Salary Cap

[Kaito]

Also under the current salary cap, what stops the Rorters now contracting Tedesco at 300k with the rest under the table?

Arguments such as players being paid under the table are not enough as that is rumour and is not really provable.

This is my main issue with TPA's.
Players sign way below what they
could get at other clubs. I don't
want to hear the 'want to win a prem'
bullshit either. Nobody forgoes 2-
600k because they love the club.
NRL aren't doing anything at all
when it comes to regulating 3rd
party agreements. That's the point

 

[Kaito]

How can you stop uncle Nick telling one of his mates to sponsor a player for $300k a year and then he pays him back through their business dealings? It’s impossible.

That's right. You can't prove it though.
That's why NRL need to rubber stamp
all TPA's and audit clubs yearly
as I mentioned. Clubs don't play
fair, it all stinks to high heavens.
We can talk about the salary cap
all we want, but TPA's are the issue

 

[Kaito]

Manly’s major sponsor is Shaw and partners one of the best stock broking companies in the country, I take their advise regularly and achieve good results and Iam sure a lot of Manly players are getting the same advise without the fees

I wish you many more good results.

Think thats all above board though,
under sponsership agreements.
I could be mistaken, but I honestly
think that is seperate to the cap ...

They pay less to sponser and offer
a needed service. Like ELMO
software with us for example

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Tbe cap was the real reason the competition was so balanced and unpredictable when Fox ran the game......because tbey also controlled RU. So by and large TPAs weren't necessary.

Once tbe commission took over they let TPAs go to compete with other sports......and sad to say other imbalances crept in.

Fox destroyed our clubs and the game as we knew it, but to win us suckers back kept the most level playing field that I've seen before or since.

 

[earl]

Manly’s major sponsor is Shaw and partners one of the best stock broking companies in the country, I take their advise regularly and achieve good results and Iam sure a lot of Manly players are getting the same advise without the fees

Each to his own but my approach is to invest in index funds which means I get the market return with minimal fees. I believe most investment advisers under perform the market. They charge you a fee for the pleasure of their under performance.

I honestly think people just need some simple education on the reality of investing but the problem is that'd probably ruin my game. It won't happen because people think there are ways to game the system but it's so rare that happens.

I think this could turn out significantly worse for the Manly players. I suppose they'd have to sign some form of indemnity for taking on that risk but it's beside the point. It's no good offering an additional service for free if that service is poor.

 

[Champ1]

For a restraint of trade to be deemed fair and reasonable an employer must be able to prove that they have a legitimate interest in imposing a restraint, and that the restraint is no wider than reasonably necessary.

What benefit could the NRL gain from the introduction of this system and are the limits placed on the employee no more than is necessary?

The argument that the salary cap maintains a viable competition and effectively maintains player's future earning potential would in my opinion be enough for the salary cap to be deemed fair and reasonable.

The new system however doesn't really add enough on top of the benefit the NRL receives from the salary cap and places far greater restrictions on players and I believe would be considered an unreasonable restraint.

Arguments such as players being paid under the table are not enough as that is rumour and is not really provable.

Once again , what is different from current salary cap? Limits are imposed .
Th benefits are this-: This new system would spread the talent & create a fairer more transparent , more equal competition. A better product. What a club pays a player would become irrelevant ,so wages of the better players would probably increase, once again driven by the market. It certainly would not limit a players earning potential. It would not stop a player playing for a certain club.If the Rorters were forced to actually abide by the salary cap , they couldnt offer all their the players contracts. So they offer contracts to those they had the points too & not offer a contracts to the rest , exactly as it is now. Not all clubs can offer contracts to all the players they want now, but imagine if that process was transparent.
But also you havent answered this question.... Under the current salary cap, what stops the Rorters now contracting Tedesco at 300k with the rest under the table?

 

[Magpie_Magic]

For a restraint of trade to be deemed fair and reasonable an employer must be able to prove that they have a legitimate interest in imposing a restraint, and that the restraint is no wider than reasonably necessary.

What benefit could the NRL gain from the introduction of this system and are the limits placed on the employee no more than is necessary?

