Ch 9 News (inc DannyW) Payne Haas

[Ripley]

Will the dictionary tell me if that “Employer Body” pays anyone? funds anyone? Does it even generate revenue?

Does that “Employer body” have the power to hire and fire?

 

[Bulldogsteve]

I have also arranged finance for a current NRL player whos SALARY is paid by their respective club.

Exactly mate

 

[Ripley]

And if The NRL is just an “Employer body”

How come it does pay, does fund, does generate revenue and can hire and fire.

Consult that dictionary and get back to me.

 

[steeliz]

Will the dictionary tell me if that “Employer Body” pays anyone? funds anyone? Does it even generate revenue?

Does that “Employer body” have the power to hire and fire?

No, but the dictionary will help you understand the sentences you clearly have no grasp of at the moment.

If the member companies sign that right over to the employer body in the form of a legal contract like the NRL clubs have then YES they do.

 

[steeliz]

And if The NRL is just an “Employer body”

How come it does pay, does fund, does generate revenue and can hire and fire.

Consult that dictionary and get back to me.

because that is the funding model.

Why does the Federal Government collect GST and then give it to the states.

because that is the way it has been set up.

How do you not get this?

 

[steeliz]

I disagree. The player isnt forced to accept the contract at $xxxx dollars, it is their choice just like in any other working environment.
If I am an IT contractor, sure I would love to ask for $1m a year, but the business is advertising a contractual income of $200k, it would then be my choice if I want to accept that contract.

Yes, but how many times has a club come out and publicly stated that we would love to keep him but we don't have money in the cap.

If the cap wasn't there then that club my be offering more than the club that signed the player.

So essentially he is losing money because of a cap on salaries.

Not saying it is an easy sell but there is definitely a case for expensive barristers to mount a strong case.

In the days before the salary cap clubs would hoard FG players by paying them more and keeping them in reserve grade. Can't do that anymore.

Like I said some one on a higher paygrade and more intelligent could put together a much more eloquent argument.

 

[Caveman]

The nrl cannot fire a player - they can 9nly de register them from the nrl, which in turn allows clubs to fire a player without having to pay compansation - as registration with the nrl is part of a players contract.

 

[Caveman]

The draft was challenged in court and was found to be a breach of trade (Thanks Terry Hill).

Unfortunately I think if the salary cap was also ever challenged in court it would also be illegal. Technically it is restricting the income of Australian citizens and under a broad definition of the law, that is illegal.

But until it is challenged in a court of law it is allowed to exist.

I don't think it's a restriction of income as the nrl has a minimum wage set in place.

 

[steeliz]

I don't think it's a restriction of income as the nrl has a minimum wage set in place.

The restriction is on the Max.

A club cannot offer what it wants to sign a player like in a free market economy.

It can only offer what the salary cap allows.

 

[Caveman]

The restriction is on the Max.

A club cannot offer what it wants to sign a player like in a free market economy.

It can only offer what the salary cap allows.

Then that would be a restriction of trade on behalf of the clubs.

But a club would be silly to bite the hand that feeds it.

 

[steeliz]

This eplains in better words than I can mange

Link: How Salary Caps Changed Sports (investopedia.com)

"The salary caps allow teams with less talent to have the opportunity to entice players away from better teams because all teams (theoretically) have the same amount of money to work with.

Instead of having some teams with deep pockets and some teams with little to spend on talent, all teams should have the same buying power and ability to build a strong franchise.

Obviously, capping the amount a team can spend on players affects how much athletes can earn in any given year. This sometimes causes top-performing athletes to protest cap restrictions, causing serious implications for sports, like player strikes."

 

[Ripley]

No, but the dictionary will help you understand the sentences you clearly have no grasp of at the moment.

If the member companies sign that right over to the employer body in the form of a legal contract like the NRL clubs have then YES they do.

Oh really….

So someone who doesn’t employ you, can fire your arse can under Australian law. If, and let me get this right… the employer who does actually employ you, gives this someone the right to do so.

So you working for say, a bank, can be fired by… who was it again… oh that’s right….The Chamber of Commerce, as long as the bank gave them the right to do that.

And it’s all legal under Australian law, right?

Ummm…. Has it ever happened anywhere IN THE WORLD?

And btw, GST arrangements with the states are a tax thing, not an employment thing.

 

[steeliz]

Then that would be a restriction of trade on behalf of the clubs.

But a club would be silly to bite the hand that feeds it.

I agree it would stupid to do that.

The cap exists to keep the league and smaller clubs alive.

We would have a 5 team comp without it.

That is why it has never been challenged.

All I am saying is if it is ever challenged it may on shaky ground legally.

 

[steeliz]

Oh really….

So someone who doesn’t employ you, can fire your arse can under Australian law. If, and let me get this right… the employer who does actually employ you, gives this someone the right to do so.

So you working for say, a bank, can be fired by… who was it again… oh that’s right….The Chamber of Commerce, as long as the bank gave them the right to do that.

And it’s all legal under Australian law, right?

Ummm…. Has it ever happened anywhere IN THE WORLD?

And btw, GST arrangements with the states are a tax thing, not an employment thing.

Ok.

So lets say you are right.

Lets pretend the players are employed by the NRL.

Who decides which club they play for?

Who arranges 3rd party agreements?

 

[Ripley]

A) The Player. NRL just employs him to play NRL.

B) 3rd Party Arrangements are additional income, get it if you can.

 

[steeliz]

A) The Player. NRL just employs him to play NRL.

B) 3rd Party Arrangements are additional income, get it if you can.

So players just choose which club they play for?

And the NRL just allows the players to pick a club?

So if there is a breach of the Salary cap does that make the NRL responsible for the breach because they allow the player to choose their own club?

 

[TABOO]

Yes, but how many times has a club come out and publicly stated that we would love to keep him but we don't have money in the cap.

If the cap wasn't there then that club my be offering more than the club that signed the player.

So essentially he is losing money because of a cap on salaries.

Not saying it is an easy sell but there is definitely a case for expensive barristers to mount a strong case.

In the days before the salary cap clubs would hoard FG players by paying them more and keeping them in reserve grade. Can't do that anymore.

Like I said some one on a higher paygrade and more intelligent could put together a much more eloquent argument.

Sure, but this is no different to the real world.
Let's say I work for ANZ bank as a regional manager, I'm earning $150k per year and relatively happy in doing so

One day, NAB come along and offer me $200k to jump ship and work for them because it's known within the industry that I'm a high performer.

I speak to my manager at ANZ and say that I'm really happy but NAB have come in and offered me an extra $50k per year to go and do the same job over there.

ANZ say they really want to keep me but cannot afford to match the offer and should I decide to leave, they will fill my role with someone at or around my current salary.

This is not restriction of trade, it is reality and happens all the time. It is my decision as the employee to either take the higher money and go to NAB or stay for less at ANZ

 

[Caveman]

I agree it would stupid to do that.

The cap exists to keep the league and smaller clubs alive.

We would have a 5 team comp without it.

That is why it has never been challenged.

All I am saying is if it is ever challenged it may on shaky ground legally.

I think there's gotta be somthing better than the cap, but any change would cause an uprising.

Only way we see a better game and structure now is if another super league comes along.

 

[Ripley]

You know if the clubs were paying their wages, they’d have to generate $9.9m on top of their operating costs.

NRL grants The clubs something in excess of $12m I think, might be more.

 

[Ripley]

So players just choose which club they play for?

And the NRL just allows the players to pick a club?

So if there is a breach of the Salary cap does that make the NRL responsible for the breach because they allow the player to choose their own club?

No.

They allow, they don’t force.