Top 3 QB salaries

[TecnoGenius]

The 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.

How 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!

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.

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.

[TBURGESS]

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. 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

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.

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.

[TBURGESS]

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.

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. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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.

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!

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.

I'm hung up on exact figures when your point specifically draws conclusions on those figures.

I asked you for sources knowing full well they don't exist.

We don't even have official confirmation on player salaries let alone marketing dollars going to playera on top of salaries.

And even supposing the BC Lions spend more than any other team on this (and I'm not prepared to agree with you just because that's what you think is happening) but assuming you're right, is it really the advantage you're arguing it is? Or does (let's pick random numbers) $300,000 in Vancouver roughly equal $110,000 in Winnipeg both in terms of real marketing opportunities and the cost of doing business/live in those in those markets?

[TecnoGenius]

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.

I don't disagree, however I'm sure some of us would feel slightly guilty if we were going to the CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is.

That's why every time I talk about BC's massive cheating I say that we should (now) do it too.  If that's the "new normal" and the league isn't going to reign it in (Ambrosie's soft "you better not!" notwithstanding), then the smart move is to copy them and gain the "free SMS" to go hog wild on top players.

After all, BC's owner may be the richest private owner, but we are by far the richest club.  If he's allowed to buy a cheatin' team, then so are we.

[TecnoGenius]

I'm hung up on exact figures when your point specifically draws conclusions on those figures.

I asked you for sources knowing full well they don't exist.

I gave you the only sources we have for now: 3dn.  I guess you can say they just pulled those numbers completely out of their butts, but one would hope that they wouldn't report accurate-sounding numbers (i.e. not even rounded to the nearest 10k) without having someone somewhere report it to them!

Besides, 3dn is not a "Blue Goggles" bunch of guys, so why would they make stuff up that makes BC sound bad and WPG sound like saints?

And even supposing the BC Lions spend more than any other team on this (and I'm not prepared to agree with you just because that's what you think is happening) but assuming you're right, is it really the advantage you're arguing it is?

All else being equal, it'll be hard to find anyone who doesn't think having $300k extra to spend on players wouldn't be an advantage.

For instance, that $300k would more than pay for bringing back Desjar, Yoshi, and Tyrell Ford.  Instead we'll be starting a new starter OG, Lofton (actually not bad!), and probably a sophomore non-outstanding DB.

Yes, the extra $300k didn't help BC last season, but that's clearly going to be the exception, not the rule.  How bad would they have been starting QB3 and no Betts for the last third??

Or does (let's pick random numbers) $300,000 in Vancouver roughly equal $110,000 in Winnipeg both in terms of real marketing opportunities and the cost of doing business/live in those in those markets?

Straw man.  That has nothing to do with the argument up to this point.  And if it did, the proper solution for that is for the CFL to create a "local cost of living" adjustment to the SMS, not for BC to just cheat using a loophole.

Again: you try so hard to make up every excuse you can for BC.  It's very strange, like you're on the orange side instead of blue & gold.  I really don't understand it.

As for "real marketing opportunities": I bet Zach spends as much time amongst the plebes or doing spots on TV or whatever as Rourke does.

It would be more legit to send a camera with Brady on every dog-saving trip north, give him $25k every trip, air the vids on the web site, and call the extra $250k he can net doing that "marketing".  Then we can pay him $0 salary on-SMS and have Brady for free.  Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

[TBURGESS]

I don't disagree, however I'm sure some of us would feel slightly guilty if we were going to the CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is.

That's why every time I talk about BC's massive cheating I say that we should (now) do it too.  If that's the "new normal" and the league isn't going to reign it in (Ambrosie's soft "you better not!" notwithstanding), then the smart move is to copy them and gain the "free SMS" to go hog wild on top players.

After all, BC's owner may be the richest private owner, but we are by far the richest club.  If he's allowed to buy a cheatin' team, then so are we.

It's not cheating. It's in the rules. I am kinda surprised that they didn't change the rule this off season though.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

It's not cheating. It's in the rules. I am kinda surprised that they didn't change the rule this off season though.

They should have, it's better for the league overall if none of the teams take advantage of convenient loopholes.  They hand out the GC to the best football team, not for the cleverest use of chicanery. Walters is still playing within the spirit of the rules anticipating a correction, I would be equally upset if he was jumping into the slop up to his knees.

[Pete]

It's not cheating. It's in the rules. I am kinda surprised that they didn't change the rule this off season though.

That's just it. the league is very aware of the issue but hasn't responded to it likely :
a) they are ok with teams overspending in order to draw fans
or
b) there is an issue with the cflpa agreement whereby they can't without the PA agreeing to it, in which case the PA would want some kind of tradeoff for it. (as right now it benefits them to have teams spend more)

[TecnoGenius]

They should have, it's better for the league overall if none of the teams take advantage of convenient loopholes.

It could have all been solved by 'Brosie just saying the $110 is both a minimum and a maximum.  Period.  Problem solved.

I think what the CFLPA cared about most is that there was some known minimum amount to spread around as gravy to the players.  I don't think anyone ever thought of the concept of a maximum, until now.  Remember, almost every team cries "poor" every single season.

I bet Doman, probably a really smart guy, sat down with all the contracts after buying his shiny new team and pored through it looking for loopholes and advantages.  It's smart business sense.  The smile on his face when he noticed this one must have been huge...

[theaardvark]

The "maximum" is how much a player can actually earn through marketing.

Teams were warned that the the players have to earn the extra money with actually appearances, etc.

You can't have Rourke show up at a signing and say "Well, there's $50k of his marketing money earned."

Some teams are taking that directive to heart, BC isn't...

[TBURGESS]

BC is using the contract as it was written. If the CFL wanted there to be a maximum, they would have put a maximum in during the offseason. 

We made a ton of money this year, so we could have used the marketing money too if we wanted to.