Shute Shield 2026

[Done that]

I find it confounding that some on this forum have indicated that they do not have a full understanding of the proposed new SS regulations, but then go on to criticise them & why they are unfair or won’t work. This includes complaints that players won’t be able to leave their club, or must continue to play there,or not be able to play with the club of their choice. I don’t believe that this is an accurate representation of the new laws. I don’t find that stated anywhere. The new laws as I read them, place certain regulation& requirements on clubs not players. A player can play for any club if the club is willing to accept him if that conforms with the new regulations.

 

[savetgmillner]

I find it confounding that some on this forum have indicated that they do not have a full understanding of the proposed new SS regulations, but then go on to criticise them & why they are unfair or won’t work. This includes complaints that players won’t be able to leave their club, or must continue to play there,or not be able to play with the club of their choice. I don’t believe that this is an accurate representation of the new laws. I don’t find that stated anywhere. The new laws as I read them, place certain regulation& requirements on clubs not players. A player can play for any club if the club is willing to accept him if that conforms with the new regulations.

It is not that the Sydney Rugby Union is limited players leaving clubs, my understanding is that it is the potential issue of limiting players income from getting picked in 1st Grade.

Using the Norths example that was used months ago they had Matt Minogue, Callum Sirker & Will Thomas who would fall into this category in 2026. Those players left Eastwood, West Harbour and Southern Districts respectively for various reasons (apparently Minogue had issues with Telfer from what I've heard).

So if the club can only pick two of them and the third misses out on match payments (& potentially other income) is that not the Sydney Rugby Union limiting their income and opening a potential restraint of trade?

 

[HarryElite]

People throwing around restraints of trade without knowing what it is and how it can be used.
simply, if all clubs have agreed to the new process or caps, multiple times, then its not a restraint of trade.

to make things even clearer and easier for you, chat gpt helped.

i rang a board member of a club yesterday, first one rejected me, second one sent me the new rules (but not to share). and here is the info below:

I asked chat GPT to look at the new rules and told chat GPT that all clubs gm's and presidents as well as new south wales rugby or whatever they are called now, signed of on it, and, is this a restraint of trade.

Short, clear answer: No — this is not a restraint of trade.
And legally, it would be extremely difficult for any player to argue that it is.


Let me walk you through why, using the actual document you’ve shown.

---

1. These are not restraints — they are competition rules​

The document is a Player Cap & Points System that applies:

• universally
• to every club
• to every grade
• under competition-wide governance
• with full club approval

This makes it a competition regulation, not:

• an employment restriction
• a contract restriction
• a personal restriction on a single player

Courts treat competition rules entirely differently from employment restraints.

---

2. These rules govern teams, not player freedom​

The rules do not prevent a player from:

• moving clubs
• playing rugby
• being selected
• earning match payments
• training
• participating in the comp

The rules only control:

• how many “high level” players a club can field at once
• how squads are built
• competitive balance
• governance of team selection

This is the same as:

• foreign player limits
• NRL top-30 roster
• salary caps
• academy quotas
• TRC rules
• Giteau Law restrictions
• Nationality limits in European rugby

These are legally normal.

---

3. There is no restriction on the player earning a livelihood​

Restraint of trade law is built around one thing:

“Does the rule stop a person from earning their living?”

Shute Shield / semi-pro rugby:

• is not employment
• is not a livelihood
• is not a profession
• is not the player’s job
• provides honorariums / match payments, not salary

Courts have repeatedly held that hobby/semi-pro players do not trigger strong restraint protections.

---

4. The rule is proportional, justified, and agreed to​

For a restraint to be unlawful, it must be:

• imposed unfairly
• excessive
• unjustified
• discriminatory
• targeted
• unilateral

Here, your system is:

• voted in by all clubs
• uniformly applied
• structured
• consistent
• transparent
• tied to competitive balance
• tied to development pathways

This is exactly the kind of rule courts support.

---

5. The system is category-based, not club-targeted​

Your caps and points:

• classify players by objective criteria
• apply equally to all clubs
• allow unlimited movement
• allow unlimited 2nd/3rd/4th grade selection
• still give two 1st-grade transfer slots (Category F covers previous 1st grade / Colts)

It does not say:

• “you cannot leave your club”
• “you cannot play 1st grade anywhere”
• “you must stay where you are”
• “you are banned if you move”

Therefore there is no personal restraint.

