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

[TBURGESS]

Not sure how long I'll keep repeating myself; but not a single person, ever, has ever suggested it can be less than 110k. In the quote of mine that you are talking about, I wrote "minimum".

I can't fathom what you're trying to suggest.

The entire table is minimum, not just the 110K. 

[Jesse]

The entire table is minimum, not just the 110K.

Yes, the salary cap is a minimum. Makes total sense. Thank-you.

[TBURGESS]

Yes, the salary cap is a minimum. Makes total sense. Thank-you.

That's what the statement:  "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." says. 

[Jesse]

That's what the statement:  "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." says.

The "CAP" shall be no less. Meaning that the league can't suddenly decide to lower the cap.

Are you sitting there thinking that the salary cap is a minimum? Then why are teams fined for going over the cap?

[TBURGESS]

The "CAP" shall be no less. Meaning that the league can't suddenly decide to lower the cap.

Are you sitting there thinking that the salary cap is a minimum? Then why are teams fined for going over the cap?

Teams get fined for going over the 'salary expenditure cap'. It remains to be seen if they get fined for going over the 'Non‐Football Related Services minimum additional amount'. I don't think so.
 

Section 30.03

 ...
A...


Starting in 2024 and continuing for every year of the collective agreement, each Club will include in the Salary Expenditure Cap an additional $110,000 in respect of those Non-Football Related Services. These special amounts will be the mandatory minimum amount for each Club and will be subject to strict audit rules.

The Clubs will have sole discretion on which players shall received these payments and the amounts to each player, but in no case should these amounts be less than $60,000 per Club in 2023 or less than $110,000 per Club, per year thereafter
 
 For greater clarity, and by way of example, should Defined League Revenue never exceed the Initial Baseline Revenue, the table outlined above in 30.01 summarizes the Salary Expenditure Cap for each Club.
 

TLDR: The table is only used IF the league revenue never exceeds the initial baseline revenue, the team choose who and how much & the amounts are minimums.

IMO:
If the league revenue has exceeded the initial baseline at any time, then BC is off the hook.
If BC thinks that revenue will exceed the initial baseline, then they're off the hook.
The contract doesn't specifically state that there is a fine for going over the Marketing money cap, so BC could argue that they didn't read it like there was.

[Jesse]

Teams get fined for going over the 'salary expenditure cap'. It remains to be seen if they get fined for going over the 'Non‐Football Related Services minimum additional amount'. I don't think so.

You are now shifting the goal posts. You said in your previous comment that the whole table was a minimum. That's clearly not true. You cannot exceed the salary cap without fines. It is a maximum number. Period.

In the same table. There is a "total salary expenditure cap". It is a maximum number. This number is very clearly the amount of the salary cap + 110k in marketing money.

This continues to be as simple as A + B = C.

Your final quoted point about league revenue is a completely separate topic. Under the "Revenue Growth Sharing Model". It's in a different article of the CBA than what we're talking about. You are now obfuscating the discussion with irrelevant information. There are clauses about revenue and if it exceeds a certain point, teams can add money to play off bonuses, pensions, or other things. It was nothing to do with our current discussion.

[TBURGESS]

You are now shifting the goal posts. You said in your previous comment that the whole table was a minimum. That's clearly not true. You cannot exceed the salary cap without fines. It is a maximum number. Period.

In the same table. There is a "total salary expenditure cap". It is a maximum number. This number is very clearly the amount of the salary cap + 110k in marketing money.

This continues to be as simple as A + B = C.

Your final quoted point about league revenue is a completely separate topic. Under the "Revenue Growth Sharing Model". It's in a different article of the CBA than what we're talking about. You are now obfuscating the discussion with irrelevant information. There are clauses about revenue and if it exceeds a certain point, teams can add money to play off bonuses, pensions, or other things. It was nothing to do with our current discussion.

The bottom of the table says: 

*Subject to 30.03 below

. My quotes are from 30.03, no it's not a completely separate topic. 

The table is defined as minimum by the statement that I've posted ad nauseum. It's use is defined in 30.03. 

You are using an example table as Max + Max = Max. 

Lets see what happens in the off season. That's when we will likely find out who is reading the CBA correctly. 

[J5V]

You're always looking for a conspiracy.

and ...

[TecnoGenius]

IMO:
If the league revenue has exceeded the initial baseline at any time, then BC is off the hook.
If BC thinks that revenue will exceed the initial baseline, then they're off the hook.
The contract doesn't specifically state that there is a fine for going over the Marketing money cap, so BC could argue that they didn't read it like there was.

But everyone here assured me the league/teams is/are poor and destitute and about to go bankrupt!  (And can't possibly raise the cap by 500k.) LOL

So why would any team ever look at any chart or section that starts "if the league revenue has exceeded baseline".  LOL

If BC is counting on that to bail them out, they're in for a surprise!  WPG revenue can only carry the rest of the league so far!

P.S. All the replies since I chimed in are, yes, clear as even muddier mud.  I have no idea what's going on.  The league needs to make these things clear and simple.  Until then, let's bring every top-10 FA player into WPG in 2025 by giving each one a $1M marketing bonus!  Yay!

[J5V]

Until then, let's bring every top-10 FA player into WPG in 2025 by giving each one a $1M marketing bonus!  Yay!

Yup! This could get real silly real fast.

BC is insisting that they are going forward with two #1 QBs this year. Big expense! It should be interesting to see how they manage this in this, their Grey Cup hosting year.

[Jesse]

Yup! This could get real silly real fast.

BC is insisting that they are going forward with two #1 QBs this year. Big expense! It should be interesting to see how they manage this in this, their Grey Cup hosting year.

They're obviously going to go over the cap this year. As I hope we do next year.

But, worth noting that Rourke is only getting 250k for this year while they cut their other QB.

[TecnoGenius]

Back to Rourke: he stunk!  Vegas really screwed up big time making BC the favorites.  Besides getting the run game going, Rourke was about as good as VAJ.  I guess he got 2 nice deep completions before garbage time?  Yay wunderkind!  See ya in the WDF for another crying session!

     

(I kid, I know he'll be good if he stays this time, but maybe not for a few games or next season.)

[TecnoGenius]

But, worth noting that Rourke is only getting 250k for this year while they cut their other QB.

That's why the future years are exorbitant.  It's back-loaded.  BC is Wimpy from Popeye: I'll gladly pay you $200k too much next year for a good QB today.

Rourke took it because he knew BC is completely unable to pay more this year.  BC is probably $100k over cap this year as it is with this signing.  Remember: they never put VAJ on the 6G (dumb dumb dumb!).

[TecnoGenius]

Here's a question: would Dolegala have done any better vs us tonight?

[Jesse]

Here's a question: would Dolegala have done any better vs us tonight?

lol, nope.