Blue Bombers Forum

1) Nathan Rourke, B.C. Lions (N)
The 36-year-old collected a $100,000 offseason roster bonus on January 15. He has a $500,000 base salary with $250,000 guaranteed. Collaros enters 2025 in the final season of his three-year contract signed in October 2022 (https://3downnation.com/2022/10/18/top-up-the-cfl-mop-blue-bombers-qb-zach-collaros-earns-raise-with-three-year-1-8-million-contract-extension/).

From: https://www.inoreader.com/article/3a9c6e77d68f218e-qb1-money-cfls-highest-paid-quarterbacks-for-the-2025-season

Wonder why Kyle didn't renegotiate Zach's contract this off-season and deduct $200k in marketing money to avoid the higher SMS hit.  If the goose can do it, why not the gander?  Seriously hoping the league eliminates this chicanery before it gets carried away and the SMS loses all relevance.

So, Zach has the highest $SMS hit in the CFL.

Not sure what the new cap does to change this, or the "marketing money"... but I think renegotiating the deal removes the $250k guarantee (only for multi year extensions with the current team), although I'm not sure that is an issue either way after cutting him a $100k roster bonus already, pretty sure he's not getting cut before he earns half his deal.

Dru Brown $354,700 hard money, $390,700 Max Money. I think a pretty fair contract for both sides.

They should get rid of the marketing money loop hole, and Rourke isn't worth half of what they're paying him. Ridiculous contract.

Quote from: dd on April 14, 2025, 11:36:37 PMThey should get rid of the marketing money loop hole, and Rourke isn't worth half of what they're paying him. Ridiculous contract.

I kind of agree.  They are investing in a guy who I believe still has to prove/improve himself.

https://www.cfl.ca/players/nathan-rourke/165740/

Rourke 2024 passing stats - 65% completion percentage, less than 200 yds passing per game, 4 TD's vs 9 int's. Lions sold the farm for this guy, paying an arm and a leg for him, for no good reason, he didn't warrant the ridiculous $700 k salary, and even with marketing money are in SMS hell. Well good for them!!!

I thought we were paying Zach a small "marketing money" (MM) too?  Like $20-$50k?  I recall we had a few players earning a token (like $10k) MM amount.

In any event, we better get full on the MM gravy train because teams are clearly cheating the cap by hundreds of thousands using this loophole.  Why is it WFC always plays it "honest" whilst many other teams push every boundary and loophole all the time?

It's like in F1: teams that find the "loophole" the regs didn't anticipate (diffusers, or flexible wings anyone?) are the ones who win the season(s).  The super duper honest plain vanilla teams win nothing.

And if we thought we were earning "good will" with the league by doing this all this time, that's all out the window with Ambrosie leaving.  The new guy won't care we didn't make his life tricky with tons of cheating like BC did to Ambrosie.

Can you imagine what we could do on our DL, FS, NAT OL, or REC corps if we shed $200k of MM from Zach and other superstars?

I liked it better when all the chicanery was hidden, like BLM's wife's "independent gig" in CGY.  At least they had to be more creative than just wink "marketing money"!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 15, 2025, 06:51:02 AMI thought we were paying Zach a small "marketing money" (MM) too?  Like $20-$50k?  I recall we had a few players earning a token (like $10k) MM amount.

In any event, we better get full on the MM gravy train because teams are clearly cheating the cap by hundreds of thousands using this loophole.  Why is it WFC always plays it "honest" whilst many other teams push every boundary and loophole all the time?

It's like in F1: teams that find the "loophole" the regs didn't anticipate (diffusers, or flexible wings anyone?) are the ones who win the season(s).  The super duper honest plain vanilla teams win nothing.

And if we thought we were earning "good will" with the league by doing this all this time, that's all out the window with Ambrosie leaving.  The new guy won't care we didn't make his life tricky with tons of cheating like BC did to Ambrosie.

Can you imagine what we could do on our DL, FS, NAT OL, or REC corps if we shed $200k of MM from Zach and other superstars?

I liked it better when all the chicanery was hidden, like BLM's wife's "independent gig" in CGY.  At least they had to be more creative than just wink "marketing money"!

I'd place better odds on 3down (a bunch of guys in their underwear typing from their basements) not knowing all the details of Zach's contract higher than Zach not making any marketing money.

Take these numbers with a large grain of salt.

Quote from: ModAdmin on April 15, 2025, 01:33:25 AMI kind of agree.  They are investing in a guy who I believe still has to prove/improve himself.

https://www.cfl.ca/players/nathan-rourke/165740/

Meh, Rourke has obvious talent, which you could easily see in his first year as a starter. As in hockey, if the Lions build a good team around him and find the right HC (may b not  Buck?)they could become the next dominant team in the West Division, giving him a chance at winning a few GC's. Zach was in a similar place in his younger days with Hamilton, it took him a long time to get to the top.

Regarding the marketing dollars:

The natural reaction is to compare Rourke's deal with Collaros's and be upset that it's not fair.

The crucial information you're missing is the overall spend. How many marketing dollars do we spend overall and is it similar to other teams? (I believe the answer is yes.) Collaros prefers to stay mostly distraction free during the season and that's okay. Are we, for example, spreading what Rourke is making in BC amongst our other players who find it a better fit to do that kind of work (Willie Jefferson, Nic Demksi, Brady Oliveira, Sergio Castillo, Jake Thomas, etc.) Again, I believe it's absolutely a yes. Having said that, I think it would be in the league's interest to post that information somehow for transparency (although I can see why it's probably fairly tricky).

