Rourke released, Signed by Atlanta...and released again AND SIGNS WITH BC

[pdirks67]

I think the way the marketing money was explained, that the Lions are playing inside the rules. Using the full minimum money and then some on one player does create an issue with their roster.

While they can still have contracts with marketing money, the rest goes to the normal SMS.

I do think it will have some negative aspect in needing to trim some bigger salaries going into 2025.

Whether it's a QB or receiver or RB that get a new bigger deal, it does have a trickle down effect on the rest of the roster.

We say that impact on the Bomber with new deals for Oliveria and Schoen. When somebody gets more, somebody else gets less. It's just simple math. Trying to get the best bang for the dollar is not always easy.

Do we know that the "rest goes to normal SMS"? It seems like this is up for debate, according to Derek Taylor, among others? Either way, Rourke is great for the league and the CFL is better for it. But we need to have a proper salary cap to keep the league viable.

[Blue In BC]

Do we know that the "rest goes to normal SMS"? It seems like this is up for debate, according to Derek Taylor, among others? Either way, Rourke is great for the league and the CFL is better for it. But we need to have a proper salary cap to keep the league viable.

That's the way it was explained and that makes sense IMO. It allows the team a " marketing cap " of that $110K outside the SMS. That's affordable to each team. Anything more falling inside the SMS means it falls into the overall SMS rules. Go over and there is a fine and potential loss of draft picks.

All of this allows players to be paid for off the field marketing and still maintaining a level field in the SMS. It's like the SMS is Plan A and the marketing is small Plan 1a on top of it as an exemption.

In the same way there is an exemption from the 6 game IR rule allowing players extended being able to come out after game 7 without penalty.

Lawler has missed 8 games on the 6 game IR. Assuming he comes out this week, he'd be exempt for the extra 2 games spent on the 6 game IR.

[TBURGESS]

The marketing cap is a minimum, not a maximum number as defined in the CBA. 

[Jesse]

The marketing cap is a minimum, not a maximum number as defined in the CBA.

The CBA defines a "total expenditure cap" that is the salary cap + the marketing minimum. It seems very black and white to me.

[theaardvark]

If BC is paying $200k marketing, then it has to be to a separate entity, a marketing company that he can write stuff off on, and divert funds in a way that has tax advantages.

[Jesse]

If BC is paying $200k marketing, then it has to be to a separate entity, a marketing company that he can write stuff off on, and divert funds in a way that has tax advantages.

No...it's in a contract with his name on it. This is just a part of how the contract is structured, just like some may come as a bonus or as housing, or as a performance objective.

[TBURGESS]

The CBA defines a "total expenditure cap" that is the salary cap + the marketing minimum. It seems very black and white to me.

Lets say you're right. What is the advantage/reason to give Rourke $200K as marketing money instead of salary or signing bonus?

[Jesse]

Lets say you're right. What is the advantage/reason to give Rourke $200K as marketing money instead of salary or signing bonus?

What's the advantage to do it as a salary bonus as opposed to marketing money?

My gut reaction is that they are going to want him to make some appearances and the marketing money is tied to that expectation. That is what the money is intended for, after all.

[Go_Big_D]

warren moon played 6 seasons in the cfl before hitting the nfl....rourke will be in the cfl for a few years at the least

[TecnoGenius]

A completely separate point from Rourke's specific situation. Even if we raised the cap by a million or two for the sole purpose of raiding NFL PR's of their QBs. Not only would players not come, but CFL teams wouldn't do it. How many QBs come here and look good right away? You think teams are going to offer the high end money before they prove themselves? Any salary cap increase goes to the guys already making top money.

That's why all my examples were retention.  Retaining Rourke.  Retaining Goosen.  It's not just QBs, it's about all positions, and maybe even NATs most of all.  (Maybe you can lure a bit more rookie talent too, but that's not my focus.)

Every season 1-3 very good NAT OL retire from the CFL for no reason at all, when they are young and probably have 5+ future years of being all-stars.  Why?  Well, probably because the money they earn doesn't compensate for the garbage health and strain on their body.  But they might stay for $50-$100k more each!

I'm not proposing the Rocket Ishmael era with no cap.  I'm saying the CFL is already close in $$ terms, if we get a bit closer logic says we'll keep more talent at the margins when money is the deciding factor.

It's a darn good thing we could offer Rourke $500-$750 because for $300-$400 he probably just sits in the USA waiting beside the phone.

