M. Betts released....signed with BC

[TecnoGenius]

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?

Because no one else thought of cheating in this manner until Doman came along?

I'm not saying the "loophole" is real or not, just saying if it is, he could simply be the first to a) figure it out and b) be such a douche to ruin the CFL by using it.

[TecnoGenius]

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

Dolegala was maybe $110k.  Probably $70k already paid out.  So they save $40k cutting him.  Might as well be $0.

So Rourke instantly puts them $200k (rounding for brevity) over.  Betts another $150k.  $350k over.

I'm not sure why some people are unable to see down the road (or admit) to when CFL announces the  overages how BC will be over by 4X+ any other team has ever done before.  I would bet Walby burgers on this.  If you think BC will just go over by the "regular" $100k, I really don't know what to tell you.

[Jesse]

Because no one else thought of cheating in this manner until Doman came along?

lol. Sure.

Dolegala was maybe $110k.  Probably $70k already paid out.  So they save $40k cutting him.  Might as well be $0.

So Rourke instantly puts them $200k (rounding for brevity) over.  Betts another $150k.  $350k over.

I'm not sure why some people are unable to see down the road (or admit) to when CFL announces the  overages how BC will be over by 4X+ any other team has ever done before.  I would bet Walby burgers on this.  If you think BC will just go over by the "regular" $100k, I really don't know what to tell you.

You're still thinking the amount a team spends is a fixed amount over the course of the year.

We don't know how much B.C. budgeted this year. We don't know how much they saved by players on the 6 game or lost by players on the 1 game. Adding Rourke could have been well within their allotted budget.

The combined amount of Rourke and Betts is around 400k. They would have cut a couple players to make room for them, so perhaps a difference of 300k. I would honestly expect teams to plan for that amount of space. Going over or not will depend on how many players they have on the 6 game vs the 1 game injury list this year.

[TecnoGenius]

We don't know how much B.C. budgeted this year. We don't know how much they saved by players on the 6 game or lost by players on the 1 game. Adding Rourke could have been well within their allotted budget.

Your excusing their behavior seems to be "we can't know", "could be this", "could be that".

I'm saying educated people can make educated guesses.  That's what Farhan or 3down or whoever did when they said that BC was already at max cap.  And why wouldn't BC be at max cap?  They have a ton of star players in every unit and very few ELC guys.

Does not knowing the precise pennies mean we can't have such conversations?  So we're supposed to just assume BC is playing things straight for now, let them do whatever they want, watch them win the cup, then in December find out they were $400k over, and THEN get mad about it?  Just in time for Ambrosie to close the same "loophole" before WPG can do the same in '25?

As for the "fixed amount" mindset: the teams have a spreadsheet (or whatever) where they put in the exact $ spent already, and what's left in the SMS, and a budget for what the expected players will earn over the rest of the season.  Yes, IR changes will alter things slightly, but the budget is something solid and that is what they work with when planning major changes.  You can absolutely gauge whether or not you're going to go way over cap using your budget... otherwise every team would go way over or under every season.

I would honestly expect teams to plan for that amount of space.

Thar's yer problem.  If WPG is tight to the cap, which KW has admitted many times, why wouldn't BC?  I'm pretty sure most people thought Rourke/Betts would stick in the NFL for another few months... why would they sacrifice their bird in the hand team for the two in the NFL bush?

[Jesse]

1. I'm not excusing their behaviour. I don't see where they've done anything wrong.

2. "Tight to the cap" is an abject term. It just means less allotted for injuries or FAs than usual. Did we have a plan to pay Brady 200 but upped it to 230 and have 30k less than last season? I have no idea how much teams plan to save in case of injury.

3. We were tight because we had to overpay a couple of our players. Whereas B.C. lost Betts, Rhymes, etc. I'm pretty confident that we were a higher spending team before the season started.

[TecnoGenius]

2. "Tight to the cap" is an abject term. It just means less allotted for injuries or FAs than usual. Did we have a plan to pay Brady 200 but upped it to 230 and have 30k less than last season? I have no idea how much teams plan to save in case of injury.

Yes, we had a budget on a spreadsheet for Brady and WM forcing KW to give him that extra bump directly caused us to have to give up (one or two of) Grant and Bailey and Jeffcoat and who knows who else.

If KW wanted to play the Doman Game, he would have just signed them all and cap-be-darned.  But KW plays it legit (i.e. actually makes a good faith attempt to stay within the cap), so that $30k cost us non-ELC signings.  That was basically the entirety of the forum jitters in the off-season!

3. We were tight because we had to overpay a couple of our players. Whereas B.C. lost Betts, Rhymes, etc. I'm pretty confident that we were a higher spending team before the season started.

Looking at the entire roster, I really don't think BC was lower on the cap than we were.  Betts was ELC, don't forget, so losing him cost nothing.  Rhymes was/is a has-been (think Darvin going to OTT) and likely is only $100k.

Count the ELCs currently starting on BC's chart and compare to the ELCs starting on our chart... pretty sure ours is way higher.  Because we paid so many Big O guys so much, we really had to skimp and go ELC at so many other positions.

