Top 3 QB salaries

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Its not so much as arguing for or against, its more about putting clarity to it. What are the parameters, expectations etc?
No cap league has a big loophole that everyone is aware of whereby the salary cap can be so easily circumvented.
 I do like the idea of each team having one player exempt from cap, allowing them to get that difference maker for their market

Agreed that clarity would help, especially amongst really engaged fans which is what everyone here likely falls under.  There are obviously a lot of other stakeholder groups the league is balancing and that's very likely the reasons why they don't, or at least, haven't been willing to so far.

[Waffler]

I do like the idea of each team having one player exempt from cap, allowing them to get that difference maker for their market

They had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

[TBURGESS]

There is some kind of value for money marketing dollars audit paid to players by the league and afterward, an independent party, if you believe what Randy Ambroise said when asked at last year's state of the league address.

I will repeat that it's really hard to argue for or against the marketing dollar system because too much of it is unknown. At this point, the only thing you can really say is that it likely hasn't had much affect on who wins football games.

One other thought - seeing as Rourke's contract seems to be the lightning rod - do you know how downright stupid it would for the league to not try and market the best Canadian quarterback to play in the CFL in 40 years? So in that sense the system being flexible is really great from a pure marketing perspective if you put on that hat specifically and forget about being a fan for a second.

I'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it. 

Players images are allowed as per the CBA I quoted. The CFLPA gets $450K a year to allow it. I don't think you can argue that a player's face is not part of images. 

The CBA and the Standard Player's contract both allow for clubs to market the player's images, which means they can market the heck out of Rourke or any other player for that matter. 

Any player can 'reasonably' object to the use of their image and the CFL would have to replace it, but that could be another image of the same player.

The C.F.L. and each of the Member Clubs further covenants and agrees that should an individual Player reasonably object to the use of a Player Image comprising his image on religious or moral grounds, or on such other grounds that the use of the Player Image puts the Player in a conflict position with a third party, the C.F.L. and/or the Member Club, as the case may be, shall forthwith replace that Player Image with a suitable alternative
 

TLDR: As I read the contracts, and I'm not a lawyer... in uniform = covered by the CBA/Player's Contract. Out of uniform = player's right to negotiate compensation. 

Examples: Autograph signing in uniform = covered. Ad for car company out of uniform = separate contract with car company. 

[Jesse]

Where are you getting that from?

It's in the Marketing section. That's where the "separate deals" part comes in.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it.

Players images are allowed as per the CBA I quoted. The CFLPA gets $450K a year to allow it. I don't think you can argue that a player's face is not part of images.

The CBA and the Standard Player's contract both allow for clubs to market the player's images, which means they can market the heck out of Rourke or any other player for that matter.

Any player can 'reasonably' object to the use of their image and the CFL would have to replace it, but that could be another image of the same player.


TLDR: As I read the contracts, and I'm not a lawyer... in uniform = covered by the CBA/Player's Contract. Out of uniform = player's right to negotiate compensation.

Examples: Autograph signing in uniform = covered. Ad for car company out of uniform = separate contract with car company.

I'd like to see more cooperation between the players and the league pushing in the same direction when it comes to brand promotion.  Noticed last year quite a few instances of players wearing gear representing different teams in different leagues, which sends the wrong message especially to the younger audience.  Common sense has them promoting gear that supports their salaries and not forgetting who puts butter on their bread.  Bombers are as bad as anyone including Zach, Wade should fine players that choose not to promote the clothing they receive for free, standard FIFA.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it.

How would you know? How could any of us know? It sounds as if there's some mechanism for auditing marketing dollars so therefore there has to be some criteria to compare the activation with the dollar renumeration. Just because it's not disclosed to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

[ModAdmin]

They had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

They had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

I would hardly classify Khari Jones as a "nobody".

Check his stats with the Bombers and you will see otherwise.

[Waffler]

I would hardly classify Khari Jones as a "nobody".

Check his stats with the Bombers and you will see otherwise.

I agree. I meant excepting those two players I mentioned and perhaps Kevin Glenn and Buck Pierce I should have mentioned also. After that you would have a hard time listing the rest. Not allstar after allstar like you would see in Toronto and other places that could out pay us.

[TBURGESS]

How would you know? How could any of us know? It sounds as if there's some mechanism for auditing marketing dollars so therefore there has to be some criteria to compare the activation with the dollar renumeration. Just because it's not disclosed to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

Contract 101: If it's not in the contract then it doesn't exist for purposes of the contract. 

Because they say it means it exists & there are some criteria? The religion argument. They say God exists so he must exist and the bible is his word.