Blue Bombers Forum
September 27, 2020, 08:07:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Players will not be reporting to camp unless a new deal is in place...  (Read 19174 times)
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #165 on: May 01, 2019, 05:03:08 PM »

The only thing that prevents Elimimian from getting released is guaranteed contracts. It's no different than the Bombers releasing Chris Randle (I suppose we did it sooner, aren't we the nice guys?). Big contract. Aging player. BC could have signed Reilly and kept him if they wanted to. They also signed Chungh to a big deal and a few others. Elimimian's release IS the salary cap working. No "prevention" is necessary.

So, if Riley could only be paid $500k, you think they still dump Solly?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21948



« Reply #166 on: May 01, 2019, 05:07:04 PM »

So, if Riley could only be paid $500k, you think they still dump Solly?

The leaps of logic you make are astounding. How could anyone answer that question? Duh. We don't know.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24871


« Reply #167 on: May 01, 2019, 05:10:16 PM »

Whatever the SMS total is, teams always have to decide how and where to spend money. At times very good players get released as younger, less expensive players allow spending elsewhere on the roster.

In that sense I don't know if Reilly only got $500K whether Elimimian would still be with the Lions. It's not as black and white as that.

There were many Lions players not re-signed in free agency that had some fairly big contracts. Everything from age, injury history or performance relative to others on the roster came into play.

Just because a player is released doesn't mean a team couldn't afford the contract or the player was deficient. It's a series of decisions on the cumulative roster.

Locally I think there was a belief last year during the season that Solly wouldn't be back. Big contract, missing most of the season, others stepping up and the need to spend on other roster positions. That was long before they knew they would sign Reilly or Chungh.

New management was going to start the re-build across the entire roster.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 05:14:16 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
blue girl
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4534



« Reply #168 on: May 01, 2019, 06:48:31 PM »

I am a professional negotiator. I do collective bargaining on the union side, and have done so for many years. In our organization, we strongly believe that bargaining does not and should not occur in the public sphere. We adhere to this fervently, until such time when we need to seek out wider public support for our position. This is generally the practice in bargaining, as it keeps the issues at the table where they belong.

I have posted in this thread previously about the strike vote that the players took. I have yet to see any information where that vote is actually binding. Taking a strike vote is actually a two-step process. Union members need to vote to authorize a supervised strike vote. Once they do this, then a supervised strike vote can happen. I don't believe that they have moved beyond the first step. From what I see, the first step has happened, but this does not authorize the players to walk out. I have seen nothing in the media about strike windows or timelines, which tells me that as of right now, players failing to show up for training camp would constitute an illegal strike. Because the CFL is not in a single provincial jurisdiction, the supervising authority would likely have to be a federal agency (I bargain public sector on a provincial level in Alberta, so I am not at all familiar with the details on the federal level). Nevertheless, any unionized workplace has to adhere to these types of rules, whether in the public sector, or in the private sector. The CFL would be private sector.

In bargaining, as you've seen if you've followed other high profile disputes (NHL, NFL, MLB) in sport, there is a lot of jockeying as the process unfolds. This is another reason why staying out of the media is a good thing.

At the end of the day, an employer has a legal obligation to release audited financial information. They don't have to "throw open their books" as some would argue. These are private businesses. Only Saskatchewan, Edmonton and Winnipeg operate differently as they don't have an owner but are operated by a public board (this also complicates bargaining, as there are essentially two different ownership structures at play). Of course, those three teams all make money. The BCs, Torontos, Montreals of the world create problems because they clearly do not make money.

Halifax is a red herring. They can't be bargaining for a franchise that doesn't exist.

A strike or a lockout does not benefit anyone, IMO. The players will lose money, and will not get it back (if games are missed). The owners need gate, concession and TV money. All sides need fan support.

Bargaining is hard. It should be. Both sides have legitimate issues that they want and need to address over the long term. This is their chance to do that.
Thank you for providing some clarity on this. I do agree that a strike or lockout benefits nobody. Once games are lost that revenue is never coming back.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #169 on: May 01, 2019, 06:51:13 PM »

The leaps of logic you make are astounding. How could anyone answer that question? Duh. We don't know.

