Re: What will the RFL do if the DR. Breaks the Salary Cap?

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.