NFL Option Clause

[Blue In BC]

Just curious what everyone thinks from a fan perspective. It's something the players wanted in the CFLPA so it's only a rhetorical kind of question.

I didn't add neither since it seems like a black and white question about our opinions.

You can elaborate if you want but it's not really necessary unless you want to elaborate.

[Jesse]

It just is what it is, imo.

Like I said in another thread, players would be released to pursue NFL options anyway. The contractual option to go simply allows teams to retain their rights.

We complain about one year deals and roster instability. But there are no reasons for players to sign longer than one year deals unless you give them incentives to do so, and this is one of those things.

[Blue In BC]

It just is what it is, imo.

Like I said in another thread, players would be released to pursue NFL options anyway. The contractual option to go simply allows teams to retain their rights.

We complain about one year deals and roster instability. But there are no reasons for players to sign longer than one year deals unless you give them incentives to do so, and this is one of those things.

Some valid points. However if there was no clause then NFL teams couldn't approach players for deals and we wouldn't release them. It might force a player to be suspended but why would a team comply if the option wasn't part of CFLPA. There was a CFL/NFL agreement to not solicit our players under contact before the clause. Even currently it requires permission which is fait de complete ( rubber stamp ).

The lack of guaranteed contracts has been a problem for veterans but recently we see more contracts with guaranteed money. That includes Oliveria and Kramdi so far in recent re-signings and some other teams doing the same thing.

Maybe a corner has been turned.

[Tecno]

NFL "windows" are needed to allow max flexibility for players to go down when teams want them.  Why?  Because the NFL carrot is the reason a ton ever bother coming up here at all.

What I want to see added is the CFL team losing the player gets their rights on that player paused.  When he comes back that team gets that player back.  I'm torn as to whether the old contract price should be forced to continue, or if the player can ask for more.  But in both cases the original team gets dibbs.

[theaardvark]

NFL "windows" are needed to allow max flexibility for players to go down when teams want them.  Why?  Because the NFL carrot is the reason a ton ever bother coming up here at all.

What I want to see added is the CFL team losing the player gets their rights on that player paused.  When he comes back that team gets that player back.  I'm torn as to whether the old contract price should be forced to continue, or if the player can ask for more.  But in both cases the original team gets dibbs.

That is exactly what the "window" does.

[Tecno]

That is exactly what the "window" does.

I'm talking about if they actually "win" the window and leave for 1+ years, after having played a full year in the CFL to get the film.  This happens fairly regularly.  Think Henoc, Biggie, Strev, etc.  By the time they return, the original team owns nothing on them.

It never seemed "fair" to me, from the CFL team standpoint.

[Blue In BC]

NFL "windows" are needed to allow max flexibility for players to go down when teams want them.  Why?  Because the NFL carrot is the reason a ton ever bother coming up here at all.

What I want to see added is the CFL team losing the player gets their rights on that player paused.  When he comes back that team gets that player back.  I'm torn as to whether the old contract price should be forced to continue, or if the player can ask for more.  But in both cases the original team gets dibbs.

It's an advantage to the players potentially but IMO it's not an advantage to the CFL. The sticking point is the thought that is why many ONLY consider the CFL in the 1st place.

As I've pointed out, we had no problem getting imports into the CFL before this option existed.