The argument that the salary cap maintains a viable competition and effectively maintains player's future earning potential would in my opinion be enough for the salary cap to be deemed fair and reasonable.

The new system however doesn't really add enough on top of the benefit the NRL receives from the salary cap and places far greater restrictions on players and I believe would be considered an unreasonable restraint.

Arguments such as players being paid under the table are not enough as that is rumour and is not really provable.

The thing that keeps the cap barely legal is really that all club's are really separate entities under the same umbrella as franchises.

So in a sense all players are employed by the NRL and are been transferred to different franchises.

 

[cochise]

Once again , what is different from current salary cap? Limits are imposed .
Th benefits are this-: This new system would spread the talent & create a fairer more transparent , more equal competition. A better product. What a club pays a player would become irrelevant ,so wages of the better players would probably increase, once again driven by the market. It certainly would not limit a players earning potential. It would not stop a player playing for a certain club.If the Rorters were forced to actually abide by the salary cap , they couldnt offer all their the players contracts. So they offer contracts to those they had the points too & not offer a contracts to the rest , exactly as it is now. Not all clubs can offer contracts to all the players they want now, but imagine if that process was transparent.
But also you havent answered this question.... Under the current salary cap, what stops the Rorters now contracting Tedesco at 300k with the rest under the table?

Except you are now discussing a points based system when you have been discussing a monetary system where the opposition can decide a players worth.

The limits that are imposed are not allowed to affect the players too adversely, there also can't be an alternative that would have less impact on the players, the RLPA would argue that the current system would have less impact on the players and achieve the same level of protection to the NRL's interest.

Again you are talking about rumours that the Roosters aren't abiding by the salary cap, rumours are not evidence.

Your final question, there are players running around now on less than what other clubs have offered them so there is nothing to stop the Rooster doing that, though the NRL has refused to register player contract in the past that they deemed too low, which is a restraint that I doubt would hold up in court as well. The difference with your system is that you would be doing that to a greater number of players and I would think that there would be no chance the RLPA agrees to it and if push came to shove it would be challenged.

 

[Champ1]

Except you are now discussing a points based system when you have been discussing a monetary system where the opposition can decide a players worth.

The limits that are imposed are not allowed to affect the players too adversely, there also can't be an alternative that would have less impact on the players, the RLPA would argue that the current system would have less impact on the players and achieve the same level of protection to the NRL's interest.

Again you are talking about rumours that the Roosters aren't abiding by the salary cap, rumours are not evidence.

Your final question, there are players running around now on less than what other clubs have offered them so there is nothing to stop the Rooster doing that, though the NRL has refused to register player contract in the past that they deemed too low, which is a restraint that I doubt would hold up in court as well. The difference with your system is that you would be doing that to a greater number of players and I would think that there would be no chance the RLPA agrees to it and if push came to shove it would be challenged.

So the crux of the matter is you THINK there would be legal challenges to this new system, even though you acknowledge the NRL "refuses to register player contract in the past that they deemed too low, which is a restraint that I doubt would hold up in court as well" . Theres my point exactly. No one has challenged the cap in its current form & I doubt the RLPA would oppose it as it has the potential to have players paid more not less. The players worth would be decided by what points a club was willing to "spend" on a player ( the highest bidder. ) So as far as "restaint of trade argument" the salary cap system would be basically no different to what happens now, except a player most probably could demand higher pay , as the amount a club wishes to spend on a player is irrelevant. But they cant rort the cap points, as the bids values are made public. .

 

[cochise]

So the crux of the matter is you THINK there would be legal challenges to this new system, even though you acknowledge the NRL "refuses to register player contract in the past that they deemed too low, which is a restraint that I doubt would hold up in court as well" . Theres my point exactly. No one has challenged the cap in its current form & I doubt the RLPA would oppose it as it has the potential to have players paid more not less. The players worth would be decided by what points a club was willing to "spend" on a player ( the highest bidder. ) So as far as "restaint of trade argument" the salary cap system would be basically no different to what happens now, except a player most probably could demand higher pay , as the amount a club wishes to spend on a player is irrelevant. But they cant rort the cap points, as the bids values are made public. .

