You cannot sign away your right to legal recourse if the RFL are breaking the law. The courts decision supersedes any and all conditions of RFL membership.

That same clause applies to SC as it would to things like racial and sexual discrimination. By signing that you do not absolve the RFL or the operational rules from adhering to the law.

There is a restraint on the person in both principle and practice. It does stop a player earning his market worth. If it didn't it would exist and certainly wouldn't be called a salary cap. You can't argue that it doesn't stop a player earning x amount just a club offering x amount because they amount to the same thing. If a club cannot offer x amount a player cannot earn it.

The defence of it wouldn't be that it wasn't a restraint of trade but that it was a reasonable one based on its effect on the market, players and fans, that it was procompetititve. A strong argument in theory can be made in favour of the SC on those basis. In practice, in RL, with our recent history, I think it would be a difficult one to make.

That's not true. You can sign away rights to legal recourse, an obvious example being COT3 settlement agreements between employers and employees. After an employee signs a COT3 they waive all rights to any further legal claims.

Similarly, the RFL is not compelled to accept Salford as a member. They have no legal right to membership of the RFL and can be expelled. People forget that the RFL isn't just the people at Red Hall, it is actually a collective of member clubs and by suing Salford would essentially be suing their fellow member clubs.

said employer is still bound by the law at all stages. If part of the process of the COT3 is unlawful it can be challenged.

Salford are a member. They have a contract with the RFL that forms the basis of their membership. They cannot have that membership withdrawn without good reason. Not breaking the law like the RFL wanted them to is not good reason

The salary cap in my view indisputably restricts both competition, and free movement of workers. So, would be held unlawful under EU law unless it can be justified. That in turn would depend on whether the salary cap rules are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim under EU law.

Therein would lie the argument.

If the aim of the SC was to improve competitive balance, then I think there would be some prospect of it being upheld. But the actual aim of the SC is, in a nutshell, mainly to stop clubs overspending and going bust (because it is directly linked to income) . Would that pass muster? .


It is arguable that it could, but ultimately IMHO the argument would be lost, as there are just too many obstacles to jump before the ECJ would make such a finding.

If you can get hold of it, do read a very good article titled "[iThe Problem With Salary Caps Under European Union Law: The Case Against Financial Fair Play[/i" by Johan Lindholm, which puts lots of flesh on these and other relevant arguments, and contains hundreds of references and authorities.

I agree pretty much entirely. It's not that a Salary Cap per se cannot be justified. I just don't think ours would be.

I'll keep a look out for it

LOL @ thinking the cap is a restraint of trade. There's a reason sports AROUND THE WORLD use them, if they weren't legal they'd have been picked apart decades ago.

Unless you can provide examples of when a player has literally been unable to play RL in this country due to no teams having the available salary cap space made available to teams by the RFL? If you can't then there's your answer to restraint of trade being a thing.

Lol indeed.

I take it you have no examples (with sources) of a Rugby League players ability to apply his trade in the UK being hindered by the salary cap then?

Every single player to have played for the last 15 years. Source. Being able to understand what the word cap means

So no, you don't have any examples.

Not one single player has been unable to apply his trade as a Rugby League player in the UK due to a salary cap being in place.

The companies have decided what employees are worth, the employees are happy with what they earn...that means the market is in the right place.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Now I'm done with you because you just like to argue in circles and bore people out of threads, take the L and move on.

You are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than this hissy fit to convince anyone a salary cap is not a cap on salaries.

If the companies had decided what employees are worth and employees were happy with that Puletua wouldn't have gone to court and Koukash wouldn't have broken the cap. That is self evident. The rest of your nonsense is just nonsense.

That's rubbish !

If the rumours are to be believed, a player (or players) were earning a far higher salary with their previous club(s) than the salary offered by their new employer and the difference was allegedly being made up by a third party company.

IF this is indeed the case, the club in question would have clearly and deliberately broken the S/C rules and that the parties involved knew exactly what they were doing in order to pay the player more money and abuse the system.

IF he was worth the alleged gross figure, he could have been paid this money in salary from the club and they would need to manage their squad spend differently in order to pay the player this amount.

Nobody is preventing any player from earning a living.

And lets remember why the cap was put in place and that we are "copying" the Aussie example (albeit at a lower level), in theory to prevent clubs overspending on wages,.

Although we can all argue the pro's and cons of the cap, it certainly hasn't been kept a secret and ALL clubs enter their player negotiations knowing the rules in advance and if they chose to break the rules, they should be reprimanded.

It appears that Dr K wants to test both the system and the RFL's ability to impose it but, this is just a wealthy owner flexing his muscles and IF this case is proven, there can be little sympathy for any penalty that they suffer as a consequence.

IF he didn't like the deal, he should have kept clear and if he believes that other clubs are doing the same, then now may be a good time for him to speak up

I don't think it's black and white regarding any legal action regarding the SC.

There's no restriction or cap on what individdual players earn, only on what the business can spend on it's playing staff. Two different things entirely.


There's restrictions in all sports whether it be overseas quotas (which IMO sports governing bodies would have much more of an issue enforcing legally than a SC) and I cant recall many legal challenges by clubs on these sorts of rules.

End of day there aren't many (if any) legal experts on here and even if they were, If they were to say whether a SC is legal or not, they wouldn't necessarily be right. Its for the courts to decide.If it gets that far.

