Actually, you don't. By definition a contract is a restraint of trade. that is what it is intended to do. What you have to show is that restraint is reasonable. Nobody would argue that the salary cap isn't a restraint of trade, it is. The argument would be made that it is reasonable to protect the integrity of the game, in terms of the competitive balance and to protect clubs financially, and as such also works in the players favour by providing them with a stability that wouldn't otherwise be there. I think considering recent history they would struggle to convince anyone that the Salary Cap is providing stability for players, or that it is protecting clubs financially, or that that it is integral for a competitive balance. (im confident there will be a few Wakefield, Bradford and Crusaders players with pretty compelling evidence that the SC did not provide them with any kind of security and in no way worked in their favour)

It would not need a player to need to be paid more than the SC for a complaint to be made, it has an obvious deflationary effect on wages already, if it didn't, it wouldn't exist. The argument wouldn't be whether or not the SC was a restraint, it not only quite clearly is, it is intended to be one and has no other purpose other than to cap wages, to argue it doesn't do that would be crazy. The argument would be over the reasonableness of such a thing, not just from the clubs point of view, but the players as well.

You've put forward the argument that the salary cap is easily challenged legally for quite a while now. Yet lots of different sports in different countries operate one. If it was so easily challenged why hasn't it been?
Whether it's the NRL in Australia, Union in France, the massive U.S. sports or all 4 professional team sports in the UK, they all seem to manage with a salary cap.


But well done for trying to deflect the debate away from whether people participating in a competition have to abide by certain rules and regulations, like RL players do. If they want to participate in SL they have to abide by those rules.

There is specific anti-trust legislation in the US to deal with it. I.e it is accepted to be a restraint of trade but whilst the unions agree to it through the CBA (and many, many other boring things) they allow it.

Besides, both Australia and the US have different laws to us.

UEFA have basically admitted they couldn't even try to implement a straight salary cap, and as such have gone for financial fair play, which itself is being challenged, and UEFA have folded faster than the world speed origami champion making a paper tiger. People within RU including some club owners have publicly said they don't believe the SC to be legal and you will find many within RU accusing certain clubs of ignoring the SC and not being punished.

Im not moving the debate away from whether people in a competition have to abide by certain rules and regulations. Of course they do. So long as those rules and regulations themselves are legal and enforceable. You could not force a player to disclose their partners financial information without their consent because to do so would be illegal. You couldn't force a players partner to disclose that information because you are nothing but a governing body and hold no authority over that person. The idea the RFL could demand a player provide someone else's financial information is nuts.

As for the reason why such a case hasn't been brought yet, two reasons, firstly, when one is threatened very quickly governing bodies capitulate and bring in some kind of new allowance, and secondly, when it comes to RL, the figures you would be talking about would be relatively minimal, its not really in the players interests to start bringing cases costing hundreds of thousands of pounds to gain amounts in tens of thousands of pounds, if you were the owner of a club with deep pockets......... it might never even come to light.

i think the problem we have in SL, is that the NRL's 19th best HB will easily be in SL's top 3 half's.

Moron.

He has a point to be fair. Sandow isn't wanted by Parramatta for next year, it doesn't seem as though any other NRL club is interested either. He's had his problems, some have alleged attitude problems, other talked about weight and fitness issues.

Despite all that Warrington fans are getting excited over the signing. Some suggesting he is a marquee player. It demonstrates the huge gulf between the NRL and SL.

FWIW i think he will go very well over here. His style of play is probably more suited to SL and being out if the intense media spotlight will probably be good for him.

Barring enormous attitude problems, Sandow will kill it in SL in my opinion.

Quote: FearTheVee "Barring enormous attitude problems, Sandow will kill it in SL in my opinion.'" I agree, however things like this don't make good reading: www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/parrama ... 7449847374

Quote: FearTheVee "Barring enormous attitude problems, Sandow will kill it in SL in my opinion.'" I agree, however things like this don't make good reading: www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/parrama ... 7449847374

So yet another season for wirefan to hopeful and then be dissapointed

I always thought the easier loophole is that a club pays a marque player £1m and he has a poker night where the other 18 squad members each win £50k from him.....

You do realise that being the 22nd best HB in the NRL is the equivalent of being a top 2 HB in SL.
When you look at the halfbacks over recent years that have struggled to even get a game in the NRL tear it up over here such as Dureau, Walsh etc it puts things into perspective how good Sandow could be over here. As things currently stand Sandow won't be our marquee player.

Second in try assists in the NRL for an average, struggling Para side considering he's been playing awful. Can't wait to see him over here tearing teams a new one.

Apparently he's joint 4th on the dally m rankings, in which case I reckon 22nd best half back is probably, just a tad, incorrect.

Apparently he's joint 4th on the dally m rankings, in which case I reckon 22nd best half back is probably, just a tad, incorrect.

Dureau and Walsh have both been awful this year.

Sandow isn't our marquee player.