Blue Bombers Forum

He's potentially a free agent if he returns to the CFL. He might end up on the Detroit Lions PR or get picked up elsewhere in the NFL.

It will take a couple of days to see what he does.

If he returns to the CFL, the BC Lions may not be able to afford him after signing Rourke. So what might his new ask be and who is able / willing to pay it.

Comments in 2023 were that he was sort of a 1 trick player which never seemed fair. For the right price it would be worth a discussion with his agent.

Not signing a new deal during CFL free agency might make it more difficult to reach the same $$$ he might have earlier.

Montreal will scoop him somehow...

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 27, 2024, 07:36:06 PMHe's potentially a free agent if he returns to the CFL. He might end up on the Detroit Lions PR or get picked up elsewhere in the NFL.

It will take a couple of days to see what he does.

If he returns to the CFL, the BC Lions may not be able to afford him after signing Rourke. So what might his new ask be and who is able / willing to pay it.

Comments in 2023 were that he was sort of a 1 trick player which never seemed fair. For the right price it would be worth a discussion with his agent.

Not signing a new deal during CFL free agency might make it more difficult to reach the same $$$ he might have earlier.

Even though he is a Canadian I can't see him upstaging Haba or Garbutt.

Big cake

Maybe the Lion's will also release Manu. We could us him right now on our OL.

Mtrl is a strong possibility as well as I believe he has ties there.

He's a guy that would move the needle. We need pass rush badly and I'd rather spend on him than import receiver where we are allocating too much in my opinion.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on August 27, 2024, 09:22:17 PMHe's a guy that would move the needle. We need pass rush badly and I'd rather spend on him than import receiver where we are allocating too much in my opinion.

I certainly wouldn't complain if we signed him. I don't think he'd move the needle as much as you say, but you can't choose who becomes available.

Bears also released Theo Benedet after giving him $100K USD in guaranteed money. Maybe that was a move just before being added to their PR. I wasn't expecting that on a priority undrafted signing previously.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know who will be able to afford / want Betts. He'd be a valuable addition but at what cost. He doesn't even have to beat out a starter to provide value.

Question # 1 is does he even return to the CFL this season. He could be another quick signing somewhere like Rourke and Mack in the past couple of weeks.

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 27, 2024, 09:41:53 PMBears also released Theo Benedet after giving him $100K USD in guaranteed money. Maybe that was a move just before being added to their PR. I wasn't expecting that on a priority undrafted signing previously.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know who will be able to afford / want Betts. He'd be a valuable addition but at what cost. He doesn't even have to beat out a starter to provide value.

Question # 1 is does he even return to the CFL this season. He could be another quick signing somewhere like Rourke and Mack in the past couple of weeks.

Wasn't Betts asking the Lions for $250k or more to sign before signing with Detroit?  Wherever he goes he won't play for cheap.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 27, 2024, 09:45:42 PMWasn't Betts asking the Lions for $250k or more to sign before signing with Detroit?  Wherever he goes he won't play for cheap.

Yes it was quite a bit of money he was looking for or was offered by BC. That was then and this is now. We wondered how if the Lions would need to make some roster adjustments to fit in Rourke. Finding a half year salary for Betts won't be easy.

Montreal was mentioned as a possible destination but they just extended Mack to a 4 year deal. I haven't heard whether that included a jump for the balance of 2024. That could be an issue for them.

He probably clears waivers in the next few days so we'll see what happens.

Interesting. If he comes available, interesting to see who has cap space to sign him for what he wants. BC will be out, I can't see us signing him given the performance of our D--I am good going status quo forward. I think our need is to find another solid option at O Tackle as we saw when Stan went down, we had nothing to put in his place.

Remembering that no one needs to commit more than the balance of this year. It's not going to be as hard to fit in as it sounds.

Quote from: Jesse on August 27, 2024, 11:31:31 PMRemembering that no one needs to commit more than the balance of this year. It's not going to be as hard to fit in as it sounds.

True but if he signs a multi year deal, the team signing him will have to deal with his full salary next season.  I can't find what he was asking for this year, but at the time it seemed pretty outrageous, it would have made him the highest paid DE in the CFL.

feels like a number of canadians being  or have been released unfortunately it will likely help the wrong teams
Betts  free agent
Mack  mtrl
Benedet OL  - BC
Uguak DL Mtrl (currently injured designated waiver
hergel OL  sask
Gallimore dl  mtrl
Anim Dankwah ol  toronto
Luiji Vilain ol toronto
Julian Good-Jones free agent
Jonathan Sutherland mtrl
Tevaughn Campbell db  fa
also Dakota Shepley, Nikola Kalinic te, Brett Rypkin,  qb (these players said to be added to practice roster)

4 of the above mtrl owns the rights. Still time for these players to be added to practice rosters.
Looks like Giovanni Manu our pick has made the detroit roster

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 28, 2024, 12:00:47 AMTrue but if he signs a multi year deal, the team signing him will have to deal with his full salary next season.  I can't find what he was asking for this year, but at the time it seemed pretty outrageous, it would have made him the highest paid DE in the CFL.

It was in or around 300k.

I really only view him as a pass rushing specialist/rotational guy, though.

Quote from: Jesse on August 28, 2024, 12:16:41 AMIt was in or around 300k.

I really only view him as a pass rushing specialist/rotational guy, though.

Even if he signs for the last 6 or 7 games, it will be a large bump in a teams SMS. As a rotational player he isn't worth $300K IMO.

I'd take a look.  BC won't have the $$.  MTL is pretty well stocked, probably doesn't have the $$, and needs to start considering all of the year-3 talent that will leave for paydays this off-season.

We should have the SMS.  Then again, we don't need yet another NAT, so why pay the $50k NAT-premium he'll command?

He's a superb pass-rusher with meh run-stop ability.  He'd be killer against pass-mostly teams, and for passing downs.  Has a no-quit motor and pretty quick with a good nose.  He'd make cheetah unstoppable.

