Blue Bombers Forum

1) Nathan Rourke, B.C. Lions (N)
The 36-year-old collected a $100,000 offseason roster bonus on January 15. He has a $500,000 base salary with $250,000 guaranteed. Collaros enters 2025 in the final season of his three-year contract signed in October 2022 (https://3downnation.com/2022/10/18/top-up-the-cfl-mop-blue-bombers-qb-zach-collaros-earns-raise-with-three-year-1-8-million-contract-extension/).

From: https://www.inoreader.com/article/3a9c6e77d68f218e-qb1-money-cfls-highest-paid-quarterbacks-for-the-2025-season

Wonder why Kyle didn't renegotiate Zach's contract this off-season and deduct $200k in marketing money to avoid the higher SMS hit.  If the goose can do it, why not the gander?  Seriously hoping the league eliminates this chicanery before it gets carried away and the SMS loses all relevance.

So, Zach has the highest $SMS hit in the CFL.

Not sure what the new cap does to change this, or the "marketing money"... but I think renegotiating the deal removes the $250k guarantee (only for multi year extensions with the current team), although I'm not sure that is an issue either way after cutting him a $100k roster bonus already, pretty sure he's not getting cut before he earns half his deal.

Dru Brown $354,700 hard money, $390,700 Max Money. I think a pretty fair contract for both sides.

They should get rid of the marketing money loop hole, and Rourke isn't worth half of what they're paying him. Ridiculous contract.

Quote from: dd on April 14, 2025, 11:36:37 PMThey should get rid of the marketing money loop hole, and Rourke isn't worth half of what they're paying him. Ridiculous contract.

I kind of agree.  They are investing in a guy who I believe still has to prove/improve himself.

https://www.cfl.ca/players/nathan-rourke/165740/

Rourke 2024 passing stats - 65% completion percentage, less than 200 yds passing per game, 4 TD's vs 9 int's. Lions sold the farm for this guy, paying an arm and a leg for him, for no good reason, he didn't warrant the ridiculous $700 k salary, and even with marketing money are in SMS hell. Well good for them!!!

I thought we were paying Zach a small "marketing money" (MM) too?  Like $20-$50k?  I recall we had a few players earning a token (like $10k) MM amount.

In any event, we better get full on the MM gravy train because teams are clearly cheating the cap by hundreds of thousands using this loophole.  Why is it WFC always plays it "honest" whilst many other teams push every boundary and loophole all the time?

It's like in F1: teams that find the "loophole" the regs didn't anticipate (diffusers, or flexible wings anyone?) are the ones who win the season(s).  The super duper honest plain vanilla teams win nothing.

And if we thought we were earning "good will" with the league by doing this all this time, that's all out the window with Ambrosie leaving.  The new guy won't care we didn't make his life tricky with tons of cheating like BC did to Ambrosie.

Can you imagine what we could do on our DL, FS, NAT OL, or REC corps if we shed $200k of MM from Zach and other superstars?

I liked it better when all the chicanery was hidden, like BLM's wife's "independent gig" in CGY.  At least they had to be more creative than just wink "marketing money"!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 15, 2025, 06:51:02 AMI thought we were paying Zach a small "marketing money" (MM) too?  Like $20-$50k?  I recall we had a few players earning a token (like $10k) MM amount.

In any event, we better get full on the MM gravy train because teams are clearly cheating the cap by hundreds of thousands using this loophole.  Why is it WFC always plays it "honest" whilst many other teams push every boundary and loophole all the time?

It's like in F1: teams that find the "loophole" the regs didn't anticipate (diffusers, or flexible wings anyone?) are the ones who win the season(s).  The super duper honest plain vanilla teams win nothing.

And if we thought we were earning "good will" with the league by doing this all this time, that's all out the window with Ambrosie leaving.  The new guy won't care we didn't make his life tricky with tons of cheating like BC did to Ambrosie.

Can you imagine what we could do on our DL, FS, NAT OL, or REC corps if we shed $200k of MM from Zach and other superstars?

I liked it better when all the chicanery was hidden, like BLM's wife's "independent gig" in CGY.  At least they had to be more creative than just wink "marketing money"!

I'd place better odds on 3down (a bunch of guys in their underwear typing from their basements) not knowing all the details of Zach's contract higher than Zach not making any marketing money.

Take these numbers with a large grain of salt.

Quote from: ModAdmin on April 15, 2025, 01:33:25 AMI kind of agree.  They are investing in a guy who I believe still has to prove/improve himself.

https://www.cfl.ca/players/nathan-rourke/165740/

Meh, Rourke has obvious talent, which you could easily see in his first year as a starter. As in hockey, if the Lions build a good team around him and find the right HC (may b not  Buck?)they could become the next dominant team in the West Division, giving him a chance at winning a few GC's. Zach was in a similar place in his younger days with Hamilton, it took him a long time to get to the top.

Regarding the marketing dollars:

The natural reaction is to compare Rourke's deal with Collaros's and be upset that it's not fair.

The crucial information you're missing is the overall spend. How many marketing dollars do we spend overall and is it similar to other teams? (I believe the answer is yes.) Collaros prefers to stay mostly distraction free during the season and that's okay. Are we, for example, spreading what Rourke is making in BC amongst our other players who find it a better fit to do that kind of work (Willie Jefferson, Nic Demksi, Brady Oliveira, Sergio Castillo, Jake Thomas, etc.) Again, I believe it's absolutely a yes. Having said that, I think it would be in the league's interest to post that information somehow for transparency (although I can see why it's probably fairly tricky).

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 15, 2025, 05:18:44 PMRegarding the marketing dollars:

The natural reaction is to compare Rourke's deal with Collaros and be upset that it's not fair.

The crucial information you're missing is the overall spend. How many marketing dollars do we spend overall and is it similar to other teams? (I believe the answer is yes.) Collaros prefers to stay mostly distraction free during the season and that's okay. Are we, for example, spreading what Rourke is making in BC amongst our other players who find it a better fit to do that kind of work (Wille Jefferson, Nic Demksi, Brady Oliveira, Sergio Castillo, Jake Thomas, etc.) Again, I believe it's absolutely a yes. Having said that, I think it would be in the league's interest to post that information somehow for transparency (although I can see why it's probably fairly tricky).

Chris Kolankowski is doing his part.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 15, 2025, 05:18:44 PMThe crucial information you're missing is the overall spend. How many marketing dollars do we spend overall and is it similar to other teams? (I believe the answer is yes.)

There was a post couple of months back that showed all the marketing $ WFC spent.  It was like $10k-$15k each for a few big players, and maybe something small for Zach.  I don't recall the exact numbers.

However, I do remember it seemed like our entire team MM spend was way less than t what BC was spending just on Rourke.  That's where my feeling about the differential between teams being unreasonable stemmed from.

And keep in mind BC is probably paying many players MM, meaning their total MM spend is probably $300-$400k.  All off the SMS.

Imagine what we could do with an extra magic $300k of SMS space?  Retain Kenny, anyone?  Get Desjar back?

It really feels like the league is looking the other way when it comes to marketing monies. They want teams like BC to become relevant and if it means letting them utilize this avenue so be it. Same with the Elks this year.
It does irk fans of the bb but for the good of the league it may be needed.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 15, 2025, 11:24:54 PMThere was a post couple of months back that showed all the marketing $ WFC spent.  It was like $10k-$15k each for a few big players, and maybe something small for Zach.  I don't recall the exact numbers.

However, I do remember it seemed like our entire team MM spend was way less than t what BC was spending just on Rourke.  That's where my feeling about the differential between teams being unreasonable stemmed from.

And keep in mind BC is probably paying many players MM, meaning their total MM spend is probably $300-$400k.  All off the SMS.

Imagine what we could do with an extra magic $300k of SMS space?  Retain Kenny, anyone?  Get Desjar back?

The problem with your theory is you're just guessing. How much is BC's total marketing dollar spend? What about us? What about the rest of the teams? Based on what actual credible figures?

It's possible you're right. It's possible you're wrong by a little or a lot.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 16, 2025, 03:04:35 AMThe problem with your theory is you're just guessing.

I'm not guessing.  I'm going by what was reported.  I found the forum post with the info:
https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=56199.msg1651421#msg1651421

quote:
Based on their recent signings, it's clear the Blue Bombers didn't do this. Jones has $8,000 of marketing money in his deal, Logan has $7,500, and Vaughters has $5,000, none of which are particularly significant sums. The king of CFL marketing money is still easily B.C. Lions quarterback Nathan Rourke, who will earn $200,000 off the salary cap in 2025.

It really appears WFC spends basically the mandated minimum $110k MM.  It seems clear they are not doing what (some) other teams are doing: using MM as a way to pad salaries off-SMS (i.e. "cheat").