[TecnoGenius]

Do we know that the "rest goes to normal SMS"? It seems like this is up for debate, according to Derek Taylor, among others? Either way, Rourke is great for the league and the CFL is better for it. But we need to have a proper salary cap to keep the league viable.

List all the team owners.  Then list their net worth.  Again, I don't believe the cries of "poor".  Does BC get equalization payments from WPG for 2023?  Ya, so if they're so poor, how come they just handed out the league-cushiest "marketing" salary?

I'll assume the new EDM owner is made of money.  The BC guy is.  Young @HAM sure is.  Unlimited funds.  I bet the MTL owner is too.

So really the only real "poors" would be community owned teams with bad attendance (CGY? maybe SSK this season?).

Ya, even CGY and SSK would find a way to scrounge up another half mill for a better cap.  And if they didn't, they'd probably just "equalize" it from us.

My point is: it's doable and won't really hurt the league.  In fact, who's to say that the improved talent and retention wouldn't make the product so much better we up the fan base (butts + TV) by 20%??  The whole "spend money to make money" thing?

[ichabod_crane]

I have some real issues with the unreality of some of you. EVEN a rich owner is not running a charity case forever no matter how deep they are in a community. They might be OK with breaking even on a team or even losing a bit for the benefit of the community and the net asset value of the team keeps rising. Still if I was an owner and kept losing money hand over fist, I'm not keeping that up forever UNLESS the value of the team keeps going up to compensate for that where I will get a nice payoff when I do sell the team! You don't get rich by throwing money down a black hole!

Same with the salary cap. One thing to DREAM if it could be raised and what effect it might have on the league. A totally different thing in reality. Where are ALL these new funds coming from? From the Wizard of OZ?!   Attendance dropping in many cities in a gate driven league....as TOM CRUISE SAYS "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" Money talks.....B.S. WALKS!!  

[TBURGESS]

What's the advantage to do it as a salary bonus as opposed to marketing money?

My gut reaction is that they are going to want him to make some appearances and the marketing money is tied to that expectation. That is what the money is intended for, after all.

That doesn't answer the question. Let me expand... People don't do anything unless there is something in it for them so there has to be a financial reason that BC chose to use Marketing money instead of salary or bonus. 

The CBA says:

Section 30.01 Salary Expenditure CAP

The Salary Expenditure CAP for each Member Club shall be no less than the

amounts set out in the following schedule for the following years:

Salary Expenditure Cap	Non‐Football Related Services minimum additional amount	Total Salary Expenditure Cap
2022	$5,350,000	N/A	$5,350,000
2023	$5,450,000	$60,000	$5,510,000
2024	$5,525,000	$110,000	$5,635,000
2025	$5,650,000	$110,000	$5,760,000
2026	$5,750,000	$110,000	$5,860,000
2027	$5,850,000	$110,000	$5,960,000
2028	$5,888,889	$110,000	$5,998,889

So it's clearly a minimum amount not a maximum amount. 

[Jesse]

That doesn't answer the question. Let me expand... People don't do anything unless there is something in it for them so there has to be a financial reason that BC chose to use Marketing money instead of salary or bonus.

The CBA says:

So it's clearly a minimum amount not a maximum amount.

It is a minimum amount. 100%. Teams have to award at least that much to players for appearances and non-football uses of their time.

Rourke getting so much must mean they are going to be asking to make quite a few non-football related appearances/signings/etc. But why x amount of Rourke contract was a bonus or housing allowance or performance bonus, we can't answer. It was a part of their negotiations. Kinda irrelevant, tbh.

The Total Expenditure column you posted is 110k above the salary cap. A + B = C. As B increases, A must decrease if you want C to stay constant.

[TBURGESS]

It is a minimum amount. 100%. Teams have to award at least that much to players for appearances and non-football uses of their time.

Rourke getting so much must mean they are going to be asking to make quite a few non-football related appearances/signings/etc. But why x amount of Rourke contract was a bonus or housing allowance or performance bonus, we can't answer. It was a part of their negotiations. Kinda irrelevant, tbh.

The Total Expenditure column you posted is 110k above the salary cap. A + B = C. As B increases, A must decrease if you want C to stay constant.

The Salary Expenditure CAP for each Member Club shall be no less than the amounts set out in the following schedule for the following years

What A B & C do would only matter if it was the maximum amount, but it's doesn't matter, because it's defining the minimum amounts.

A(Minimum) + B(Minimum) = C(Minimum)
D(Undefined) = Maximum