NRL Player Movement and Rumours 2018

[Nashy]

FTR, I wasn't suggesting their shouldn't be a "notional value" as such ... just that should it ever be challenged in court there would be a strong case that would deem it illegal to be used.

and I can't see any way that the players association (or players) would agree to an EBA that included that clause in it (which i'm pretty sure would the only way to ensure there would be no successful challenge as the NRL/Clubs and players would have all agreed to those conditions.

but like the salary cap, it is one of those things that i don't see being challenged anytime soon.

I very much doubt the RLPA would have anything to do with this side. It would be between the NRL and the clubs. You want to play in the NRL? Accept our terms, or go jump.

Sorted.

 

[broncos4life]

FTR, I wasn't suggesting their shouldn't be a "notional value" as such ... just that should it ever be challenged in court there would be a strong case that would deem it illegal to be used.

and I can't see any way that the players association (or players) would agree to an EBA that included that clause in it (which i'm pretty sure would the only way to ensure there would be no successful challenge as the NRL/Clubs and players would have all agreed to those conditions.

but like the salary cap, it is one of those things that i don't see being challenged anytime soon.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. It wouldn't be successful in court. You could possibly make an argument for it if his child lived in New Zealand so taking a cut price contract that the Warriors could afford is the only way he could live with his daughter. Given they fact that his child is in Sydney with the largest contingent of clubs it just doesn't fly.

 

[Foordy]

I very much doubt the RLPA would have anything to do with this side. It would be between the NRL and the clubs. You want to play in the NRL? Accept our terms, or go jump.

Sorted.

The NRL tried telling a club they didn't want them in the competition ... the courts said "too bad, you have to let them play in your competition"

I'm sorry, but I disagree. It wouldn't be successful in court. You could possibly make an argument for it if his child lived in New Zealand so taking a cut price contract that the Warriors could afford is the only way he could live with his daughter. Given they fact that his child is in Sydney with the largest contingent of clubs it just doesn't fly.

Let's just say for example that the NRL tell Hayne he can't sign for the Eels for under 700k (his notional value), do you really think the courts will side with the NRL, should Hayne challenge it because he wants to agree to the 500-600k that the Eels had offered him?

 

[broncos4life]

The NRL tried telling a club they didn't want them in the competition ... the courts said "too bad, you have to let them play in your competition"



Let's just say for example that the NRL tell Hayne he can't sign for the Eels for under 700k (his notional value), do you really think the courts will side with the NRL, should Hayne challenge it because he wants to agree to the 500-600k that the Eels had offered him?

If course they would. Your acting like Parramatta are the only team in Sydney and not letting them sign him for unders is dragging a dad away from his kid.

 

[Foordy]

If course they would. Your acting like Parramatta are the only team in Sydney and not letting them sign him for unders is dragging a dad away from his kid.

I'm just going by what a mate of mine who is a lawyer believes and he would have a better idea of how courts rule than you or I would.

but it's a moot point anyway since we will never be able to find out who's right.

however let's take the footy aspect out of it for a second and replace it with a regular job (e.g. Bus Driver)

would the BCC be able to set totally different minimum wages for the drivers they have on their payroll ... of course they wouldn't. if the minimum wage for Driver A was $20 an hour, but the minimum wage for Driver B was $30 an hour driver A would take the BCC to the industrial relations commission and likely have his minimum wage raised to $30.

and that's all a notional value is ... a minimum wage.

so unless the NRL have it included in the sports EBA, there would be a strong case against this "value" if ever challenged in courts.

and maybe the NRL does have it in the EBA to allow them to enforce this so called notional value, possibly something like minimum wage for top 30 players is 100k unless they are a rep player, then the minimum wage is 400k or something along those lines.

who knows what the NRL would do

 

[Unbreakable]

Michael Gordon to the Titans apparently, to play Fullback. Reece Robinson signed with the Roosters today as depth / cover.

Titans-

1. Michael Gordon
2. Brendan Elliot
3. Dan Sarginson
4. Konrad Hurrell
5. Anthony Don
6. Kane Elgey
7. Ashley Taylor

Roosters-

1. James Tedesco
2. Daniel Tupou
3. Latrell Mitchell
4. Joseph Manu
5. Blake Ferguson
6. Luke Keary
7. Cooper Cronk

 

[Foordy]

Michael Gordon to the Titans apparently, to play Fullback. Reece Robinson signed with the Roosters today as depth / cover.