I haven't yet seen what Zach's MM is yet, or can't find it on my latest searches, but I bet it's $50k or even much less.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 16, 2025, 03:04:35 AMHow much is BC's total marketing dollar spend?

Completely irrelevant.  I can argue my point simply by looking at just Rourke's MM, which is $200k (widely reported).  What their total team MM spend is doesn't matter, though you can be assured it's far higher than $200k!

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 16, 2025, 03:04:35 AMWhat about us? What about the rest of the teams? Based on what actual credible figures?

It's possible you're right. It's possible you're wrong by a little or a lot.

It seems you're always hung up on the exact figures, like that really matters.  If WFC is spending league-minimum in total and BC is spending $200k on one player (and we know Betts was also getting a big one so it's probably all their stars getting big MM), then by the simple fact BC is at minimum doubling our spend means we can reasonably argue about the BC cheating, and about what WFC should do about it.

Again, I'm not really sure why people want to defend the teams employing all sorts of dirty tricks and loopholes against the spirit of the league agreements.

Even head-in-the-sand Ambrosie noticed and remarked and threatened BC in not so many words with his "MM must be justified and we're keeping a close eye on it... cough cough BC" press release shortly after Rourke's MM deal was made public.  The situation is real, it's not one of my 3am hot takes fever dreams.

BC figured out that marketing money was not included in the SMS and that they could spend as much marketing money as they wanted. As all teams can do it, so it's not unfair that BC uses it. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 16, 2025, 03:06:48 PMBC figured out that marketing money was not included in the SMS and that they could spend as much marketing money as they wanted. As all teams can do it, so it's not unfair that BC uses it.

One owner, and a new one at that decides he's going to subvert the CFL salary cap by introducing a brand new round of shenanigans, half the other teams follow suite, half ignore it.  This is the kind of nonsense the CFL has to clean up on before it gets out of hand.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 16, 2025, 03:37:06 PMOne owner, and a new one at that decides he's going to subvert the CFL salary cap by introducing a brand new round of shenanigans, half the other teams follow suite, half ignore it.  This is the kind of nonsense the CFL has to clean up on before it gets out of hand.

You call it subverting the salary cap. I call it using the rules as they were written. If we'd done it, everyone would be saying how smart we were. 

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 16, 2025, 04:45:20 AMI'm not guessing.  I'm going by what was reported.  I found the forum post with the info:
https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=56199.msg1651421#msg1651421

quote:
Based on their recent signings, it's clear the Blue Bombers didn't do this. Jones has $8,000 of marketing money in his deal, Logan has $7,500, and Vaughters has $5,000, none of which are particularly significant sums. The king of CFL marketing money is still easily B.C. Lions quarterback Nathan Rourke, who will earn $200,000 off the salary cap in 2025.

It really appears WFC spends basically the mandated minimum $110k MM.  It seems clear they are not doing what (some) other teams are doing: using MM as a way to pad salaries off-SMS (i.e. "cheat").

I haven't yet seen what Zach's MM is yet, or can't find it on my latest searches, but I bet it's $50k or even much less.

Completely irrelevant.  I can argue my point simply by looking at just Rourke's MM, which is $200k (widely reported).  What their total team MM spend is doesn't matter, though you can be assured it's far higher than $200k!

It seems you're always hung up on the exact figures, like that really matters.  If WFC is spending league-minimum in total and BC is spending $200k on one player (and we know Betts was also getting a big one so it's probably all their stars getting big MM), then by the simple fact BC is at minimum doubling our spend means we can reasonably argue about the BC cheating, and about what WFC should do about it.

Again, I'm not really sure why people want to defend the teams employing all sorts of dirty tricks and loopholes against the spirit of the league agreements.

Even head-in-the-sand Ambrosie noticed and remarked and threatened BC in not so many words with his "MM must be justified and we're keeping a close eye on it... cough cough BC" press release shortly after Rourke's MM deal was made public.  The situation is real, it's not one of my 3am hot takes fever dreams.

I'm hung up on exact figures when your point specifically draws conclusions on those figures.

I asked you for sources knowing full well they don't exist.

We don't even have official confirmation on player salaries let alone marketing dollars going to playera on top of salaries.

And even supposing the BC Lions spend more than any other team on this (and I'm not prepared to agree with you just because that's what you think is happening) but assuming you're right, is it really the advantage you're arguing it is? Or does (let's pick random numbers) $300,000 in Vancouver roughly equal $110,000 in Winnipeg both in terms of real marketing opportunities and the cost of doing business/live in those in those markets?

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 16, 2025, 04:23:01 PMYou call it subverting the salary cap. I call it using the rules as they were written. If we'd done it, everyone would be saying how smart we were.

I don't disagree, however I'm sure some of us would feel slightly guilty if we were going to the CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is.

That's why every time I talk about BC's massive cheating I say that we should (now) do it too.  If that's the "new normal" and the league isn't going to reign it in (Ambrosie's soft "you better not!" notwithstanding), then the smart move is to copy them and gain the "free SMS" to go hog wild on top players.

After all, BC's owner may be the richest private owner, but we are by far the richest club.  If he's allowed to buy a cheatin' team, then so are we.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 16, 2025, 06:51:57 PMI'm hung up on exact figures when your point specifically draws conclusions on those figures.

I asked you for sources knowing full well they don't exist.

I gave you the only sources we have for now: 3dn.  I guess you can say they just pulled those numbers completely out of their butts, but one would hope that they wouldn't report accurate-sounding numbers (i.e. not even rounded to the nearest 10k) without having someone somewhere report it to them!

Besides, 3dn is not a "Blue Goggles" bunch of guys, so why would they make stuff up that makes BC sound bad and WPG sound like saints?

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 16, 2025, 06:51:57 PMAnd even supposing the BC Lions spend more than any other team on this (and I'm not prepared to agree with you just because that's what you think is happening) but assuming you're right, is it really the advantage you're arguing it is?

All else being equal, it'll be hard to find anyone who doesn't think having $300k extra to spend on players wouldn't be an advantage.

For instance, that $300k would more than pay for bringing back Desjar, Yoshi, and Tyrell Ford.  Instead we'll be starting a new starter OG, Lofton (actually not bad!), and probably a sophomore non-outstanding DB.

Yes, the extra $300k didn't help BC last season, but that's clearly going to be the exception, not the rule.  How bad would they have been starting QB3 and no Betts for the last third??

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 16, 2025, 06:51:57 PMOr does (let's pick random numbers) $300,000 in Vancouver roughly equal $110,000 in Winnipeg both in terms of real marketing opportunities and the cost of doing business/live in those in those markets?

Straw man.  That has nothing to do with the argument up to this point.  And if it did, the proper solution for that is for the CFL to create a "local cost of living" adjustment to the SMS, not for BC to just cheat using a loophole.

Again: you try so hard to make up every excuse you can for BC.  It's very strange, like you're on the orange side instead of blue & gold.  I really don't understand it.

As for "real marketing opportunities": I bet Zach spends as much time amongst the plebes or doing spots on TV or whatever as Rourke does.

It would be more legit to send a camera with Brady on every dog-saving trip north, give him $25k every trip, air the vids on the web site, and call the extra $250k he can net doing that "marketing".  Then we can pay him $0 salary on-SMS and have Brady for free.  Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 17, 2025, 09:02:34 AMI don't disagree, however I'm sure some of us would feel slightly guilty if we were going to the CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is.

That's why every time I talk about BC's massive cheating I say that we should (now) do it too.  If that's the "new normal" and the league isn't going to reign it in (Ambrosie's soft "you better not!" notwithstanding), then the smart move is to copy them and gain the "free SMS" to go hog wild on top players.

After all, BC's owner may be the richest private owner, but we are by far the richest club.  If he's allowed to buy a cheatin' team, then so are we.

It's not cheating. It's in the rules. I am kinda surprised that they didn't change the rule this off season though.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 17, 2025, 02:30:29 PMIt's not cheating. It's in the rules. I am kinda surprised that they didn't change the rule this off season though.

They should have, it's better for the league overall if none of the teams take advantage of convenient loopholes.  They hand out the GC to the best football team, not for the cleverest use of chicanery. Walters is still playing within the spirit of the rules anticipating a correction, I would be equally upset if he was jumping into the slop up to his knees.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 17, 2025, 02:30:29 PMIt's not cheating. It's in the rules. I am kinda surprised that they didn't change the rule this off season though.