---

6. You have explicit pathway exemptions​

The document includes:

• returning player exemptions
• change of circumstances dispensations
• junior discount allowances
• village club pathways
• injuries / serious injury dispensations

This actually strengthens the legal defensibility, because it shows:

• the rules are flexible
• hardship is considered
• player welfare is accounted for

Courts love that.

---

7. Precedents support you​

In Australian sport, the following have all been upheld as not restraint of trade:

• NRL salary cap
• AFL draft system
• NRL development pathways
• Rugby Australia foreign player quotas
• Points-based selection systems in community comps
• Mandatory eligibility criteria in amateur sport

Why?
Because they regulate the competition, not the individual’s right to work.


Exactly like your rules.

---

8. What a court would say (summary)​

Based on your document, a court would almost certainly conclude:

“This is a legitimate governance mechanism that does not prevent any player from playing rugby or moving clubs. It is not an unreasonable restraint of trade.”​

And that’s the end of the matter.

---

9. Practical message for players​

If you want a simple explanation to give to players:

“The rules don’t stop anyone moving clubs or playing rugby.
They only stop clubs stacking 1st Grade with outside talent.
Every club agreed to this to keep the comp fair.
You can still move anywhere you want, you’ll just be classified under the same grading system as everyone else.”

 

[HarryElite]

I then asked

What about is a player like my son who has fell out with his coach and wants go to another club. Or doesnt enjoy the culture or thinks there is a better pathway at a different club?

1. Players still have full freedom to move clubs​

The rule does not stop a player from leaving a bad environment.


A player can always:

• leave a coach he’s not aligned with
• leave a club culture he doesn’t enjoy
• seek better development, opportunity, or pathways
• transfer freely

There is zero restriction on movement itself.


The only limit is:

• if the new club has already filled its 2 transfer spots for 1st Grade,
  then the player may need to play lower grades for a period
  until a spot opens (injury, rotation, form, etc.)

That’s not a ban.
That’s just part of the competitive framework.

---

2. Pathway improvement is still possible​

If a player genuinely has a stronger development opportunity at a new club, he can still move — the new club just needs to assess if he fits into their two First Grade acquisition slots.


And remember:

• every club will prioritise true 1st Grade-level talent
• clubs will often reshuffle their “2 spots” for the right player
• injuries happen constantly
• selections change week to week

If a player is genuinely a 1st Grade-level athlete, another club will make space.


So the idea that pathway is “blocked” is usually not accurate.

---

3. Culture misalignment — players are not stuck​

If the culture is bad, or the coaching relationship breaks:

• the player can move immediately
• the player can still train with the new club
• the player can still play 2s, 3s, 4s
• and if they prove themselves, they will get stepped up

The rule gives:

• freedom of movement
• freedom to play
• a pathway to 1st Grade

It only stops a club from stacking 10 external 1st graders at once.


That’s governance, not restriction.

---

4. The rule doesn’t punish the player — it forces the club to prioritise correctly​

If a player moves because of culture or pathway reasons, the responsibility falls on the new club to decide:

• is this player good enough for one of our two spots?
• is he a priority over the other players wanting in?
• does he fit our 2026–27 build?

That’s normal selection management.


It’s not a punishment — it’s forcing clubs to be strategic.

---

5. The key thing players need to understand​

A bad club environment is not a reason to blow up governance rules.
It’s a reason to leave that environment.


Nothing in this rule stops that.


What the rule stops is:

• rich clubs buying entire teams
• instability
• stripping local talent
• creating artificial “super teams”

But it does not stop a player from finding a better home.

---

6. The “fairness test” (how it holds up legally and practically)​

If a dispute happened, the competition could defend the rule because:

• the player is still allowed to play
• the player is still allowed to move
• the player is still allowed to earn match payments
• the player’s pathway is not eliminated — only moderated by selection quota
• every club operates under the same restriction

Courts always look at impact versus purpose.


Here, the impact is mild.
The purpose is strong.


So a court would uphold it.

---

7. How you should confidently explain this to players​

You can tell them this, plain and real:

“You’re never trapped. If a club isn’t right for you — move. The rule doesn’t stop you playing rugby, it just stops clubs from stacking teams. If you’re a genuine 1st Grader, a club will make space for you. And if you need to build your way up, you’re still free to do that.”

They will understand that instantly.

 

[HarryElite]

I appreciate Chat GPT isnt a lawyer or legally binding etc, but its pretty good for a basic source of information and answers.

