SALARY CAP - PLAYER TRANSFERS

[egg]

I believe the System is BROKEN at present .
I'd hate to loose a contracted player on contract mid season.
I wouldn't mind transfer fees myself , but I'm sure there are cons too .

Gould's 2 Cents below .

The system Gus wants is like a bidding war for players, but would be very open. It removes the powers from player managers to say "hey everyone, i have one used mitchel moses here who is recieving offers of $900,000 per season. You better stump up that cash if you want a player of this calibre".
Whichever club bids the most, gets the player. So this is an internal draft as well, which is good because the NRL has proven it can't run junior systems, so clubs can still develop and promote local and aspiring talent into their squads.
The pros are basically that players will get what they are worth, or a little bit more depending on how desperate a club is. It allows fans to truly know how much their star players are worth, and essentially if other clubs are cheating.
It also would prove what players actually earn, (under the salary cap) and what they are actually worth.
The only con i can think of is that some players might have to relocate. Honestly though, with 8 clubs in sydney i don't see it as a problem at all.
This is only if the player wants to leave. They can continue a contract with their current club. Its literally only if they want to test themselves on the open market.

 

[HaroldBishop]

Egg, that's a bit like a draft which they've tried before. The RLPA took the NRL (or whatever they were calling themselves back then) to court and won. Can't see it ever coming back.

 

[Sir Chadley]

Egg, that's a bit like a draft which they've tried before. The RLPA took the NRL (or whatever they were calling themselves back then) to court and won. Can't see it ever coming back.

True HB. It's amazing though how it's illegal in the NRL but works fine in the AFL. Any idea why that is? Is it because no one in the AFL has ever challenged it?
It all goes back to Terry Hill I think for the NRL draft. He went to court and won and it was shelved.

 

[HaroldBishop]

True HB. It's amazing though how it's illegal in the NRL but works fine in the AFL. Any idea why that is? Is it because no one in the AFL has ever challenged it?
It all goes back to Terry Hill I think for the NRL draft. He went to court and won and it was shelved.

Not sure mate. The AFL has relaxed their draft a little over the years. Players have more power to move to their club of choice after a certain amount of years in the system now.

 

[egg]

Egg, that's a bit like a draft which they've tried before. The RLPA took the NRL (or whatever they were calling themselves back then) to court and won. Can't see it ever coming back.

Not sure it it would be restraint of trade if there was an Auction for a player who wanted out at the end of his contract .
An auctioned player could then be allowed to knock back the highest bid on his own grounds .
But then would have to make a decision on the second highest bidder and so on down the chain .
For each club he knocks back he has to pay that club a percentage of his eventual contract per year to those clubs he knocks back down the chain . eg 5% each club
Newcastle make top bid and Raiders the second top bid , but decides to take the third bid in Sydney , he looses 10% total per year to those clubs .
At least everything would be above board and he would have to make a call at the best pay rate and club he was happy with .
The clubs get the opportunity to throw their hats in the ring and get compensated if he says no at the auction .

 

[HaroldBishop]

Yeah don't like that at all Egg, especially the player having to reimburse clubs. Will never happen, the RLPA won't allow it.

 

[egg]

Yeah don't like that at all Egg, especially the player having to reimburse clubs. Will never happen, the RLPA won't allow it.

Probably right,
But would be great television watching the auction and decisions

 

[egg]

Image Foran for example.

 

[blue steel]

Not sure about transfers, but imo there should be complete transparency for player contracts under/off salary cap and should have been so ever since the Melbourne storm BS. Its been done in American sports for decades, that way it will be a lot more difficult for teams to break the rules and could slowly encourage an even more level playing field as the disparity from the top teams off cap $ compared to bottom teams becomes common knowledge.