That's just it. the league is very aware of the issue but hasn't responded to it likely :
a) they are ok with teams overspending in order to draw fans
or
b) there is an issue with the cflpa agreement whereby they can't without the PA agreeing to it, in which case the PA would want some kind of tradeoff for it. (as right now it benefits them to have teams spend more)

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 17, 2025, 04:58:59 PMThey should have, it's better for the league overall if none of the teams take advantage of convenient loopholes.

It could have all been solved by 'Brosie just saying the $110 is both a minimum and a maximum.  Period.  Problem solved.

I think what the CFLPA cared about most is that there was some known minimum amount to spread around as gravy to the players.  I don't think anyone ever thought of the concept of a maximum, until now.  Remember, almost every team cries "poor" every single season.

I bet Doman, probably a really smart guy, sat down with all the contracts after buying his shiny new team and pored through it looking for loopholes and advantages.  It's smart business sense.  The smile on his face when he noticed this one must have been huge...

The "maximum" is how much a player can actually earn through marketing.

Teams were warned that the the players have to earn the extra money with actually appearances, etc.

You can't have Rourke show up at a signing and say "Well, there's $50k of his marketing money earned."

Some teams are taking that directive to heart, BC isn't...

BC is using the contract as it was written. If the CFL wanted there to be a maximum, they would have put a maximum in during the offseason. 

We made a ton of money this year, so we could have used the marketing money too if we wanted to. 

Quote from: theaardvark on April 18, 2025, 03:59:01 AMTeams were warned that the the players have to earn the extra money with actually appearances, etc.

You can't have Rourke show up at a signing and say "Well, there's $50k of his marketing money earned."

Except I don't think it defines what a player can earn per appearance or per hour.  I bet it doesn't define squat.

So ya, BC can say Rourke is worth $200k an appearance, have him show up to sign autographs in their store for an hour, and voila: he's earned his MM.

And BC could even argue it's legit: some ex-Presidents (of the USA) charge $300-$600k per speaking engagement.  Why not a ton for Rourke?

And while Ambrosie said "I'm keeping an eye on you", who's to say the new guy feels the same way?  All this stuff needs to be clarified and limited at the earliest possible convenience.

Oh ya, and right now they should say that all MM must be public knowledge / published.  That way we don't have to guess what teams are "cheating".

Yes we covered this marketing money conversation in 2024. The league just didn't resolve the problems created.

It seems so simple a solution. Just make any marketing money above $200K by counted against the SMS. In that way a team can spend as much above the minimum as they choose, but that takes away any possible abuse to work around the actual SMS.

A $200K limit outside of the set SMS is reasonable. It's an SMS inside the SMS that can be used for non playing activities as intended for appearances / promotion.

The simple solution is to say that the minimum is X and the maximum is Y all outside the SMS. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 19, 2025, 02:19:39 PMThe simple solution is to say that the minimum is X and the maximum is Y all outside the SMS.

It's not as simple as that unfortunately.

If you look at the spirit of the rule, it's so players are paid for off field appearances. My problem isn't so much that the number isn't capped, but that that it's a part of the contract and doesn't specific numbers attached to it.

There should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

Quote from: Jesse on April 19, 2025, 04:13:23 PMIt's not as simple as that unfortunately.

If you look at the spirit of the rule, it's so players are paid for off field appearances. My problem isn't so much that the number isn't capped, but that that it's a part of the contract and doesn't specific numbers attached to it.

There should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

There has to be a cap otherwise cash rich teams will abuse the policy. Obviously clarification of how any given money spent is calculated to a perceived value. When a player gets $10K or less, it's not as great a concern. When a player like Rourke gets $200K there are questions about the world reality.

Quote from: Jesse on April 19, 2025, 04:13:23 PMIt's not as simple as that unfortunately.

If you look at the spirit of the rule, it's so players are paid for off field appearances. My problem isn't so much that the number isn't capped, but that that it's a part of the contract and doesn't specific numbers attached to it.

There should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

Off field duties have always been included in the player's salary. This is just a separate bucket of money that teams can pay players outside the SMS that they chose to call marketing.

Your idea of paying by the hour is the furthest thing from simple, but it would be actual marketing money.

The simplest thing would be to eliminate the marketing money completely, but the players don't want that & teams that want to pay over the SMS limit without penalty don't want it either.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 19, 2025, 05:43:27 PMOff field duties have always been included in the player's salary. This is just a separate bucket of money that teams can pay players outside the SMS that they chose to call marketing.

Your idea of paying by the hour is the furthest thing from simple, but it would be actual marketing money.

The simplest thing would be to eliminate the marketing money completely, but the players don't want that & teams that want to pay over the SMS limit without penalty don't want it either.

I don't know why it would have to be complicated.

And it doesn't need to be done away with. It was a negotiated point by both the league and the PA. Revenue's need to be increasing by quite a bit and the players certainly deserve their share.

And if there is a player who is putting in the community hours and making more appearances and being a part of all advertising and has a lot of hours connected to team promotions, they're entitled to more of a share than others. If Doman is putting a lot of money into advertising and Rourke needs to make multiple radio appearances, pose for numerous photoshoots, etc, shouldn't he be compensated for that time? Whereas cheapo owners in Calgary are doing the bare minimum in promotions so star players simply aren't asked to spend much extra time doing anything - do they need much marketing money spent?

We can easily say teams are simply circumventing the cap. But there are plausible explanations for why some players and some teams are spending more than other too.

Quote from: Jesse on April 19, 2025, 07:40:34 PMI don't know why it would have to be complicated.

And it doesn't need to be done away with. It was a negotiated point by both the league and the PA. Revenue's need to be increasing by quite a bit and the players certainly deserve their share.

And if there is a player who is putting in the community hours and making more appearances and being a part of all advertising and has a lot of hours connected to team promotions, they're entitled to more of a share than others. If Doman is putting a lot of money into advertising and Rourke needs to make multiple radio appearances, pose for numerous photoshoots, etc, shouldn't he be compensated for that time? Whereas cheapo owners in Calgary are doing the bare minimum in promotions so star players simply aren't asked to spend much extra time doing anything - do they need much marketing money spent?

We can easily say teams are simply circumventing the cap. But there are plausible explanations for why some players and some teams are spending more than other too.

Paying players for using their image in team promotions could also be part of this marketing budget, much like they do now in US college football.

Quote from: Blue In BC on April 19, 2025, 01:56:53 PMA $200K limit outside of the set SMS is reasonable. It's an SMS inside the SMS that can be used for non playing activities as intended for appearances / promotion.

Why 200k?  Why just make up more numbers?  Just say MM is $110k, min and max.  Period.

You want to pay a player more for off-field appearances?  Great, it's part of their normal on-SMS salary.  What they label that time the player is giving is an internal matter.  We don't care.  Just as long as it's all on the (SMS) books.

Quote from: Jesse on April 19, 2025, 04:13:23 PMThere should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

Exactly.  It can be like "scale" in the movie industry.  If a player spends an hour signing autographs, they get $X.

Maybe adjusted for a player's "worth" (percentage of salary?).  Clearly Zach showing up to the Bomber store for autographs is "worth more" than Benson (no dis to Benson!).

There's so many easy things they can do, and I bet even some of them are doable without redoing the contract.  Just issue "clarifications".  Then revamp it all on next contract negotiation.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 21, 2025, 12:45:38 AMWhy 200k?  Why just make up more numbers?  Just say MM is $110k, min and max.  Period.

You want to pay a player more for off-field appearances?  Great, it's part of their normal on-SMS salary.  What they label that time the player is giving is an internal matter.  We don't care.  Just as long as it's all on the (SMS) books.

I don't even think there does need to be a cap. It just needs to be tied to specific things and paid out after the season (or end of calendar year). Not pre-paid as part of their contract with nothing directly tied to it.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 19, 2025, 05:43:27 PMOff field duties have always been included in the player's salary. This is just a separate bucket of money that teams can pay players outside the SMS that they chose to call marketing.

This.  Did players never show up in public or promote the team before the MM started?  When did MM even start?  The last CBA?  So a few years ago?

Yes, so nearly forever in CFL history the players showed up for appearances all time and they got paid for it as part of their normal on-SMS salary.  It was expected (and probably in their team contract).  And that worked.

I think what happened here is MM was introduced as a way for rich teams to pay players more without simply raising the SMS league-wide.  Remember, if this came in the last CBA, that was a time when teams were screaming "poor"!

That said, I'm pretty sure the spirit of the rule was teams were supposed to spend $110k more, not $200, $300, $400 like BC.

I'm pretty sure if the league had upped the SMS $400k that year (instead of this year) then the impetus to introduce the concept of off-SMS MM would have been moot.  And then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Once again the CFL takes something that should be dead simple (just up the SMS) and turns it into a convoluted, complicated, loophole-ridden, disaster of a mess.

