proposed system we are discussing is that a players value on the salary cap is determined by the highest bidder. That would not stand up.

I am trying to explain why I believe we are able to have a salary cap but do not believe this proposed system would be allowed.

If that makes sense?

 

[Kaito]

Yes in regard to the salary cap I agree fully, the proposed system we are discussing is that a players value on the salary cap is determined by the highest bidder. That would not stand up.

I am trying to explain why I believe we are able to have a salary cap but do not believe this proposed system would be allowed.

If that makes sense?

Completely makes sense well said.
I didn't read @Champs1 proposal
and just typed in haste because
the whole 3rd party thing irks me
the most. You explained it perfectly

 

[Kaito]

@Champ1 signing players on market
value is good a good idea but is a
restraint of trade %100 I jumped
the gun again as I do often, my apologies

 

[Champ1]

Yes in regard to the salary cap I agree fully, the proposed system we are discussing is that a players value on the salary cap is determined by the highest bidder. That would not stand up.

I am trying to explain why I believe we are able to have a salary cap but do not believe this proposed system would be allowed.

If that makes sense?

1- So you finally agree that a salary cap IS NOT a restraint of trade. Thats settled.
2-Why would players value determined by the highest bidder (market forces) not stand up?
Lets change this to a points system. Every team has a certain amount of points on their salary cap (say 100). Once again, a players point value is determined by the highest bidder. Abiding by this points system is a condition of entering a team in the NRL. Now the club can pay the player as much as it wants. Underhanded payments no longer matter or need to be checked. Because all clubs can only "spend " 100 points.

 

[cochise]

1- So you finally agree that a salary cap IS NOT a restraint of trade. Thats settled.
2-Why would players value determined by the highest bidder (market forces) not stand up?
Lets change this to a points system. Every team has a certain amount of points on their salary cap (say 100). Once again, a players point value is determined by the highest bidder. Abiding by this points system is a condition of entering a team in the NRL. Now the club can pay the player as much as it wants. Underhanded payments no longer matter or need to be checked. Because all clubs can only "spend " 100 points.

1. I think you should probably re read my posts, I have stated many times that the salary cap is a restraint of trade but I believe it would be found to be a fair and reasonable restraint. It is still a restraint of trade but it would be deemed legal if challenged in my opinion.

2. I have also answered this on a number of occasions, for a restraint of trade to be deemed reasonable it needs to be protecting the rights of the employer while not be too wide reaching against the employee. I believe a system where a player is refused their choice of employer, based off the valuation of a competitor, despite agreeing to a salary and the club having that salary under the cap would be deemed to be too wide reaching and unreasonable against the employee. Also in this situation what rights of the employer are you protecting with this proposed restraint of trade?

Again in a points system you are determining a players worth based off a competitor's valuation. The points system would have more chance of getting through but I have serious issues with its implementation and I have serious concern about any system that relies on the highest bidder for a valutation of a players worth.

 

[Champ1]

1. I think you should probably re read my posts, I have stated many times that the salary cap is a restraint of trade but I believe it would be found to be a fair and reasonable restraint. It is still a restraint of trade but it would be deemed legal if challenged in my opinion.

2. I have also answered this on a number of occasions, for a restraint of trade to be deemed reasonable it needs to be protecting the rights of the employer while not be too wide reaching against the employee. I believe a system where a player is refused their choice of employer, based off the valuation of a competitor, despite agreeing to a salary and the club having that salary under the cap would be deemed to be too wide reaching and unreasonable against the employee. Also in this situation what rights of the employer are you protecting with this proposed restraint of trade?

Again in a points system you are determining a players worth based off a competitor's valuation. The points system would have more chance of getting through but I have serious issues with its implementation and I have serious concern about any system that relies on the highest bidder for a valutation of a players worth.

Genuinely appreciate your imput & perspective. I think you & I are going around in circles. The crux of the proposal really is not to dissimilar to how the salary cap works now (or is supposed to work) . It just makes it transparent, dictated by market forces rather than a club like the Rorters making up their own values. I think the market is the only true way of determining any players value. On the other issues we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂

 

[cochise]

Genuinely appreciate your imput & perspective. I think you & I are going around in circles. The crux of the proposal really is not to dissimilar to how the salary cap works now (or is supposed to work) . It just makes it transparent, dictated by market forces rather than a club like the Rorters making up their own values. I think the market is the only true way of determining any players value. On the other issues we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂

It is not the Roosters making up their own value, it is an employer and employee agreeing to a value.