I could see TOR, OTT, CGY also being in the market.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 28, 2024, 03:46:52 AMI'd take a look.  BC won't have the $$.  MTL is pretty well stocked, probably doesn't have the $$, and needs to start considering all of the year-3 talent that will leave for paydays this off-season.

We should have the SMS.  Then again, we don't need yet another NAT, so why pay the $50k NAT-premium he'll command?

He's a superb pass-rusher with meh run-stop ability.  He'd be killer against pass-mostly teams, and for passing downs.  Has a no-quit motor and pretty quick with a good nose.  He'd make cheetah unstoppable.

I could see TOR, OTT, CGY also being in the market.

If the price is right we might be able to retain the extra import DT instead of trying to retain the import DE's as well. Both DE's are playing well but ratio always has to be considered just as well as SMS.

Signing another Canadian also has an impact to the potential roster going into 2025.

Since Wallace got injured there might be a need to add an import OL before the end of the season. Wallace was placed on the 6 game IR, so I hope we have our sights out for any available Canadian OL.

Ratio is fluid and we keep losing players to IR.

I'm not sure what I think would be an appropriate SMS but it certainly wouldn't be $300K. Just my opinion but I'd think anything higher than $150K is too much. Something in the range of $120K might be ok. At some point ratio becomes less of an issue than SMS.

What another team might be willing to pay depends on SMS available, ratio need etc. We'll see who opens the wallet.

MLB, Shane Ray cut by the Titans.

Quote from: Pigskin on August 28, 2024, 03:31:22 PMMLB, Shane Ray cut by the Titans.

He was a DE and didn't play in the CFL in 2023. He's also 31 years old now. I don't remember him being used as a MLB.

However I'd think there are a lot of players at every position now available as free agent NFL cuts. Even after there PR rosters are set.

Quote from: Pete on August 28, 2024, 12:10:36 AMfeels like a number of canadians being  or have been released unfortunately it will likely help the wrong teams
Betts  free agent
Mack  mtrl
Benedet OL  - BC
Uguak DL Mtrl (currently injured designated waiver
hergel OL  sask
Gallimore dl  mtrl
Anim Dankwah ol  toronto
Luiji Vilain ol toronto
Julian Good-Jones free agent
Jonathan Sutherland mtrl
Tevaughn Campbell db  fa
also Dakota Shepley, Nikola Kalinic te, Brett Rypkin,  qb (these players said to be added to practice roster)

4 of the above mtrl owns the rights. Still time for these players to be added to practice rosters.
Looks like Giovanni Manu our pick has made the detroit roster

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?

Quote from: LXTSN on August 28, 2024, 04:34:17 PMI 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?

Manu was always an "in the pipe" guy.  No way we thought he was coming this year, or even in the next few.  But like Gray, he was worth the pick and the wait.  And if he does come available, whenever, we will want/need him.

Quote from: theaardvark on August 28, 2024, 05:15:54 PMManu was always an "in the pipe" guy.  No way we thought he was coming this year, or even in the next few.  But like Gray, he was worth the pick and the wait.  And if he does come available, whenever, we will want/need him.

True. It's only part of the conversation now because we lost Neufeld and now Wallace to 6 game IR.

EDIT: Betts has cleared waivers and exploring both NFL and CFL options.  He could wait it out or be in discussion with any team on either side of the border.

On one hand there is no hurry for him to decide. On the other hand he could be another player that makes a quick decision to return to the CFL to the highest bidder.

Winnipeg should definitely take a look. One thing that winning Grey Cup teams have done, the past few years, is upgrade their defense in the second half of the season. I feel like that's pretty key to winning the whole thing.

If we can improve our DE position and get more pressure on QBs, I would checking out the asking price. Betts would be a nice add at this time of the year.

Haba: 4 games, 3 DTs.
Garbutt: 5 games, 7 DTs, 1 sack.

2023 Betts: 44DTs, 1 St, 18 Sacks, 4 FF.

I'm sure Walters is asking how much and driving up the price.

Signed with BC

https://3downnation.com/2024/08/28/b-c-lions-agrees-to-terms-on-contract-with-canadian-dl-mathieu-betts/

Just for this season

Wow, they must have some fancy adding machine in BC to keep track of their salaries vs the cap, don't know where they are getting the $$$ from but something has to come off the roster for sure...

Quote from: dd on August 29, 2024, 01:34:58 AMWow, they must have some fancy adding machine in BC to keep track of their salaries vs the cap, don't know where they are getting the $$$ from but something has to come off the roster for sure...

Farham says 145k for the 7 games.

Dunk says there is no marketing money involved.

Quote from: Pigskin on August 28, 2024, 08:32:40 PMIf we can improve our DE position and get more pressure on QBs, I would checking out the asking price. Betts would be a nice add at this time of the year.

Haba: 4 games, 3 DTs.
Garbutt: 5 games, 7 DTs, 1 sack.

2023 Betts: 44DTs, 1 St, 18 Sacks, 4 FF.

Too $$$ imo

looks like bc's gone all in with the cup at home ty, cap be damned

Quote from: Pete on August 29, 2024, 02:48:06 AMlooks like bc's gone all in with the cup at home ty, cap be damned

He signed a 1 year deal for the rest of the season. So he may have taken less pro rated to join the team with an expectation of being able to negotiate a bigger deal for 2025 and beyond. We'll see if we get any financial details later, but the Lions only have 7 regular season games left.

Regardless, even Lions fans didn't think they had cap space to sign him after Rourke coming back.

I wonder who gets bumped off the roster?

Quote from: Pete on August 29, 2024, 02:48:06 AMlooks like bc's gone all in with the cup at home ty, cap be damned

Yeah, I think they are willing to pay the money and lose the draft picks if necessary in order to go all in this year. Keep in mind that even after signing Rourke, they are spending roughly what we do on their #1 and #2 QBs, maybe even a bit less. Adams is getting 395,000, and Rourke 250,000 this year (plus what they paid Dolengala until Rourke was signed, which is likely another 50-60,0000), total of about 700,000. Zack is getting 600,000, and Strev 120,000+. Betts is getting 145,000 for the rest of the year. Whoever he replaces was probably getting close to minimum, so only paid out about 45,000 so far this year. That's a total of 190,000 at the DE position, while Willie is making 200,000. I would not be surprised if they go significantly over, but they're not all that different from our salary structure at QB and DE right now.

