All of which helpfully serves to illustrate the point I made earlier.

Nobody is being played, the bar isn't being raised and no matter how much water Derek has, he can't take legal action against the operational rules of a competition he signed up to take part in.

Aside from that, good luck for next year.

If an operational rules is illegal. Whether you signed up for it or not it cannot be enforced.

The bigger question about the SC is how much the rfl is willing to go into bat to protect a rule that doesn't actually effect or benefit them. This is a possibility illegal rule the RFL administer but don't actually get anything out of.

I would bet, like the quota, we never actually get to the courts and as soon as the lawyers get involved there will be an 'accomodation' made.

In what way is the salary cap illegal?

Its not. Any player can earn themselves up to anything they want in theory. However in practise it would mean that no other player playing for the same club can be paid. The RFL aren't restricting trade or what someone can earn, they are telling clubs how much they can spend on players.

It's a collusion between owners to restrict the earnings of players. It is by its very definition a restraint of trade. There is no argument it isn't. There may be an argument that it is a reasonable one. On the previous reasoning given by the RFL as to that I think that would be a difficult argument to make. The rfl and clubs may feel differently.

There is different arguments to be made as well. Derek Beaumont is unlikely to bring a restraint of trade case. He would more likely look at other avenues. It would more likely be a player who does so

You are going to have a hard time convincing anyone with even a tiny bit of a brain that a salary cap is not a a restriction on earnings.

I mean the entire reason for being of a salary cap is to cap salaries. That is literally all it does and all it sets out to do. It is nothing other than a cap on salaries.

It may be a bit pedantic but in theory a club can pay a player whatever he wants. Its up to the club how much they can afford.

Neither in theory nor practice is that true.

And even if it were true, it has the clear and demonstrable effect of lowering wages and would still need to be defensible.

Some may think that there are trade interest and public interest arguments that could be used to defend the SC. I think on the evidence of its actual effects those arguments would be difficult to make.

I don't think anyone. Even the rfl. Would defend the SC on the basis of a theoretical possibility of only 1 player being paid the entire wage, not least because that is still a cap. (And would also contravene other SL rules.)

Hang on, Leigh haven't been promoted then ? wow ! i remember one of their fans stating they would easily be top 6 in super league next year... oops !!

They may win in court but they wont have anyone to play next season.

That's not all it sets out to do - far from it; it also seeks to create an even competition, safeguard the financial viability of clubs and maintain the interest of spectators. On that basis, I can't see that it could be judged as anything other than a reasonable restraint.

Has the NRL salary cap been successfully challenged?

And there we have the crucial word "reasonable".

Those may be by products of it. They may even be a defence of it (they probably would) but they aren't what the SC sets out to do. Which is cap salaries.

I think you would have a hard time arguing that the competition is particularly even, that clubs under the SC have been financially safeguarded by it, or that the interest of spectators has been maintained by it.

The reasonableness tests of those are also in relation to the player. All those things may very well be reasonable to a club owner. But if they materially disadvantage a player with no pay back. That isn't reasonable.

Which is why I asked - has the NRL salary cap been successfully challenged? They've had one in place for longer and whilst it's had some demonstrable failures in terms of the intent not translating to reality, I don't think there's been any legal ruling that found the restriction to be unreasonable. One would assume, if it was deemed to be unreasonable in law, that an NRL superstar would have a ruling in his favour by now.

I'm no expert by the way - I think you're wrong, but that's only based on a layman's understanding of the legal issues.

Although called the salary cap, it's not about capping an individual salary, juts the total spend on the salaries of a certain group and it was brought in to prevent clubs "doing a Wigan".

As others have posted, it wont prevent a top player earning a decent wedge (Sam Tomkins and Chase are good examples) it's all about total spend.
(I know that you know this already but, maybe others don't)

The total spend v individual player thing is a red herring. It has the effect of capping a players wages, it has the effect of depressing their market value and although people keep claiming it doesnt cap an individual salary, it does in both practice and theory.

the nrl operate under different laws. Also the NRL salary cap is agreed in conjunction with the players union as part of a CBA. It should offend everyone in our game that our Salary Cap isnt agreed with the players, it is imposed on them.

Derek's playing it nicely how do get salary cap raised,piece in the paper,let the rfl get in a flap and cap raised

its illegal to restrict someone's pay similar prior to bosmon in football

He hasn't asked to have the salary cap raised - he wants to ignore it altogether.
Hardly original when the NRL and rugby union clubs have discussed the salary cap very recently.
The RFL seem to ask the Super League clubs to discuss it - Leigh,as you know,are NOT in Super League.
The salary cap discussions are not new - [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-62747/Lindsay-calls-end-salary-capping.htmlStory[/url

Heres the thing. They are not restricting anybodys pay; The official company that employs the Leigh players can pay them a million pounds each if they would like to without punishment.
However the operational rules of the RFL say that in order to be a member of the RFL and participate in the their competitions you must register your players and their disclose their salary.
You can pay them whatever you like, but you can only register up to 2 million pounds worth of talent with the RFL to play in the competition. That is why this is not a restriction of trade. The RFL have lawyers too.

No, they cant. The official company that employs Leighs players cannot pay them a million pounds each without punishment.

The RFL had lawyers when they implemented a quota system that fell down like a pack of cards.

UEFA had some pretty expensive lawyers when Jean-Marc Bosman took them to court. They had even more expensive ones when they went to court to defend FFP before it was exposed as a paper tiger.

Premiership Rugby had some pretty expensive lawyers annd they are seeing the same issue we are.

......just like Marwan eh?

