Buttface
Well-known member
Personally I would have with a “Streak” of signings.
C
Cobarcats
Guest
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.
We should embrace it and make all income transparent.
We should be seeking better TPA's ourselves rather than being jealous.
C
Cobarcats
Guest
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.
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.
nrlsurvivor
Well-known member
And at Roosters and Broncos the other 25 players wives fiancés and mums get cars
gallagher
Well-known member
I find it amusing that fans think it's only the successful clubs that bend the rules. You also need to identify the talent. Double our cap and we would still struggle long term.
weststigers
Well-known member
If we look at TPA’s and their purpose, they are there for companies to sponsor the player, not the club.
It would be good to know how many TPA’s are contingent on a player playing for a specific club. If a sponsor will only sign a TPA with a player based on them playing for a certain club, there is a case for this to be outlawed because effectively, you are bumping one clubs ability to pay a players salary against every other club creating an unfair advantage.
If a sponsor wants to engage in a TPA, that agreement should apply regardless of which club the player is employed.
If a sponsor wants to be associated with a particular club, then they should sponsor the club. If a company wants to sponsor a player, they should register that TPA with the NRL.
Potential rules could be factored in like minimum contract lengths to avoid sponsors only signing 1 year TPA’s to ensure they aren’t only paying a player while he is playing at their club of choice if that player decides to move on. Exceptions could be made for large organisations like Adidas, Nike etc. that sponsor multiple players in the game and are clearly not affiliated with one club.
Secondly, I think the wages could be paid by the NRL, not the clubs. The NRL can act as the official payroll company so the employer is still the club, but the wages are transparent. An alternative is wages go through an NRL clearing account for each club before being transferred to the player as part of salary cap auditing protocol.
Outside of the above, there’s not much that can be done if a club engages in practices to work around the rules in place. If the Australian government can’t detect all parties working outside the rules, what chance do the NRL have?
But the question is…what rule is being broken by a player benefiting from a TPA? If a sponsor is willing to pay a player to promote their brand, regardless of who organised it, it is a fee for service relationship.
The issues arise when say, Joes Construction pays a player $200,000 a year in TPA, then the leagues club or club pays Joes Construction $200,000 for work that is never completed…effectively using 3rd party businesses as a vehicle to bump player salaries.
In this scenario, can you expect the NRL to stop this? How would it be audited? We are trying to apply trading rules to a free market economy…the mechanisms are not there to support the NRL stance.
It’s all well and good to have rules, but they need to be enforceable.
Is the prevalence of TPA’s an indication that NRL salaries are too low for elite players?
Do we need to implement a transfer fee system? Would that give clubs more control and compensation if a club with more dollars comes knocking for a star player?
If clubs are already rorting the system, then the disadvantage already exists…would it be wiser to scrap all the rules around TPA’s altogether to bring it into the spotlight?
The NRL needs to consider which way they want to go with this. Implement harsher rules and penalties and bolster resources to ensure enforcement and compliance, or open the market and let the market do its thing?
Some food for thought. I have no opinion either way and apologies for the long post.
It would be good to know how many TPA’s are contingent on a player playing for a specific club. If a sponsor will only sign a TPA with a player based on them playing for a certain club, there is a case for this to be outlawed because effectively, you are bumping one clubs ability to pay a players salary against every other club creating an unfair advantage.
If a sponsor wants to engage in a TPA, that agreement should apply regardless of which club the player is employed.
If a sponsor wants to be associated with a particular club, then they should sponsor the club. If a company wants to sponsor a player, they should register that TPA with the NRL.
Potential rules could be factored in like minimum contract lengths to avoid sponsors only signing 1 year TPA’s to ensure they aren’t only paying a player while he is playing at their club of choice if that player decides to move on. Exceptions could be made for large organisations like Adidas, Nike etc. that sponsor multiple players in the game and are clearly not affiliated with one club.
Secondly, I think the wages could be paid by the NRL, not the clubs. The NRL can act as the official payroll company so the employer is still the club, but the wages are transparent. An alternative is wages go through an NRL clearing account for each club before being transferred to the player as part of salary cap auditing protocol.
Outside of the above, there’s not much that can be done if a club engages in practices to work around the rules in place. If the Australian government can’t detect all parties working outside the rules, what chance do the NRL have?
But the question is…what rule is being broken by a player benefiting from a TPA? If a sponsor is willing to pay a player to promote their brand, regardless of who organised it, it is a fee for service relationship.
The issues arise when say, Joes Construction pays a player $200,000 a year in TPA, then the leagues club or club pays Joes Construction $200,000 for work that is never completed…effectively using 3rd party businesses as a vehicle to bump player salaries.
In this scenario, can you expect the NRL to stop this? How would it be audited? We are trying to apply trading rules to a free market economy…the mechanisms are not there to support the NRL stance.
It’s all well and good to have rules, but they need to be enforceable.
Is the prevalence of TPA’s an indication that NRL salaries are too low for elite players?
Do we need to implement a transfer fee system? Would that give clubs more control and compensation if a club with more dollars comes knocking for a star player?
If clubs are already rorting the system, then the disadvantage already exists…would it be wiser to scrap all the rules around TPA’s altogether to bring it into the spotlight?
