Black Backgrounds/Zoot.gifWE WON IT AT WEMBLEY - AND THEN AGAIN AT WEMBLEY - AND THEN AGAIN AT WEMBLEY - AND THEN AGAIN AT WEMBLEY - AND THEN AGAIN AT WEMBLEY - AND THEN AGAIN AT WEMBLEY - AND THEN AGAIN AT WEMBLEY - AND THEN AGAIN AT WEMBLEY - EIGHT TIMES - WE WON IT EIGHT TIMES - (IN A ROW!):Black Backgrounds/Zoot.gif
Quote: SmokeyTA "You are wrong, and this little rant is just embarrassing and simply highlights that fact you have got this little argument in your head and have jumped in with both feet rather than actually read what I put, but what it also highlights is that you don't have the first clue about what you are talking about.
The salary cap is a restraint of trade, there is no argument there, except by you, who doesn't understand what a restraint of trade is. There are a huge amount of restraints of trade, you yourself are likely party to some. Most employment contracts are a restraint of trade, I know mine is.
In my contract it says should I leave my current employer, I cannot work for a competitor in the uk for a period of one year. This is a restraint of trade but is enforceable because it is reasonable, I agreed to it, it is specific and it is a limited restraint purely to protect a legitimate interest. Therefore, though it is a restraint of trade, and nobody would argue different, it is enforceable for the reasons outlined above.
Should however my contract have said should I leave my employer I cannot work for a competitor, worldwide, ever. Then even though I had agreed to it, and even though it is in my contract and even though it is the same restraint of trade, it would not be enforceable because it isn't reasonable, isn't specific and isn't a limited restraint to protect a legitimate interest.
Similarly should the SC ever be taken to court, the defence of it would not be that it wasn't a restraint of trade, because clearly and obviously it is, the defence of it would be that as a restraint of trade it was reasonable, specific and a limited restraint to protect a legitimate interest. Cheap labour is not a legitimate interest. Their defence would be that it is necessary to keep clubs sustainable, to keep the competition even and that it provides stability which otherwise wouldn't be there protecting the players interest aswell. It was mutually beneficial.
Whether this defence would work is unknown.'"
Because I'm the one with an argument set in my head. Right. And I'm not sure why you think I'm ranting. Anyway.
Almost everything you say there is right, Yes you can't be limited to joining competitors for life ... That's like saying all of Wigans contracts including a clause saying they can't sign for saints ... A perfectly valid point, and as I said, restraint of trade would be the case if there were an agreement by the clubs alone, without governing body rules, to only pay x amount, but as it's the rules of a competition, there's no colluding (since other competitions don't have the same rules - it would be interesting from a legal standpoint, if the rfl and nrl set the same salary cap ... Not that that will ever happen)
It's a very easy argument to prove the aim of the salary cap is not cheap labour, as not all clubs are spending to the cap ...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a massive fan of the cap, and there are lots of things wrong with it (mainly it's the bottom clubs dictating it's value as opposed the top) but it's not illegal.
7007.jpg[quote="Badwanger":3hoggrzp]IMO, Sculthorpe at his peak was better than Hanley was at his.[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="nickmanator":3hoggrzp]billy boston in todays game might pinch a spot bringin the cone on and that bein kind[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="robbierotten":3hoggrzp]Imo Sam Tomkins is a very poor mans Danny Brough he is just a average player getting bigged up by the idiots who comentate on sky.[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="Deano G":3hoggrzp]Jonathan Davies, who is his equal in [Super League] today?[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="Badwanger":3hoggrzp]Wellens[/quote:3hoggrzp]:7007.jpg
Quote: Magic Superbeetle "Okay. He can try to claim restraint of trade. He would fail. It's simple. Salford (or anyone else) can sign as many players, on as much as they like. They cannot register them within the competition that is super league unless they fit agreed criteria. In the same way that, for example, judo can impose weight restrictions, or barla can age restrictions, the rfl can impose restrictions on player compensations (or in the actual case, combined player compensation) so long as they don't aim to collude with barla, the nrl or any other body to determine the fair price of player compensation. (For further info look up the trade case of electrical engineers vs agreements made by Google and apple.)
And tribunal would simply say, break the rules of the competition and don't like the sanctum brought down? Don't register for the competition.'"
You are not correct. A salary cap is a restraint of trade. A quick search on google found this piece from a leading barristers' chambers:
Quote: Magic Superbeetle "Okay. He can try to claim restraint of trade. He would fail. It's simple. Salford (or anyone else) can sign as many players, on as much as they like. They cannot register them within the competition that is super league unless they fit agreed criteria. In the same way that, for example, judo can impose weight restrictions, or barla can age restrictions, the rfl can impose restrictions on player compensations (or in the actual case, combined player compensation) so long as they don't aim to collude with barla, the nrl or any other body to determine the fair price of player compensation. (For further info look up the trade case of electrical engineers vs agreements made by Google and apple.)
