Ch 9 News (inc DannyW) Payne Haas

[steeliz]

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

There is a difference between not being able to afford something, and being able to afford it but are not allowed to offer that money because of a 3rd party agreement such as a salary cap.

Yes some clubs cannot afford, but some can.

That is how we managed to hoard 2 FG packs in the nineties because we beat offers that others couldn't match.

That second tier of forwards players now have to go other clubs on the lower money because the richer clubs are restricted by a salary cap.

Don't get me wrong, in theory the salary cap has helped clubs survive after the mismanagement of the nineties and has stopped rich clubs dominating the comp like what is happening in the Premier League in England, and has (kind of) helped even out the comp through financial restraints.

I am just not sure it would survive a court challenge.

 

[steeliz]

No.

They allow, they don’t force.

They don't force what?

If the NRL controls players salaries then they know when salary cap breaches occur.

So the NRL allows breaches to occur?

 

[Caveman]

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.

Bro, as a fuel truck driver my company employed me to carry fuel from a terminal to one of our sites, part of my employment contract was that I'd hold a SLP which allowed me to load from the terminal.

If I lost that SLP due to foolishness my employer would have no option but to fire me as per my EBA.

The nrl does not employ the players.

Just like the terminal did not employ me.

 

[Ripley]

It’s also the reason there won’t be another Super League, at least not like the last one. Really the whole NRL contract thing has been structured more around preventing than getting SC legalities watertight, which it also did.

Someone wants to start another SL, fine. But it won’t be with any contracted NRL players.

 

[steeliz]

It’s also the reason there won’t be another Super League, at least not like the last one. Really the whole NRL contract thing has been structured more around preventing than getting SC legalities watertight, which it also did.

Someone wants to start another SL, fine. But it won’t be with any contracted NRL players.

I really hope you go around sprouting these theories in the real world.

The world has become a grim place and people need a good laugh.

I hope for your sake you are just trolling.

 

[Ripley]

They don't force what?

If the NRL controls players salaries then they know when salary cap breaches occur.

So the NRL allows breaches to occur?

No, clubs pay them extras, more than what’s lodged on The NRL contracts, two sets of books and all that.

And yes, before you say it, the players would know. That’s why the darlings should cop bans too

 

[Caveman]

It’s also the reason there won’t be another Super League, at least not like the last one. Really the whole NRL contract thing has been structured more around preventing than getting SC legalities watertight, which it also did.

Someone wants to start another SL, fine. But it won’t be with any contracted NRL players.

The nrl can not stop players from walking out on their contracts to play a different sport.

 

[Ripley]

I really hope you go around sprouting these theories in the real world.

The world has become a grim place and people need a good laugh.

I hope for your sake you are just trolling.

Oh ok Mr Chamber of Commerce and GST man

 

[Caveman]

No, clubs pay them extras, more than what’s lodged on The NRL contracts, two sets of books and all that.

And yes, before you say it, the players would know. That’s why the darlings should cop bans too

Agree with that, if a player is getting somthing on the side ban em.

 

[Ripley]

The nrl can not stop players from walking out on their contracts to play a different sport.

Correct.

Can try for damages but probably won’t get a cent. No judge would make the player return to NRL

 

[Caveman]

What's all this got to do with haas anyway?

 

[Ripley]

Bro, as a fuel truck driver my company employed me to carry fuel from a terminal to one of our sites, part of my employment contract was that I'd hold a SLP which allowed me to load from the terminal.

If I lost that SLP due to foolishness my employer would have no option but to fire me as per my EBA.

The nrl does not employ the players.

Just like the terminal did not employ me.

Who’d sack you did you say, your employer right, not the terminal.

Due to your EBA.

Who’s the players EBA with?

 

[steeliz]

Who’d sack you did you say, your employer right, not the terminal.

Due to your EBA.

Who’s the players EBA with?

The Club.

 

[Ripley]

The Club.

oh so there’s 16 EBA’s is there?

 

[steeliz]

oh so there’s 16 EBA’s is there?

The CBA is negotiated by the RLPA for the players.

NRL negotiates for the clubs.

NRL is employer body that represents clubs.

RLPA is a union that represents players.

This creates uniformity.

 

[Ripley]

The CBA is negotiated by the RLPA for the players.

NRL negotiates for the clubs.

NRL is employer body that represents clubs.

RLPA is a union that represents players.

This creates uniformity.

Yeah,

Rubbish you just made up

 

[steeliz]

Yeah,

Rubbish you just made up

Straight from the NRL

Link: NRL 2021: New pay deal agreed by RPLA and NRL - NRL

"Six months of negotiations between the NRL and Rugby League Players Association have finalised a six per cent reduction in the base salary cap for 2021 and 2022.

The revised CBA will see clubs operate to a $9.02 million cap this season – down from $9.6 million under the original agreement, and $9.11 million in 2022 – dropping from a planned $9.7 million.

With each NRL club saving just under $600,000 a year on salaries over the next two seasons, the savings amount to just under $19 million across player wages."

How do clubs save money on wages if they aren't the employer?

Or is that just rubbish the NRL made up.

 

[Ripley]

My last word on the subject:

If you would ask anyone, what is an organisation that -

*Has an employee that signs a contract in the name of that organisation (eg: NRL Contract)

*Enters into an EBA with the union of that employee.

*Provides the money that pays that employee.

*Has the ultimate termination of contract rights within the law.

*Is the principal exposed to any liability under Workplace Safety laws.

…. and I could go on…

Ask anyone who that organisation is and they’d say the EMPLOYER.

But apparently the dictionary calls them an “Employer Body”. Sometimes “The Chamber of Commerce.”

And they distribute GST to the states.

 

[steeliz]

My last word on the subject:

If you would ask anyone, what is an organisation that -

*Has an employee that signs a contract in the name of that organisation (eg: NRL Contract)

*Enters into an EBA with the union of that employee.

*Provides the money that pays that employee.

*Has the ultimate termination of contract rights within the law.

*Is the principal exposed to any liability under Workplace Safety laws.

…. and I could go on…

Ask anyone who that organisation is and they’d say the EMPLOYER.

But apparently the dictionary calls them an “Employer Body”. Sometimes “The Chamber of Commerce.”

And they distribute GST to the states.

You are clueless.

 

[TABOO]

There is a difference between not being able to afford something, and being able to afford it but are not allowed to offer that money because of a 3rd party agreement such as a salary cap.

Yes some clubs cannot afford, but some can.

That is how we managed to hoard 2 FG packs in the nineties because we beat offers that others couldn't match.

That second tier of forwards players now have to go other clubs on the lower money because the richer clubs are restricted by a salary cap.

Don't get me wrong, in theory the salary cap has helped clubs survive after the mismanagement of the nineties and has stopped rich clubs dominating the comp like what is happening in the Premier League in England, and has (kind of) helped even out the comp through financial restraints.

I am just not sure it would survive a court challenge.

Mate, that is just what they say.
We all know the banks could afford to pay more when they make $8 billion a year profit.

It's simply an out for them as they know they have a limit on what they are prepared to pay for your services. They know if you decide to take the bigger offer, they will replace you with someone who will do the same job, for less.

They may not do the job the exact same way, they might not even do the job as good, but they do the job in some capacity.

"Afford" was the wrong choice of word perhaps. "Prepared to pay" is probably a better description.