The NRL needs to consider which way they want to go with this. Implement harsher rules and penalties and bolster resources to ensure enforcement and compliance, or open the market and let the market do its thing?
Some food for thought. I have no opinion either way and apologies for the long post.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the salary cap was mainly brought in to stop clubs going broke from buying teams they couldn’t afford that sent them broke. Cronulla was bailed out multiple times by the ARL and then had a cash injection from super league when they switched is a prime example. West always had a team within there financial means which hurt them on the field many years ago.
Allowing a more competitive competition was secondary for the cap.
cochise
Well-known member
Edited, unnecessary attacks.
In reality the salary cap is a restraint of trade as well but in my opinion it could be argued that it is a fair and reasonable restraint.
It is still a restraint of trade though, money isn't the only consideration when choosing a workplace, there are many reason why someone may choose to work somewhere for less money. Under your system you are preventing someone from choosing their workplace even though the 2 parties have agreed to what they deem a fair salary, that is pretty much the definition of a restraint of trade. There is no way this would hold up.
In reality the salary cap is a restraint of trade as well but in my opinion it could be argued that it is a fair and reasonable restraint.
Odessa
Well-known member
How about this for an idea because I think the point system is to hard you have the 17 nrl coaches 17 media and 17 former players submit a market value for each player ever year at the beginning of season and at the end to assess his value and divide it by all submissions to get market value it would take two/three days to do and in a contract year his value is current year plus previous year
His market value sits in the cap but you can TAP the Sh!T out of it if you want but no more Tedesco on 800k cap value
His market value sits in the cap but you can TAP the Sh!T out of it if you want but no more Tedesco on 800k cap value
The Sniffer
Well-known member
Very smart and simple idea but it would end the monopoly of some clubs and as those are the few that make the decisions for the entire league it cant or wont ever happen.
I understand what you are saying but I disagree with the restraint of trade. Our whole monetary system is based on supply & demand. Under the system If Rorters want Tedesco & Tedesco wants to be there both can make it happen. We all know Footy is now a business. The only question is how bad does the Rorters want Tedesco? Under this system Tedesco can take "supposedly" take 800k to play at the Rorters , but it would still cost the uncle Nick 1.4 m ( the highest bid say) out of his cap. This system is not brain surgery , it would just make the Rorters actually have to stay under the cap. No one is stopping anyone from signing anywhere. If what the Rorters are REALLY paying Tedesco had to come out of their salary cap do you think they would offer him a contract? If that was the case , where is the restraint of trade? If they did want him for that price they would offer him a contract. Where is the restraint of trade?
You mention "fair" salary. Do you really believe Tedesco is settling for a "fair" salary ( meaning less than true market value?)
As you noted, this is what the salary cap is supposed to do, even out the playing talent.It is a condition of entering a team in the NRL. Its just that some dont play by the rules.
Masterton
Well-known member
Fair point, but isn't what happens when they refuse to register a contract like Matt Lodge's for massive unders?
C
Cobarcats
Guest
Man my head hurts, you guys obviously went to year12 or higher.
Here's my solution.
An auditor lines up a club's top 30 and officials and yells out "who among you are disobeying the salary cap and TPA rules"
If no-one puts their hand up its all ok.
Too easy.
WT can lead the way 🤔
cochise
Well-known member
If the Roosters have $800k in his cap, he is happy to play for $800k but you put a value on him of $1.4m because a competitor is willing to pay that much. You are restricting Teddy's choice of employer, that is the very definition of a restraint of trade. Now a restraint of trade isn't necessarily illegal, if it can be shown to be fair and reasonable. An example of a fair and reasonable restraint of trade are non compete clauses in employment contracts. I do not believe you can argue that this system is fair and reasonable.
It doesn't matter what I believe the Roosters are paying Teddy, its not what I believe it is what is provable and unless someone had proof that he is being paid by the Roosters outside his playing contract then it has nothing to do with the discussion.
cochise
Well-known member
Yes it is and doubt it would stand up if challenged.
There would be no restraint of trade. If the Rorters had take out of their salary cap what any player really cost them they couldnt offer them all a contract. With Tedesco for eg they would more likely secure Sualli or Manu first,( a commercial decision) & have no money left to offer tedesco a contract. Thats why there would be no restraint of trade. Even as the cap stands now ( which is clearly rorted) you still cant have all players you would like. For eg, what stops Rorters saying Tedesco is willing to take 200K a year? What the players are being paid has everything to do with the discussion. Thats the whole point of this discussion, to stop the rorting.
Last edited:
cochise
Well-known member
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.
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 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).
Members online
- Mac
- mikey
- tigertragic
- tigereye
- tiger_one
- skywalker
- poopy_diaper
- groucher
- avocadoontoast
- westTAHger
- Demps
- Telltails
- Charred
- SwervinMervin
- BlackWhiteGold
- mactiger
- Speed2burn
- Vicious
- yott21
- Tom Shines
- Batmans Parents
- Tiger-ferret
- Magpies1969
- oldschooltiger
- gallagher
- tigertuff
- twentyforty
- innsaneink
- tuff tiger
- Suzie-Q
- BunganHead Tiger
- Red88_Tiger
- Hoggiedoggie
- vlad