Quote from: bunker on August 29, 2024, 03:07:38 AMYeah, I think they are willing to pay the money and lose the draft picks if necessary in order to go all in this year. Keep in mind that even after signing Rourke, they are spending roughly what we do on their #1 and #2 QBs, maybe even a bit less. Adams is getting 395,000, and Rourke 250,000 this year (plus what they paid Dolengala until Rourke was signed, which is likely another 50-60,0000), total of about 700,000. Zack is getting 600,000, and Strev 120,000+. Betts is getting 145,000 for the rest of the year. Whoever he replaces was probably getting close to minimum, so only paid out about 45,000 so far this year. That's a total of 190,000 at the DE position, while Willie is making 200,000. I would not be surprised if they go significantly over, but they're not all that different from our salary structure at QB and DE right now.

If that is their approach and those numbers are accurate I would agree it's a good plan with a home grey cup and the opportunity to capitalize on that.

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 03:01:02 AMHe signed a 1 year deal for the rest of the season. So he may have taken less pro rated to join the team with an expectation of being able to negotiate a bigger deal for 2025 and beyond. We'll see if we get any financial details later, but the Lions only have 7 regular season games left.

Regardless, even Lions fans didn't think they had cap space to sign him after Rourke coming back.

I wonder who gets bumped off the roster?

Farhan said 145k for 7 games so that would be 372k over a full season. So he didnt take a discount for the remainder of the season.

Also, dont expect any players getting released as a result. The Lions are all in trying to be in the Grey Cup so they are willing to pay the SMS penalties.

Quote from: dd on August 29, 2024, 01:34:58 AMWow, they must have some fancy adding machine in BC to keep track of their salaries vs the cap, don't know where they are getting the $$$ from but something has to come off the roster for sure...

Don't worry, it's all just "marketing money"!  It's SMS-free!  Yay!  You get a million, you get a million, you all get a million!

Quote from: gobombersgo on August 29, 2024, 01:42:31 AMFarham says 145k for the 7 games.

If it's really like you said and not 145k pro-rated, then that's sheer and utter lunacy.  Completely bonkers for a DL.  Not justifiable in any world.

After the Rourke signing there is no way BC had any SMS left.  None.  Zero.  They are probably already multi-$100's in the hole, and now they do this?  Remember, they have the 2 H's and some huge-bucks hoggies they need to pay big bucks to.

None of this adds up.

Quote from: gobombersgo on August 29, 2024, 01:42:31 AMDunk says there is no marketing money involved.

Yaaaaa, riiiiiiiiiight.  Maybe just doing the BLM "wife no-show gig" then.

I guess anything goes if you're BC in their home GC year!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 29, 2024, 04:21:52 AMDon't worry, it's all just "marketing money"!  It's SMS-free!  Yay!  You get a million, you get a million, you all get a million!

If it's really like you said and not 145k pro-rated, then that's sheer and utter lunacy.  Completely bonkers for a DL.  Not justifiable in any world.

After the Rourke signing there is no way BC had any SMS left.  None.  Zero.  They are probably already multi-$100's in the hole, and now they do this?  Remember, they have the 2 H's and some huge-bucks hoggies they need to pay big bucks to.

None of this adds up.

Yaaaaa, riiiiiiiiiight.  Maybe just doing the BLM "wife no-show gig" then.

I guess anything goes if you're BC in their home GC year!

This is what Farhan said:

Lots of talk about the @CFL salary cap:
1. It's a soft cap
2. #BCLions will not be the first team to go over the cap in a year they host the #GreyCup
3. A home playoff game will more than cover the cost of Betts salary & any fine
4. The Lions were tight to the cap before signing Rourke/Betts. So let's say they finish the season 350k over the cap & are also fined a 1st round pick. They'll get at least that back when they trade one of the QBs this off season. Plus they'll get another 2nd round pick for being in the top 2 for snaps played by a 🇨🇦

If I'm Doman/Campbell/McEvoy this is an absolute no brainer.
#BCLions desperately need some pass rushing help & to restore confidence in the room. They've never run from the fact that they're all in. Doman has demonstrated time & again in order to make money in this league you need to spend it. This is what committed ownership looks like🤷🏽�♂️

Quote from: gobombersgo on August 29, 2024, 05:10:41 AMLots of talk about the @CFL salary cap:
1. It's a soft cap
2. #BCLions will not be the first team to go over the cap in a year they host the #GreyCup

What a bunch of hooey to make themselves feel better for crapping all over the cap.  There is a spirit to the cap, and that is that teams ostensibly try to work within it.  Overages due to IRs, etc., are one thing.  Blowing up your cap on purpose by $350k is another!

Yes, teams have gone over before, but I'm not sure by $350k.  Not in recent history, anyway.  Hosting a home GC doesn't give you license to just blow all cap rules!

Isn't BC a "have not team" and receiving equalization payments from us/others?  Ya, how do you square that circle?  Poor BC needs money, yet they'll pay 3-for-1 fines on their overages?  Teams that go over by more than $100k should not get e.q. payments!!

BC is pursuing a course that destroyed SSK for half a decade after their all-in 2013 GC.  Is that really what they want to do?  What if they get beaten (again) by someone in the WDF?

What BC has done here with the Farhan leak is stick their tongue out at the entire league and its tiny rules, showing how they'll work past all of the penalties like DP losses and fines.

It's disgusting.  It was disgusting when they brought in Rourke when everyone knew they were over$$, and it's doubly disgusting now that they brought in Betts for completely unreasonable money.  This isn't just about BC cheating to buy their way to a talent advantage, it's also about stealing talent away from other teams that would have been the high bidder, within the SMS.  This hurts TOR or CGY or EDM or WPG who may have wanted to hire and had a shot at hiring Betts legitimately.