And tribunal would simply say, break the rules of the competition and don't like the sanctum brought down? Don't register for the competition.'"
You are not correct. A salary cap is a restraint of trade. A quick search on google found this piece from a leading barristers' chambers:
7007.jpg[quote="Badwanger":3hoggrzp]IMO, Sculthorpe at his peak was better than Hanley was at his.[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="nickmanator":3hoggrzp]billy boston in todays game might pinch a spot bringin the cone on and that bein kind[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="robbierotten":3hoggrzp]Imo Sam Tomkins is a very poor mans Danny Brough he is just a average player getting bigged up by the idiots who comentate on sky.[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="Deano G":3hoggrzp]Jonathan Davies, who is his equal in [Super League] today?[/quote:3hoggrzp]
[quote="Badwanger":3hoggrzp]Wellens[/quote:3hoggrzp]:7007.jpg
Quote: SmokeyTA "You are wrong, and this little rant is just embarrassing and simply highlights that fact you have got this little argument in your head and have jumped in with both feet rather than actually read what I put, but what it also highlights is that you don't have the first clue about what you are talking about.
The salary cap is a restraint of trade, there is no argument there, except by you, who doesn't understand what a restraint of trade is. There are a huge amount of restraints of trade, you yourself are likely party to some. Most employment contracts are a restraint of trade, I know mine is.
In my contract it says should I leave my current employer, I cannot work for a competitor in the uk for a period of one year. This is a restraint of trade but is enforceable because it is reasonable, I agreed to it, it is specific and it is a limited restraint purely to protect a legitimate interest. Therefore, though it is a restraint of trade, and nobody would argue different, it is enforceable for the reasons outlined above.
Should however my contract have said should I leave my employer I cannot work for a competitor, worldwide, ever. Then even though I had agreed to it, and even though it is in my contract and even though it is the same restraint of trade, it would not be enforceable because it isn't reasonable, isn't specific and isn't a limited restraint to protect a legitimate interest.
Similarly should the SC ever be taken to court, the defence of it would not be that it wasn't a restraint of trade, because clearly and obviously it is, the defence of it would be that as a restraint of trade it was reasonable, specific and a limited restraint to protect a legitimate interest. Cheap labour is not a legitimate interest. Their defence would be that it is necessary to keep clubs sustainable, to keep the competition even and that it provides stability which otherwise wouldn't be there protecting the players interest aswell. It was mutually beneficial.
Whether this defence would work is unknown.'"
You are right that the RFL could try to defend the SC. The problem they would have is that it has been a failure in its own terms, whether the goal is preventing financial failure or bringing about a level playing field. It has however succeeded in massively reducing player wages in real terms. That is not a good position to be arguing from.... !!!
Restraint of trade or not, no club or player has yet decided to challenge the imposition of a salary cap.
So they are either all happy with it, or are getting round it to whatever degree.
IL is happy with it and sees no reason to increase it. I presume therefore he hopes no one [iis[/i breaking it.
It can't stay at the same level forever though. It will have to increase sooner rather than later or being a full time RL player won't be worth the effort.
The fact most clubs (including Wigan given IL is "poor" compared to Moran or Koukash) can't afford an increase won't change that.
It either goes up or the game will become semi-pro once more.
icons39ad_files/4821-1859san_c-msnicons.jpgOfficially RLFAN's most Doe-eyed Happy Clapper.
Big Steve wrote:
The Internet has provided some wonderful creativity, opportunities and knowledge sharing but it has also given a worldwide forum for people you would leave a full pint behind in the pub to avoid having to listen to them.
aboveusonlypie...
If you don't bother to go to the game when you live in the locality then you are not really a fan and therefore your views are invalid. It's simple.:icons39ad_files/4821-1859san_c-msnicons.jpg
DaveO, it will only go up when there is a greater input from some of the smaller clubs, and the RFL also get more money into the game.... Or do you just want to lay the blame for the world's ills at IL's door, as per usual.
Please tell us how we get more money into the game, I'll expect a 400 page report by lunch time Saturday. Perhaps the article below may help, taken from VT
For what it's worth, i do think that RL is in a parlous state, and many have been expressing concern for sometime.
DaveO, it will only go up when there is a greater input from some of the smaller clubs, and the RFL also get more money into the game.... Or do you just want to lay the blame for the world's ills at IL's door, as per usual.
Please tell us how we get more money into the game, I'll expect a 400 page report by lunch time Saturday. Perhaps the article below may help, taken from VT
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
I am the hash browns of rlfans 