Quote from: Jesse on April 21, 2025, 12:57:18 AMI don't even think there does need to be a cap. It just needs to be tied to specific things and paid out after the season (or end of calendar year). Not pre-paid as part of their contract with nothing directly tied to it.

But you must agree that the rate for work must be standardized in some way?  Zach can't get $10k for one autograph session whilst Rourke gets $50k.  Otherwise the teams are just winking and cheating again.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 21, 2025, 01:02:09 AMBut you must agree that the rate for work must be standardized in some way?  Zach can't get $10k for one autograph session whilst Rourke gets $50k.  Otherwise the teams are just winking and cheating again.

...of course players should be paid different rates. It's true on the field and it's true off the field.

Rourke may absolutely be worth more than Collaros. What is being asked? How much of a time commitment is it? What is the size of the market? How big is their following?

Let's rephrase -- how on earth would it make any sense to pay Zach Collaros the same marketing fee, as say, Tua Eli? I'm not trying to disrespect Eli, but there is a significantly different level of platform and audience between the two.

Let's rephrase again, does a company pay all content creators on social media the exact same amount for a campaign tactic -- think unboxing video or some such thing? I'll answer for you: no.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 21, 2025, 01:02:09 AMBut you must agree that the rate for work must be standardized in some way?  Zach can't get $10k for one autograph session whilst Rourke gets $50k.  Otherwise the teams are just winking and cheating again.

Well, I guess this is why they just let teams figure it out.

At the end of the day, this is the CFL. No one is writing blank checks. And whether they pay Rourke 500k or 1.5M, it won't make him play any different.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 17, 2025, 09:15:35 AMStraw man.  That has nothing to do with the argument up to this point.  And if it did, the proper solution for that is for the CFL to create a "local cost of living" adjustment to the SMS, not for BC to just cheat using a loophole.

Again: you try so hard to make up every excuse you can for BC.  It's very strange, like you're on the orange side instead of blue & gold.  I really don't understand it.

It's not a strawman argument, you just don't understand what I'm saying.

Put it very simply: do you think it costs more to market in Winnipeg or Vancouver?

If the intention of the money really is marketing the league to more fans, and you at least have the basic common sense and humility to concede to costs more for everything in Vancouver compared to Winnipeg, then who really is adverse to a bit of a varience?

Not the players. They want league viewership and revenue to grow so the cap goes up. Not the owners, they want more profitable franchises. To drop the cry baby act for a minute, if we cap marketing dollars at "Winnipeg" rates, why should BC have to make do with far less actual marketing purchasing power than Winnipeg or Regina/Saskatoon? And how is that good for the game?

The only real concern is whether or not it causes a competitive advantage (or disadvantage) and the fact is (unless you want to pretend this is somehow unfair as well), is no, it hasn't so far (even if we accept your unproven theory that the Lions are blowing the doors off the rest of the league). The proof? BC historically overspent last year on cap and possibly led in marketing dollars and managed to finish third and lose in the west semi final. What. An. Advantage.

At least think through your outrage first, eh?

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 21, 2025, 03:37:34 AMLet's rephrase -- how on earth would it make any sense to pay Zach Collaros the same marketing fee, as say, Tua Eli? I'm not trying to disrespect Eli, but there is a significantly different level of platform and audience between the two.

I addressed this already in an earlier comment when I mentioned Benson.

Yes, you should have a scale based on player salary, position or "star power": or all 3.

The example then is should Rourke earn 5X in MM what Zach earns per appearance?  To me that leaves the door wide open to "cheating"... and similar conversations next year.

Quote from: Jesse on April 21, 2025, 03:44:43 AMWell, I guess this is why they just let teams figure it out.

Worked great for all involved... until it didn't.  Hence the discussion.  At this point I'm starting to wish Doman never bought the Lions.  In just 1 season he's opened up 2 massive cans of worms, both of which required slapdowns by Ambrosie & the CFL.

I bet the other owners/prezs aren't too pleased about any of this.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 21, 2025, 03:46:48 AMIt's not a strawman argument, you just don't understand what I'm saying.

Put it very simply: do you think it costs more to market in Winnipeg or Vancouver?

I also addressed that with a possible cost-of-living adjustment proposal.

I'm convinced you seem unable to see the forest for the trees, and you have a real hard time with the idea of proportionality and orders of magnitude.  And I mean no disrespect.  I'm a detail-oriented person too.

No one will say you can directly compare costs in Vancouver to Winnipeg.  However, the adjustment required is maybe 25-50%, not 4X, 6X, 10X.  You seem focused on "must account for some COL adjustment" equals "can't have a league-wide standard scale".  It's not either-or, it's both-and.  You are using the need for the former to justify the (potential) latter.

(Some companies and govs will pay an employee more if they live/work in core BC or TOR.  However, as a portion of their total salary it will be a few tens of percent at most.  So if the CFL did this too, in a tightly controlled and well-documented manner, no problem.)

Let's say Zach is getting $40k MM, which isn't hard to fathom if we are spending the min $110k.  This is a wild guess as I've seen no reports, but if some LB is getting $8, it seems reasonable.

That would mean Rourke is getting 5X Zach, for possibly similar "normal" QB marketing.  Even if my Zach guess is wrong, Rourke would still be 4X or 3X more.  Yes, BC costs more and maybe even is "worth more for media appearances as you said, but in no universe does a company pay an employee 5X COL bonus for BC over WPG.  Again, it's usually 20-50%, if that.  In any event it remains untenable to justify $200k for MM.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 21, 2025, 03:46:48 AMwhy should BC have to make do with far less actual marketing purchasing power than Winnipeg

I'm not sure what you think MM is used for, but I'm thinking it's the normal stuff QBs have been doing forever: like going to autograph sessions, making appearances on local TV or radio, going out to schools or kids events to promote the team/league, etc.  The cost and impact of such things are basically the same in all cities.

You make it sound like Rourke's MM bonus should pay for the cost of a billboard in downtown Vancouver vs Portage & Main... as that's the only type of area where costs would be different.  And such costs should not be paid out of MM.  Rourke should get paid for his time to pose for a billboard picture, not for the cost of renting the billboard just because his face is on it.

Lastly, I would argue that if anything, it's the opposite and that Zach's time here is worth more than Rourke's in BC because every Zach appearance helps towards the 32k crowd @PAS we often have, whereas Rourke's can only influence their ~20k (on a good day) crowd.  Zach's time helps bring in 60% more butts, and thus shouldn't Zach actually earn more per MM appearance than Rourke??

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 21, 2025, 08:46:06 AMI also addressed that with a possible cost-of-living adjustment proposal.

I'm convinced you seem unable to see the forest for the trees, and you have a real hard time with the idea of proportionality and orders of magnitude.  And I mean no disrespect.  I'm a detail-oriented person too.

You're a "detail-oriented" person with almost none of the details. You've taken what very limited information is known, filled in an extraordinary number of blanks that fit the way you want to feel and then gone on to draw conclusions and argue "passionately."

You say things like, "I bet the other owners aren't too pleased [post 45] " and "It leaves things wide open to 'cheating [post 44]'" and it's a "CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is" [post 20] and you've drawn these conclusions without a shred of real evidence that other owners are upset on this issue, that BC is miles ahead of marketing spend than every other team, or that it's creating an on-field advantage. (The actual results of the BC Lions over the last two years be damned.) And finally, if it's anything close to as serious or troubling as you'd have us believe, why did we have a near record increase in SMS as a result of overall league profits this off-season?

What's clear is that the league can fix any loopholes in the marketing money without much difficulty.

Each team has the same amount of 'marketing' money (unlimited) & they decide how to distribute it. The CFL doesn't want to get into how much marketing money each player is worth or how many hours they put in or what constitutes marketing in the first place. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 21, 2025, 03:08:13 PMEach team has the same amount of 'marketing' money (unlimited) & they decide how to distribute it. The CFL doesn't want to get into how much marketing money each player is worth or how many hours they put in or what constitutes marketing in the first place.

That's not the point. The point is if they set an amount ( maximum ) that then becomes charged to the SMS. The can use $1M if they want but in that format $800K would be charged against the SMS.

Deciding who is worth how much of MM is less relevant of a question.

Quote from: Blue In BC on April 21, 2025, 04:16:34 PMThat's not the point. The point is if they set an amount ( maximum ) that then becomes charged to the SMS. The can use $1M if they want but in that format $800K would be charged against the SMS.

Deciding who is worth how much of MM is less relevant of a question.

The whole point of the marketing money is that it's not charged to the SMS. 

