NorthLondonStag wrote: oldweststander wrote:
bellwhiff wrote:I hope the union takes the decision to court. It’s a restraint of trade.
No it's not, how do you work that out?
As I said above the question has been raised in relation to the RFU salary cap and the issue does not appear to be clear.
For competition law the authorities look at the outcome, as much as the form. If the effect of the rules is that it could result in an anti competitive outcome then there may be an issue. I am not a competition lawyer so I do not know the answer.
I would assume that the EFL took advice on the point.
Saracens just got a 35 point deduction to ensure they finished bottom and got relegated. They were bankrolled and were by far the richest team in the league along with Bristol, when all the rest were on an even keel. They were also fined £5.36m after an inquiry into contracts between owner Nigel Wray and some of their players. The salary cap the RFU introduced was to maintain competition and to stop all the non-rich teams becoming cannon-fodder for the big 2. This was to maintain the integrity of the league and to ensure all the England players didn't play for just 2 teams who could pay them the most.
The difference for a L1 and L2 salary cap is that any team that 'smashes the league' is promoted and so the integrity of the league isn't damaged if there is a big spender compared to the others, because they won't be in the same league the next season.
The RFU salary cap is akin to a cap on clubs like City, United, and Chelsea who have been paying out the most in recent years in a view to keep the league competitive.
It's worth noting that Saracens got there points deduction for paying players outside the playing contract with the club.
The salary cap will condemn us to at least another decade of bargain-basement football.
You've got to go there and come back, to know where you've been.