 

[HarryElite]

I find it confounding that some on this forum have indicated that they do not have a full understanding of the proposed new SS regulations, but then go on to criticise them & why they are unfair or won’t work. This includes complaints that players won’t be able to leave their club, or must continue to play there,or not be able to play with the club of their choice. I don’t believe that this is an accurate representation of the new laws. I don’t find that stated anywhere. The new laws as I read them, place certain regulation& requirements on clubs not players. A player can play for any club if the club is willing to accept him if that conforms with the new regulations.

This!

 

[savetgmillner]

I then asked

What about is a player like my son who has fell out with his coach and wants go to another club. Or doesnt enjoy the culture or thinks there is a better pathway at a different club?

1. Players still have full freedom to move clubs​

The rule does not stop a player from leaving a bad environment.


A player can always:

• leave a coach he’s not aligned with
• leave a club culture he doesn’t enjoy
• seek better development, opportunity, or pathways
• transfer freely

There is zero restriction on movement itself.


The only limit is:

• if the new club has already filled its 2 transfer spots for 1st Grade,
  then the player may need to play lower grades for a period
  until a spot opens (injury, rotation, form, etc.)

That’s not a ban.
That’s just part of the competitive framework.

---

2. Pathway improvement is still possible​

If a player genuinely has a stronger development opportunity at a new club, he can still move — the new club just needs to assess if he fits into their two First Grade acquisition slots.


And remember:

• every club will prioritise true 1st Grade-level talent
• clubs will often reshuffle their “2 spots” for the right player
• injuries happen constantly
• selections change week to week

If a player is genuinely a 1st Grade-level athlete, another club will make space.


So the idea that pathway is “blocked” is usually not accurate.

---

3. Culture misalignment — players are not stuck​

If the culture is bad, or the coaching relationship breaks:

• the player can move immediately
• the player can still train with the new club
• the player can still play 2s, 3s, 4s
• and if they prove themselves, they will get stepped up

The rule gives:

• freedom of movement
• freedom to play
• a pathway to 1st Grade

It only stops a club from stacking 10 external 1st graders at once.


That’s governance, not restriction.

---

4. The rule doesn’t punish the player — it forces the club to prioritise correctly​

If a player moves because of culture or pathway reasons, the responsibility falls on the new club to decide:

• is this player good enough for one of our two spots?
• is he a priority over the other players wanting in?
• does he fit our 2026–27 build?

That’s normal selection management.


It’s not a punishment — it’s forcing clubs to be strategic.

---

5. The key thing players need to understand​

A bad club environment is not a reason to blow up governance rules.
It’s a reason to leave that environment.


Nothing in this rule stops that.


What the rule stops is:

• rich clubs buying entire teams
• instability
• stripping local talent
• creating artificial “super teams”

But it does not stop a player from finding a better home.

---

6. The “fairness test” (how it holds up legally and practically)​

If a dispute happened, the competition could defend the rule because:

• the player is still allowed to play
• the player is still allowed to move
• the player is still allowed to earn match payments
• the player’s pathway is not eliminated — only moderated by selection quota
• every club operates under the same restriction

Courts always look at impact versus purpose.


Here, the impact is mild.
The purpose is strong.


So a court would uphold it.

---

7. How you should confidently explain this to players​

You can tell them this, plain and real:




They will understand that instantly.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain this. I guess the next stage is how do we define a genuine change of circumstance.

I took your lead and dusted off my Dell and asked ChatGPT to define it and they came up with the below. It seems quite broad and I imagine this may be difficult for a semi-professional competition to uphold?

A change of circumstance based on the phrase
“Genuine change of circumstance relating to employment, residential address and/or family reasons” can be defined as:

A real and verifiable shift in a person’s situation that affects their employment, living arrangements, or family life.
This includes events that significantly alter their previous circumstances and may require updating records, agreements, or obligations.

More specifically:

Employment-related changes​

A substantial change to someone’s job situation — for example:

• Starting a new job or losing a job
• Changing employers or roles
• Major changes to work hours, location, or income

Residential address changes​

Any legitimate change to where a person lives, such as:

• Moving to a new home
• Relocating to another city, region, or country
• Change in living arrangements (e.g., moving in/out with someone)

Family-related changes​

Significant changes in family structure or responsibilities, such as:

• Marriage, separation, or divorce
• Birth or adoption of a child
• Changes in custody or care responsibilities
• Serious illness or death of a family member

 

[teamsport]

Appreciate you taking the time to explain this. I guess the next stage is how do we define a genuine change of circumstance.

