M. Betts released....signed with BC

[Blue In BC]

He's talking in circles. If it's soft cap and teams can just pay out marketing money, then there would be no fines or "going over".

I really don't think he understands what he's talking about.

The marketing money has been explained in detail. Any amount spent over $110K on marketing counts against the cap. Yes you can spend more but why would a team do that when it applies to the SMS?

For imports their might be a tax advantage similar to bonus money.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

He's talking in circles. If it's soft cap and teams can just pay out marketing money, then there would be no fines or "going over".

I really don't think he understands what he's talking about.

I think he's using the terms correctly and you just might not understand them.

The CFL has always been a soft cap even before the marketing money thing. Teams could always go over and a face a fine and if they really go over they face draft pick losses.

This is different from hard cap set-ups like the NHL where you cannot go over and pay a tax or fine or draft picks.

Google hard cap and soft cap for more examples.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The over the cap amount PLUS the ridiculous marketing amount paid Rourke truly makes a mockery of the cap, and like most loopholes will be followed by others maybe even mtrl this year.Its not good financially for the league or for parity
Having said that if it was walters we:d all be pumped

Betts might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Declaring player payment  marketing money as an excuse to subvert the cap is getting out of hand, it only takes one disgruntled owner to bring the issue to a head during the off-season. The CFL always has difficulty regulating itself.

[TBURGESS]

The marketing money has been explained in detail. Any amount spent over $110K on marketing counts against the cap. Yes you can spend more but why would a team do that when it applies to the SMS?

For imports their might be a tax advantage similar to bonus money.

You're using an example table marked as minimum, that only applies if the CFL never makes any more money than they did when the contract was signed, as 'proof' that marketing money over $110K counts against the cap.

Lump sum payments are taxed differently in the US, but bonuses are also lump sums, so there is no specific tax advantage to using marketing money.

[Blue In BC]

You're using an example table marked as minimum, that only applies if the CFL never makes any more money than they did when the contract was signed, as 'proof' that marketing money over $110K counts against the cap.

Lump sum payments are taxed differently in the US, but bonuses are also lump sums, so there is no specific tax advantage to using marketing money.

Like I said, it was explained in detail that any amount over the $110K would apply to the SMS CAP. A player is paid to play football. Going to do public appearances is more of a side gig that he should get some extra money.

Having a $110K min makes sense. So does that ability for a team to pay more but have it applied against the SMS.

You can choose to believe that premise or not. I choose to believe it makes sense and has been supported by posts earlier.

It would be impractical / unfair to have an unlimited amount outside the SMS. The entire intent of the SMS is to create a level playing field. The marketing money is an exception with it's only rules on how it is applied.

You couldn't have the Lions give Rourke a $1M dollar contract with $750K outside the SMS for marketing. This is just an example of why that wouldn't work. Give him $1M with $890K inside the SMS if you can afford that

[TBURGESS]

Like I said, it was explained in detail that any amount over the $110K would apply to the SMS CAP. A player is paid to play football. Going to do public appearances is more of a side gig that he should get some extra money.

Having a $110K min makes sense. So does that ability for a team to pay more but have it applied against the SMS.

You can choose to believe that premise or not. I choose to believe it makes sense and has been supported by posts earlier.

It would be impractical / unfair to have an unlimited amount outside the SMS. The entire intent of the SMS is to create a level playing field. The marketing money is an exception with it's only rules on how it is applied.

You couldn't have the Lions give Rourke a $1M dollar contract with $750K outside the SMS for marketing. This is just an example of why that wouldn't work. Give him $1M with $890K inside the SMS if you can afford that

What makes sense & what the contract says are 2 different things. The detail being used to explain what makes sense to you is outlined in my last post & it's not what makes sense. 

[Blue In BC]

What makes sense & what the contract says are 2 different things. The detail being used to explain what makes sense to you is outlined in my last post & it's not what makes sense.

Most players don't get $110K marketing money. The money they do get may or may not be a lump sum and could different for each individual.

A tax implication advantage is not what I expect. As I said, it's something outside of playing.

Jefferson might have $10K for the season to make 2 public appearances a month. One could be some autograph signing or he could attend some high school lecture participation to generate team interest. He might get paid $1K per month for use of his picture on city bus or billboards. Just random examples.

In the case of Rourke he might get a lump sum payment but there is no tax advantage. His example is odd for a multiple of reasons. At this point of the season I'd expect the team had already spent most of the marketing money outside of the SMS.

I can't imagine what he can contribute in actual marketing that is worth $200K regardless of inside or outside the SMS.

[pdirks67]

I think he is there to stay. Picked in the 4th round, but they know he's a project. They will give him every chance to succeed before cutting him loose. The only chance he would get back to us is if he really sucks 2 years later, but then how badly would we want him anyway?

The Lions beat writer for The Athletic has consistently referred to Manu as a "very raw" prospect who will need a lot of work to become an NFL player, likely a couple-seasons worth. Having said this, it seems like the Lions are going to try to develop him and he's made the 53 man roster.

