M. Betts released....signed with BC

[TecnoGenius]

Riderfans putting this in perspective for us, showing how BC's likely numbers are many times more than previous transgressions.  No one would care at all if BC went over by $108,285.  No one.  It wouldn't be a thing.  We'd tut-tut and move on with our lives.  It wouldn't even be reported in 3down until FA.  It's the Rourke + Betts = $350k, and likely more moves upcoming (why not?) that are causing all of this.  They went too far.

Hambone:
And that was the Riders smallest transgression. They also went over in 10, 08 and the GC winning year of 07. Montreal holds the league record for worst violation at $108,285 or 2.67% of a $4.05M cap, the equivalent of $145,515 in 2023 SMS dollars. Riders hold the record for most violations with 4 and most money spent in fines at $208,351. The 08 violation of $87,147 was 2.07% or the equivalent of $112,815 on 2023's SMS.

Also some humor from Riderfan Vegas:
Second western team to change their club name.
Still cats, but no longer the lions... now the Cheatahs!

[J5V]

Also some humor from Riderfan Vegas:
Second western team to change their club name.
Still cats, but no longer the lions... now the Cheatahs!

That's great! Ben Johnson say Hi! LMAO!

[pdirks67]

The 2 bolded lines can't both be true.  If it's peanuts, they will go hog wild.  To a billionaire, $1M CFL "fine" doesn't mean anything.  Some will be recouped in a win, and if it's not, it's like 1 week's pay.

If I'm Caretaker Young in HAM, I'm watching BC right now thinking "I could have been doing this all along?".  He has more money than Doman.  If this is the new reality, Young needs to be telling his GM to go out right now and overspend by $350k+.  Lord knows they need it.

So you guys liked the Rocket scenario then? Because that's back on the table.  No limits.  Someone get Mahomes on the phone!

Even our "community owned" team could afford to go $1M over the cap for a sum of $2.6M in fines.  Then maybe we "get back" our 1RDP by trading Kenny or Schoen... just like BC with VAJ.  See... easy peasy!

Yes, if the league and fans are like "this is hunky-dory!" and it's the new arms race, then, yes, we have no choice but to flex our fiscal might and start cheating too.

The Rocket scenario didn't bother me. No. He was good for the league and encouraged me to cheer even louder against the Argos. And the guy who threw the beer at him during Grey Cup 1991 sat in the row in front of me, beside the Gotch Man.

The Lions will pay the fine and they will lose their draft picks. I think this is a relatively isolated situation. I don't see a low 6-figure overage as an amount that the league should create additional penalties for, over and above the penalties that already exist.

If billionaires do start owning CFL teams, and they start spending in excess of low-6 figure overages, then we'll create rules that tighten things up.

[Jesse]

It was egregious when they went over cap signing Rourke.  Add on the Betts signing and it's just silly sick now.  They are snubbing their noses at the entire league and calling us suckers.

We pay more for our QB room than they do.

No one is over the cap right now. It's added up after the season. Nothing has happened this year that is any different than any other year.

[theaardvark]

We pay more for our QB room than they do.

No one is over the cap right now. It's added up after the season. Nothing has happened this year that is any different than any other year.

This tear... unless they trade/cut VA next season, they will have over 20% of their cap in their QB room.

GC at home, of course you do everything possible to get there.  Home GC's are not automatic sell outs, especially without home team participation.  Not only selling the seats, but all the ancillary revenue is huge.

So why not blow the cap by 10%, pay a million+ in "fines", lose some DP's (get them back in the VA trade), and try to get that home team into the GC.  Should make the fines back and then some.

But, if you blow the bank and fail... well... failure is not an option.  Unless you're rich and can blow a milly for nada.

[TBURGESS]

The thing I'm having trouble with still is that the fourth column to the right has the title of "Total Salary Expenditure CAP". So if it's not the maximum, how can they use the word "cap"? It would/should just say "amount" or something if what you're saying is true.

In other words,
"Salary Expenditure Cap" + "Non-Football Related Services Minimum Additional Amount" = Total Salary Expenditure Cap"

"Cap" is a maximum.

Therefore: Football services max + non-football min = total football max.

The non-football min has to also be a max OR it draws from the football pool of money.

Cap+Min=Total Cap IF you pay Min.
The last column is the Total Salary Expenditure if you pay out the minimum marketing money. 
It's the total Cap including the minimum marketing number.
It's an example table of what happens if teams use the minimum marketing number.
If they meant Maximum, they would have written it that way.

[Jesse]

Cap+Min=Total Cap IF you pay Min.
The last column is the Total Salary Expenditure if you pay out the minimum marketing money. 
It's the total Cap including the minimum marketing number.
It's an example table of what happens if teams use the minimum marketing number.
If they meant Maximum, they would have written it that way.

I actually finally understand what you're trying to say, but still think you're wrong.

They wrote minimum because it is a minimum. That is what teams have to spend.

But there exists a 600k buffer between the salary cap floor and the cap. So anything over the minimum NFRS will eat up that unused space. And anything going over that will be in excess of the cap and subject to fines.

This can be easily proven by the fact that three teams went over the cap last year. Why would any team choose to pay fines last year when they could have just paid more of the contract as marketing money instead?

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

It was egregious when they went over cap signing Rourke.  Add on the Betts signing and it's just silly sick now.  They are snubbing their noses at the entire league and calling us suckers.

Can't convince me this isn't Doman's initiative, it appears he doesn't respect the salary cap and isn't about to let flimsy rules stand in his way of making the money he's invested in the Lions back. Is he even a CFL football fan? If he had more experience with the CFL he might realize it's a long haul to win fans back and turn a profit at the end of the season when not hosting the GC game. Next year's season ticket sales and attendance will tell if he's influencing the market, I truly hope he succeeds.

