The counter argument is precisely what the NRL has used since the Cap was introduced. It's not much use to the player signing a higher value contract if the club goes broke overpaying its players and as a result he gets paid nothing in that year. Then can't get a contract in the subsequent year/s because there are now a bunch more players looking for a gig. Plenty of examples from the NRL history, like Wests and Tiger can't afford to both exist so they are combined and 30 players are out of work. Same with the StGeorge and Illawarra example, again it would be another 30 players without contracts. The Salary Cap is a compromise that the RLPA accepts for Club continuity and player security.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.
I think you have misunderstood me.The counter argument is precisely what the NRL has used since the Cap was introduced. It's not much use to the player signing a higher value contract if the club goes broke overpaying its players and as a result he gets paid nothing in that year. Then can't get a contract in the subsequent year/s because there are now a bunch more players looking for a gig. Plenty of examples from the NRL history, like Wests and Tiger can't afford to both exist so they are combined and 30 players are out of work. Same with the StGeorge and Illawarra example, again it would be another 30 players without contracts. The Salary Cap is a compromise that the RLPA accepts for Club continuity and player security.
Always a Bulldog
I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying was the NRL, in defending the Salary Cap, would simply point out that it benefits the players because it helps prevent clubs overspending, going broke and the players then not getting paid. It’s the standard unions vs business argument, more pay versus job security.I think you have misunderstood me.
I agree with your arguments about the effect the salary cap has had on the competition.
I haven't argued anywhere that it shouldn't exist or that it has helped many clubs to survive.
All I am saying is that if it is ever challenged there is a decent chance it will be ruled unconstitutional.
Don't forget, it only took 1 player to brig down the NRL draft in court as unconstitutional.
Yes but just because it has benefits does not mean it will be considered under the Industrial Relations Act.I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying was the NRL, in defending the Salary Cap, would simply point out that it benefits the players because it helps prevent clubs overspending, going broke and the players then not getting paid. It’s the standard unions vs business argument, more pay versus job security.
Always a Bulldog
Yep sbw in his ear saying he should be same $$ as fifitaHaas is going to a new manager - Perhaps this is the hold up nothing more...