 

[85Sharkie]

Hey sorry if this sounds condescending but I'll try to explain it. Restraint of trade used in the draft context, is where an individual is limited in their choice of employment. For example, I'm sure many of you have signed a work contract that states you can't work for a competitor on termination of employment (the clause usually has a time and distance element, i.e you can't work for a competitor for 12 months within a 50 km radius). That clause, when challenged, is usually overturned. This is because it restrains a person from employment, hence restraint of trade. Even though you have signed that contract, it is unenforceable as it is illegal to contract around law. As a draft places restrictions on a players employment opportunities, it is therefore technically illegal under restraint of trade.
The AFL continues to have a draft because no one has really challenged its validity. As the clubs, players and the AFL itself have no issue with the draft, it continues on. Hypothetically, if a player challenged the AFL over the draft, there is a chance they could have the draft removed. There would be a number of factors to consider and it would be interesting to see how the clubs and AFL player association would react. However, so long as no one challenges the AFL, their draft will continue.
Without looking too far into it, the idea of a player auction as mentioned above would probably be illegal under restraint of trade. The only way it would work is if the NRL, players and clubs all agreed to it.

 

[egg]

Hey sorry if this sounds condescending but I'll try to explain it. Restraint of trade used in the draft context, is where an individual is limited in their choice of employment. For example, I'm sure many of you have signed a work contract that states you can't work for a competitor on termination of employment (the clause usually has a time and distance element, i.e you can't work for a competitor for 12 months within a 50 km radius). That clause, when challenged, is usually overturned. This is because it restrains a person from employment, hence restraint of trade. Even though you have signed that contract, it is unenforceable as it is illegal to contract around law. As a draft places restrictions on a players employment opportunities, it is therefore technically illegal under restraint of trade.
The AFL continues to have a draft because no one has really challenged its validity. As the clubs, players and the AFL itself have no issue with the draft, it continues on. Hypothetically, if a player challenged the AFL over the draft, there is a chance they could have the draft removed. There would be a number of factors to consider and it would be interesting to see how the clubs and AFL player association would react. However, so long as no one challenges the AFL, their draft will continue.
Without looking too far into it, the idea of a player auction as mentioned above would probably be illegal under restraint of trade. The only way it would work is if the NRL, players and clubs all agreed to it.

Thanks for that 85 .
But wouldn't the player having the final say , be it with a possible financial disadvantage by knocking back an interstate gig nullify any restraint in trade ?
They decide their location and the pay they receive because of their decisions ?

Use Jack Bird as an example right now .
He decides he's not sure he wants to play for Sharks and wants to go to auction . ( perhaps with a clause that if both the old club and player agree they have a right to match a final bid per season IF they both choose )

Brisbane offer 750K
and Parra offer 800K
Newcastle trumps both and offers offers 1.2 Mil
Bird gets to choose Newcastle - Na
Parra - Na
Brisbane I love Bennett and guaranteed first crack at fullback . Takes the 750 K
Sharks allowed to offer 750 K - Na still love Bennett - takes gig in Brisbane .
75K gets divided between Newcastle and Parra for knocking them back , Bird gets 675K plus third party at Brisbane .
If Bird had of said Yes to Newcastle they are locked into 1.2 Mill ( stops Clubs forcing the bids to astronomical levels as they are bound to their bid )

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

Wtf is all this jibber

 

[85Sharkie]

Thanks for that 85 .
But wouldn't the player having the final say , be it with a possible financial disadvantage by knocking back an interstate gig nullify any restraint in trade ?
They decide their location and the pay they receive because of their decisions ?

Use Jack Bird as an example right now .
He decides he's not sure he wants to play for Sharks and wants to go to auction . ( perhaps with a clause that if both the old club and player agree they have a right to match a final bid per season IF they both choose )

Brisbane offer 750K
and Parra offer 800K
Newcastle trumps both and offers offers 1.2 Mil
Bird gets to choose Newcastle - Na
Parra - Na
Brisbane I love Bennett and guaranteed first crack at fullback . Takes the 750 K
Sharks allowed to offer 750 K - Na still love Bennett - takes gig in Brisbane .
75K gets divided between Newcastle and Parra for knocking them back , Bird gets 675K plus third party at Brisbane .
If Bird had of said Yes to Newcastle they are locked into 1.2 Mill ( stops Clubs forcing the bids to astronomical levels as they are bound to their bid )

Ok so if i understand you correctly, you are 'fining' the player 10 percent for choosing a lower offer? By using that fine, you are putting a rather severe restriction on the players choice of employment. That would more than likely be considered a restraint of trade. No one could say definitively without testing it in court though. And without that fine, the auction system you have outlined is basically a draft.

 

[Born&bred]

FFS - paragraphs please...