Really harms the image of the league, and I hope Ambrosie speaks out about it.  Otherwise, what's to stop WPG from going $1M over the cap in 2025 to ensure their GC victory??  We have the real, outside-the-sms cash, after all.

Lions all in indeed. That gotta lose draft picks because of this crap?

Lets EE if they experience any turnaround even with pricey Betts back.

 No trophies given or parades happening because a team stayed under the cap...just win baby and the rest will sort itself out. 

Betts wanted to return to BC and they figured out a way to make it happen - no issues. 

Quote from: gobombersgo on August 29, 2024, 03:53:24 AMFarhan said 145k for 7 games so that would be 372k over a full season. So he didnt take a discount for the remainder of the season.

Also, dont expect any players getting released as a result. The Lions are all in trying to be in the Grey Cup so they are willing to pay the SMS penalties.

If that's what he agreed to then that's totally insane. Lions will go over the SMS and accept the fine and / or loss of a draft pick.

Betts is a nice addition but he isn't worth that amount of money. How do they retain him past the end of the year?

YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!

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???

A nice but pretty steep acquisition for the Lions.

Not sure how much this helps them, particularly with how their offense has struggled the last month or so.

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

Quote from: gobombersgo on August 29, 2024, 05:10:41 AMThis is what Farhan said:

Lots of talk about the @CFL salary cap:
1. It's a soft cap
2. #BCLions will not be the first team to go over the cap in a year they host the #GreyCup
3. A home playoff game will more than cover the cost of Betts salary & any fine
4. The Lions were tight to the cap before signing Rourke/Betts. So let's say they finish the season 350k over the cap & are also fined a 1st round pick. They'll get at least that back when they trade one of the QBs this off season. Plus they'll get another 2nd round pick for being in the top 2 for snaps played by a 🇨🇦

If I'm Doman/Campbell/McEvoy this is an absolute no brainer.
#BCLions desperately need some pass rushing help & to restore confidence in the room. They've never run from the fact that they're all in. Doman has demonstrated time & again in order to make money in this league you need to spend it. This is what committed ownership looks like🤷🏽�♂️

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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 29, 2024, 03:13:20 PMHe'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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 29, 2024, 03:13:20 PMHe'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.

Quote from: Pete on August 29, 2024, 03:04:40 PMThe 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.

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 03:28:01 PMThe 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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 03:58:00 PMYou'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

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 04:31:41 PMLike 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. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 04:41:36 PMWhat 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.

Quote from: LXTSN on August 28, 2024, 04:34:17 PMI 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.

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 04:59:47 PMMost 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.

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 03:28:01 PMThe 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.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on August 29, 2024, 03:29:22 PMI 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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 06:03:50 PMYou'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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 06:03:50 PMYou'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.

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

Quote from: Pete on August 29, 2024, 07:09:57 PMBack 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.

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...

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

Quote from: Jesse on August 29, 2024, 06:56:48 PMIt'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.

QuoteIn 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.

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 07:04:43 PMNo 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?

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 08:14:03 PMCBA 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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 08:14:03 PMSo 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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 29, 2024, 09:54:06 PMThe 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. 

Quote from: Jesse on August 29, 2024, 09:54:06 PMThe CFLPA wanted players paid for off field appearances, etc. That's the point.

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

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 08:29:48 PMIt'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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 08:14:03 PMThe 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!

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 08:14:03 PMIf 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...

Quote from: theaardvark on August 29, 2024, 07:24:16 PMI 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").

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 04:59:47 PMI 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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 29, 2024, 03:13:20 PMI really don't think he understands what he's talking about.

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

Quote from: Pete on August 29, 2024, 03:04:40 PMHaving 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!

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 29, 2024, 01:45:26 PMMaybe 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!

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".

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 01:00:01 AMIt'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?

Because the cup is in bc no doubt they will recoup whatever they invest PROVIDED they make it to the cup

Quote from: Pete on August 30, 2024, 01:08:39 AMBecause the cup is in bc no doubt they will recoup whatever they invest PROVIDED they make it to the cup

Oooooh ya.  Beating them in the WDF (hopefully in cold WPG!) will be that much sweeeeeeeeeter!!  The "BC Sux" chants will be louder than ever.

Imagine if they don't even make it out of the WSF!!  Hahaha.  It'll be epic.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 30, 2024, 01:03:03 AMWhat'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?

It's not a wink and nod, it's a calculated decision based on your club's stability and your chances of making it. Hamilton took a high risk in signing Bo Levi during their last host, and fell flat on their faces.

The timing has to coincide with your team being good in the year that you host and players returning from the NFL that will move the needle. Things don't always fall into place like with the Lions this week.

But if we're at the limit next year and Tyrell Ford comes back mid-season from an NFL try out, am I going to complain that we're going to have to pay a fine to bring him home? Nope.

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 01:18:05 AMBut if we're at the limit next year and Tyrell Ford comes back mid-season from an NFL try out, am I going to complain that we're going to have to pay a fine to bring him home? Nope.

But $350k over, and on many league-top players?  Really?  We're no longer talking about $100k over here.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 30, 2024, 01:25:28 AMBut $350k over, and on many league-top players?  Really?  We're no longer talking about $100k over here.

Again, if the same opportunities came up for us next year, where our top QB and DE became available, I want Walters to do it.

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 01:29:21 AMAgain, if the same opportunities came up for us next year, where our top QB and DE became available, I want Walters to do it.

So how much should we go over then?  $350k like BC?  $1M?  $5M?

Avarice is the limit?

Why wait until mid-season?  Why not start offering every $200k superstar $400k in FA2025?  And every $300k $600k.  And so on and so forth.

We could literally build the CFL all-star team right here in blue & gold if money is no object because "it's our home GC year".  That would ensure a win!  Yay!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 30, 2024, 12:41:58 AMUh, 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?

