points system would work like the SC but rather than money, there would be points allocated to players when they were signed

It was first proposed in Australia like this

Each player would be assigned a simple points value based on how many first grade games they have played and if they have played rep footy and then clubs would have to keep under a nominal cap figure.
I haven’t done the detailed maths yet and some work would have to be done to make sure the numbers added up but it would work something like this:
Each club is given 120 points for their top 25 or 30 players. Players are worth the following:
Yet to debut: 0 points
1 – 50 games: 1 point
50 – 100 games: 2 points
100 – 150 games: 3 points
150 – 200 games: 4 points
200 – 250 games: 5 points
250 + games: 6 points
Current (last two years) Origin or international players (from Australia, New Zealand or England) would add five points to their value. I wouldn’t include other international football so clubs don’t ask their players not to play to avoid boosting their cap value. Most of the players that play for Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and so on would not make a top-tier rep team.
There would also be discounts available for the following:
• Player made their debut at their current club: minus one point
• Player has played 100 games at one club: minus one point
• Player has played 200 games at one club : minus two points
• Played 200 + games at NRL level: minus one point
• Player has played 300 + games at NRL level: minus two points
So a player like Cameron Smith would have a base points value of 11 points. For another club to sign him he would be worth nine points and to the Storm he would only register as six points.
Similarly, Paul Gallen would have a base value of 11 points and if another club wanted to sign him they would only get the one point discount. However, if Cronulla want to re-sign him, it only costs them seven points. And they might only pay him a base of $300k and find the rest in sponsorship as the most visible face of their club.
The idea of the points system is that it rewards loyalty and player development. If a club goes over the points cap in a season because three or four players made rep debuts or clocked up more club games that is ok. They can stay over, but just can’t sign any new players until they come back under the points cap.

With a few tweaks its a decent idea.

However personally i think you could do it much simpler by simply restricting the squad make up by saying your squad of say 30 (i think squads are a little small at the moment) and saying you have to include at least 15 with you before their 19th birthday, no more than 5 from overseas and no more than 7 who have played for another SL side you could achieve the same thing.

Its enforceable in the confines of a clubs membership of the RFL. If you want to be a member of the RFL you are signing up to abide by the RFLs regulations. If you don't agree to abide by the RFL regulations, then your membership can be rescinded and you are expelled from the RFL, as simple as. The 'highest court in the land' that certain people keep mentioning wouldn't give a fig. End of discussion.

RFL regulations are subject to the law the same as any organisation. The RFL cannot demand that clubs abide by an unlawful regulation, they cannot punish a club for not doing so.

What Law is the salary cap breaking?

Regards

King James

Its a restraint of trade. Some would argue a reasonable, and as so lawful one. Others that it isnt, and is an unlawful one.

Except of course the clubs voted for it and agree to be bound by it.

You can't agree to be bound by an unlawful regulation.

Well you can. You can agree to pretty much anything really. But it wouldnt be enforceable.

Do you have any more myths to serve up?



There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards

We should conduct an experiment.

Let a long standing rich club, or one of the nouveau riche with a sudden distaste for it, sue and win everything. The crowds, who are only interested in the chance to see star players, will no doubt respond.

Quote: wire-quin "Do you have any more myths to serve up? There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards'" Quote: wire-quin " 5.12 London Allowance In recognition of the higher living costs for London Broncos players due to their location a 10% London cost of living weighting allowance is applied to the Club’s maximum Aggregate Liability is available in addition to the Club Trained dispensation, subject to the combined value of both allowances being capped at the 10% weighting allowance. '" media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... 202016.pdf

Quote: wire-quin "Do you have any more myths to serve up? There is a minimum wage but no maximum wage. Weren't Wigan going to take it to court years ago. There was thinking that they would win but have no one to play afterwards'" Quote: wire-quin " 5.12 London Allowance In recognition of the higher living costs for London Broncos players due to their location a 10% London cost of living weighting allowance is applied to the Club’s maximum Aggregate Liability is available in addition to the Club Trained dispensation, subject to the combined value of both allowances being capped at the 10% weighting allowance. '" media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Super%20 ... 202016.pdf

Its up to the RFL and its members if a club is allowed membership of the RFL, not a judge. The only punishment for not agreeing to abide by the regulations is expulsion from the organisation. There is no problem with fining a club within the organisation as long as there are laid down disciplinary regulations (which there are).

Now which of your orifices are you going to argue with now, as I know you have to have the last word. However that is usually because people can't be bothered with you.

No. UK law supersedes the RFL in every aspect.

You cannot be bound by an unlawful term. Whether you agree to it or not it is unenforceable.

But it isn't fact that the salary cap would break the law or is unenforceable in law.

A company's (or most public sector body's) pay structure could similarly be described as a salary cap.

hence it being described as possibly unenforceable.

A companies pay structure is in no way comparable to the Salary Cap. There are many clear and obvious differences. Not least that a third party does not punish a company for breaking its pay structure.