If the CFL set a maximum, all the marketing money would still be outside the SMS. If teams went over the maximum, the CFL would need to put in clauses as to what happens like they do for the SMS. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 21, 2025, 04:37:30 PMThe whole point of the marketing money is that it's not charged to the SMS.

If the CFL set a maximum, all the marketing money would still be outside the SMS. If teams went over the maximum, the CFL would need to put in clauses as to what happens like they do for the SMS.

That's not what I said. Anything below $200K would not be charged to the SMS. Anything above $200K would be charged to SMS. Marketing money is and should just be a limited separate SMS. If the league wants to set a higher max level that is fine to a certain limit.

I didn't say they couldn't spend more MM but it would have those parameters. That's the same as knowing any team can spend more than the usual SMS but is subject to fines above certain levels. The normal SMS is a little harder to control due to injuries and roster movements week to week.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that a team like the Bombers could just pay Collaros $600K in marketing money to circumvent the normal SMS as an extreme example.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 21, 2025, 01:03:30 PMYou're a "detail-oriented" person with almost none of the details. You've taken what very limited information is known, filled in an extraordinary number of blanks that fit the way you want to feel and then gone on to draw conclusions and argue "passionately."

You say things like, "I bet the other owners aren't too pleased [post 45] " and "It leaves things wide open to 'cheating [post 44]'" and it's a "CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is" [post 20] and you've drawn these conclusions without a shred of real evidence that other owners are upset on this issue, that BC is miles ahead of marketing spend than every other team, or that it's creating an on-field advantage. (The actual results of the BC Lions over the last two years be damned.) And finally, if it's anything close to as serious or troubling as you'd have us believe, why did we have a near record increase in SMS as a result of overall league profits this off-season?

I think Doman pulled the wool over your eyes, unless Rourke is putting in 5x the amount of time marketing than Zach, he doesn't deserve to be paid 5x more for the same activity, no matter the cost difference between advertising in VCR and WPG. This is just theoretical as Zach does little marketing work, probably better to use Brady as an example.

In reality I think Doman negotiated Rourke's salary through his agent, they settled on a number that did not work well within the SMS, so he threw the contract into Rigmaiden's lap and told him to massage the numbers and make it work out the best he could. Unless the CFL audits marketing money spent vs. activity rendered, which is unlikely, they have no mechanism to show Rourke will not participate in $200k worth of marketing activities per season.  Plus, the CFL won't be quick to throw cold water on boisterous activities even if it looks suspiciously like cheating the salary cap, having Rourke back in the league in a major center is a positive for the league.

Quote from: Blue In BC on April 21, 2025, 04:51:58 PMThat's not what I said. Anything below $200K would not be charged to the SMS. Anything above $200K would be charged to SMS. Marketing money is and should just be a limited separate SMS. If the league wants to set a higher max level that is fine to a certain limit.

I didn't say they couldn't spend more MM but it would have those parameters. That's the same as knowing any team can spend more than the usual SMS but is subject to fines above certain levels. The normal SMS is a little harder to control due to injuries and roster movements week to week.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that a team like the Bombers could just pay Collaros $600K in marketing money to circumvent the normal SMS as an extreme example.

What's the point? Anything other than MM is already charged to the SMS. 

MM is called marketing. It's actually just a separate, outside the SMS, pot of money to pay players with. 

As written, yes, you could pay Collaros $600K of MM outside the SMS. 

If you want to 'fix' the problem, put a hard cap on MM that teams can't pay more than. All contracts are verified by the league, so that's pretty easy to enforce. That fixes the need to say anything about going over the MM cap because they wouldn't be able to go over it. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 21, 2025, 05:56:34 PMWhat's the point? Anything other than MM is already charged to the SMS.

MM is called marketing. It's actually just a separate, outside the SMS, pot of money to pay players with.

As written, yes, you could pay Collaros $600K of MM outside the SMS.

If you want to 'fix' the problem, put a hard cap on MM that teams can't pay more than. All contracts are verified by the league, so that's pretty easy to enforce. That fixes the need to say anything about going over the MM cap because they wouldn't be able to go over it.

I was pretty clear about the point and a solution to the existing issue. Your solution to put a hard cap on MM would work just as well.

As you said contracts are verified and determinations are made about whether any team exceeds the SMS. It's not that difficult to determine a sub set of marketing money for example. They do have to determine that the minimum is spent, so why not the maximum.

Either way, the league should deal with the loop hole. They haven't even been able to determine what to do with the new 2025 SMS due to revenue sharing. That should have been determined when the new agreement was reached.

Go figure!!

My Granddaughter did a little home work. This is where Bombers player rant on the pay scale.

QB: Collars. (3) $600K, $100 bonus. Doesn't look like any marketing money. 

DB: Kramdi. (7) $145K
    Nichols (12) $136K
    Holm:  (14) $135K, $40K bonus, $5K marketing.

RB: BO20.  (1) $240K, $65K bonus, $50K marketing
    Logan. (6) $107K, $10K bonus, $7500K marketing

DL: Jefferson: (6) $200K, $100K bonus.
    Vaughters: (13) $160k, $45K bonus.

RW: Denski. (4)  $225K, $10K marketing.
    Schoen. (16) $160K, $75K bonus.

OL: Bryant. (14) $170K, $75K bonus.

LB: J. Jones (12) $120K, $15K bonus, $8K marketing.
    T. Jones (13) $117K, $15K bonus, $5K marketing.

K:  Castillo. (6) $115K, $30K bonus

Looks like anyone on a existing contract did not get any marketing money.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 21, 2025, 05:26:44 PMI think Doman pulled the wool over your eyes, unless Rourke is putting in 5x the amount of time marketing than Zach, he doesn't deserve to be paid 5x more for the same activity, no matter the cost difference between advertising in VCR and WPG. This is just theoretical as Zach does little marketing work, probably better to use Brady as an example.

In reality I think Doman negotiated Rourke's salary through his agent, they settled on a number that did not work well within the SMS, so he threw the contract into Rigmaiden's lap and told him to massage the numbers and make it work out the best he could. Unless the CFL audits marketing money spent vs. activity rendered, which is unlikely, they have no mechanism to show Rourke will not participate in $200k worth of marketing activities per season.  Plus, the CFL won't be quick to throw cold water on boisterous activities even if it looks suspiciously like cheating the salary cap, having Rourke back in the league in a major center is a positive for the league.

This post is the perfect example of jumping to conclusions and following others down the rabbit hole.

The CFL has stated that they do audit every marketing dollar every year.
The CFL has stated that after their internal audit, it's also independently audited.
The CFL has stated that any marketing dollars that get paid and then aren't earned are subject to the SMS in that year.

Source: State of the League address 2024.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 21, 2025, 08:20:18 AMWorked great for all involved... until it didn't.  Hence the discussion.  At this point I'm starting to wish Doman never bought the Lions.  In just 1 season he's opened up 2 massive cans of worms, both of which required slapdowns by Ambrosie & the CFL.

I bet the other owners/prezs aren't too pleased about any of this.

I opened up a can of worms the other day, and they just sat there.  No idea what the fuss or concern is about opening a can of worms. ;)

"Marketing money" was put in place at the discretuion of the owners/GMs, with the proviso it needed to be used appropriately, and that the league would step in if it was not.

We made $7mil last year. If any team was to use marketing money, it would be us.  Yet we barely made the floor.

%5k, $10k even $20k spread over a year is reasonable for any rostered player, if they do regular appearances, either signings, hospital visits, remote community trips, etc.  Those are very easily justified.  .

How do you "earn" $200k in appearance money?  Especially after you stunk so bad that you actually cost your team the cup appearance at home?  This is an obvious misuse of the funding to circumvent the $SMS.  And even using this cheat code, they still went over more than any team has in history.

There should be a "reasonable expenditures" list made for the GMs that list, for instance:

Signing session (game week): 1% of contract
Signing session (non game week): 1.5% of contract
Signing session (remote community): 2% of contract
Personal appearance: 1.5% of contract.
etc

That way, Rourke or Collaros get $5kish for a signing, Eli gets $1k

At the end of the year, if you paid Rourke $200k in marketing money, and he didn't earn it as per the chart, then you get a warning.  2nd time, you get your marketing money capped.

Some GM's are going to do this already because they are frugal and prudent.

Some have no budget or care.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 21, 2025, 07:05:35 PMDo you actually believe the Lions are being honest about this?  What do you suppose the league will discover when they audit their marketing spending in 2025? So all is above board and on the level as far as your concerned?

Well gee, I'm not a forensic accountant but I think it's more likely an accomplished businessman isn't cooking the books with his CPAs (who livelihoods depend on being truthful) to try win the freaking Grey Cup. Do you actually believe that it's more likely he would? Maybe don't answer that.