Since Zach gets interviewed at least once or twice every week on behalf of the team and some players never do those interviews, I imagine that is one of the tasks considered promotional work.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 30, 2024, 02:39:08 AMSo how much should we go over then?  $350k like BC?  $1M?  $5M?

Avarice is the limit?

Why wait until mid-season?  Why not start offering every $200k superstar $400k in FA2025?  And every $300k $600k.  And so on and so forth.

We could literally build the CFL all-star team right here in blue & gold if money is no object because "it's our home GC year".  That would ensure a win!  Yay!

Yeah! Spend away like a drunken sailor! Bring in all the high-priced talent you can find and let the Grey Cup profits pay for it all. Whatever team is hosting the Grey Cup that year spends until they have enough to win it all. What could go wrong?

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 30, 2024, 02:39:08 AMSo how much should we go over then?  $350k like BC?  $1M?  $5M?

Avarice is the limit?

Why wait until mid-season?  Why not start offering every $200k superstar $400k in FA2025?  And every $300k $600k.  And so on and so forth.

We could literally build the CFL all-star team right here in blue & gold if money is no object because "it's our home GC year".  That would ensure a win!  Yay!

I think you're taking it to some ridiculous places.

We obviously have large portions of our team set. I think we should be aggressive in not letting certain players leave in the coming off-season. If we see a need in FA, I'd like to go after that need.

When it comes to this point of the year. There may be a big name coming back from the NFL or there may not. I don't think we can plan for it, but if it happens (like for BC this year), let's do it.

Obviously, I don't think we have an extra million lying around. And even a successful Grey Cup won't make up a certain amount of spending. But I wouldn't sacrifice an opportunity if the penalties are within a reasonable amount.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 30, 2024, 01:03:03 AMWhat'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?

I believe Montreal is the only yeam to exceed the cap by more than 100k. They were over by 108k in 2007.

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 03:26:42 AMI think you're taking it to some ridiculous places.

To many of us, $350k that BC is doing right now (and they ain't done yet!) is "ridiculous places".  If you can rationalize $350k, then why not <insert dollar amount here>?

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 03:26:42 AMWhen it comes to this point of the year. There may be a big name coming back from the NFL or there may not. I don't think we can plan for it, but if it happens (like for BC this year), let's do it.

We've had lots of NFL-look guys come back in season that we lost to other teams.  And we lost them to other teams because our SMS was all used up.  That's the way it should be.

If BC had an eye on Rourke & Betts returning, which I'm nearly positive they did, they should have left a decent carve-out in the SMS.  If it didn't pan out, they could bring in other couch-sitters with the leftovers (a la MTL in 2023).

I bet you KW is livid right about now, because he plans for these things and makes sacrifices.

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 03:26:42 AMObviously, I don't think we have an extra million lying around. And even a successful Grey Cup won't make up a certain amount of spending. But I wouldn't sacrifice an opportunity if the penalties are within a reasonable amount.

What was WFC bottom line profit in 2023?  I think $3M or $5M?  So there you go... we can blow past the cap by $1M to $1.5M and still show a profit, even after the fines.  And think of BC's situation: Doman could basically pay $100M in fines and not care.  If there's nothing stopping teams except the "honor system", then why not buy every all-star and build the dream team that never loses a game?  Just because it's "ridiculous"?

Might as well bring Rocket Ishmael back... cause that was really good for the league...

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 30, 2024, 12:45:33 AMWelcome 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!

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...

It's $110K above the SMS. Get over it.

Let's wait until we see how much they go over the cap before throwing fits, hey?

If you add up 2022 and 2023 the Bombers have been more over the cap than any other team in the CFL.

Quote from: gobombersgo on August 29, 2024, 05:10:41 AMThis is what Farhan said:..
3. A home playoff game will more than cover the cost of Betts salary & any fine

Odd thing for a 3rd place team to be thinking. Nothing is guaranteed this year, not yet.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on August 30, 2024, 02:02:26 PMLet's wait until we see how much they go over the cap before throwing fits, hey?

If you add up 2022 and 2023 the Bombers have been more over the cap than any other team in the CFL.

Yeah, so the vitriol seems a little unjustified.

Although we could have stayed under the limit last year has we played everyone. We chose to sit a bunch of people which I think was the thing that pushed us over.

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 02:21:36 PMYeah, so the vitriol seems a little unjustified.

Although we could have stayed under the limit last year has we played everyone. We chose to sit a bunch of people which I think was the thing that pushed us over.

That's the thing that happens at the end of the season. Teams put a bunch of starters on the 1 game IR and activate 5 or 6 PR players. On the PR they possibly earn $1K? On the AR on an ELC they earn about $4K. That's $3K X 6 for example which was the bulk of the overage above our SMS.

We have been doing that for the last couple of games to prevent injuries to more starters.

A team could just bench some starters an play all the back ups, but this gives some PR players some actual game time. It also gives them a bump in their earnings after sitting on the PR for most of the season.

Quote from: Blue In BC on August 30, 2024, 02:26:29 PMThat's the thing that happens at the end of the season. Teams put a bunch of starters on the 1 game IR and activate 5 or 6 PR players. On the PR they possibly earn $1K? On the AR on an ELC they earn about $4K. That's $3K X 6 for example which was the bulk of the overage above our SMS.

We have been doing that for the last couple of games to prevent injuries to more starters.

A team could just bench some starters an play all the back ups, but this gives some PR players some actual game time. It also gives them a bump in their earnings after sitting on the PR for most of the season.

Yep, I get it.

Just pointing out how fluid the cap is. No one is over it right now, there is still almost half a season of moves to make.

Case in point....2013 Cryders....Taman trades away draft picks like a drunken sailor the prior few years to load up for 2013 + goes on a FA spending frenzy that season specifically. Worked for them in 2013 and I don't recall how much they were over the cap, but then went backwards after that the next year and really off the cliff afterwards. Canadian talent cupboard was bare and little coming up the pipeline as drafts picks were gonzo. Long in the tooth vets were gonzo within two years.