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 15, 2025, 05:18:44 PMRegarding the marketing dollars:

The natural reaction is to compare Rourke's deal with Collaros and be upset that it's not fair.

The crucial information you're missing is the overall spend. How many marketing dollars do we spend overall and is it similar to other teams? (I believe the answer is yes.) Collaros prefers to stay mostly distraction free during the season and that's okay. Are we, for example, spreading what Rourke is making in BC amongst our other players who find it a better fit to do that kind of work (Wille Jefferson, Nic Demksi, Brady Oliveira, Sergio Castillo, Jake Thomas, etc.) Again, I believe it's absolutely a yes. Having said that, I think it would be in the league's interest to post that information somehow for transparency (although I can see why it's probably fairly tricky).

Chris Kolankowski is doing his part.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 15, 2025, 05:18:44 PMThe crucial information you're missing is the overall spend. How many marketing dollars do we spend overall and is it similar to other teams? (I believe the answer is yes.)

There was a post couple of months back that showed all the marketing $ WFC spent.  It was like $10k-$15k each for a few big players, and maybe something small for Zach.  I don't recall the exact numbers.

However, I do remember it seemed like our entire team MM spend was way less than t what BC was spending just on Rourke.  That's where my feeling about the differential between teams being unreasonable stemmed from.

And keep in mind BC is probably paying many players MM, meaning their total MM spend is probably $300-$400k.  All off the SMS.

Imagine what we could do with an extra magic $300k of SMS space?  Retain Kenny, anyone?  Get Desjar back?

It really feels like the league is looking the other way when it comes to marketing monies. They want teams like BC to become relevant and if it means letting them utilize this avenue so be it. Same with the Elks this year.
It does irk fans of the bb but for the good of the league it may be needed.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 15, 2025, 11:24:54 PMThere was a post couple of months back that showed all the marketing $ WFC spent.  It was like $10k-$15k each for a few big players, and maybe something small for Zach.  I don't recall the exact numbers.

However, I do remember it seemed like our entire team MM spend was way less than t what BC was spending just on Rourke.  That's where my feeling about the differential between teams being unreasonable stemmed from.

And keep in mind BC is probably paying many players MM, meaning their total MM spend is probably $300-$400k.  All off the SMS.

Imagine what we could do with an extra magic $300k of SMS space?  Retain Kenny, anyone?  Get Desjar back?

The problem with your theory is you're just guessing. How much is BC's total marketing dollar spend? What about us? What about the rest of the teams? Based on what actual credible figures?

It's possible you're right. It's possible you're wrong by a little or a lot.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on Today at 03:04:35 AMThe problem with your theory is you're just guessing.

I'm not guessing.  I'm going by what was reported.  I found the forum post with the info:
https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=56199.msg1651421#msg1651421

quote:
Based on their recent signings, it's clear the Blue Bombers didn't do this. Jones has $8,000 of marketing money in his deal, Logan has $7,500, and Vaughters has $5,000, none of which are particularly significant sums. The king of CFL marketing money is still easily B.C. Lions quarterback Nathan Rourke, who will earn $200,000 off the salary cap in 2025.

It really appears WFC spends basically the mandated minimum $110k MM.  It seems clear they are not doing what (some) other teams are doing: using MM as a way to pad salaries off-SMS (i.e. "cheat").

I haven't yet seen what Zach's MM is yet, or can't find it on my latest searches, but I bet it's $50k or even much less.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on Today at 03:04:35 AMHow much is BC's total marketing dollar spend?

Completely irrelevant.  I can argue my point simply by looking at just Rourke's MM, which is $200k (widely reported).  What their total team MM spend is doesn't matter, though you can be assured it's far higher than $200k!

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on Today at 03:04:35 AMWhat about us? What about the rest of the teams? Based on what actual credible figures?

It's possible you're right. It's possible you're wrong by a little or a lot.

It seems you're always hung up on the exact figures, like that really matters.  If WFC is spending league-minimum in total and BC is spending $200k on one player (and we know Betts was also getting a big one so it's probably all their stars getting big MM), then by the simple fact BC is at minimum doubling our spend means we can reasonably argue about the BC cheating, and about what WFC should do about it.

Again, I'm not really sure why people want to defend the teams employing all sorts of dirty tricks and loopholes against the spirit of the league agreements.

Even head-in-the-sand Ambrosie noticed and remarked and threatened BC in not so many words with his "MM must be justified and we're keeping a close eye on it... cough cough BC" press release shortly after Rourke's MM deal was made public.  The situation is real, it's not one of my 3am hot takes fever dreams.

BC figured out that marketing money was not included in the SMS and that they could spend as much marketing money as they wanted. As all teams can do it, so it's not unfair that BC uses it. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on Today at 03:06:48 PMBC figured out that marketing money was not included in the SMS and that they could spend as much marketing money as they wanted. As all teams can do it, so it's not unfair that BC uses it.

One owner, and a new one at that decides he's going to subvert the CFL salary cap by introducing a brand new round of shenanigans, half the other teams follow suite, half ignore it.  This is the kind of nonsense the CFL has to clean up on before it gets out of hand.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on Today at 03:37:06 PMOne owner, and a new one at that decides he's going to subvert the CFL salary cap by introducing a brand new round of shenanigans, half the other teams follow suite, half ignore it.  This is the kind of nonsense the CFL has to clean up on before it gets out of hand.

You call it subverting the salary cap. I call it using the rules as they were written. If we'd done it, everyone would be saying how smart we were.