I'm giving you facts where they exist and pointing to the actual results of the 2024 season as proof points. That's enough for me and probably most others who are trying to be reasonable and fair. I concede that there are probably better ways to do this from the exceptionally-passionate-fan perspective that would be more transparent. But anyone trying to sell you that it's "CFL-destroying" can only do so by taking what the reality is today and bending it into some absurd end state of which we're not close to nor likely to ever arrive at.

For information purposes:

The BC Lions have a list of participants in their school programs from the past 3 months. For each grouping of events listed as 'road trip' there was usually a 'Pub Night' in one of those communities.

https://www.bclions.com/schoolprograms/ (https://www.bclions.com/schoolprograms/)

This list does not include other community or cultural events. For example, the BC Lions have conducted a few football camps for kids this off season.

Here are the participants and the number of events attended:

Dylan St.Pierre (89)
Patrice Rene (57)
Sean Whyte (55)
Boseko Lokombo (29) - Retired
Andrew Peirson (27)
Justin McInnis (14)
Manny Rugamba (13) - now with Elks
Nathan Rourke (11)
Sean Milllington (1) - past player

Nathan Rourke is at the bottom of this list & I would have expected him to be higher. He has made a number of radio/podcast appearances and he did make a prominent appearance at the Vancouver Warriors lacrosse game last week.

Quote from: Stats Junkie on April 21, 2025, 10:49:25 PMFor information purposes:

The BC Lions have a list of participants in their school programs from the past 3 months. For each grouping of events listed as 'road trip' there was usually a 'Pub Night' in one of those communities.

https://www.bclions.com/schoolprograms/ (https://www.bclions.com/schoolprograms/)

This list does not include other community or cultural events. For example, the BC Lions have conducted a few football camps for kids this off season.

Here are the participants and the number of events attended:

Dylan St.Pierre (89)
Patrice Rene (57)
Sean Whyte (55)
Boseko Lokombo (29) - Retired
Andrew Peirson (27)
Justin McInnis (14)
Manny Rugamba (13) - now with Elks
Nathan Rourke (11)
Sean Milllington (1) - past player

Nathan Rourke is at the bottom of this list & I would have expected him to be higher. He has made a number of radio/podcast appearances and he did make a prominent appearance at the Vancouver Warriors lacrosse game last week.

Rourke may not even reside in Vancouver during the off-season, forcing him to cram his marketing workload into the season. He's going to be a busy boy.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 22, 2025, 04:12:41 PMRourke may not even reside in Vancouver during the off-season, forcing him to cram his marketing workload into the season. He's going to be a busy boy.

A lot of the marketing is done in season around town. There are always some players that are " local " that do marketing during the off season. I'm not sure if Rourke will be living in Vancouver year round, but his image and TV work can be used / done.

Quote from: Stats Junkie on April 21, 2025, 10:49:25 PMFor information purposes:

The BC Lions have a list of participants in their school programs from the past 3 months. For each grouping of events listed as 'road trip' there was usually a 'Pub Night' in one of those communities.

https://www.bclions.com/schoolprograms/ (https://www.bclions.com/schoolprograms/)

This list does not include other community or cultural events. For example, the BC Lions have conducted a few football camps for kids this off season.

Here are the participants and the number of events attended:

Dylan St.Pierre (89)
Patrice Rene (57)
Sean Whyte (55)
Boseko Lokombo (29) - Retired
Andrew Peirson (27)
Justin McInnis (14)
Manny Rugamba (13) - now with Elks
Nathan Rourke (11)
Sean Milllington (1) - past player

Nathan Rourke is at the bottom of this list & I would have expected him to be higher. He has made a number of radio/podcast appearances and he did make a prominent appearance at the Vancouver Warriors lacrosse game last week.

I'd suggest to you that school appearances probably aren't the best use of Rourke's marketing dollars or time. It's important work - and good work - but there's a reason Skip the Dishes puts Jon Hamm in a commercial and doesn't send him to 45 restaurants instead.

Folks are fixated on the term marketing & are trying to tie the term to the amount of actual marketing players do. That's not what this is. It's simply an additional amount teams can pay players outside the SMS. It might as well be called the 'Outside The SMS Pot Of Dough'.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 22, 2025, 05:15:14 PMFolks are fixated on the term marketing & are trying to tie the term to the amount of actual marketing players do. That's not what this is. It's simply an additional amount teams can pay players outside the SMS. It might as well be called the 'Outside The SMS Pot Of Dough'.

Absurd narrow view. Players do all sorts of public appearances. Their images might be used in advertising. So yes, the marketing money is exactly that.

Quote from: Blue In BC on April 22, 2025, 06:52:11 PMAbsurd narrow view. Players do all sorts of public appearances. Their images might be used in advertising. So yes, the marketing money is exactly that.

It's just called marketing money. Nothing ties it to actual marketing no matter how much you want to do that. 

Players who get marketing money and players who don't get marketing money both do public appearances and their images might be used in advertising. So no, the so-called marketing money isn't tied to either of your examples. You've just bought into the marketing of the word marketing.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 22, 2025, 06:56:29 PMIt's just called marketing money. Nothing ties it to actual marketing no matter how much you want to do that.

Players who get marketing money and players who don't get marketing money both do public appearances and their images might be used in advertising. So no, the so-called marketing money isn't tied to either of your examples. You've just bought into the marketing of the word marketing.

Let's see if even one other poster agrees with you.

Quote from: Blue In BC on April 22, 2025, 08:03:07 PMLet's see if even one other poster agrees with you.

If they want to be wrong too, that's OK with me. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 22, 2025, 06:56:29 PMIt's just called marketing money. Nothing ties it to actual marketing no matter how much you want to do that.

Players who get marketing money and players who don't get marketing money both do public appearances and their images might be used in advertising. So no, the so-called marketing money isn't tied to either of your examples. You've just bought into the marketing of the word marketing.

The "Pot of outside the $SMS" money known as "Marketing money" was put in pace for exactly that purpose, to allow teams to reward players that actively promote the team and the league.

The fact that BC turned it into your "slush fund" does not change what it is, and what it is intended for.

Will BC face any questions regarding their use of the funds?  We will see what the new Commish does about it.

I prefer the way Walters has used it within the actual parameters.  We will NOT face any repercussions for its use.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 22, 2025, 08:39:27 PMIf they want to be wrong too, that's OK with me.

Occom's razor. You're the one with your head in the sand. This was negotiated by the CFLPA for exactly that reason.

Quote from: Blue In BC on April 22, 2025, 09:33:20 PMOccom's razor. You're the one with your head in the sand. This was negotiated by the CFLPA for exactly that reason.

Occam's Razor doesn't fit the data. If it did, there would be some rules around what is and what isn't marketing. There would be minimum and maximum amounts. Actual marketing would have to take place to earn the marketing money. All players would get marketing money for specific things, not just some players getting an amount with no strings attached. None of that exists. The only thing marketing about it is the name. 

The CFLPA actually negotiated a minimum pot of money outside the SMS, given out at the whim of the teams, to whichever players they wanted to, with no maximum and no strings attached. The CFL called that marketing money. You and others look at the name, decide what it should and shouldn't be mean and then say that's what it obviously is.

Both of your earlier examples were what actual marketing money might look like, but they aren't what's in the freakin contract, and you know that. Maybe some day there will be real marketing clauses, but until then, you're simply wrong. 

Quote from: theaardvark on April 22, 2025, 09:27:02 PMThe "Pot of outside the $SMS" money known as "Marketing money" was put in pace for exactly that purpose, to allow teams to reward players that actively promote the team and the league.

The fact that BC turned it into your "slush fund" does not change what it is, and what it is intended for.

Will BC face any questions regarding their use of the funds?  We will see what the new Commish does about it.

I prefer the way Walters has used it within the actual parameters.  We will NOT face any repercussions for its use.

You're stating the purpose/intent of the marketing money based solely on the name. 

The fact the BC used it the way they did, proves that it's not actually marketing money. The fact that they redid Rourke's contract in the offseason, and it still has $200K of marketing money means that the CFL is fine with it. 

Maybe the new Commish will agree with you and BiB and negotiate a different version of the MM, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not actually marketing money at the moment.

There are no 'actual parameters' that's kinda the point. 

Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 21, 2025, 08:20:18 AMWorked great for all involved... until it didn't.  Hence the discussion.  At this point I'm starting to wish Doman never bought the Lions.  In just 1 season he's opened up 2 massive cans of worms, both of which required slapdowns by Ambrosie & the CFL.

I bet the other owners/prezs aren't too pleased about any of this.

Doman has been nothing but good for the league. I haven't see any negatives.