I personally think the SC should be abolished however.

May I suggest that you read the article I mentioned. Then at least you'd gain a basic understanding of what we're talking about. I'm no expert on EU law, even if I have a degree which included a module in EU law, but I do have an understanding of the complex issues of EU law which come into play regarding salary caps, and you, with respect, clearly don't.

I'm not bothered by all the legal ins and outs and what key board lawyers think. I'm just gutted that we finally after years have a decent team which all Salford fans can get behind. There's no superstars, just a team that graft and work hard. Under Watto and Sheens were actually playing decent rugby . It will be such a shame if we get a points deduction when we finally seem to have turned a corner. However, the salary cap is in place for a reason and we must take what's coming. If this was any other team I would expect a points reduction and want it in order to keep our great game fair. Just a shame this was done for a bunch of hyped up mercenaries who did naff all for my club!

It's rubbish when someone derails a thread by being annoyingly sensible and balanced.

I've had the SC argument with Smokey before; I don't believe the RFL are breaking the law by applying a SC, and neither have any other courts around the world who've been asked to look at SC'd sports - so the whole issue of Salford being free to do whatever they like and still remain in the comp is a red herring in my view. It's technically correct that an illegal clause is unenforceable, but I can't see any judge making a ruling to that effect in RL.

There is a mountain of evidence that a SC is pro-competitive and good for fans in terms of maintaining interest through competitiveness; yes, some clubs have still had financial difficulties, but that's nothing compared to the effect an unregulated environment would have on the sport as a whole.

Well said Stanley30 and bren2k

The NRL could be about to test this theory again - Paramatta Eels are in bother over 3rd party payments to some players, which seems an exact replica of the problems facing Salford. I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that the outcome will not be that the SC is an illegal clause, so NRL clubs can do what they like.

What is the mountain of evidence? Not the theory that it would, but the evidence that it has.

The way our seasons going I'm banking on you getting a big points deduction so we can scrap it out with Wakefield for that all important 10th spot

The way our seasons going I'm banking on you getting a big points deduction so we can scrap it out with Wakefield for that all important 10th spot

Pardon?

An unfair condition or contract term to be allowed to remain within a competition (or club or employment) which is the lifeblood and sole reason for your existance with respect to a rugby club playing rugby under the auspices of the RFL IS unlawful (if decreed such by a court/judge)
By playing and remaining in the 'club' it does not mean you agree with the conditions/contract terms but are essentially being subjected to a form of blackmail, agree or this will happen. What would happen is Salford (or any other club) would essentially no longer exist in its current and very long standing guise.

IMHO the salary cap as it has being kept IS a restriction in trade. If the SC had increased incrementally with inflation at the barest minimum from the outset we wouldn't be in this position of effectively reducing salaries.
Part of the problem of available monies into the sport to make an increased SC more sustainable is the failure of the RFL to get enough money from sponsors and TV into the game. Even sacrificing a million pounds (& in doing so totally devaluing the headline sponsorship value of the league competition at a stroke!) in an ill thought out deal.
Also given the huge strain/demands on SL players (especially over easter) the ability to maintain a squad of players to protect players welfare woild come under scrutiny. Players time and again play through injury have injections to get through a match because not only does the coach feel forced to play them due to quality but he may not have any other options due to lack of fit players. Yes you can play kids but that in itself can impact fulfilling fixtures lower down the order.
The SC restricts any possibility of expansion/improvement (& thus is reatrictive) not just across the country but alao in retaining/accquring players within the aport be that top end talent or younger players who can't be retained or even cannot afford to keep playing due to such small salaries and.move out the sport completely.

There are two main arguments at play here.
1. Is the SC a restriction of trade.
I would argue that it is not. Players who play in SL have made a clear choice to do so. Players are not forced to play in SL or restricted from earning a higher salary in the NRL or in rugby union, which are comparable jobs. The opportunity to earn a higher salary elsewhere using the same skills consequently means the SC in super league is not restricting their opportunity either to be employed elsewhere, or earn a higher salary doing so.

2. The SC is illegal and unenforceable.
Again, I would argue this is not the case. This is the difference between an illegal act and a breach of contract (ie the contract that a club enters into when it agrees to be involved in RFL competitions). Essentially, any club who breaks the SC breaches it's contract with the RFL. As a result, the RFL are entitled to take action (such as imposing fines and deducting points).

I often find analogies useful and have two that would fit this situation. The first is that of the disciplinary. Players can be fined and suspended (ie punished) for actions on the field of play, but these are not illegal. However, they are the rules imposed by the RFL and if players wish to continue in the RFL competition , they have to abide by them and accept sanctions when they break them. Nobody, in any sport, has ever argued that a player cannot be punished for an act against the laws of the game, even if the said act is not illegal. This is exactly the same. A club who breaks an agreed rule CAN be punished by the RFL, just as a player who does the same thing on the field is.

The second analogy is similar, but in a more day to day kind of way. Imagine you are holding a party at your home. You invite a friend who gets really drunk and throws up on your best armchair. Now, your friend hasn't done anything illegal. However, you have the right to throw him/her out of your house. The RFL are the house-owners. Choose to compete in their competition and they set the rules. Break them, and they can ask you to leave.