I took your lead and dusted off my Dell and asked ChatGPT to define it and they came up with the below. It seems quite broad and I imagine this may be difficult for a semi-professional competition to uphold?

A change of circumstance based on the phrase
“Genuine change of circumstance relating to employment, residential address and/or family reasons” can be defined as:

A real and verifiable shift in a person’s situation that affects their employment, living arrangements, or family life.
This includes events that significantly alter their previous circumstances and may require updating records, agreements, or obligations.

More specifically:

Employment-related changes​

A substantial change to someone’s job situation — for example:

• Starting a new job or losing a job
• Changing employers or roles
• Major changes to work hours, location, or income

Residential address changes​

Any legitimate change to where a person lives, such as:

• Moving to a new home
• Relocating to another city, region, or country
• Change in living arrangements (e.g., moving in/out with someone)

Family-related changes​

Significant changes in family structure or responsibilities, such as:

• Marriage, separation, or divorce
• Birth or adoption of a child
• Changes in custody or care responsibilities
• Serious illness or death of a family member

Very valuable information and basically any change in anyone's life is a change of circumstance clearly so for the SRU to be impartial on this matter is nigh impossible and a waste of time.

Quite clearly the panel elected didn't have the legal or ethical implications understood and were poor in the judgement. Ever since the absolute shambles of Easts a few years back Peter Watkins has been trying to stamp his authority on the competition and to come up with this is an absolute waste of time on everyone's behalf. To have the commercial guy delving into the points cap is rather ironic for a guy who has been involved in about the last 2 out of 20 years of Shute Shield rugby. It's also understood the competition has no major sponsor next year and a General Manager worrying about this just shows his priorities.

The points cap didn't stop anyone moving or playing first grade it just meant the clubs had to balance it this stops players playing in the 1st grade comp which quite clearly is not well thought out.

Not only that the panel of people consulted included people who clearly have zero consideration for anything other than there own interests. It was a behind the scenes job led by Eastwood and Parramatta and the ironic thing is now one is the Director of Rugby at Randwick. Another few of the panel are at different clubs than last season as well and got this through before they announced the move.

Overall the SRU have a lot to answer for.

 

[HarryElite]

Very valuable information and basically any change in anyone's life is a change of circumstance clearly so for the SRU to be impartial on this matter is nigh impossible and a waste of time.

Quite clearly the panel elected didn't have the legal or ethical implications understood and were poor in the judgement. Ever since the absolute shambles of Easts a few years back Peter Watkins has been trying to stamp his authority on the competition and to come up with this is an absolute waste of time on everyone's behalf. To have the commercial guy delving into the points cap is rather ironic for a guy who has been involved in about the last 2 out of 20 years of Shute Shield rugby. It's also understood the competition has no major sponsor next year and a General Manager worrying about this just shows his priorities.

The points cap didn't stop anyone moving or playing first grade it just meant the clubs had to balance it this stops players playing in the 1st grade comp which quite clearly is not well thought out.

Not only that the panel of people consulted included people who clearly have zero consideration for anything other than there own interests. It was a behind the scenes job led by Eastwood and Parramatta and the ironic thing is now one is the Director of Rugby at Randwick. Another few of the panel are at different clubs than last season as well and got this through before they announced the move.

Overall the SRU have a lot to answer for.

apparently the clubs involved in the cap stuff - gordon, sydney uni, parramatta, eastwood.

club that has benefited the most to sign players - gordon - have signed eastwood 9 & 10, both gordon colts/juniors so no cap, as well as the bacon brothers and a few more. also have bought back a lot of their ex juniors/colts from other clubs, so no caps - which is really good work.

club complaining they want more players - gordon.

club that has lost the most players - eastwood, even with the new rules and changes. a lot have gone.

club that will struggle the most with the changes - parra. they just wont be able to compete with limited numbers of foreign players now and dont have a history of bringing in 1st grade caliber players from other clubs anyway.

 

[HarryElite]

Overall the SRU have a lot to answer for.

this part is valid, i definitely think sru could explain more, but i dont think they need to or have to on this forum. just like everyone, including me, on the forum continually questioning the system with each other, rather than going to find out real information from someone.

even with all the 'its not legal' and 'its going to court' blah blah, the people saying that still havent come out with 'john smith from manly has been blocked from joining souths for reason blah blah blah'

theyve hammered teams and named a poor bloke regarding breaking contracts etc without once again really knowing any detail. but cant give specifics about anything else.