Quote from: Pigskin on April 21, 2025, 06:28:28 PMMy Granddaughter did a little home work. This is where Bombers player rant on the pay scale.

QB: Collars. (3) $600K, $100 bonus. Doesn't look like any marketing money. 

DB: Kramdi. (7) $145K
    Nichols (12) $136K
    Holm:  (14) $135K, $40K bonus, $5K marketing.

RB: BO20.  (1) $240K, $65K bonus, $50K marketing
    Logan. (6) $107K, $10K bonus, $7500K marketing

DL: Jefferson: (6) $200K, $100K bonus.
    Vaughters: (13) $160k, $45K bonus.

RW: Denski. (4)  $225K, $10K marketing.
    Schoen. (16) $160K, $75K bonus.

OL: Bryant. (14) $170K, $75K bonus.

LB: J. Jones (12) $120K, $15K bonus, $8K marketing.
    T. Jones (13) $117K, $15K bonus, $5K marketing.

K:  Castillo. (6) $115K, $30K bonus

Looks like anyone on a existing contract did not get any marketing money.

And that makes total sense. If it's negotiated as part of their contract, but they already had one, tough luck I suppose?

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 22, 2025, 05:15:14 PMFolks are fixated on the term marketing & are trying to tie the term to the amount of actual marketing players do. That's not what this is. It's simply an additional amount teams can pay players outside the SMS. It might as well be called the 'Outside The SMS Pot Of Dough'.

That's exactly what it is.

Whether teams abuse the rules ae try to colour outside the lines is another conversation, but it was negotiated to make sure players are paid for their work off the field. This is why it has to be assigned to the things they do off of the field.

Quote from: Jesse on April 22, 2025, 10:49:41 PMThat's exactly what it is.

Whether teams abuse the rules ae try to colour outside the lines is another conversation, but it was negotiated to make sure players are paid for their work off the field. This is why it has to be assigned to the things they do off of the field.

You're arguing what it's meant to be, what it should be and why it has to change. 

I'm arguing what it is.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 23, 2025, 12:48:07 AMYou're arguing what it's meant to be, what it should be and why it has to change.

I'm arguing what it is.

I'm repeating what's been told to us by the league. You are saying what you believe to be true.

Quote from: Jesse on April 23, 2025, 01:15:45 AMI'm repeating what's been told to us by the league. You are saying what you believe to be true.

I'm following what the contract says and explaining that's what is actually happening, which doesn't match the idea that the league is floating. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 23, 2025, 02:12:37 PMI'm following what the contract says and explaining that's what is actually happening, which doesn't match the idea that the league is floating.

I don't think we have enough evidence yet to say what's actually happening. It hasn't been around long enough.

The league has told us what it's for, but if you want to make the claims that they're lying or teams are abusing a loop hole, you have to wait for proof as such. I feel like right now your only point is that Rourke will be making a significant sum of marketing money (for the 2025 year - not last year) with no evidence of what he is or is not going to do in the coming year to earn that money.

Quote from: Jesse on April 23, 2025, 03:23:13 PMI don't think we have enough evidence yet to say what's actually happening. It hasn't been around long enough.

The league has told us what it's for, but if you want to make the claims that they're lying or teams are abusing a loop hole, you have to wait for proof as such. I feel like right now your only point is that Rourke will be making a significant sum of marketing money (for the 2025 year - not last year) with no evidence of what he is or is not going to do in the coming year to earn that money.

When there is a difference in what's being said and what's in the contract. What's in the contract is the only correct interpretation. 

In the contract: MM has a minimum, no maximum, no definition of what marketing means, no rules around marketing at all. 

Being said: It's marketing money, with no definition. It's being audited. Against what? There's a gentlemen's agreement. Not in writing = means nothing. 

I'm not claiming that teams are lying, or that they are abusing a loophole. They are using the contract as written. 

There is no evidence of what Rourke will or won't do to 'earn' the MM because there are no rules that say he has to do anything to receive, not earn it. 

Its like the long puported CGY under the table payments to players wives, etc.  Anyone could do it, but only some had the balls to.

Marketing money has a very distinct connotation.  Now, if Dohman and compnay think that just being on the team is "marketing", then I guess they are justified in giving Rourke big bucks for "just being on the team", making the team more of a draw by having him on the field.

You could argue that his $SMS salary is for his play, and the marketing money is for his "presence".  He does make the Lions a larger draw just by being there.

So I guess it could be seen as "marketing".

Whereas non-marquee players would need to actually make an appearance to earn marketing money.

There, explanation that fits.

Quote from: theaardvark on April 23, 2025, 04:33:11 PMIts like the long puported CGY under the table payments to players wives, etc.  Anyone could do it, but only some had the balls to.

Marketing money has a very distinct connotation.  Now, if Dohman and compnay think that just being on the team is "marketing", then I guess they are justified in giving Rourke big bucks for "just being on the team", making the team more of a draw by having him on the field.

You could argue that his $SMS salary is for his play, and the marketing money is for his "presence".  He does make the Lions a larger draw just by being there.

So I guess it could be seen as "marketing".

Whereas non-marquee players would need to actually make an appearance to earn marketing money.

There, explanation that fits.

Congrats. You've made up a scenario that fits your opinion. Now show me where that's in the contract. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 23, 2025, 03:51:27 PMWhen there is a difference in what's being said and what's in the contract. What's in the contract is the only correct interpretation.

In the contract: MM has a minimum, no maximum, no definition of what marketing means, no rules around marketing at all.

"It is understood and agreed by the C.F.L. and each of the Member Clubs that any
appearance or direct commercial endorsements ("Direct Commercial Endorsements") involving
individual Player or Players, or Player Images, shall be subject to separate agreements involving
the Players and/or the C.F.L.P.A. in accordance with the provisions of the C.F.L. Standard Player
Contract and this Collective Agreement"

Quote from: Jesse on April 23, 2025, 05:20:07 PM"It is understood and agreed by the C.F.L. and each of the Member Clubs that any
appearance or direct commercial endorsements ("Direct Commercial Endorsements") involving
individual Player or Players, or Player Images, shall be subject to separate agreements involving
the Players and/or the C.F.L.P.A. in accordance with the provisions of the C.F.L. Standard Player
Contract and this Collective Agreement"

That's interesting. My guess is that this is talking about making agreements with commercial enterprises, not the CFL. For example when players do commercials, but it talks about the contract and the collective agreement, so I looked a bit further.


In the standard player's contract:

Quote19. The Player agrees that his picture may be taken from time to time for still photographs, motion

pictures, television or game action photographs in Club uniform at such times as the Club may designate and the

Club shall be free to use in any media such pictures and the Player's name and biographical data for Club and

League publicity purposes without the Player receiving remuneration therefor.





The parties agree that the Club shall have the right to permit any person, firm or corporation to display for commercial purposes pictures of the Player in Club uniform with the consent of the Player and the Player shall not allow either gratuitously or for remuneration any pictures of the Player in Club uniform to be used for any publicity or commercial purposes without the consent in writing of the Club first had and obtained. The parties further agree that no such pictures may be used for commercial purposes without the written authorization of the Player and the Player shall be entitled to negotiate remuneration payable to himself for the granting of such written authorization to be paid by any such person, firm or corporation and that further use of such pictures involving four or more Players of one or more Clubs in one commercial use shall be subject to the approval of both the Canadian Football League and the Canadian Football League Players' Association as the agent of such Players.

The standard player's contract says that the club can use the player's image etc. without paying the player, but the player can negotiate with 3rd parties such as doing ads.

The collective bargaining agreement says:

QuoteARTICLE 33: MARKETING

The C.F.L.P.A. agrees to consent to the C.F.L., Member Clubs and C.F.L., and Member Clubs sponsor usage of Player images ("Player Image" or "Player Images" as defined below) during the term of this Collective Agreement.


For greater clarity, this involves the use by the C.F.L., Member Clubs, or their respective sponsors, of any Player Image of any single Player or group of Players for commercial or other promotional purposes in any media platform, and the C.F.L.P.A. further consents to (i) the C.F.L. and Member Clubs placing logos of major sponsors on C.F.L. Player uniforms during regular season, play-off and Grey Cup games; and (ii) the sale by the C.F.L. or any Member Club of Member Club jerseys including replicas or renditions thereof bearing the surname of any Player without additional compensation being payable to the Player or the C.F.L.P.A.   .....

QuoteIn consideration for the consent of the C.F.L.P.A., the C.F.L. shall pay to the C.F.L.P.A. an annual fee in the sum of $450,000.00 payable in two equal installments of $225,000.00 on June 15th and October 15th for the term of this collective agreement.
 

The collective bargaining agreement says that the CFLPA gets an annual marketing fee not individual players.