OK, I will answer.  Pretty sure if Hervey has an extra $250k of SMS room he doesn't cut a star D player... 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4012


« Reply #170 on: May 01, 2019, 06:54:01 PM »



I have posted in this thread previously about the strike vote that the players took. I have yet to see any information where that vote is actually binding. Taking a strike vote is actually a two-step process. Union members need to vote to authorize a supervised strike vote. Once they do this, then a supervised strike vote can happen. I don't believe that they have moved beyond the first step. From what I see, the first step has happened, but this does not authorize the players to walk out. I have seen nothing in the media about strike windows or timelines, which tells me that as of right now, players failing to show up for training camp would constitute an illegal strike. Because the CFL is not in a single provincial jurisdiction, the supervising authority would likely have to be a federal agency (I bargain public sector on a provincial level in Alberta, so I am not at all familiar with the details on the federal level). Nevertheless, any unionized workplace has to adhere to these types of rules, whether in the public sector, or in the private sector. The CFL would be private sector.



I'm not an expert, but I did sit on some bargaining committees back in the day.  (my information may not be quite current).

I don't think strike votes necessarily need to be supervised in all jurisdictions.   As well, at least two provinces (Alta and Ont I think) have mandatory mediation periods before employees who have voted to strike can actually hit the picket lines.  

I would have thought that the CFL (operating in 5 provinces) would have fallen under some sort of federal labour code, but reading the league's position, it sounds like they think that each team has to comply with the provincial legislation in their province.   It seems odd that you could do central bargaining like this, but I guess the individual teams and not the league are the employers.

I suppose you could have staggered start dates for strikes in different provinces.  Hopefully it doesn't come to that...
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21948



« Reply #171 on: May 01, 2019, 07:34:18 PM »

OK, I will answer.  Pretty sure if Hervey has an extra $250k of SMS room he doesn't cut a star D player... 

Your whole theory makes no sense Aardvark. Let's go down the rabbit hole for half a second. If all QBs capped out at say, 500K, then the vast majority would be paid at that level. This is really great for teams that have Bo Levi Mitchell and Mike Reilly. Not only do they have the best quarterbacks in the league but they don't have to pay them more than the average QBs like Matt Nichols and Trevor Harris. Instead of the tradeoff between a AAA quarterback and extra SMS room, they get both. That is obviously a huge advantage. Your rule may have spared Solly, but the SMS is in place to not only control costs but also redistribute talent based on market worth. If you arbitrarily cap a position the whole thing loses some of its power to equalize the clubs.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7281



« Reply #172 on: May 01, 2019, 08:41:48 PM »

Your whole theory makes no sense Aardvark. Let's go down the rabbit hole for half a second. If all QBs capped out at say, 500K, then the vast majority would be paid at that level. This is really great for teams that have Bo Levi Mitchell and Mike Reilly. Not only do they have the best quarterbacks in the league but they don't have to pay them more than the average QBs like Matt Nichols and Trevor Harris. Instead of the tradeoff between a AAA quarterback and extra SMS room, they get both. That is obviously a huge advantage. Your rule may have spared Solly, but the SMS is in place to not only control costs but also redistribute talent based on market worth. If you arbitrarily cap a position the whole thing loses some of its power to equalize the clubs.

I don't think all starting QB's would quickly cap out at $500,000, Reilly, BLM, Harris, Masoli and Nichols are already there but up and coming QB's like Jennings, Franklin and Streveler would still have to climb the ladder to get to that pay scale and that would take a number of years to prove their worth.
Logged
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2199



« Reply #173 on: May 01, 2019, 10:29:09 PM »

I'm not an expert, but I did sit on some bargaining committees back in the day.  (my information may not be quite current).

I don't think strike votes necessarily need to be supervised in all jurisdictions.   As well, at least two provinces (Alta and Ont I think) have mandatory mediation periods before employees who have voted to strike can actually hit the picket lines.  

I would have thought that the CFL (operating in 5 provinces) would have fallen under some sort of federal labour code, but reading the league's position, it sounds like they think that each team has to comply with the provincial legislation in their province.   It seems odd that you could do central bargaining like this, but I guess the individual teams and not the league are the employers.

I suppose you could have staggered start dates for strikes in different provinces.  Hopefully it doesn't come to that...

You've dug a bit farther into the positions of each side in this dispute than I have. Interesting that it could be viewed that they'd have to adhere to five different provincial jurisdictions. I always wondered how a group like the postal workers dealt with those issues. Once I leave work, I tend to leave behind much interest in labour relations elsewhere.

You are absolutely correct about the requirement for a mediator. This isn't the Soviets at the Spectrum in the 1970s simply saying we're going home! A mediator needs to be involved in the dispute. The mediator the needs to write themselves out of the dispute, and this would only occur after multiple sessions with the parties and a determination that the sides were too far apart for the mediator to write terms of settlement. Then we get to the supervised strike vote. Then there's a window of time that the mandate of that vote remains valid for. During that time, the union or the employer can serve 72-hours notice of strike or lockout.