 

[egg]

Ok so if i understand you correctly, you are 'fining' the player 10 percent for choosing a lower offer? By using that fine, you are putting a rather severe restriction on the players choice of employment. That would more than likely be considered a restraint of trade. No one could say definitively without testing it in court though. And without that fine, the auction system you have outlined is basically a draft.

Fair enough ,
Be interesting to see if someone from this forum could come up with a better scenario than the current format .
Surely another sport does it better

 

[egg]

Pretty darn good/funny article SOURCE : Roar


The Art of the Deal: Translating the BS of contract talks


In positive news for nobody except Isaac Moses, negotiations between Wests Tigers and the Big Unquantifiable look set to outlast Keith Richards and the preservatives used on Big Macs.

To the Tigers’ credit, they have demonstrated they won’t be distracted by the saga, showing it’s business as usual by continuing to make a meal of most things on and off the field.

As for the rest of us suffering through it’s perpetual nausea, I can guarantee this saga won’t run forever. That’s because rugby league will be extinct by the time its resolved.

But just in case you are unlucky enough to remain alive for it’s duration, here’s a handy translation dictionary to help traverse the doublespeak of another of the game’s straight-forward contract epics.

Player terminology
“I love the club”: I love the club to the equivalent value of my asking price.

“My preferred option is to stay”: Forget that I refused a lucrative contract extension six months ago, my first option is to stay. Because the second option is an enema.

“I want to test the market”: I would be crazy not to exploit desperate lower-ranked clubs and their haphazard approach to spending.

“Footy’s a business”: I am reluctantly departing under the guise of ‘commercial realities’. This means I could no longer ignore the trappings of this deranged economy, and now I will finally realise my dream of owning twenty racehorses and an infinity pool.

“The club is playing hardball”: Those disloyal club bastards have refused my reasonable request for $2 million and a Yeti.

“I’ve always dreamed of playing under (opposition coach)”: I want to leave without acrimony while also appearing like I’m taking unders.

“I will always do what’s best for my family”: I am using the sacred family card to immunise myself from trolls. Hopefully nobody discovers my ‘family’ is a housemate and a goldfish. Better use the cooling-off period to procreate.

“I leave all negotiations in the hands of my manager”: I know every single detail about everything you want to know. But I don’t want to reveal anything, so I’ll pretend that my personal affairs are such a distraction to my 22-hour working week that I barely speak to my agent. In fact, I am so distanced from the situation, I no longer speak to my agent. I probably wouldn’t even recognise him in the street. Even his name eludes me. Is it something like Terry? Salim? 7.5 percent? Seriously I’ve got nothing. Because all I want to do is…

“Concentrate on playing good footy”: Because this always prevents journalists from speculating about my future on a daily basis.

Club terminology
“Player X is required for next season”: We want him to stay at the club against his will, because ultimatums give us a dopamine rush. Not to mention, this approach was so effective with Robbie Farah.

“We are setting a deadline”: The club demands talks be resolved by the advised date. If this request is not met, we will be forced to take necessary action, such as continuing to wait.

“We won’t be held to ransom”: We know we are being held to ransom. But we are drawing a line in the sand; we will now only be accountable to tabloid whispers and rent-a-quotes from crackpot club legends.

“Player X is playing hardball”: The traitorous player has unreasonably refused our new offer of laundry costs and Starburst.

“We would love Player X to stay”: We have $500k worth of determination to keep the player at the club, unless he signs with the Titans. Then we can offer him a $250 million government grant, provided he changes his name to ‘Centre of Excellence.’

“We will keep discussions internal”: We will not provide a running commentary on contract negotiations. They will remain exclusively between the relevant stakeholders, that being the player, the club and the Daily Telegraph.

Agent terminology
“I’ll be seeking the best deal for my client”: I will pursue every option available to increase my client’s value. This will be 99 per cent via tabloid leaks. But sometimes I’ll even use radical methods, like direct dialogue with the club.

“We’ll examine all options available”: Cough up the extra $200k or we’re going to Toulon.

 

[andrew's_sharks]

Our current system works reasonably well. Being in Vic i hear plenty of people say that our system works better than their draft and I agree. A player should be the person who chooses where he plays when he is good enough. If he wants to move to take an opportunity good on him if he wants to stay local then that is his decision