Salary Cap

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cobarcats
  • Start date Start date
Garrry said:
They are set up for life after football, minichello is doing well thanks to uncle Nick
Click to expand...
"Set up for life after football" isn't a promise of anything that breaches a cap. Helping players invest their money. Training and networking opportunities for future employment. Social practices to ensure players don't feel isolated away from the team environment after leaving the game etc. These are all ways a club can (and the Roosters do) help set up a player for life after football without breaching the cap. Again, I don't doubt that the Roosters (or any other club) are breaching the cap. Im just saying that what Smith said was not an admission of guilt.
 
Champ1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
gregjm87 said:
Helping players invest their money. Training and networking opportunities for future employment. Social practices to ensure players don't feel isolated away from the team environment after leaving the game etc.
Click to expand...

I get really concerned when clubs help players invest their money. So many hucksters out there and it's so easy to do it right. I think our club got caught out with some of these hucksters previously as well.

All clubs should be able to offer all of this stuff.
 
cochise said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still a little confused. If the current salary cap is a restraint of trade but legal, why would this new system be any different.?
Also under the current salary cap, what stops the Rorters now contracting Tedesco at 300k with the rest under the table?
 
Champ1 said:
Still a little confused. If the current salary cap is a restraint of trade but legal, why would this new system be any different.?
Also under the current salary cap, what stops the Rorters now contracting Tedesco at 300k with the rest under the table?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Earl said:
I get really concerned when clubs help players invest their money. So many hucksters out there and it's so easy to do it right. I think our club got caught out with some of these hucksters previously as well.

All clubs should be able to offer all of this stuff.
Click to expand...
Yep, our club did get caught out. And all clubs should be able to offer this. But, if financial advice was something a part of what you were looking for, which club would you sign for? The one that got caught out with the 'hucksters' or the one that has a proven record of investment returns.
 
cochise said:
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.
Click to expand...
The salary cap is not a restraint of trade.

The league doesn’t tell the players who they must work for and under what conditions. That is up to the player and the player only. By that logic, putting a cap on the receptionists salary is a restraint of trade because a company only wants to pay $x a year. The NRL covers the wage bill…and they say the game is viable with the value of the salary cap.

What has actually happened is the NRL has created a player economy which actually works in the opposite direction as well. Some players are being paid well above their worth, while others are not.

The point is, the players signed contracts accepting the cap is part of the game. If their club won’t pay them what they think they’re worth, they can try their luck at another club. No restraint there.

TPA’s are there so players can commercialise their personal brand. Removing this would be a restraint of trade for sure. If a player wants to sign a multi-million dollar deal with Nike, why should the NRL have a say in that?

The issue arises where clubs have spent their cap and can’t afford to pay a player his worth. Dodgy TPA’s are the issue, not legitimate ones. Registering a dodgy TPA with the NRL just gives the rort legitimacy.

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.
 
weststigers said:
The salary cap is not a restraint of trade.

The league doesn’t tell the players who they must work for and under what conditions. That is up to the player and the player only. By that logic, putting a cap on the receptionists salary is a restraint of trade because a company only wants to pay $x a year.

What has actually happened is the NRL has created a player economy which actually works in the opposite direction as well. Some players are being paid well above their worth, while others are not.

The point is, the players signed contracts accepting the cap is part of the game. If their club won’t pay them what they think they’re worth, they can try their luck at another club. No restraint there.

TPA’s are there so players can commercialise their personal brand. Removing this would be a restraint of trade for sure. If a player wants to sign a multi-million dollar deal with Nike, why should the NRL have a say in that?

The issue arises where clubs have spent their cap and can’t afford to pay a player his worth. Dodgy TPA’s are the issue, not legitimate ones. Registering a dodgy TPA with the NRL just gives the rort legitimacy.

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.
Click to expand...
The salary cap is a restraint of trade it limits players earning potential. A receptionist that is unhappy with what they are being paid because a company puts a limit on their salary they can move to another company. The difference for players is that the limit is industry wide.

I will say it again, there is no argument that can be made that the salary cap isn't a restraint of trade. It is just a fair and reasonable restraint being placed on the players and would like be deemed legal if challenged.
 
cochise said:
The salary cap is a restraint of trade it limits players earning potential. A receptionist that is unhappy with what they are being paid because a company puts a limit on their salary they can move to another company. The difference for players is that the limit is industry wide.

