Blue Bombers Forum
October 05, 2022, 09:26:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 35
  Print  
Author Topic: CBA negotiations  (Read 18963 times)
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28371


« Reply #345 on: May 24, 2022, 07:03:16 PM »

@TSNDaveNaylor
Just spoke to commissioner @RandyAmbrosieand got details on @CFL?s new offer to players:
? league provides $1 million ratification bonus to players. But removes $450k from 2022 cap and $675 in guarantees in ?28. The ?28 cap may not be affected if revenue sharing kicks-in#CFL

@TSNDaveNaylor
League also proposes moving back to ratio model of 6 true Canadians and one Naturalized American. (Which was in their May 14th proposal). #CFL #CFLPA

@TSNDaveNaylor
Ambrosie said if latest offer rejected and games are missed, offer will suffer. ?There is no way we can get back to the quality of deal that we have on the table today.? #CFL #CFLPA

@TSNDaveNaylor
Deadline for players to accept latest offer is Thursday midnight ? Eastern time. #CFL #CFLPA


It was reported that most teams already spent most of the 2022 SMS. How do you reduce it under those circumstances? $1M is not a small ratification bonus!! I assume that only the AR and IR players would qualify?

Still don't like the naturalized American idea even though teams no longer need that 7th actual Canadian starting.

I'm guessing either Bryant or Hardrick will be that player. If there is an in game injury we'd have one of the two back up Canadian OL step up. Next game either one of the import OL is back or he's replaced by an import OL off the PR. Whichever import OL wasn't the nationalized player would switch to the other one still standing.

Picking another import veteran would be more problematic IMO.

The real question is which Canadian no longer starts? Wolitarsky or Thomas seem to be the only choices.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 07:05:33 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14712



« Reply #346 on: May 24, 2022, 07:05:25 PM »

Have you looked at what we pay many of our starting imports?

Not sure the point you're trying to make here. Can you expand?


You think the ratio exists because government(s) provided funds to build the stadium or stadiums around the country?

And the building the Jets now play in got funds (and continue to get $40M+ a year in tax breaks) because the AHL and NHL have a ratio or have I been overlooking that rule?

The only mandate(s) the league has is set by the league under the direction of Ambrose. They aren't the government and they wrap their marketing in Canadiana because it sells.

Two separate points. If the league didn't have a mandate to: help grow the game of football in Canada, employ Canadians, try to keep Canadian funds in Canada - why would there be a ratio? There is a ratio, because that is one of the mandates of the league.

Because there is that ratio, that mandate, the government provides money to help that goal.

Now, obviously there is a different level of commitment to hockey in our Country. We do not have a hockey league like the CFL in Canada - our guys go straight to the NHL. Not sure if comparisons work between the two.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28371


« Reply #347 on: May 24, 2022, 07:11:20 PM »

Not sure the point you're trying to make here. Can you expand?

Two separate points. If the league didn't have a mandate to: help grow the game of football in Canada, employ Canadians, try to keep Canadian funds in Canada - why would there be a ratio? There is a ratio, because that is one of the mandates of the league.

Because there is that ratio, that mandate, the government provides money to help that goal.

Now, obviously there is a different level of commitment to hockey in our Country. We do not have a hockey league like the CFL in Canada - our guys go straight to the NHL. Not sure if comparisons work between the two.

The starting imports take the largest portion of the total SMS. Yes Canadians starting can get well paid as well due to the league supply and demand. They are a small group on the entire roster in that category. There must be some sort of scale based on time in the league.

Couture and A. Harris gets $160K IIRC. While you could technically replace them with an import for less, at some point that import wants that big paycheck. Lawler at $300K in season 3. Richardson about $160K as well. If there was no ratio that would be less of an issue.


Whether there are 5 or 7 true Canadian starters none of that changes. The top dog gets a bigger piece of the pie and even then may choose a new city in free agency. Seller's market.
Teams spend their SMS every year making decisions across the entire roster.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 07:25:38 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14712



« Reply #348 on: May 24, 2022, 07:16:29 PM »

The starting imports take the largest portion of the total SMS. Yes Canadians starting can get well paid as well due to the league supply and demand. They are a small group on the entire roster in that category.

Couture and A. Harris gets $160K IIRC. While you could technically replace them with an import for less, at some point that import wants that big paycheck. Lawler at $300K in season 3. Richardson about $160K as well. If there was no ratio that would be less of an issue.


Whether there are 5 or 7 true Canadian starters none of that changes. The top dog gets a bigger piece of the pie and even then may choose a new city in free agency. Seller's market.
Teams spend their SMS every year making decisions across the entire roster.

I think it'd be more along the lines of paying Jake Thomas less to pay a [insert back-up American DT] more.

Probably not a lot of movement on the top end guys.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28371


« Reply #349 on: May 24, 2022, 07:28:58 PM »

I think it'd be more along the lines of paying Jake Thomas less to pay a [insert back-up American DT] more.

Probably not a lot of movement on the top end guys.

Except that the back up DT is probably either a 1st or 2nd year player on an ELC. Thomas might not be getting a big paycheck but based on the Oliveria and Augustine getting $90K, he can't be to far off?