[TBURGESS]

Most players don't get $110K marketing money. The money they do get may or may not be a lump sum and could different for each individual.

A tax implication advantage is not what I expect. As I said, it's something outside of playing.

Jefferson might have $10K for the season to make 2 public appearances a month. One could be some autograph signing or he could attend some high school lecture participation to generate team interest. He might get paid $1K per month for use of his picture on city bus or billboards. Just random examples.

In the case of Rourke he might get a lump sum payment but there is no tax advantage. His example is odd for a multiple of reasons. At this point of the season I'd expect the team had already spent most of the marketing money outside of the SMS.

I can't imagine what he can contribute in actual marketing that is worth $200K regardless of inside or outside the SMS.

You're getting caught up in semantics. Just because it's called Marketing Money, doesn't mean it has to be used exclusively for marketing purposes. Think of it as extra salary instead. 

Rourke, just by signing was a huge marketing win for both the Lions and for the CFL. The number of stories about it and the fact that tons of extra folks watched his debut prove it IMO. If he starts playing like he did before he left for the NFL, he'll be worth way more than $200K in marketing the CFL.

[Jesse]

The marketing money has been explained in detail. Any amount spent over $110K on marketing counts against the cap. Yes you can spend more but why would a team do that when it applies to the SMS?

For imports their might be a tax advantage similar to bonus money.

I think he's using the terms correctly and you just might not understand them.

The CFL has always been a soft cap even before the marketing money thing. Teams could always go over and a face a fine and if they really go over they face draft pick losses.

This is different from hard cap set-ups like the NHL where you cannot go over and pay a tax or fine or draft picks.

Google hard cap and soft cap for more examples.

Yeah, I'm the one who posted the table and tried to break it down.

I definitely misread Farhan's post. But was mostly speaking to posters here who believe the marketing money is unlimited and does not apply to the cap.

[Jesse]

You're getting caught up in semantics. Just because it's called Marketing Money, doesn't mean it has to be used exclusively for marketing purposes. Think of it as extra salary instead.

Rourke, just by signing was a huge marketing win for both the Lions and for the CFL. The number of stories about it and the fact that tons of extra folks watched his debut prove it IMO. If he starts playing like he did before he left for the NFL, he'll be worth way more than $200K in marketing the CFL.

It's not called marketing money, it's called Non-Football Related Services. There needs to be services rendered to earn the money. It would need to be a part of their personal contract.

[Blue In BC]

You're getting caught up in semantics. Just because it's called Marketing Money, doesn't mean it has to be used exclusively for marketing purposes. Think of it as extra salary instead.

Rourke, just by signing was a huge marketing win for both the Lions and for the CFL. The number of stories about it and the fact that tons of extra folks watched his debut prove it IMO. If he starts playing like he did before he left for the NFL, he'll be worth way more than $200K in marketing the CFL.

No I'm not. The point being that they could have given him the extra $90K in regular salary since it counts against the SMS anyway.  As far as I know this is money he gets in 2025 and going forward. What he will do to earn that we'll see.

Semantics has nothing to do with it.

[Pete]

Back to Betts, I wonder if he had a deal up front with the Lions. Rather than having to choose between the 300k contract and the nfl deal, the Lions could have encouraged him to try the nfl with the agreement of a prorated contract on his return
  Making the nfl roster was likely a longshot. This way BC gets to sign him for the grey cup run while not having the full salary forcing them to cut elsewhere.
If so an astute move on their part.
The fact that he's only signed for this year and that he signed so quickly kind of reenforces this

[Jesse]

Back to Betts, I wonder if he had a deal up front with the Lions. Rather than having to choose between the 300k contract and the nfl deal, the Lions could have encouraged him to try the nfl with the agreement of a prorated contract on his return
  Making the nfl roster was likely a longshot. This way BC gets to sign him for the grey cup run while not having the full salary forcing them to cut elsewhere.
If so an astute move on their part.
The fact that he's only signed for this year and that he signed so quickly kind of reenforces this

I think he only signed for the year because they recognize they won't be able to meet his contract demands long term, but are willing to go over this season.

[theaardvark]

Significant non-discretionary Penalties for Exceeding SEC based on a progressive monetary and non-monetary (forfeited draft picks) penalties.

    Monetary Penalties:
        $1 for each dollar a Club exceeds SEC up to $100,000
        $2 for each dollar a Club exceeds SEC between $100,000 and $300,000
        $3 for each dollar a Club exceeds SEC over $300,000
    Non-Monetary Penalties:
        Forfeiture of next available first round draft pick for Clubs that exceed SEC over $100,000
        Forfeiture of next available first and second round draft picks for Clubs that exceed SEC over $300,000

I did not realize there was no additional non monetary penalty for exceeding by more than $300k.. so yeah, other than paying a 3 to 1 surghare, no reason not to owhole hog if you are already giving up your draft picks...