I will say it again, there is no argument that can be made that the salary cap isn't a restraint of trade. It is just a fair and reasonable restraint being placed on the players and would like be deemed legal if challenged.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's here to stay

Some how we need to find a way to get a semblance of a draft

How you convince the the NRLPA ...who knows ......
 
gregjm87 said:
But, if financial advice was something a part of what you were looking for, which club would you sign for? The one that got caught out with the 'hucksters' or the one that has a proven record of investment returns.
Click to expand...

I would run miles from any investment advice from a rugby league club period. I don't believe any rugby league club has a history of investment returns. I'd follow Warren Buffets advice rather than give him money.

Investing well today is exceptionally easy if you just accept the market returns. I don't believe anyone beats the market consistently.
 
cochise said:
The salary cap is a restraint of trade it limits players earning potential. A receptionist that is unhappy with what they are being paid because a company puts a limit on their salary they can move to another company. The difference for players is that the limit is industry wide.

I will say it again, there is no argument that can be made that the salary cap isn't a restraint of trade. It is just a fair and reasonable restraint being placed on the players and would like be deemed legal if challenged.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say Cochise…

Every salary in every industry has a cap. Our cap is aligned with the money that is brought into the game by TV rights deals and other revenue streams.

It’s no different from a wages budget. Budgets are reasonable restraints on any business…to call them “restraints of trade” defined as interfering with free market forces is not what’s happening here.

The story is twisted to view this as a restraint of trade stopping players earning their worth. Their worth is only as much as the overall product which needs to support 17 clubs, hundreds of players, junior league development, advertising, resources, referees etc.
 
Earl said:
This is the issue.
Click to expand...
Well if you can’t beat ‘em, join em.
Surely every club can do the same. What’s stopping a WT supporter kicking in money and getting it reimbursed ?
Maybe through Brydens ? Then again maybe that’s too hard.
Or do we need our own white knight from another profession. Dare I say car sales ?
 
weststigers said:
Whatever you say Cochise…

Every salary in every industry has a cap. Our cap is aligned with the money that is brought into the game by TV rights deals and other revenue streams.

It’s no different from a wages budget. Budgets are reasonable restraints on any business…to call them “restraints of trade” defined as interfering with free market forces is not what’s happening here.

The story is twisted to view this as a restraint of trade stopping players earning their worth. Their worth is only as much as the overall product which needs to support 17 clubs, hundreds of players, junior league development, advertising, resources, referees etc.
Click to expand...
It is not what I say mate. The RPLA has acknowledged the restraint in CBAs in the past and it is written about in many law journals.
The NRL Playing Contract incorporates restraint of trade terms typical of those found in many Australian professional sports leagues. The relationship between the NRL and premier rugby league players is that of employer and employee.21 The major restraint of trade on NRL players is the salary cap, set at $4.4 million per club in 2012 ‘for the 25 highest paid players at each club’ plus up to an additional ‘$350,000 on those players outside the top 25 who play in the NRL competition’.22 The Collective Bargaining Agreement (‘CBA’) states that: The NRL Clubs and Players recognise the importance of a Salary Cap and acknowledge that the Salary Cap limits, in a reasonable way, the remuneration that may be paid by, or on behalf of, any one NRL Club to its Players.2
Click to expand...

This is an area of interest for me and I have read many journals on the situation.
 
Odessa said:
Have to get rid of TPA's full stop or all TPA's included in the cap
Click to expand...

I don't think you can. I think the only way to make it fair is to make it so the bidding process is open and transparent. So if a player chooses to go to market they have to go to the highest bidder. If the player chooses to remain at their club then they don't have to go through that process.

TPA's should be like Jordan earning 50 million dollars years ago via sponsorship but the sponsorship has nothing at all to do with where he plays.
 
gregjm87 said:
Yep, our club did get caught out. And all clubs should be able to offer this. But, if financial advice was something a part of what you were looking for, which club would you sign for? The one that got caught out with the 'hucksters' or the one that has a proven record of investment returns.
Click to expand...
To be truthful wouldnt financial advice be a more legitimate field for the RLPA than the clubs?
 
Kaito said:
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
Click to expand...
Earl said:
I would run miles from any investment advice from a rugby league club period. I don't believe any rugby league club has a history of investment returns. I'd follow Warren Buffets advice rather than give him money.

Investing well today is exceptionally easy if you just accept the market returns. I don't believe anyone beats the market consistently.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 452 (members: 40, guests: 412)
Back
Top