Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:37 pm  

bren2k wrote:

In what way is the salary cap illegal?

It's a collusion between owners to restrict the earnings of players. It is by its very definition a restraint of trade. There is no argument it isn't. There may be an argument that it is a reasonable one. On the previous reasoning given by the RFL as to that I think that would be a difficult argument to make. The rfl and clubs may feel differently.

There is different arguments to be made as well. Derek Beaumont is unlikely to bring a restraint of trade case. He would more likely look at other avenues. It would more likely be a player who does so

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:40 pm  

LifeLongHKRFan wrote:

Its not. Any player can earn themselves up to anything they want in theory. However in practise it would mean that no other player playing for the same club can be paid. The RFL aren't restricting trade or what someone can earn, they are telling clubs how much they can spend on players.

You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone with even a tiny bit of a brain that a salary cap is not a a restriction on earnings.

I mean the entire reason for being of a salary cap is to cap salaries. That is literally all it does and all it sets out to do. It is nothing other than a cap on salaries.

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:42 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone with even a tiny bit of a brain that a salary cap is not a a restriction on earnings.

I mean the entire reason for being of a salary cap is to cap salaries. That is literally all it does and all it sets out to do. It is nothing other than a cap on salaries.

It may be a bit pedantic but in theory a club can pay a player whatever he wants. Its up to the club how much they can afford.

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:52 pm  

LifeLongHKRFan wrote:

It may be a bit pedantic but in theory a club can pay a player whatever he wants. Its up to the club how much they can afford.

Neither in theory nor practice is that true.

And even if it were true, it has the clear and demonstrable effect of lowering wages and would still need to be defensible.

Some may think that there are trade interest and public interest arguments that could be used to defend the SC. I think on the evidence of its actual effects those arguments would be difficult to make.

I don't think anyone. Even the rfl. Would defend the SC on the basis of a theoretical possibility of only 1 player being paid the entire wage, not least because that is still a cap. (And would also contravene other SL rules.)

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:08 pm  

Hang on, Leigh haven't been promoted then ? wow ! i remember one of their fans stating they would easily be top 6 in super league next year... oops !!

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:35 pm  

They may win in court but they wont have anyone to play next season.

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:41 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone with even a tiny bit of a brain that a salary cap is not a a restriction on earnings.

I mean the entire reason for being of a salary cap is to cap salaries. That is literally all it does and all it sets out to do. It is nothing other than a cap on salaries.

That's not all it sets out to do - far from it; it also seeks to create an even competition, safeguard the financial viability of clubs and maintain the interest of spectators. On that basis, I can't see that it could be judged as anything other than a reasonable restraint.

Has the NRL salary cap been successfully challenged?

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:46 pm  

And there we have the crucial word "reasonable".

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:31 pm  

bren2k wrote:

That's not all it sets out to do - far from it; it also seeks to create an even competition, safeguard the financial viability of clubs and maintain the interest of spectators. On that basis, I can't see that it could be judged as anything other than a reasonable restraint.

Has the NRL salary cap been successfully challenged?

Those may be by products of it. They may even be a defence of it (they probably would) but they aren't what the SC sets out to do. Which is cap salaries.

I think you would have a hard time arguing that the competition is particularly even, that clubs under the SC have been financially safeguarded by it, or that the interest of spectators has been maintained by it.

The reasonableness tests of those are also in relation to the player. All those things may very well be reasonable to a club owner. But if they materially disadvantage a player with no pay back. That isn't reasonable.

Re: Leigh : Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:37 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Those may be by products of it. They may even be a defence of it (they probably would) but they aren't what the SC sets out to do. Which is cap salaries.

I think you would have a hard time arguing that the competition is particularly even, that clubs under the SC have been financially safeguarded by it, or that the interest of spectators has been maintained by it.

The reasonableness tests of those are also in relation to the player. All those things may very well be reasonable to a club owner. But if they materially disadvantage a player with no pay back. That isn't reasonable.

Which is why I asked - has the NRL salary cap been successfully challenged? They've had one in place for longer and whilst it's had some demonstrable failures in terms of the intent not translating to reality, I don't think there's been any legal ruling that found the restriction to be unreasonable. One would assume, if it was deemed to be unreasonable in law, that an NRL superstar would have a ruling in his favour by now.

I'm no expert by the way - I think you're wrong, but that's only based on a layman's understanding of the legal issues.