It's Dumb and Dumber without the intelligence.

The salary cap is different to eligibility in the sense that for a player to prove they individually are being restrained by the cap they'd have to show that a club was willing to pay them more but that the club wouldn't as it was entirely down to the cap. Its not restraint of trade if that same player could get what they want at another club. It would be very difficult for a player to successfully attack the cap on their own as there are lots of other moving parts (other players wages, payments by other clubs to players, financial ability to pay more by the club etc etc). Unless a club was willing to show that it would pay all its players amounts that would blow the cap ceiling its hard to imagine a successful outcome in court, especially if individually each player could get more elsewhere.

As for a club challenging the cap, I thought one of the most basic rules of being a member of most sporting bodies was signing up to agree to abide by the rules of that body. Don't know about the RFL, but in some cases taking the body to court would result in immediate suspension from competition.

In the end its bluster, and actually making a mockery of some very important questions - should there be a cap, how should it be set and managed, how can you set a cap to allow an ambitious championship team to compete in the Middle 8s, etc.

Quote ="SmokeyTA"No, they cant. The official company that employs Leigh's players cannot pay them a million pounds each without punishment. The RFL had lawyers when they implemented a quota system that fell down like a pack of cards. UEFA had some pretty expensive lawyers when Jean-Marc Bosman took them to court. They had even more expensive ones when they went to court to defend FFP before it was exposed as a paper tiger. Premiership Rugby had some pretty expensive lawyers annd they are seeing the same issue we are.'" The relevant sections of the operational rules are very clear. Quote A1:1 Each Club which participates in Super League, the Championship or League 1, or in any other league or competition or any game under the jurisdiction of the RFL or organised by the RFL is deemed by acceptance of the invitation to be bound by the Operational Rules, the Rules and Regulations of any body of which the RFL is a member, the terms of any agreement entered into by the RFL and the Laws of the Game and accept the jurisdiction of the RFL. The Laws of the Game and the Operational Rules will be published on the RFL website. All Clubs competing in Competitions are deemed to have read and accepted the Rules as a condition of entry into each Competition.'" Quote A3:9 Each Club shall comply with the Super League Salary Cap Rules, the Championship Salary Cap Rules and/or League 1 Salary Cap Rules (as applicable to the leagues it plays in from time to time) and the Financial Sustainability Regulations as notified to them from time to time.'" Quote 1.4.2 to submit to the authority of the RFL and any member of the Compliance Team to adopt, apply, monitor and enforce the Regulations; '" Quote A Club must ensure that, at any time during the Salary Cap Year, its Aggregate Liability does not exceed: (a) £1,000,000 (One Million Pounds). A Club’s “Aggregate Liability” is calculated by adding together the respective Salary Cap Values of the Club’s Players at the given time in question. A Club’s “Players” are the 25 Players registered with the Club and eligible to play in the Championship who have the highest Salary Cap Values at the time in question, whether or not they have played for the Club in a Salary Cap Relevant Match in the Salary Cap Year to that date, in addition to all other players at the club who will or do play in a Salary Cap Relevant Match. '" Leigh agreed to these rules when they joined the competition. This is Leigh, the employer, taking legal action against the RFL. Not a player or players union. Important distinction. Find me something in the rules that says anything about what an employer can pay their employees.... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules

Quote ="SmokeyTA"No, they cant. The official company that employs Leigh's players cannot pay them a million pounds each without punishment. The RFL had lawyers when they implemented a quota system that fell down like a pack of cards. UEFA had some pretty expensive lawyers when Jean-Marc Bosman took them to court. They had even more expensive ones when they went to court to defend FFP before it was exposed as a paper tiger. Premiership Rugby had some pretty expensive lawyers annd they are seeing the same issue we are.'" The relevant sections of the operational rules are very clear. Quote A1:1 Each Club which participates in Super League, the Championship or League 1, or in any other league or competition or any game under the jurisdiction of the RFL or organised by the RFL is deemed by acceptance of the invitation to be bound by the Operational Rules, the Rules and Regulations of any body of which the RFL is a member, the terms of any agreement entered into by the RFL and the Laws of the Game and accept the jurisdiction of the RFL. The Laws of the Game and the Operational Rules will be published on the RFL website. All Clubs competing in Competitions are deemed to have read and accepted the Rules as a condition of entry into each Competition.'" Quote A3:9 Each Club shall comply with the Super League Salary Cap Rules, the Championship Salary Cap Rules and/or League 1 Salary Cap Rules (as applicable to the leagues it plays in from time to time) and the Financial Sustainability Regulations as notified to them from time to time.'" Quote 1.4.2 to submit to the authority of the RFL and any member of the Compliance Team to adopt, apply, monitor and enforce the Regulations; '" Quote A Club must ensure that, at any time during the Salary Cap Year, its Aggregate Liability does not exceed: (a) £1,000,000 (One Million Pounds). A Club’s “Aggregate Liability” is calculated by adding together the respective Salary Cap Values of the Club’s Players at the given time in question. A Club’s “Players” are the 25 Players registered with the Club and eligible to play in the Championship who have the highest Salary Cap Values at the time in question, whether or not they have played for the Club in a Salary Cap Relevant Match in the Salary Cap Year to that date, in addition to all other players at the club who will or do play in a Salary Cap Relevant Match. '" Leigh agreed to these rules when they joined the competition. This is Leigh, the employer, taking legal action against the RFL. Not a player or players union. Important distinction. Find me something in the rules that says anything about what an employer can pay their employees.... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules

There you go Derek just announced chase,Patterson,Hansen and maitua for next season,seems is lawyers gave him the green light