NO Salary Caps in Australia

[RedsHappy]

Fair comments and there are plenty of guys recently who have stayed on to challenge for the Wallabies jersey (Moore, Horwill, Sharpe, TPN, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Mitchell etc). FP is right though, you need that strength in depth and guys who could be in the mix going overseas certainly doesn't help.
Moreover, you can't perpetually dangle the jersey in front of these young blokes. I heard the same arguments before pro rugby and plenty of the old guard saying that the players should be running out there for the love of it alone, professionalism be damned. That attitude nearly killed the game here with the prolonged exodus of guys in the prime of their careers to league. So we know how it ends up already from previous experience.

A very sound observation IMO TBH. May I propose an additional input I know not all will like, but it has to be said: the use of the 'dangling of green and gold jersey' will have a decreasing half-life unless the Wallabies start really winning some serious silverware back, and, optimally, an RWC too if feasible. I am sorry, but ordinary rugby fans I know do not give two hoots about the global rankings from the IRB and the 'we're improving' mantra, they want to see ABs getting knocked over, Bleds won, and a 3N or two achieved every few years. An Aus S15 Finals title or two would be highly desirable (as it promotes the next leap up to our national team). The lure of a Wallabies place will be diminished as a career must if the Wallaby brand gets more and more on the nose as a perpetual also-ran. We GAGR posters perhaps tend not to reflect the everyday fans' sentiments about this, as we are typically hyper-enthusiasts for the code and the Wallabies; we're probably the 1%-ers.

I can guarantee you that the great baggy green magnet-mystic of Aus cricket will fall off for top players (especially now we have the huge paying IPL etc) if the Aus national cricket team falls into a hole for a long period. And in NZ, 'the jersey in black' is in part sustained in its massive stay-at-home magnetism by the simple fact that the ABs have dominated the global game so well for so long and (somewhat like Aus in cricket, but for longer), NZ-ers have rightly derived enormous national pride from this outcome.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah I agree with all of that. Success keeps players and the punters engaged. That's why 2011 is such an important year for the game here. Were we to play well in Super rugby, the 3N and the RWC, it would be a huge boost for the code.

 

[Robert Conway]

Thing is, I know that there's a body of law on section 92 of the constitution, which is generally referred to the "restraint of trade" provisions. However, current interpretation of that section is that it prevents 'restrictions in trade in a protectionist sense'. ie: it prevents the states from enacting laws which impedes trade between states.

Now, I know under an old interpretation it used to apply to individuals as well, but I am not sure if that is still the case.

What I am trying to ascertain is whether the term 'restraint of trade' is being bandied around in an attempt to add credibility to an argument, if it is being used innocently or if the person using it has a greater understanding of what it means than I.

s92 has always referred to trade between the states, never between individuals. It was/is a relic of the colonies where there was great mistrust between the states at the time of fedration and it didn't have its full effect for 5 years after federation.
As for restraint of trade i this context - the s15 franchises get their funding from the ARU so in fact the ARU can do what theylike so long as they do not favor one franchise over another WITHOUT approval of the others, eg, i the establishment of the force and rebels.
So long as one franchise is not given preferable treatment over the others restraint of trade is a no goer in this discussion.

 

[RedsHappy]

France has introduced a salary cap, although it is larger than the one proposed here: £7.1m. The Guinness Premiership clubs in England have a £4m limit.

Groucho, you know more of French rugby than I, but I am told this supposed France cap has, in practice, a great deal in common with a swiss cheese at a shooters' party. And perhaps that cynicism has some merit when you see seemingly credible reports that Toulon is ready to offer SBW c.₤1.2m per year.

Just a btw: the Storm cap debacle highlighted another major problem with such caps, namely if a team is held in an good position via a handful of superior players, the temptation for duplicity and rule bending is enormous. Fundamentally, who can blame a team for fighting incredibly hard to hold onto its winners? That's not to condone Storm, but the issues underlying this are real.

IMO, there are so many problems that accrue over time when a single sports body tries to distort the rule of the free market. And I tend to believe that if a team overpays for players (i.e. the cost never pays off in terms of increased wins, fan base and incremental $ income), it will ultimately have to adjust its practices or face disaster. We go on about the merits of rugby as a growing _global_ code with all the opportunities this brings wrt development and career variety, we can't argue this and then ignore the economic consequences of life in that market as if little Aus can effectively deny the impact of a global player market.

 

[Rob42]

I fail to see how this team salary cap would be significantly different to current individual salary cap that the S15 teams work under – aren’t they limited to a maximum $110K or so salary per player, with ARU topups for prospective Wallabies?

Indeed, if the Force lose JOC (James O'Connor), and Sharpey gets no ARU topup, I think they’d be very keen to pay him more than $110K to keep him as the heart of the team for another season or two. Particularly since Force players would be pretty cagey about 3rd party deals after the Firepower debacle.

 

[TOCC]

I fail to see how this team salary cap would be significantly different to current individual salary cap that the S15 teams work under – aren’t they limited to a maximum $110K or so salary per player, with ARU topups for prospective Wallabies?

Indeed, if the Force lose JOC (James O'Connor), and Sharpey gets no ARU topup, I think they’d be very keen to pay him more than $110K to keep him as the heart of the team for another season or two. Particularly since Force players would be pretty cagey about 3rd party deals after the Firepower debacle.

Yeah precisely.
Currently each team is allowed to pay there players a max of $150'000 each, which amounts to $4.5million/year, that's assuming they are all getting paid the max amount, which if you believe reports, teams like the Reds aren't doing.

So lets look at it from this direction, currently the Reds are limited to paying Quade Cooper $150'000/annum, the same amount as Lei Tomiki, Dominic Shipperly and Kimani Sitauti. Lets assume those players mentioned are only earning $100'000/year, that means collectively there is $150'000 in possible wages that the QRU currently aren't allowed to spend.. From 2012 that $150'000 could be redirected to QC (Quade Cooper) boosting his base wage to $300'000, double what it is now.

This 'salary cap' wont effect the the ARU top-ups, players like Beale, Pocock and Genia will still receive the top ups, it will just be on top of there super rugby wages.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Sharpie signed a new deal last week, as it happens. I'm not sure what the terms were.