Taman pulled the same stunts in Winnipeg and it got them to a cup once, but he sacrificed following seasons with his wild gambles.

If it's true BC may be way over the cap for this season, then they will have to pony up with lost draft picks and triple fines I believe over $100,000. They really better hope their gamble pays off as their following seasons will take a hit just like Sask did in 2013.

I don't think anyone has posted yesterday's 3DownNation opinion piece on this subject. I actually agree with this take. Essentially - there are pretty stiff "costs" to exceeding the salary cap in terms of fines and draft picks. If you're willing to pay these costs, go for it. And I don't think anyone could go too, too hog wild with this. I mean, BC will be over - but likely in the range of low 6-figures, which is sort of peanuts? If there is an arms race in this arena, I like the Bombers chances of successfully competing with anyone.

https://3downnation.com/2024/08/29/opinion-b-c-lions-gaming-cfl-salary-cap-and-theres-nothing-wrong-with-that/ (https://3downnation.com/2024/08/29/opinion-b-c-lions-gaming-cfl-salary-cap-and-theres-nothing-wrong-with-that/)

Opinion: B.C. Lions gaming CFL salary cap (and there's nothing wrong with that)
Nobody likes a cheater.

Almost nothing rankles sports fans quite like the idea that someone is gaming the system or circumventing the rulebook to gain a personal advantage. Even perceived ethical missteps can prompt a rabid outcry from the public or accusations of conspiracy.

In the CFL, the league's salary expenditure cap is an easy target for such protests. With player contract information never made public, speculation can run rampant over which teams might be overspending, usually accompanied by an inference of favouritism by the commissioner's office.

Generally, it seems like the Toronto Argonauts are in the crosshairs of these allegations, but there is a new target in 2024. After the high-priced mid-season acquisitions of Nathan Rourke and Mathieu Betts, the B.C. Lions have become the villains of the three-down league. In the middle of a five-game losing skid and staring down a chance at a home Grey Cup, the allegation from opposing fan bases is that owner Amar Doman is willing to spend whatever it takes to secure victories — salary cap be damned.

For the first time ever on this topic, fans are probably right.

It's important to note that teams only have to be cap-compliant by the end of the season and a couple of key injuries can quickly swing the balance sheet back into the black. B.C. also trimmed a lot of fat this offseason and has both Keon Hatcher and T.J. Lee on discount deals as they return from torn Achilles. However, by all accounts, the Lions were up against the financial ceiling prior to these latest deals and the lack of off-the-cap marketing money in Betts' contract suggests they will likely be going over the allotted $5.525 million for this year.

You can almost feel the national outrage bubbling at that suggestion, but this isn't evidence of dirty dealings or moral bankruptcy from the West Coast franchise. It is an example of aggressive roster management and should provide a blueprint for others to follow — if they are willing to spend the money needed to win.

The CFL has a soft cap and going over it does not disqualify you from competition or erase your results. There are consequences for excessive spending but these are merely a luxury tax — one which teams pay all the time. In 2023, three went over the salary cap by less than $100,000 and paid dollar-for-dollar fines for their actions: the Lions ($85,979), Blue Bombers ($25,947), and Tiger-Cats ($2,654). In 2022, the number of franchises over-spending was four: Winnipeg ($64,499), Toronto ($49,735), Ottawa ($11,994), and Montreal ($794).

Once you go over the $100,000 mark, the fines stiffen to a penalty of double the amount you exceeded up to $300,000 and triple for anything over that amount. That's a significant cost for a CFL owner but it is the potential loss of draft picks that discourages most from pushing the financial limit, as Montreal experienced in 2007. You can wave goodbye to your next first-round pick once you overspend in the six-figure range and your next second-round pick will follow it out the door at more than $300,000.

As TSN's Farhan Lalji was the first to point out, losing either of those picks wouldn't really matter to the Lions. When Vernon Adams Jr. is presumably traded this offseason, he will almost certainly recoup the franchise a first-rounder and more. The team is also virtually guaranteed to receive a bonus second-round pick by virtue of having the league's highest Canadian snap count — a number that will only increase thanks to Rourke and Betts.

In all likelihood, B.C. will exceed the cap by less than people expect but the reality is that an unprecedented violation would still result in them having a full eight draft selections with a pick in every round. Two fewer players would be picked overall but the Lions would be unscathed. The only meaningful punishment would be a financial one and Doman will be less concerned about that if he can stack the revenue from a home playoff game on top of the guaranteed Grey Cup boost to his bottom line.

To be clear, this is all being done in adherence with the rules that the CFL themselves have laid out. If you are willing to absorb the punishments, there is nothing stopping any franchise from spending what they like on players. Are the Lions exploiting a loophole? Maybe, but they are able to do so because of invested ownership, QB depth, and prior acquisition of quality Canadian talent — things that all good CFL franchises should strive for.

There is plenty wrong with the way this year's B.C. team is constructed and it is being exposed during their losing skid. However, the way that the front office has managed these latest acquisitions has been a masterclass on aggressive team-building. If it works, any team bold enough to prioritize winning would be wise to copy their model when the opportunity presents itself.

As the old saying goes: if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. There are a lot of CFL teams that could benefit from trying a little harder.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 29, 2024, 10:33:37 PMThe 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.

The thing I'm having trouble with still is that the fourth column to the right (https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=55920.0) 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.

Quote from: ichabod_crane on August 30, 2024, 04:01:20 PMCase in point....2013 Cryders....Taman trades away draft picks like a drunken sailor the prior few years to load up for 2013 + goes on a FA spending frenzy that season specifically. Worked for them in 2013 and I don't recall how much they were over the cap, but then went backwards after that the next year and really off the cliff afterwards. Canadian talent cupboard was bare and little coming up the pipeline as drafts picks were gonzo. Long in the tooth vets were gonzo within two years.

Taman pulled the same stunts in Winnipeg and it got them to a cup once, but he sacrificed following seasons with his wild gambles.

