Blue Bombers Forum
May 24, 2019, 03:15:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  All
  Print  
Author Topic: CFL and Players Association Reach New Deal  (Read 2149 times)
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3531


« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2019, 04:50:36 PM »

Some of the leaked details have conflicting versions, so I'm waiting for fuller information to really assess the deal.

But Dunk just posted a video at 3down saying that the concept of a strike in 2 waves (due to differing labour legislation in various provinces) would have led to such competitive imbalance that the owners upped their offer to get a deal.  Interesting that the CFLPA was able to leverage that inconsistency (which would normally be seen as a disadvantage) into an asset in negotiations.  I would not be at all surprised to find that some of the advice from Steelworkers may have been helpful in framing that tactically. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23188


« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2019, 05:51:25 PM »

The teams that paid out huge for QBs and receivers this year were obviously thinking the cap would go up by more than 50k and that the rookie increase would not be as much. The Lions and Stamps must be really uncomfortable with their SMS right now. Edmonton too.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
GOLDMEMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20999


R.I.P. BLUE BONGER


« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2019, 05:58:19 PM »

Early reports are:

3 year deal.
Ratio unchanged, at least in year 1.
Cap continues to rise 50k per year.
Minimum salary going up to 65k in year 2 and 3.

wow 50-65k per a year ain?t much. Could be a problem for big ticket QB teams?
Logged

I LOSHT MY MEMBER IN AN UNFORTUNATE SHMELTING ACCSHIDENT!
trapper
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8535


« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2019, 06:06:11 PM »

I can only imagine there is lots of improvements in medical benefits....or else what was the point in all this?
Logged
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1441


« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2019, 06:22:36 PM »

I can only imagine there is lots of improvements in medical benefits....or else what was the point in all this?

The point is, the players want more of the money and the owners want more of the money. Every single negotiating point is a tug-of-war between this.

You think players would be happy if they got benefits and a 15% shrinkage of all salaries across the board to pay for it? (yes I made that number up)
Logged
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6625



« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2019, 06:33:36 PM »

The teams that paid out huge for QBs and receivers this year were obviously thinking the cap would go up by more than 50k and that the rookie increase would not be as much. The Lions and Stamps must be really uncomfortable with their SMS right now. Edmonton too.

Works well with me.
Logged
3rdand1.5
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3172


« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2019, 06:34:34 PM »

Yikes, good luck balancing the roster for the teams who spent huge on QB's. The odd outlier at WR, LB, OL, DB etc. that we saw will be balanced out, reduced/released as needed but how the heck do you balance out multi year 700-800k QB salaries with a total increased cap of $150k over 3 years and a 15k per minimum contract increase. Quick math says next year the salary cap available even with the 50k increase will drop at least $150k for "middle players" due to the minimums increasing.

Those teams with the high end QB's will have a really tough time with non QB veteran salaries moving forward IMO
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3531


« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2019, 06:42:32 PM »

The teams that paid out huge for QBs and receivers this year were obviously thinking the cap would go up by more than 50k and that the rookie increase would not be as much. The Lions and Stamps must be really uncomfortable with their SMS right now. Edmonton too.

Agreed. But it gets complicated.  If you figure half the roster is at minimum or near-minimum, that's maybe 22 guys who need a $10k bump by 2020.  That's $220k less $100k raise in salary cap ($50k x2), so a needed net adjustment of $120k. 

Teams like the Lions and Stamps can get most of the way there if they can talk their QB into taking a major haircut. The Bombers will have to tag  6-8 of their higher paid players for lesser amounts.   Neither is necessarily easy, but if Bo or Reilly dig in and refuse, those teams won't have a lot of wiggle room. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5938



« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2019, 07:05:01 PM »

Farhan Lalji

Verified account
 
@FarhanLaljiTSN
 17m17 minutes ago
More
More CBA details:
1. Players will receive revenue sharing of 20% of the TSN deal, 2.0 & more.
2. 3 yrs of medical coverage.
3. Canadian QBs will now be in the ratio
4. Among the American starters, 3 of them must have played 3 yrs with their existing teams or 4 yrs in #CFL. This in an effort to protect veteran players & build continuity.

The 3 yrs of medical coverage & revenue sharing are meaningful gains for players. @CFLonTSN

#4 is a kicker, 3 years with a club or 4 years in the league and an Import is considered a Natl.

This would make Jefferson, Bighill, Nichols, Adams and almost every other long-term vet. in the league a Natl.  They've effectively destroyed the ratio.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 07:10:41 PM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6625



« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2019, 07:22:19 PM »

Farhan Lalji

Verified account
 
@FarhanLaljiTSN
 17m17 minutes ago
More
More CBA details:
1. Players will receive revenue sharing of 20% of the TSN deal, 2.0 & more.
2. 3 yrs of medical coverage.
3. Canadian QBs will now be in the ratio
4. Among the American starters, 3 of them must have played 3 yrs with their existing teams or 4 yrs in #CFL. This in an effort to protect veteran players & build continuity.

The 3 yrs of medical coverage & revenue sharing are meaningful gains for players. @CFLonTSN

#4 is a kicker, 3 years with a club or 4 years in the league and an Import is considered a Natl.

This would make Jefferson, Bighill, Nichols, Adams and almost every other long-term vet. in the league a Natl.  They've effectively destroyed the ratio.


This is super, super weird....

Sounds like an Ambrosie idea.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 07:24:46 PM by blue_or_die » Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3531


« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2019, 07:26:28 PM »

Farhan Lalji

Verified account
 
@FarhanLaljiTSN
 17m17 minutes ago
More
More CBA details:
1. Players will receive revenue sharing of 20% of the TSN deal, 2.0 & more.
2. 3 yrs of medical coverage.
3. Canadian QBs will now be in the ratio
4. Among the American starters, 3 of them must have played 3 yrs with their existing teams or 4 yrs in #CFL. This in an effort to protect veteran players & build continuity.

The 3 yrs of medical coverage & revenue sharing are meaningful gains for players. @CFLonTSN

#4 is a kicker, 3 years with a club or 4 years in the league and an Import is considered a Natl.

This would make Jefferson, Bighill, Nichols, Adams and almost every other long-term vet. in the league a Natl.  They've effectively destroyed the ratio.

I don't think #4 means what you think it means.

I think they are just saying that your game day roster has to have 3 or 4 guaranteed veteran spots for Americans.  It's an offset to insure that teams don't dump all the veteran Americans to pay for the higher minimum salaries. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6625



« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2019, 07:30:58 PM »

I don't think #4 means what you think it means.

I think they are just saying that your game day roster has to have 3 or 4 guaranteed veteran spots for Americans.  It's an offset to insure that teams don't dump all the veteran Americans to pay for the higher minimum salaries. 

Oh, I thought that part that I bolded was part of Lalji's tweet and not TLB's interpretation.

Your take is how I read it also initially.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5938



« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2019, 07:32:04 PM »

I don't think #4 means what you think it means.

I think they are just saying that your game day roster has to have 3 or 4 guaranteed veteran spots for Americans.  It's an offset to insure that teams don't dump all the veteran Americans to pay for the higher minimum salaries. 

I hope you're right, will wait to see the official text.
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21152



« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2019, 07:33:55 PM »

I hope you're right, will wait to see the official text.

I actually hope it's your interpretation but I think the paw is correct.
Logged
kkc60
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3526


« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2019, 07:43:00 PM »

I hope you're right, will wait to see the official text.
Its gotta be. It's just for continuity and so veterans don't just get tossed the second they ask for a little more. You just need the 3. It doesn't subtract from Nationals, just is a part of the International group
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  All
  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!