M. Betts released....signed with BC

[theaardvark]

So, Betts signing (if they are already over the cap) will cost them $145k to Betts, and $435k in fines... yikes.

[TBURGESS]

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.

CBA defines Non-Football Related Services with a such as clause therefore, they could be almost anything at all. An interview mid-week or an autograph session would count as an appearance, outreach or promotion anyway. These are things that players regularly do anyway.

Basically it's just another pot of cash to give to players.

In 2023, each Club will include in the Salary Expenditure Cap an additional $60,000 in respect of Non-Football Related Services, such as community appearances, outreach, and promotion. 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. These amounts will be included in a player's SPC and noted accordingly.

Note the definition of SPC is Standard Player Contract.

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.

The point is that's not what the CBA says. If it's what they had in mind, then they worded it horribly. They are clearly outlining the minimum not the maximum amounts & giving the clubs sole discretion on how much to give any player.

So the question is, why wouldn't it be part of the regular salary? What's the advantage to calling it ' Non-Football Related Services'? There's no tax advantage that they couldn't get if they called it a bonus. There's no SMS benefit if it goes against the SMS.

If there's no benefit, then why not just call it what it is... salary or bonus?

[Blue In BC]

CBA defines Non-Football Related Services with a such as clause therefore, they could be almost anything at all. An interview mid-week or an autograph session would count as an appearance, outreach or promotion anyway. These are things that players regularly do anyway.

Basically it's just another pot of cash to give to players.
Note the definition of SPC is Standard Player Contract.

The point is that's not what the CBA says. If it's what they had in mind, then they worded it horribly. They are clearly outlining the minimum not the maximum amounts & giving the clubs sole discretion on how much to give any player.

So the question is, why wouldn't it be part of the regular salary? What's the advantage to calling it ' Non-Football Related Services'? There's no tax advantage that they couldn't get if they called it a bonus. There's no SMS benefit if it goes against the SMS.

If there's no benefit, then why not just call it what it is... salary or bonus?

It's pretty clear. A player doing some sort of public appearance is not part of the playing football. It is a non football related service. That's pretty easy to understand why it's not part of his football salary.

It's not a bonus because that has less strings attached per se. It may be for simply signing the contract or passing the physical at TC.

The marketing money is for some duties although limited things a player has to do above playing football.

I don't see why calling it a non related service and not a bonus is so difficult to understand. It is necessary to not call it a salary since the expectation is that is for football duties.

It seems you're the one tied up in semantics. The definitions of each of these terms is clear. The amounts that can be paid and amount paid that will be tied to SMS if applicable is clear.

My expectation is that this money is not paid in a lump sum. I expect it is paid on a weekly or monthly basis. For that matter it might be specific amounts for specific appearances.

Jefferson probably gets significantly less for an autograph signing than Collaros or Lawler for example.

[Jesse]

So the question is, why wouldn't it be part of the regular salary? What's the advantage to calling it ' Non-Football Related Services'? There's no tax advantage that they couldn't get if they called it a bonus. There's no SMS benefit if it goes against the SMS.

If there's no benefit, then why not just call it what it is... salary or bonus?

The CFLPA wanted players paid for off field appearances, etc. That's the point.

They needed to ensure that clubs paid out that money. Hence the term "minimum".

They needed to ensure that clubs stayed within the salary cap. Hence the term "Total Salary Cap Expenditure Cap"; which is exactly 110k more than the Salary Cap.

[TBURGESS]

The CFLPA wanted players paid for off field appearances, etc. That's the point.

They needed to ensure that clubs paid out that money. Hence the term "minimum".

They needed to ensure that clubs stayed within the salary cap. Hence the term "Total Salary Cap Expenditure Cap"; which is exactly 110k more than the Salary 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.

The 3rd column is Non‐Football Related Services minimum additional amount.

Therefore: Total Salary Expenditure Cap = Minimum + CAP is true 

However: Total Salary Expenditure Cap = Maximum + CAP is only true if Minimum = Maximum

Therefore, you're arguing the Min=Max

Note: Maximum isn't defined in the CBA and the table you are working off of is just an example table that is Subject to 30.03. 

[TecnoGenius]

The CFLPA wanted players paid for off field appearances, etc. That's the point.

So it's all Elimimian's fault!!  Off with his head!     

[TecnoGenius]

It's pretty clear. A player doing some sort of public appearance is not part of the playing football. It is a non football related service. That's pretty easy to understand why it's not part of his football salary.