With camps open in a few weeks, achieving this in that timeline would be a challenge.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1481


« Reply #174 on: May 02, 2019, 07:04:34 AM »

Your whole theory makes no sense Aardvark. Let's go down the rabbit hole for half a second. If all QBs capped out at say, 500K, then the vast majority would be paid at that level. This is really great for teams that have Bo Levi Mitchell and Mike Reilly. Not only do they have the best quarterbacks in the league but they don't have to pay them more than the average QBs like Matt Nichols and Trevor Harris. Instead of the tradeoff between a AAA quarterback and extra SMS room, they get both. That is obviously a huge advantage. Your rule may have spared Solly, but the SMS is in place to not only control costs but also redistribute talent based on market worth. If you arbitrarily cap a position the whole thing loses some of its power to equalize the clubs.

If you cap QBs, theoretically, at 500K, Bo and Mike likely hold clipboards in the NFL for the rest of their careers.  There is a "love to play" factor for sure, but it only goes so far, and 30% below what either of them will be paid this year probably isn't it.

Solly isn't strictly an SMS victim.  It is, to some extent, the Hufnagel model being implemented by other teams.  Now I'm not saying Hervey is as good as Hufnagel, but good GMs make the tough calls before the best before date has passed.  Charleston Hughes is a prime example.  Still, on his worst days, a very good player.  Stamps did OK without him.

I suspect we find ourselves in a similar situation with Bighill and possibly Nichols next season, especially with Nichols and Strevelers contracts both coming due.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2019, 07:08:53 AM by BlueInCgy » Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #175 on: May 02, 2019, 02:29:55 PM »

Your whole theory makes no sense Aardvark. Let's go down the rabbit hole for half a second. If all QBs capped out at say, 500K, then the vast majority would be paid at that level. This is really great for teams that have Bo Levi Mitchell and Mike Reilly. Not only do they have the best quarterbacks in the league but they don't have to pay them more than the average QBs like Matt Nichols and Trevor Harris. Instead of the tradeoff between a AAA quarterback and extra SMS room, they get both. That is obviously a huge advantage. Your rule may have spared Solly, but the SMS is in place to not only control costs but also redistribute talent based on market worth. If you arbitrarily cap a position the whole thing loses some of its power to equalize the clubs.

If BLM and Reilly are at $500k, why would you pay Nichols/Collaros more than $400k?  Or any unproven QB even $300k...  just because you have a limit for the top doesn't mean every player is going to get that... just because Bighill gets $250k, does that mean every starting MLB in the league will now make $250k?  Your argument makes no sense...

If you cap QBs, theoretically, at 500K, Bo and Mike likely hold clipboards in the NFL for the rest of their careers.  There is a "love to play" factor for sure, but it only goes so far, and 30% below what either of them will be paid this year probably isn't it.

Solly isn't strictly an SMS victim.  It is, to some extent, the Hufnagel model being implemented by other teams.  Now I'm not saying Hervey is as good as Hufnagel, but good GMs make the tough calls before the best before date has passed.  Charleston Hughes is a prime example.  Still, on his worst days, a very good player.  Stamps did OK without him.

I suspect we find ourselves in a similar situation with Bighill and possibly Nichols next season, especially with Nichols and Strevelers contracts both coming due.


Pay for clipboard holding has not increased dramatically since the top QB's in our league were making $374-400k...  why would there suddenly be spots open that are more lucrative than $500k?  And if BLM or Reilly could get a job holding a clipboard in the NFL, you could't keep them here for any pay...  they are not here because the CFL pays them more, they are here because only the CFL will pay them...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21948



« Reply #176 on: May 02, 2019, 03:43:21 PM »

If BLM and Reilly are at $500k, why would you pay Nichols/Collaros more than $400k?  Or any unproven QB even $300k...  just because you have a limit for the top doesn't mean every player is going to get that... just because Bighill gets $250k, does that mean every starting MLB in the league will now make $250k?  Your argument makes no sense...