If it's true BC may be way over the cap for this season, then they will have to pony up with lost draft picks and triple fines I believe over $100,000. They really better hope their gamble pays off as their following seasons will take a hit just like Sask did in 2013.

Riders were only 17k over the cap in 2013.

What Taman did was defer salaries to the following year(s) which limited them in trying to sign players for 2014.

Sure the Riders were all in in trying to get to the Grey Cup in 2013 but they still respected the cap. They just mortgaged their future instead.

Watch Taman's interview from 2014 when it was announced they were over. Sounds like a guy that made an honest effort to not go over.

https://www.riderville.com/2014/04/23/brendan-taman-on-the-2013-salary-cap-april-23/

Quote from: blue_or_die on August 30, 2024, 06:00:57 PM"Cap" is a maximum.

The way they get around it is by saying it's a "soft" cap not a "hard" cap. So yeah, it's a cap, like it's made of rubber.

Quote from: blue_or_die on August 30, 2024, 06:00:57 PMThe thing I'm having trouble with still is that the fourth column to the right (https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=55920.0) 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.

And around and around we go.

Quote from: pdirks67 on August 30, 2024, 05:51:47 PMI don't think anyone has posted yesterday's 3DownNation opinion piece on this subject. I actually agree with this take. Essentially - there are pretty stiff "costs" to exceeding the salary cap in terms of fines and draft picks. If you're willing to pay these costs, go for it. And I don't think anyone could go too, too hog wild with this. I mean, BC will be over - but likely in the range of low 6-figures, which is sort of peanuts? If there is an arms race in this arena, I like the Bombers chances of successfully competing with anyone.

https://3downnation.com/2024/08/29/opinion-b-c-lions-gaming-cfl-salary-cap-and-theres-nothing-wrong-with-that/ (https://3downnation.com/2024/08/29/opinion-b-c-lions-gaming-cfl-salary-cap-and-theres-nothing-wrong-with-that/)

Opinion: B.C. Lions gaming CFL salary cap (and there's nothing wrong with that)
Nobody likes a cheater.

Almost nothing rankles sports fans quite like the idea that someone is gaming the system or circumventing the rulebook to gain a personal advantage. Even perceived ethical missteps can prompt a rabid outcry from the public or accusations of conspiracy.

In the CFL, the league's salary expenditure cap is an easy target for such protests. With player contract information never made public, speculation can run rampant over which teams might be overspending, usually accompanied by an inference of favouritism by the commissioner's office.

Generally, it seems like the Toronto Argonauts are in the crosshairs of these allegations, but there is a new target in 2024. After the high-priced mid-season acquisitions of Nathan Rourke and Mathieu Betts, the B.C. Lions have become the villains of the three-down league. In the middle of a five-game losing skid and staring down a chance at a home Grey Cup, the allegation from opposing fan bases is that owner Amar Doman is willing to spend whatever it takes to secure victories — salary cap be damned.

For the first time ever on this topic, fans are probably right.

It's important to note that teams only have to be cap-compliant by the end of the season and a couple of key injuries can quickly swing the balance sheet back into the black. B.C. also trimmed a lot of fat this offseason and has both Keon Hatcher and T.J. Lee on discount deals as they return from torn Achilles. However, by all accounts, the Lions were up against the financial ceiling prior to these latest deals and the lack of off-the-cap marketing money in Betts' contract suggests they will likely be going over the allotted $5.525 million for this year.

You can almost feel the national outrage bubbling at that suggestion, but this isn't evidence of dirty dealings or moral bankruptcy from the West Coast franchise. It is an example of aggressive roster management and should provide a blueprint for others to follow — if they are willing to spend the money needed to win.

The CFL has a soft cap and going over it does not disqualify you from competition or erase your results. There are consequences for excessive spending but these are merely a luxury tax — one which teams pay all the time. In 2023, three went over the salary cap by less than $100,000 and paid dollar-for-dollar fines for their actions: the Lions ($85,979), Blue Bombers ($25,947), and Tiger-Cats ($2,654). In 2022, the number of franchises over-spending was four: Winnipeg ($64,499), Toronto ($49,735), Ottawa ($11,994), and Montreal ($794).

Once you go over the $100,000 mark, the fines stiffen to a penalty of double the amount you exceeded up to $300,000 and triple for anything over that amount. That's a significant cost for a CFL owner but it is the potential loss of draft picks that discourages most from pushing the financial limit, as Montreal experienced in 2007. You can wave goodbye to your next first-round pick once you overspend in the six-figure range and your next second-round pick will follow it out the door at more than $300,000.

As TSN's Farhan Lalji was the first to point out, losing either of those picks wouldn't really matter to the Lions. When Vernon Adams Jr. is presumably traded this offseason, he will almost certainly recoup the franchise a first-rounder and more. The team is also virtually guaranteed to receive a bonus second-round pick by virtue of having the league's highest Canadian snap count — a number that will only increase thanks to Rourke and Betts.

In all likelihood, B.C. will exceed the cap by less than people expect but the reality is that an unprecedented violation would still result in them having a full eight draft selections with a pick in every round. Two fewer players would be picked overall but the Lions would be unscathed. The only meaningful punishment would be a financial one and Doman will be less concerned about that if he can stack the revenue from a home playoff game on top of the guaranteed Grey Cup boost to his bottom line.

To be clear, this is all being done in adherence with the rules that the CFL themselves have laid out. If you are willing to absorb the punishments, there is nothing stopping any franchise from spending what they like on players. Are the Lions exploiting a loophole? Maybe, but they are able to do so because of invested ownership, QB depth, and prior acquisition of quality Canadian talent — things that all good CFL franchises should strive for.

There is plenty wrong with the way this year's B.C. team is constructed and it is being exposed during their losing skid. However, the way that the front office has managed these latest acquisitions has been a masterclass on aggressive team-building. If it works, any team bold enough to prioritize winning would be wise to copy their model when the opportunity presents itself.

As the old saying goes: if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. There are a lot of CFL teams that could benefit from trying a little harder.