Titans-

1. Michael Gordon
2. Brendan Elliot
3. Dan Sarginson
4. Konrad Hurrell
5. Anthony Don
6. Kane Elgey
7. Ashley Taylor

Roosters-

1. James Tedesco
2. Daniel Tupou
3. Latrell Mitchell
4. Joseph Manu
5. Blake Ferguson
6. Luke Keary
7. Cooper Cronk

that is a pretty ordinary backline from the Titans ... Roosters on the other hand have a very strong backline

 

[Alec]

I can see Roosters challenging for the premiership this year. Reckon it's them vs the Cowboys. Melbourne (I'm hoping) won't be there...come on premiership hangover!

 

[broncos4life]

I'm just going by what a mate of mine who is a lawyer believes and he would have a better idea of how courts rule than you or I would.

but it's a moot point anyway since we will never be able to find out who's right.

however let's take the footy aspect out of it for a second and replace it with a regular job (e.g. Bus Driver)

would the BCC be able to set totally different minimum wages for the drivers they have on their payroll ... of course they wouldn't. if the minimum wage for Driver A was $20 an hour, but the minimum wage for Driver B was $30 an hour driver A would take the BCC to the industrial relations commission and likely have his minimum wage raised to $30.

and that's all a notional value is ... a minimum wage.

so unless the NRL have it included in the sports EBA, there would be a strong case against this "value" if ever challenged in courts.

and maybe the NRL does have it in the EBA to allow them to enforce this so called notional value, possibly something like minimum wage for top 30 players is 100k unless they are a rep player, then the minimum wage is 400k or something along those lines.

who knows what the NRL would do

The NRL isn’t a normal job. Normal jobs don’t have a salary cap to try and ensure a equal spread of talent. Normal jobs don’t have notional value under the cap.

I’m sorry, but it is wrong and a complete copout to try and compare this to a normal job.

 

[john1420]

Because there is a salary cap. You can't bring real world circumstances into it and say "If I want to work for another company for less money because of various reasons", that's fine. But your profession isn't governed by a cap to try and level the playing field. By saying there should be no notional value you open up a lot of gray area and how can we be sure they wouldn't be getting payments on the side or other incentives.

In this case the whole 'needs to be closer to family' thing applies even less in this case due to the amount of clubs he could have played at and still been in Sydney.

Hey B4L, I agree totally, but now you are talking about why it is a good idea with respect to evening out playing talent, which is a departure from the legality question which is what started all this :)

Imagine if there was no notional value. A crafty club could ring up every player in the QLD origin team and sign up the whole 17 (just short term), each being paid one seventeenth of the cap, end then they field the QLD origin team each week - literally buy a premiership. And all they have to say is take a pay cut for 1 year to all but guarantee you a premiership and then you can go earn what you deserve later. An extreme example sure, but conceivably possible, and as such it needs to be avoided.

I understand the need for a mechanism or process to avoid this possibility for the good of the game, no argument. I'm just saying that there are very legitimate question marks about the legality of how it has been done.

We live in a time where there is a huge focus on equity, procedural fairness and transparent process. My particular field is heavily impacted by this, and the policies that I write and processes that I oversee, are done so from this perspective - because we are directly regulated by the Aust Govt and this is what they require. Perhaps this skews my judgement?

What I can say for sure is that I could not justify the notional value thing, not the way it at least seems to work. Much like the NRL I could implement such a thing, but doing it isn't the test. The test comes when someone challenges it. In likelihood nobody will challenge this so we'll never know but if it were challenged, and if that court considered procedural fairness and transparent process as would be a reasonable expectation, then it would stand a good chance of falling over.

To attempt to meet the needs of talent distribution and procedural fairness and transparent process, you would need a system that allocated a certain dollar value to a player based on certain pre-defined and published criteria, for example, how many rep games you have played.

Whilst imperfect, something like that (you would probably want more criteria than just rep games) would at least prevent someone from fielding the Origin team, and still meet the (assumed) need for equity, procedural fairness and transparent process.