Good grief. BLM and Reilly are obviously worth more than $500K even if you set some sort of artificial cap on them. Let's say you do like you suggested. Nichols is set to earn $465,000 this year. How does a $500,000 cap change his value? It doesn't. If he's worth $465,000 today, then he's worth it tomorrow even if you cap the top income earners below what the market would otherwise offer them.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #177 on: May 02, 2019, 03:56:45 PM »

Good grief. BLM and Reilly are obviously worth more than $500K even if you set some sort of artificial cap on them. Let's say you do like you suggested. Nichols is set to earn $465,000 this year. How does a $500,000 cap change his value? It doesn't. If he's worth $465,000 today, then he's worth it tomorrow even if you cap the top income earners below what the market would otherwise offer them.

How was BLM worth less than $400k 2 years ago, and with virtually the same SMS, now he's worth $700k?

Here is a QB salary listing from 2012...  when the SMS was 4.35mil, or 83% of the current...

Anthony Calvillo, Montreal: $400,000 (maximum salary)
Ricky Ray, Toronto: $400,000 (maximum salary)
Henry Burris, Hamilton: $300,000 (maximum salary)
Darian Durant, Saskatchewan: $300,000 (maximum salary)
Drew Tate, Calgary: $300,000 (maximum salary) ($200,000 base)
Steven Jyles, Edmonton: $250,000 (maximum salary) ($125,000 base, $75,000 signing bonus)
Travis Lulay, B.C.: $250,000 (maximum salary)


This would put Cavillo's salary, adjusted as % of SMS, at less than $480k. 

Are you suggesting that something has happened to make a QB worth 1.5 times as much % of SMS today as arguably the best QB of all time at the height of his career?  Or another hall of famer (Ray) coming off his 3rd GC?

It is an adjustment that needs to be made to stop GM's from ruining the league.


Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21948



« Reply #178 on: May 02, 2019, 04:23:09 PM »

How was BLM worth less than $400k 2 years ago, and with virtually the same SMS, now he's worth $700k?

Here is a QB salary listing from 2012...  when the SMS was 4.35mil, or 83% of the current...

Anthony Calvillo, Montreal: $400,000 (maximum salary)
Ricky Ray, Toronto: $400,000 (maximum salary)
Henry Burris, Hamilton: $300,000 (maximum salary)
Darian Durant, Saskatchewan: $300,000 (maximum salary)
Drew Tate, Calgary: $300,000 (maximum salary) ($200,000 base)
Steven Jyles, Edmonton: $250,000 (maximum salary) ($125,000 base, $75,000 signing bonus)
Travis Lulay, B.C.: $250,000 (maximum salary)


This would put Cavillo's salary, adjusted as % of SMS, at less than $480k. 

Are you suggesting that something has happened to make a QB worth 1.5 times as much % of SMS today as arguably the best QB of all time at the height of his career?  Or another hall of famer (Ray) coming off his 3rd GC?

It is an adjustment that needs to be made to stop GM's from ruining the league.

Yes - what's happened is that teams are willing to pay a higher premium for elite quarterbacks. That in itself means that those quarterbacks are worth more by definition. If those teams aren't competitive any longer, then you might see some sort of a correction, but that's an if not a when.

Since you're throwing out the "ruining the league" card, I'd invite you to stop hyperventilating and put things into perspective. Since you proclaimed $500,000 as acceptable payment for top end quarterbacks in "Aardvark reality", then you're only talking about two quarterbacks as outliers. Mike Reilly is about $225,000 over your stamp of approval and Bo Levi is about $175,000. While it's true that all QBs may creep up a bit as a result, this is not going to "ruin the league". Realistically, those teams are going to have to pay 1 or 2 extra players league minimum to make up for the change.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2019, 04:26:16 PM by Sir Blue and Gold » Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1481


« Reply #179 on: May 02, 2019, 04:32:43 PM »


Pay for clipboard holding has not increased dramatically since the top QB's in our league were making $374-400k...  why would there suddenly be spots open that are more lucrative than $500k?  And if BLM or Reilly could get a job holding a clipboard in the NFL, you could't keep them here for any pay...  they are not here because the CFL pays them more, they are here because only the CFL will pay them...

Well, let?s see.  In 2012 money, since you want to go there, the US and Canadian dollar were at par, so $400k was $400k in either currency.  In 2018 dollars, $400k CDN is $300k US.  So, ignoring all other factors, any QB collecting a $400k salary in 2012 would need to be collecting $520k CDN to take home the same amount, since 99% of all QBs are Americans and very few permanently repatriate and therefore need to plan for their future in their home currency.  Then taking that currency equivalency and then increasing it by the ratio of the SMS, the same QB would now be making $620k +.

So Calvillo?s value and Reilly/Mitchell are relatively close when considered in their native currency, which also happens to be the currency in which NFL players are paid.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!