Uh, when I worked for a small business doing programming, sometimes my boss would have me answer phones, or greet visitors, or go a door down to get the donuts.  I sure as heck didn't get an extra "marketing salary" for doing that stuff!  It was considered part and parcel of being employed.  (Outside of gov and Huge Corp, this tends to be true.)

So for the entire history of the CFL players were expected as part of their normal contract to do non-football appearances & stuff... but a couple of years back they negotiated free money for what they used to do for free!

And since WPG only pays like 5-6 guys "marketing money", does that mean all the other players who show up for autographs or come out to the player-pen post-game are getting the shaft?  Only the stars get to partake of this gravy train even though they all do the work?

In the end I don't mind negotiations for as much as you can squeeze, but from a fan standpoint this stuff is way more confusing than it needs to be, and it's riling up the fan base.  Go over to SSKfans and they are all convinced "marketing money" is unlimited and outside of the SMS... And most fan bases are starting to glimpse how BC is mega-"cheating" this year.  None of this is good for the CFL.

[TecnoGenius]

The point is that's not what the CBA says. If it's what they had in mind, then they worded it horribly.

Welcome to every single document the CFL has ever produced!  I've never seen rule book or CBA or anything these clowns have come up with that isn't filled with ambiguities and terrible writing.  It's like they picked the dumbest player in the whole league and said: here, you go write it!

If there's no benefit, then why not just call it what it is... salary or bonus?

That's what I've been saying for a month now!  Maybe it was all a fast one by the league/CFLPA to sneak more money to star players without looking like you're doing so.  Maybe it was never supposed to be in the public eye... yes, in public docs, but who here ever read that and pointed any of this out until BC started clearly abusing the situation!  No one!

If so, Ambrosie might be mega-mad at Doman right about now...

[TecnoGenius]

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...

Everyone who cries "CFL is poor!", "teams are poor!", "oh the poor owners!" needs to denounce what BC is doing immediately and strongly.  Because AFAIK they are breaking the unwritten contract that you try to stay within the cap.

This could easily start a player bidding war that will see the richest of rich teams win.  WFC has an extra $million easily to blow on fines... if it wins us the cup, it'll pay for itself in tickets and merch.  So we should go $350k over the cap too, eh?

Caretaker Young has unlimited pockets.  Why doesn't he just spend $5M in fines to bring in every current NFL reject at $500k each?  How about $10M?  What does it matter, who will stop them.

See where this can lead?

Hey, I'm all for increased caps, but I also believe in trying to follow the spirit of the rules.  Don't let teams go crazy with overages, just increase the actual cap (and not with nonsensical "marketing monies").

[TecnoGenius]

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

Bingo.  That's why everyone is up in arms.  It's just silly stupid at this point.

Well at least BC came out through Farhan and admitted they don't give a rat's butt about the cap and optics.  I do appreciate honesty.

[TecnoGenius]

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

Well, he should, they just put him in the Hall Of Fame!!

[TecnoGenius]

Having said that if it was walters we:d all be pumped

Not me.  I was modestly embarrassed by the report of WFC being ~$100k over cap a year or a few ago.  But I felt a bit better when we were joined by 2-3 other teams (IIRC), and when the overage was explained somewhat (IRs, etc.).

I prefer to assume the best in people.  However, if most teams in the West start following BC down this road, then we should too.  I'm not holier than thou enough that I want us to lose because the other teams have $350k more fake-cap to spend on talent!

Hey, now we can start the "BC Signing Watch" to see what $300k player they'll bring in next!  How high can they go on overage!  Sky's (Doman's pocket's) the limit!

[TecnoGenius]

Maybe Farhan is wrong. I could see the $145K as the amount for a full season with the last 7 games just pro rated from that amount.  I can't see him earning $20K per game for the last 7 games. That's more than any player not a QB???

I thought the same... they must have meant pro-rated total, eh?  Ya, no, it's actually as bad as your worst nightmare.  What a crock!

[Jesse]

I mean, we went over the cap last year. And I definitely hope we get top-tier fined for our over spending next year.

It's not new or unusual for the hosting team to "go for it".

[TecnoGenius]

It's not new or unusual for the hosting team to "go for it".

What's the most a team has gone over in the last, say, 5 years?  That should put BC's moves in perspective.  I don't recall anyone going over by much more than $100k.  But I could be wrong (@Stats Junkie?)

So whoever hosts the cup gets the wink & nod to flaunt the spirit of the cap?  How much do you want us to go over by in 2025?