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 23, 2025, 10:24:11 PMThat's interesting. My guess is that this is talking about making agreements with commercial enterprises, not the CFL. For example when players do commercials, but it talks about the contract and the collective agreement, so I looked a bit further.


In the standard player's contract: The standard player's contract says that the club can use the player's image etc. without paying the player, but the player can negotiate with 3rd parties such as doing ads.

The collective bargaining agreement says:
The collective bargaining agreement says that the CFLPA gets an annual marketing fee not individual players.

CFL pays the CFLPA for all their images, but cannot use the player's face. We see the images of guys wearing their uniforms.

Quote from: Jesse on April 24, 2025, 12:34:21 AMCFL pays the CFLPA for all their images, but cannot use the player's face. We see the images of guys wearing their uniforms.

Where are you getting that from?

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 23, 2025, 03:51:27 PMWhen there is a difference in what's being said and what's in the contract. What's in the contract is the only correct interpretation.

In the contract: MM has a minimum, no maximum, no definition of what marketing means, no rules around marketing at all.

Being said: It's marketing money, with no definition. It's being audited. Against what? There's a gentlemen's agreement. Not in writing = means nothing.

I'm not claiming that teams are lying, or that they are abusing a loophole. They are using the contract as written.

There is no evidence of what Rourke will or won't do to 'earn' the MM because there are no rules that say he has to do anything to receive, not earn it.

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

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

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

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 24, 2025, 02:24:39 PMWhere are you getting that from?

Typically common in sports CBAs.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 24, 2025, 02:29:34 PMThere is some kind of value for money marketing dollars audit paid to players by the league and afterward, an independent party, if you believe what Randy Ambroise said when asked at last year's state of the league address.

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

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

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

Quote from: Pete on April 24, 2025, 02:45:45 PMIts not so much as arguing for or against, its more about putting clarity to it. What are the parameters, expectations etc?
No cap league has a big loophole that everyone is aware of whereby the salary cap can be so easily circumvented.
 I do like the idea of each team having one player exempt from cap, allowing them to get that difference maker for their market

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

Quote from: Pete on April 24, 2025, 02:45:45 PMI do like the idea of each team having one player exempt from cap, allowing them to get that difference maker for their market

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

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 24, 2025, 02:29:34 PMThere is some kind of value for money marketing dollars audit paid to players by the league and afterward, an independent party, if you believe what Randy Ambroise said when asked at last year's state of the league address.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 24, 2025, 02:24:39 PMWhere are you getting that from?

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

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 24, 2025, 04:33:15 PMI'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 24, 2025, 04:33:15 PMI'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it.

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

Quote from: Waffler on April 24, 2025, 03:18:06 PMThey had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

Quote from: Waffler on April 24, 2025, 03:18:06 PMThey had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

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

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

Quote from: ModAdmin on April 25, 2025, 07:03:21 AMI would hardly classify Khari Jones as a "nobody".

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

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

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 24, 2025, 05:55:18 PMHow would you know? How could any of us know? It sounds as if there's some mechanism for auditing marketing dollars so therefore there has to be some criteria to compare the activation with the dollar renumeration. Just because it's not disclosed to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

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

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

Quote from: TBURGESS on April 25, 2025, 02:52:19 PMContract 101: If it's not in the contract then it doesn't exist for purposes of the contract.

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

Hahahaha - I think the concussion spotters are pulling you for evaluation now. 

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 24, 2025, 05:55:18 PMHow would you know? How could any of us know? It sounds as if there's some mechanism for auditing marketing dollars so therefore there has to be some criteria to compare the activation with the dollar renumeration. Just because it's not disclosed to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

The fact Ambrosie had to make that very public announcement that he was keeping an eye on MM use and (taps nose) expects teams to be reasonable proves that there was no mechanism whatsoever.

Just like most everything in the CFL, it's all willy-nilly and gentleman's agreements.  Works great, until it Doman't doesn't.

Quote from: Jesse on April 23, 2025, 03:23:13 PMI don't think we have enough evidence yet to say what's actually happening. It hasn't been around long enough.

The league has told us what it's for, but if you want to make the claims that they're lying or teams are abusing a loop hole, you have to wait for proof as such.

But that's what some (probably including you) were saying mid-season when Rourke came back and almost everyone could see BC would be $300k+ over the cap.

A "crime" is taking place right in front of you, and you say "don't do anything" because no judge has ruled against the criminal yet?

No, we have probable cause and a pattern of behavior, and thus it's reasonable to infer the MM cheatcode will continue to be abused, and probably by more teams and to a higher degree.

What people who say "don't jump the gun" do is keep the outrage subdued at the exact moment something can be done, and then when the full crime is revealed they just say "meh, you're arguing with yourself, it's all moot now".  Look at how many just shrugged off the BC $350k overage because by April 2025 it was "old news".  The same thing will happen with BC paying players like $400k MM and gaining "free cap".

Quote from: Jesse on April 22, 2025, 10:43:08 PMDoman has been nothing but good for the league. I haven't see any negatives.

He's been ok for BC, I'm not sure he's done anything for the rest of the teams/fans.  He's bumped up attendance 5 or 10k at his stadium on average.  That's basically it.  And he bought the extra engagement with subsidized superstar rapper concerts, which probably lost him money overall...

Negative 1: Other teams have watched them get away with MM cheatcodes and have followed suit with big MM-laden contracts.  Many of the signings this FA on many teams included a note about hefty ($40k+) MM.  How many teams went from spending ~$110k MM to spending much more this season after being green-lit by BC?

Negative 2: We got a glimpse of this with Mack in MTL, other teams have seen that you don't have to be prudent when your NFL rejects come back.  This one has yet to fully pan out, but I expect to see more overages by "rich" teams.

Quote from: Blue In BC on April 22, 2025, 06:52:11 PMAbsurd narrow view. Players do all sorts of public appearances. Their images might be used in advertising. So yes, the marketing money is exactly that.

Before MM money existed, they did "all sorts of public appearances" just the same.  So what changed?

It used to be just a normal part of the CFL player/team contract.  It didn't need a special category.  If team wanted a player to do more fan-engagement, they could just include that in their normal contract as part of their normal (SMS!) salary.

TB is 100% right: this is just an extra pot of money that (it appears) all parties wanted to allow richer teams a backdoor to pay certain players more than the SMS would allow.  They probably all agreed to it because during 'vid upping the SMS outright (which would have the same effect) would be bad optics.

Where they screwed up was not capping the MM (i.e. overages go onto the SMS).  I'm pretty sure they didn't expect a Doman-aire to come along and start blowing half a mil on MM!

Quote from: Pigskin on April 21, 2025, 06:28:28 PMMy Granddaughter did a little home work. This is where Bombers player rant on the pay scale.

QB: Collars. (3) $600K, $100 bonus. Doesn't look like any marketing money. 
[...]

This is super awesome.  More of this.  Give her my thanks and kudos.  It would be so handy to have an exhaustive list like this that encompasses every team.

P.S. It looks like WPG spent almost exactly to the $110k.  And if anyone deserves the biggest chunk, it is Brady with his numerous Northern trips and all the highly visible dog rescue work.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 21, 2025, 06:40:58 PMThe CFL has stated that they do audit every marketing dollar every year.
The CFL has stated that after their internal audit, it's also independently audited.
The CFL has stated that any marketing dollars that get paid and then aren't earned are subject to the SMS in that year.

Source: State of the League address 2024.

I went back and rewatched:
https://www.cfl.ca/2024/11/10/111th-grey-cup-media-state-of-the-league/

If that is your only source for the conjecture regarding an "independent audit" then you are just plain wrong.  Nowhere in that video does Ambrosie say anything other than "internal audit", by "a/his team" (of CFL employees presumably).

Here are some choice quotes and the timestamp so one can jump to them:

27:00 we do an audit of all the marketing money that gets distributed every year
27:10 we have our own internal auditer that goes in
27:20 what did they do in order to be paid the money they were paid... gotta be an equitable value created
27:43 our team presidents will continue to talk about it
28:44 there's a real healthy tension on the teams to do this right (when discussing a group/club comprised of the team owners)

Your take attempts to massage the optics into making it seem all tickity-boo, legit, and above board.  The quotes I show above reveal it is more like TB says: it's all ad hoc and old boys' club and as long as you don't aggravate the commish and maybe the "owners group", do as you please.

After hearing and pondering the above, I believe Ambrosie (and probably the owners) were getting miffed at Doman around this time (say "you don't know that" all you like, I'm capable of reading between the lines).  Otherwise why would there be a "tension", hmmm?  Ya, a tension of 8 team owners + Ambrosie vs one rogue Doman.