The beauty of this debate is we will have all the answers guaranteed in Dec or Jan or whenever the league announces overages.  The only problem is that by then no one will care.  So I'll bookmark these conversations and we'll see who gets to "told ya so!" in 5 months.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

1. I'm not excusing their behaviour. I don't see where they've done anything wrong.

2. "Tight to the cap" is an abject term. It just means less allotted for injuries or FAs than usual. Did we have a plan to pay Brady 200 but upped it to 230 and have 30k less than last season? I have no idea how much teams plan to save in case of injury.

3. We were tight because we had to overpay a couple of our players. Whereas B.C. lost Betts, Rhymes, etc. I'm pretty confident that we were a higher spending team before the season started.

Perhaps, but the Bombers closed the door on Houston, Hardrick, Gray, Bailey, Clements, Grant and Jeffcoat to compensate for increasing salaries for a few players.

[Jesse]

Perhaps, but the Bombers closed the door on Houston, Hardrick, Gray, Bailey, Clements, Grant and Jeffcoat to compensate for increasing salaries for a few players.

I don't think anyone is going to argue the fact that we spend on the higher end of what we're comfortable with.

But what does that mean? Assuming everyone plays 18 games and there's zero roster moves, how much space would be left? It has to be a significant number, hundreds of thousands. But I have zero idea of what the range is. So it's simply impossible to speculate.

[TecnoGenius]

But what does that mean? Assuming everyone plays 18 games and there's zero roster moves, how much space would be left? It has to be a significant number, hundreds of thousands. But I have zero idea of what the range is. So it's simply impossible to speculate.

I think it's clear that teams like WPG budget to spend the entire cap basically down to the last dollar.

I think they also have a historical reference of how much, on average, IR issues will cost them, and they factor that into the budget.  That is partially why some years we have a decent chunk left come year end to pre-pay some re-ups from "last year's" cap -- because those years the IR costs came under budget.

They also would factor in probabilities of key guys coming back from the NFL, especially ones that most people are saying won't stick.  For example, when DB Alford left, KW didn't leave his cap space budgeted because everyone knew he'd never come back.  But for DB Ford I think we always kept some $ space open because everyone knew he would be back (in the CFL).

What I'm positing BC didn't do is this last point.  They had allocated the full budget already, and didn't leave room for possible Rourke/Betts returns.  Thus the theory about $350k overages.  Many could have guessed maybe one of Rourke/Betts would return, but basically no one would have predicted both would.

In "normal" year, Betts would come back and BC wouldn't be in the bidding game because they'd admit they are out of SMS.  Then Betts would have done a "Henoc World Tour" wining & dining with all teams (ex-BC) before picking his favorite.

[theaardvark]

If all nine teams spent $300k over the $SMS cap, then the draft would start at round 3...

[TecnoGenius]

If all nine teams spent $300k over the $SMS cap, then the draft would start at round 3...

LOL.  Then what would BC trade VAJ for?!            

And where would all the round 1 & 2 DP players go?  (Double LOL; yes, I "get it".)

But you know what, if you had unlimited pockets and no scruples, you could spend $10M over the cap, lose your 1RDP and 2RDP and not care one bit because you'd take some of your bonus free $10M and just outbid everyone for the two best year-3 NATs rolling out of their ELCs.  Think guys like Desjar and Philpot The Better... who needs early DPs!  Guys who are already developed are better than a raw recruit anyhow (usually).

[Blue In BC]

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?

C'mon. How many times do we have to say that any amount over $110K spent on marketing goes against the SMS. There is no mystery and no cheating involved here.

It's a small sub set of the total SMS. Teams can still go over and pay the fine. Do we really expect even the rich will intentionally over spend by $100's of K's over the limit?

Let's see how it adds up at the end of the season. The SMS spend is not complete for any team at the moment.

I don't wish injury to any player but who knows if a high priced player like Rourke or Betts doesn't end up with a season ending injury in their next game?

In Winnipeg that could be Collaros, Oliveria, Lawler and so on.

[Jesse]

C'mon. How many times do we have to say that any amount over $110K spent on marketing goes against the SMS. There is no mystery and no cheating involved here.

It's a small sub set of the total SMS. Teams can still go over and pay the fine. Do we really expect even the rich will intentionally over spend by $100's of K's over the limit?

Let's see how it adds up at the end of the season. The SMS spend is not complete for any team at the moment.

I don't wish injury to any player but who knows if a high priced player like Rourke or Betts doesn't end up with a season ending injury in their next game?

In Winnipeg that could be Collaros, Oliveria, Lawler and so on.

Don't quote me, argue with those who don't believe it.

But yea, I need to stop arguing the point.

[Blue In BC]

Don't quote me, argue with those who don't believe it.

But yea, I need to stop arguing the point.

My bad. I agree this needs to be put to bed. It's somewhat ironic considering the Bombers were 1 of 3 teams to exceed the cap in the last couple of seasons.

Maybe a moderator can lock this string. Posters are chasing their tails in a circle to no end.

[ModAdmin]

Agree the subject has been discussed in great detail.  We'll close the topic now and reopen it if additional league details come to light.  Thanks for keeping the discussion relatively in good keeping.