No mate, you have moved the goalposts, which is a bit dishonest, so you have abandoned your original proposal and moved onto a points system? My argument around restraint of trade is in relation to your original proposal.

So under your new new system, teams would have both bid for players in $ to win their signature and also bid for them with points for the cap purposes? Or do the points have a monetary value to determine what players are paid?

Both systems are silly, the first one does nothing to protect club finances and the second one as the same issues as your original proposal but is just trying to hide it behind cap points instead of $.

You really think that the RLPA is going to agree to a system that places greater restrictions on player choice of club and takes away their right to set their own value? It's not like the game has a history of restraint of trade court actions being taken?

 

[stevied]

The NRL neeps TPA's. It's money going into the sport.
We should embrace it and make all income transparent.
We should be seeking better TPA's ourselves rather than being jealous.

Can't agree Cobarcats. Some clubs have wealthy and influential benefactors like Uncle Nick. We don't have those and probably won't until we get out of the cellar and enjoy a better perception in the competition. I agree with everything being transparent but in order to do that we need a new NRL administration who are willing to take on the powerbrokers, make the tough decisions and clean up the whole game. As I've said countless times, we need a comp where all teams have a fair chance to secure their fair share of the available talent.

 

[stevied]

One of the rules of TPA's is the club can't organise them for a player...., yeh right.
Performance enhancing drugs in sport.... I was told by a compound chemist(pharmacist) that a masking agent is produced before the drug is introduced or that the drug has no current way of detecting it. So there are ways around it.
Another person said, pub talk, that their should be no rules/restraints on how much a sportsperson can earn individually or as a club....the strongest will survive. He's right, there are ways around it.
Now we don't want that but we could go unlimited for a player but not as a club. Let the club organise the TPA's but only if accounts and books are 100% transparent.
Still, this system is flawed. When money is involved people will break the rules.
BUT we can't suppress TPA's, our game will lose stars otherwise.

So far, much of the chat has been around fairness - fairness regarding salaries and fairness regarding the spreading of talent. Both valid. But what about the entertainment and interest aspects? Personally, I find the Premier League to be quite boring with the same clubs competing for the title each year. As a contrast, I like what they do in the NFL as there is a real commitment to giving teams a chance to to rise out of the basement. One way they share talent is via a draft, which I'm sure we've talked about. They definitely have a cap of sorts but how do they police it? One thing is for sure, there don't seems to be constant rumours and allegations of salary rorting over there.

 

[stevied]

Remember last off season when rorters signed B Smith, how low his contract was but happy cause after football what politis promised him and Smith was too excited and signed asap, same happens to all the elite players rorters want, tedesco, manu, minichelo etc income practically for a long time, but allowed by nrl.

I remember at the time, I thought, how the heck did they get him with their, already, stacked roster?!

 

[stevied]

1. The salary cap is a restraint. Whether it would stand up in court is highly debatable. However the RLPA have agreed to operate with a salary cap because it is in their best interest to do so (essentially keeps game alive with maximum teams/employment opportunities), despite a possible restraint.
2. I think Cochise has explained why your system is a restraint that would not stand up. A points system would be much worse, but that's a whole other argument. However that doesn't mean that there is no merit in your system. The key is what more can you give the players/clubs in order for them to agree to operate under such a system?
Cap concessions for developed and long serving players would be a start. But would need a lot more. What else is there to give?

I think providing incentives, via cap dispensation could be a great way to encourage players to stick with the same/ home club and help share the talent around. How we do it is the question. Allocate a separate dollar proportion of each club's cap to locally developed players?

 

[stevied]

This is my main issue with TPA's.
Players sign way below what they
could get at other clubs. I don't
want to hear the 'want to win a prem'
bullshit either. Nobody forgoes 2-
600k because they love the club.
NRL aren't doing anything at all
when it comes to regulating 3rd
party agreements. That's the point

*Sorry about the sudden avalanche of responses guys - playing catch up!
That's the absolute point, Kaito, and what a lot of us have been harping on about. The NRL has shown little inclination to do anything about it. The game is corrupt on many levels including the cap, the officiating and the advertising. There are too many influential figures calling the shots behind the scenes and the game is run by an ex head of horse racing.

