Only if that third party is not linked to the club.

good debate this but i would say that those who are putting the theory a club could pay a particular player any amount they want arent using a lot of reason - lets keep it in proportion

i cant believe a gentlemans/clubs agreement has full legal status in any jurisdiction if its against the general rule of restricting an individuals earning capacity- a governing body might say that its acting for the good of the sport but all member clubs are trading organisations in their own right , and they are not dependent for 100 per cent of their income from the governing body- so surely must be free to decide all aspects of their expenditure " without interference" from other parties

A salary cap decided by a third party even if its put that the clubs reps/ directors have voted for it , is surely an imposition on what an employee can negotiate directly with who pays them - in this case the club and must therefore constitute restriction of trade

i dont work under a salary cap and im sure that those contributors on here who are in full or even part time employment arent restricted either- so why should RL players be

well done.

how can a player prove they are missing out on higher earnings, unless he has an offer on the table from a club of more than £1.6m per annum, without any third party earnings included?

again, there is no theoretical limit on what any player can earn in the sport of rugby league.

I think the essence of it is that the players arnt restricted on what they can earn, the clubs have agreed to stick to a level, this is voluntary, so no laws are broken

Well summed up.

The SC for me is a good thing. Its undoubtedly stopped more clubs going bust since its inception, even if it hasn't stopped every such event.

Without analysing too deeply, I would be more of a fan of the (original?) SC which varied based on a clubs income, [sizeas long as it couldn't be manipulated using payments from associated companies etc.[/size

There simply isn't enough interest/money/infrastrucutres available for us to be letting clubs take silly risks, its not like football where there'll be another established club to step in a plug the gap.

I like the cap when used in conjunction with the tightening quota rules. I feel like we are seeing more British talent coming through, not just at Saints but accross the board. It might not be World Beating talent but its as good as Aussie journeymen.

I don't think anyone can argue the limt as it is is the 'right' thing for the sport long term. It's too low for a team to have 13 top players, let alone 17 like they have in the NRL. BUT at the moment there aren't enough quality players in the sport.

Raising the cap would be good, but the sport doesn't have the finances to do it.

]


Not a question of breaking any laws its observing them and
Article 81 of The EU treaty to which the UK and France are signatories would question the voluntary argument, there can be no artificial ceilings, limits , restrictions or Cartels on competition - In terms of restriction that was part of the case that Bosman won on back in 95 ,Not the same ruling directly as his was freedom of movement within the EU for sportsmen but his earning capacity which had been severely reduced was a principal point of his case .

The EU does recognise sports " specificity" within the community but Bosman won , Kolpak won and we all know UEFA would love to put a salary cap on but darent .

there is no way that a player could prove that his earnings have been severly reduced due to the salary cap, as there is no restriction on what a player can earn.

UEFA would love to have a salary cap in place - the only reason they dont is that the big clubs would just walk away and set up their own independent Euro Super League.

Yes you do. Your employer will have an amount available to spend on salaries, all companies have restricted money available for salaries. What about companies that have salary bands? The Civil Service for example? Each grade can only earn up to a set amount. If you hit the maximum, you don't get a pay rise unless that maximum is raised, to get a further increase you have to be promoted. You have to change jobs to get a pay increase. Is that restraint of trade?

There is no restriction of trade, nothing is stopping that player signing a contract for the money the club wants to pay. The fact that they either can't afford to pay them more, or simply don't think they are worth it is not a restriction on trade. The fact that the player chooses not to accept a contract because he thinks he is worth more does not constitute a restriction on trade.

When Chris Moyles was offered a reduced salary for his new contract because the BBC were reducing their salary budget, if he had rejected it, would that have been a restraint on trade? No.

My opinions:

1) The SC has certainly 'spread' the best players around, too a degree.
2) It has stopped some clubs spending more than they could afford and may have stopped worse things happening...
3) To increase it, the game needs a significant increase in revenue.

Succintly summed up by the sad bloke in the corner. Argue all you want about paying players more, restirictions on trade, blah blah blah, but there isn't a club in the country who can pay more than the salary cap allows, whilst still staying in business. If union can pay more for the top players, then that is life, get on with it. Union is a vastly richer sport than league, to try to compete with their wages is folly, and will lead to major problems in the game.

only another 7 years to go then

There are restrictions of what a player can be paid in RL.
A player can't be paid £1.7m. Theory yes, he still can't be though so it's a restriction.
Clubs are spending monies on other things now they are not investing it in players. As mentioned Leeds turnover was £10m with a cap of £1.65.
Of course they can afford to spend more than £1.65m on 25 players.