I also like this take. It's not cheating, but there are penalties to be paid.

I also agree that I doubt they are over by as much people are predicting.

Quit crying.

Everyone does it.

BC is desperate. 
Our management team is pretty good.
We need to expand. Our stadium. Every game is a sell out!

Quote from: DM83 on August 30, 2024, 11:49:21 PMQuit crying.

Everyone does it.

BC is desperate. 
Our management team is pretty good.
We need to expand. Our stadium. Every game is a sell out!

You're missing the point.  "Everyone does it" by $10k or $30k or $60k.  Possibly because IRs "forced" them to.

NO ONE HAS EVER GONE OVER THE CAP BY $300k+.

This is new territory and an escalation of the talent bidding war.  By all rights Betts should be suiting up for a non-BC team next week... not BC!  It not only helps BC, it hurts the team that would have been 2nd highest bidder: you know, the team that wasn't trying to cheat the cap?

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 11:43:46 PMI also agree that I doubt they are over by as much people are predicting.

Farhan/3down/etc have already spelled out what the likely $$ is.  And it's this: they were maxed out already.  They picked up Rourke for $250k this season, and Betts for $100k+ this season (no pro-rated, this is actualy money!).  Therefore by simple math BC is around $350k over already... and the season isn't done.  Future IR problems could tack on more to the predicted budget.

I will bet huge sums of money BC will be over by $250k+, and bet smaller amounts it's $350k+.  I won't be surprised if in the end it's $400k.

But the final 250/350/whatever doesn't matter for this discussion: what matters is that BC is going to have an overage that is 4X to 6X more than any other team has ever done.  They are going to cause a LOT of problems for everyone by breaking the spirit of the cap, and are opening a huge can of worms.

Quote from: Jesse on August 30, 2024, 11:43:46 PMI also like this take. It's not cheating, but there are penalties to be paid.

Of course it's cheating the "spirit" and intention of the cap.  No one is arguing they aren't allowed to do this per the written rules.  That's not the point.

All of you guys that are happy with BC doing this... you better not be the same people who were posting on the other threads that the CFL can't afford to raise caps by $500k! And that teams are mostly poor and it's so hard to sell teams, yada yada!

So you're KW sitting there with your spreadsheet and doing your best to stay roughly within budget, and succeeding.  Being with $100k is probably "success" in every GMs' & Ambrosie's book.  Then you see BC doing this... and maybe you were eyeing Betts at $80k for the remainder of the season... Ya, I'm thinking you're putting calls into the league right about now.

If we want to take advantage of the "new wild west SMS", we should do it immediately, because if Ambrosie doesn't have the round ones to clamp down now, I bet he does it in the off-season!  That would let BC "buy a home cup" this year, but mean we can't follow suit in 2025.  If all the people crying "CFL is poor!" are right, no way this "cheating" is allowed past 2024.

Quote from: pdirks67 on August 30, 2024, 05:51:47 PMI don't think anyone has posted yesterday's 3DownNation opinion piece on this subject. I actually agree with this take. Essentially - there are pretty stiff "costs" to exceeding the salary cap in terms of fines and draft picks. If you're willing to pay these costs, go for it. And I don't think anyone could go too, too hog wild with this. I mean, BC will be over - but likely in the range of low 6-figures, which is sort of peanuts?

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!

Quote from: pdirks67 on August 30, 2024, 05:51:47 PMIf there is an arms race in this arena, I like the Bombers chances of successfully competing with anyone.

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.

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.

But, but, but it's for the good of the league. If Wpg is hosting the cup next year, let them spend like drunken sailors. Why would Ambrosie change it? It's for the good of the league, isn't it? Remember the 100th Grey Cup and the mysterious Ricky Ray trade to Toronto? Look at how that's helped the CFL to flourish in Toronto ... er, well ...

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!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 31, 2024, 03:21:12 AMAlso 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!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 31, 2024, 03:05:39 AMThe 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.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 31, 2024, 03:07:51 AMIt 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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 31, 2024, 04:40:48 AMWe 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.

Quote from: blue_or_die on August 30, 2024, 06:00:57 PMThe thing I'm having trouble with still is that the fourth column to the right (https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=55920.0) 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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 31, 2024, 03:59:12 PMCap+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?

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 31, 2024, 03:07:51 AMIt 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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 31, 2024, 06:49:59 PMI 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.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 31, 2024, 07:29:48 PMCan'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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 31, 2024, 07:38:41 PMI 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...

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 31, 2024, 03:07:51 AMIt 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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 31, 2024, 08:03:46 PMThey 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.

Quote from: TBURGESS on August 31, 2024, 03:59:12 PMCap+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.

Quote from: theaardvark on August 31, 2024, 07:42:23 PMThis 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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 31, 2024, 06:49:59 PMThis 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.

Quote from: Jesse on August 31, 2024, 08:03:46 PMThey 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.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 31, 2024, 11:34:21 PMBecause no one else thought of cheating in this manner until Doman came along?

lol. Sure.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 31, 2024, 11:37:58 PMDolegala 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.

Quote from: Jesse on September 01, 2024, 12:31:11 AMWe 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.

Quote from: Jesse on September 01, 2024, 12:31:11 AMI 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?

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.

Quote from: Jesse on September 01, 2024, 01:25:42 AM2. "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!

Quote from: Jesse on September 01, 2024, 01:25:42 AM3. 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.

Quote from: Jesse on September 01, 2024, 01:25:42 AM1. 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.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 01, 2024, 02:25:34 AMPerhaps, 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.

Quote from: Jesse on September 01, 2024, 02:31:30 AMBut 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.

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

Quote from: theaardvark on September 01, 2024, 03:48:16 AMIf 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?!   ;)  ;)  ;)  :D  :D  :D

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).

Quote from: Jesse on August 31, 2024, 06:49:59 PMI 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.

Quote from: Blue In BC on September 01, 2024, 05:07:06 PMC'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.

Quote from: Jesse on September 01, 2024, 05:19:28 PMDon'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.

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.