I guess the point is that however the NRL decides a notional value, it has to be based on something measurable, and equally applied. The way it seems, it's just "oh we think this player is worth that" and applied whenever they choose.

Yes, some kind of process is needed, but what we have isn't it, and it would not survive a challenge if it were measured against today's standards. I have zero doubt about that.

What I don't know, is would an Aust Govt court measure such a case against today's commonly held norms of equity, procedural fairness and transparent process like they would every other case? Or would they make an allowance because it's not a normal job, it's sport?

I guess we will never know, but I have my suspicions (obviously, LOL)

 

[Foordy]

Hey B4L, I agree totally, but now you are talking about why it is a good idea with respect to evening out playing talent, which is a departure from the legality question which is what started all this :)

Imagine if there was no notional value. A crafty club could ring up every player in the QLD origin team and sign up the whole 17 (just short term), each being paid one seventeenth of the cap, end then they field the QLD origin team each week - literally buy a premiership. And all they have to say is take a pay cut for 1 year to all but guarantee you a premiership and then you can go earn what you deserve later. An extreme example sure, but conceivably possible, and as such it needs to be avoided.

I understand the need for a mechanism or process to avoid this possibility for the good of the game, no argument. I'm just saying that there are very legitimate question marks about the legality of how it has been done.

We live in a time where there is a huge focus on equity, procedural fairness and transparent process. My particular field is heavily impacted by this, and the policies that I write and processes that I oversee, are done so from this perspective - because we are directly regulated by the Aust Govt and this is what they require. Perhaps this skews my judgement?

What I can say for sure is that I could not justify the notional value thing, not the way it at least seems to work. Much like the NRL I could implement such a thing, but doing it isn't the test. The test comes when someone challenges it. In likelihood nobody will challenge this so we'll never know but if it were challenged, and if that court considered procedural fairness and transparent process as would be a reasonable expectation, then it would stand a good chance of falling over.

To attempt to meet the needs of talent distribution and procedural fairness and transparent process, you would need a system that allocated a certain dollar value to a player based on certain pre-defined and published criteria, for example, how many rep games you have played.

Whilst imperfect, something like that (you would probably want more criteria than just rep games) would at least prevent someone from fielding the Origin team, and still meet the (assumed) need for equity, procedural fairness and transparent process.

I guess the point is that however the NRL decides a notional value, it has to be based on something measurable, and equally applied. The way it seems, it's just "oh we think this player is worth that" and applied whenever they choose.

Yes, some kind of process is needed, but what we have isn't it, and it would not survive a challenge if it were measured against today's standards. I have zero doubt about that.

What I don't know, is would an Aust Govt court measure such a case against today's commonly held norms of equity, procedural fairness and transparent process like they would every other case? Or would they make an allowance because it's not a normal job, it's sport?

I guess we will never know, but I have my suspicions (obviously, LOL)

fucking well said ...

now lets get this thread back on topic and discuss who the Rosters will sign with their $5 million spare under the cap :P

 

[roo-ted]

Isaac Liu re-signed on a three-year extension with the Roosters that keeps him in Bondi until the end of the 2021 season.

 

[Cult]

Isaac Liu re-signed on a three-year extension with the Roosters that keeps him in Bondi until the end of the 2021 season.

Which means they have more money to sign SBW

 

[Morkel]

Isaac Liu re-signed on a three-year extension with the Roosters that keeps him in Bondi until the end of the 2021 season.

He signed on a negative deal. He pays the Roosters and they get to use that money and negative cap space to sign more players.

 

[roo-ted]

He signed on a negative deal. He pays the Roosters and they get to use that money and negative cap space to sign more players.

He pays the roosters?

 

[tommy]

http://www.sportingnews.com/au/leag...lence-on-nrl-future/5kab5w2xbuyp16qj6sk8t34p7

Of course the Roosters have room for him.

 

[Unbreakable]

Apparently Manly are close to signing Todd Carney.

So much for his dreams of playing for the Northern Pride, I guess they were short lived.

 

[john1420]

They are just working out the finer details of his contract, like how much of his salary is paid directly in slabs of beer, and how many times per season he can bring the club/game into disrepute without being sacked

Just the important stuff