 

[Cobarcats]

So far, much of the chat has been around fairness - fairness regarding salaries and fairness regarding the spreading of talent. Both valid. But what about the entertainment and interest aspects? Personally, I find the Premier League to be quite boring with the same clubs competing for the title each year. As a contrast, I like what they do in the NFL as there is a real commitment to giving teams a chance to to rise out of the basement. One way they share talent is via a draft, which I'm sure we've talked about. They definitely have a cap of sorts but how do they police it? One thing is for sure, there don't seems to be constant rumours and allegations of salary rorting over there.

Do you think that the NRL should put a base figure on a players worth according to their previous seasons statistics, history and representative status and other facts like age etc and players over a certain amount are deemed marquee status. Then the NRL can put a limit of the number marquee players per club...x amount of forwards and x amount of backs. They could do the same with 2nd and third tier players that have less abilities or credentials.
Throw into that any players that are left out because of shear numbers could go into a draft system where clubs are restricted in the numbers that are awarded???
p.s. marquee.. is that how it's spelt?

 

[Champ1]

No mate, you have moved the goalposts, which is a bit dishonest, so you have abandoned your original proposal and moved onto a points system? My argument around restraint of trade is in relation to your original proposal.

So under your new new system, teams would have both bid for players in $ to win their signature and also bid for them with points for the cap purposes? Or do the points have a monetary value to determine what players are paid?

Both systems are silly, the first one does nothing to protect club finances and the second one as the same issues as your original proposal but is just trying to hide it behind cap points instead of $.

You really think that the RLPA is going to agree to a system that places greater restrictions on player choice of club and takes away their right to set their own value? It's not like the game has a history of restraint of trade court actions being taken?

No goalposts moved. Original idea exactly the same whether it is points or dollars, doesnt matter the method of determining an equal salary cap value for all clubs . I went to points to try to add some clarity . But Ive just exposed the error in your logic. To say the cap we have now is ok (as a restraint of trade in your words not mine) but the the new system that works on exactly the same principles is not. You cant have it both ways.

Under the new system , a club would have a certain amount of points to "spend". The highest bidder sets the point value for that player ( true market value) . A player can sign with any club but it will cost that club the true market value in points ,not one made up by the club & player to rort the system. Now what the club pays the player doesnt need to be regulated because as far as the salary cap points go, they can only sign players up to their cap points. So , if the rorters want to pay 2m for every player on their books they can , but it stops them stacking their side with all the premium players because they only have the same amount of points as everyone else.

The only valid concern you raise is protecting club from overspending . The club financial health could be audited every year just like they do now to make sure they are viable.

Also , once again , no restrictions on either the earnings or club choice of players . Exactly as now, a club would not offer a player a contract if it did not have the points available, exactly as the salary cap works now(except in dollars). Is it a restriction that we cant fit 12 test players under or salarycap? No , it is because that the rules of the game.

It seriously is not that complicated & is based on the same principles of the system we have now with a dollar value salary cap, except this way it stops the rorting.

 

[earl]

Do you think that the NRL should put a base figure on a players worth according to their previous seasons statistics, history and representative status and other facts like age etc and players over a certain amount are deemed marquee status.

I don't like this idea because some players won't be worth it. I think you let the market determine salary but there has to be some degree of transparency in the process. Smith going to the Rorters is laughable.

 

[earl]

Under the new system , a club would have a certain amount of points to "spend". The highest bidder sets the point value for that player ( true market value) . A player can sign with any club but it will cost that club the true market value in points ,not one made up by the club & player to rort the system.

This is the same as just putting a salary on that player. I don't like it because how do you judge a players worth. I can see the rorters signing everyone and then arguing they should only be worth x number of points as well.

The problem is rugby league is such a small sport. You need a salary cap. The NBA has a draft and some way to putting caps on players salaries. It probably works though because there is so much talent.

 

[Champ1]

I think providing incentives, via cap dispensation could be a great way to encourage players to stick with the same/ home club and help share the talent around. How we do it is the question. Allocate a separate dollar proportion of each club's cap to locally developed players?

Yes, a dispensation for Juniors developed by the club & longserving players would be a great idea.