[TBURGESS]

I actually finally understand what you're trying to say, but still think you're wrong.

They wrote minimum because it is a minimum. That is what teams have to spend.

But there exists a 600k buffer between the salary cap floor and the cap. So anything over the minimum NFRS will eat up that unused space. And anything going over that will be in excess of the cap and subject to fines.

This can be easily proven by the fact that three teams went over the cap last year. Why would any team choose to pay fines last year when they could have just paid more of the contract as marketing money instead?

I honestly don't understand how anyone can read Minimum and say that's what teams have to spend. The most that teams have to spend is called the maximum, not the minimum.

Maybe the 3 teams that went over are reading the contract the same way as you are and are understanding minimum as maximum. Maybe the amounts over didn't warrant using the marketing money loophole cuz there's only going to be one shot before they close it.

If I'm BC I'm arguing that minimum means minimum and as maximum isn't defined in the contract, therefore 'marketing' could be any number.

If the contract between the teams and the CFL says teams are fined for going over the Salary Expenditure Cap, then I'd also argue that means the 2nd column in the table, not the Total Salary Expenditure Cap, because that's obviously a different number.

Both together would remove all of the Salary Expenditure Cap from the SMS.

[theaardvark]

Can't convince me this isn't Doman's initiative, it appears he doesn't respect the salary cap and isn't about to let flimsy rules stand in his way of making the money he's invested in the Lions back. Is he even a CFL football fan? If he had more experience with the CFL he might realize it's a long haul to win fans back and turn a profit at the end of the season when not hosting the GC game. Next year's season ticket sales and attendance will tell if he's influencing the market, I truly hope he succeeds.

This is 100% Doman.  Its his money, he can spend it how he likes.  He has invested in the Cheetah's, he wants to reap some rewards from them.

If Walters went to Wade with a similar proposal, I'm pretty sure Wade would have said no.  Until now.

2025 is open season.  I can see us being very active, and draft picks be dammed.  Might even see Walters make some trades to get what will be lost picks, its not like we need first rounders anyways.

With our books in the black, and money in the bank, loading up for a home GC is a no brainer.  And Doman has broken the gentleman's agreement that the haves don't outspend the have nots. 

Open season.

[theaardvark]

I honestly don't understand how anyone can read Minimum and say that's what teams have to spend. The most that teams have to spend is called the maximum, not the minimum.

Maybe the 3 teams that went over are reading the contract the same way as you are and are understanding minimum as maximum. Maybe the amounts over didn't warrant using the marketing money loophole cuz there's only going to be one shot before they close it.

If I'm BC I'm arguing that minimum means minimum and as maximum isn't defined in the contract, therefore 'marketing' could be any number.

If the contract between the teams and the CFL says teams are fined for going over the Salary Expenditure Cap, then I'd also argue that means the 2nd column in the table, not the Total Salary Expenditure Cap, because that's obviously a different number.

Both together would remove all of the Salary Expenditure Cap from the SMS.

The league has a cap floor.  You HAVE to spend at least Cap- $600k on player salaries. 

"The SMS defines a ceiling for salaries, but also defines a floor in Article 14.09 Minimum Player Compensation of the CBA. The minimim Member clubs must pay in player salaries each year is the maximum amount less $600,000."

Not sure the penalty for not reaching the floor, but I don't think there will ever be a team that is in danger of not spending the minimum...

[Jesse]

It was egregious when they went over cap signing Rourke.  Add on the Betts signing and it's just silly sick now.  They are snubbing their noses at the entire league and calling us suckers.

They didn't go over the cap signing Rourke. They signed him for 250k and released their other QB.

There's zero reason to think they can't accommodate him within this year's budget. The Betts signing might push them over, but the season isn't over yet. We have no idea how it will unfold.

[Blue In BC]

They didn't go over the cap signing Rourke. They signed him for 250k and released their other QB.

There's zero reason to think they can't accommodate him within this year's budget. The Betts signing might push them over, but the season isn't over yet. We have no idea how it will unfold.

The QB they released wasn't earning $250K over 9 games. He wasn't earning that for 18 games. So Rourke costs them more. Whether that puts them over the cap we'll see.

[blue_or_die]

Cap+Min=Total Cap IF you pay Min.
The last column is the Total Salary Expenditure if you pay out the minimum marketing money. 
It's the total Cap including the minimum marketing number.
It's an example table of what happens if teams use the minimum marketing number.
If they meant Maximum, they would have written it that way.

Are you sure the table is just an "example" as you say? Do they say in the document, "for instance..." and then show the table? Genuinely asking. If there is language that shows this is an example, then you very well might be right.

They don't need to use the word, "maximum" because that's what the word "cap" means.

So in your understanding, if a team spends to the football cap and then spends, say, $1M in non-football, the "cap" is just whatever the team wants it to be, defined by how much they're willing to spend on non-football expenses. That would mean every team would decide what their "cap" is. That would mean there is zero meaning to the salary cap.

That cannot be true.

[Waffler]

This is 100% Doman.  Its his money, he can spend it how he likes.  He has invested in the Cheetah's, he wants to reap some rewards from them.

If Walters went to Wade with a similar proposal, I'm pretty sure Wade would have said no.  Until now.

2025 is open season.  I can see us being very active, and draft picks be dammed.  ...

Open season.

This is EXACTLY the thinking we can't have. That's an arms race that ends in a bankrupt league.