Argos

[Sir Blue and Gold]

We will have to wait and see. There's not really any way of knowing right now. What I suspect would be likely, if certain teams begin to exceed the salary cap by large margins is that other teams would press for further and stricter penalties on overages. I think it's very unlikely though.

Owners and CEOs are business people first. Business people don't like rapid raising expenses and if one or two teams keep going over then all that will happen is other teams will try and match. That hurts everyone except for the players and if there's one thing owners all have in common is that they would like to keep player salaries as low as possible.

[Jesse]

We will have to wait and see. There's not really any way of knowing right now. What I suspect would be likely, if certain teams begin to exceed the salary cap by large margins is that other teams would press for further and stricter penalties on overages. I think it's very unlikely though.

Owners and CEOs are business people first. Business people don't like rapid raising expenses and if one or two teams keep going over then all that will happen is other teams will try and match. That hurts everyone except for the players and if there's one thing owners all have in common is that they would like to keep player salaries as low as possible.

If they want to spend more money, they could just raise the cap. They don't want to spend more. They negotiate keeping the cap lower when the players want more.

This is such a non-issue.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

If they want to spend more money, they could just raise the cap. They don't want to spend more. They negotiate keeping the cap lower when the players want more.

This is such a non-issue.

I think so to. I do think the league does itself no favors by keeping the data locked away. The league would be more compelling and interesting for very engaged fans if it made the cap and spendings public. Whatever though, it's a separate point. I don't think the additional spending has helped BC so far. I'm not willing to conclude at this stage they are massively over and I also think common sense would suggest that CEOs/Owners won't get into arms races that only hurt themselves in the long run.

[blue_gold_84]

I do think the league does itself no favors by keeping the data locked away. The league would be more compelling and interesting for very engaged fans if it made the cap and spendings public.

The CFL's credibility would rise considerably if it opted to make contracts and spending available to the public, IMO.

[Jesse]

The CFL's credibility would rise considerably if it opted to make contracts and spending available to the public, IMO.

I'm not the tin foil hat type. But their unwillingness to open the books during the lost covid year has a bad smell to it.

Lack of transparency has always been big mark on the CFL.

[theaardvark]

The CFL is a league that is suffering weak gate, has a decent TV package, but is not in the black league wide. 

Cap can't go up a lot, front office cap hamstrings change, but they keep the league afloat.

Raising the cap does not do anything to make the league more competitive or better.  We won't attract any different players, the existing pipeine will just get a small amount more.  A player here or there might stick for a few more dollars, but in general, if they have the passion to play, the CFL will reward them decently.

Blowing up you cap, on the other hand, is a distinct advantage. When a Sankey, Lemon, Betts, Rourke shows up, you can outbid for them even if you do not have cap space. A very unfair advantage for teams that are on sound econoic footing, or have an owner with deep pockets vs. teams that are struggling.  But this happens in all leagues.

[TecnoGenius]

Advising and/or giving the green light to a GM to exceed the cap in a year where they're hosting the GC doesn't come across as meddlesome, IMO.

Yes it does.  To me a non-meddlesome Prez/CEO would not tell the GM anything about how much to spend or what players to sign.  The GM would do the normal thing of spending to the cap, as basically all GMs do by default (within $100k).

It was also meddlesome when WM told KW he had to pay Brady what he wanted to retain him.

Doesn't mean meddling is always bad.  You could argue keeping Brady was the better move than the Jeffcoat/Grant/Bailey we would have retained had KW stuck to his spreadsheet.

Meddling is just that -- meddling.