But. There is always a but. If Thomas was a potential free agent in 2023 and offered less money, another team might offer him more due to their specific need across their roster.
Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
bludan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 462


« Reply #350 on: May 24, 2022, 07:49:59 PM »

I expect the new deal to be ratified. The 30% who didn't vote likely due to thinking it was a sure thing will send in their ballots.  The front loading bonus will help as not that many players will even still be in the league 4 years from now.  All the frustration fans feel will be gone with preseason games, and in a month, we'll no longer remember this happened.
Logged
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14712



« Reply #351 on: May 24, 2022, 07:52:24 PM »

Except that the back up DT is probably either a 1st or 2nd year player on an ELC. Thomas might not be getting a big paycheck but based on the Oliveria and Augustine getting $90K, he can't be to far off?

But. There is always a but. If Thomas was a potential free agent in 2023 and offered less money, another team might offer him more due to their specific need across their roster.

But you?d construct your roster differently. Teams would attempt to get Vets in those roles and any increase in their pay would come at the expenses of some of your Canadians. If Thomas and Woli can have their snaps cut in half, you could pay them less (or bring in cheaper players) and invest in Grant and [insert American tackle] to play those snaps.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23082



« Reply #352 on: May 24, 2022, 07:53:19 PM »

Not sure the point you're trying to make here. Can you expand?

Two separate points. If the league didn't have a mandate to: help grow the game of football in Canada, employ Canadians, try to keep Canadian funds in Canada - why would there be a ratio? There is a ratio, because that is one of the mandates of the league.

Because there is that ratio, that mandate, the government provides money to help that goal.

Now, obviously there is a different level of commitment to hockey in our Country. We do not have a hockey league like the CFL in Canada - our guys go straight to the NHL. Not sure if comparisons work between the two.

Second part first. The provincial -- not federal -- government provided money for our stadium. They did so because football is popular here and the NDP usually favors big spending projects. If the ratio was a big factor, why is Calgary playing in a crumbling stadium? Don't they have Canadians on their roster too?  Provncial governments are the main supporters of stadiums. They are less concerned about national identity. In fact, I've never ever heard one say that's ever been a priority in my lifetime.

You are getting the league's tactics confused with their goal. The CFL is a for-profit business. Ambroise's job is the same as every other sports commissioner: maximize profit for the owners/teams. Growing the game of football is Canada has been a tactic they feel will help them do that. They support youth football in the hopes of growing their profits. The ratio is also something they have tried to reduce during every CBA and tried to even more aggressively reduce the number of Canadians this time too. Clearly, they don't feel the ratio is helping to grow the league. Their actions could not be more crystal clear.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 08:01:28 PM by Sir Blue and Gold » Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23082



« Reply #353 on: May 24, 2022, 07:59:26 PM »

It was reported that most teams already spent most of the 2022 SMS. How do you reduce it under those circumstances? $1M is not a small ratification bonus!! I assume that only the AR and IR players would qualify?

Still don't like the naturalized American idea even though teams no longer need that 7th actual Canadian starting.

I'm guessing either Bryant or Hardrick will be that player. If there is an in game injury we'd have one of the two back up Canadian OL step up. Next game either one of the import OL is back or he's replaced by an import OL off the PR. Whichever import OL wasn't the nationalized player would switch to the other one still standing.

Picking another import veteran would be more problematic IMO.

The real question is which Canadian no longer starts? Wolitarsky or Thomas seem to be the only choices.

I'm sure it can be ANY player who meets the criteria and it won't have to be declared. It will be Bryant and Hardrick and all the rest of them. The league is trying to cut out mandatory Canadians so it will be in their interest to inforce and interpret it as loosely as possible. The reality is that teams will start 6 Canadians and then just have to make sure they have at least one player on the field who has been in the league for five years or three years on your team. Won't be hard.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 08:03:23 PM by Sir Blue and Gold » Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28371


« Reply #354 on: May 24, 2022, 08:07:31 PM »

I'm sure it can be ANY player who meets the criteria and it won't have to be declared. It will be Bryant and Hardrick and all the rest of them. The league is trying to cut out mandatory Canadians so it will be in their interest to inforce and interpret it as loosely as possible. The reality is that teams will start 6 Canadians and then just have to make sure they have at least one player on the field who has been in the league for five years or three years on your team. Won't be hard.

Yeah I suppose that's what will happen in practice. It would have been easier to reduce the number of starting Canadians then coming up with the nationalized import. Every team has a number of 3+ years on the team or 5 in the CFL.

I just want to listen to the game on Friday so hopefully no more bumps in the road.

In 2023 they are adding back a 3rd QB which will in theory eliminate one more Canadian from the roster. In 2022 teams may choose to roster 2 Globals every game which eliminates another Canadian.



« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 08:09:30 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 31006



« Reply #355 on: May 24, 2022, 08:10:11 PM »

The SMS is the SMS

The roster is the roster

How a GM distributes his budget will vary minorly depending on ratio

A change of one NAT roster spot will mean a minor adjustment in how much a few players get paid...

It does not change the entire dynamic of the league, or mean that NAT's won't have jobs... or that there will suddenly be a plethora of INT vet's being retained or getting raises...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6661



« Reply #356 on: May 24, 2022, 08:19:56 PM »

@TSNDaveNaylor
Just spoke to commissioner @RandyAmbrosieand got details on @CFL?s new offer to players:
? league provides $1 million ratification bonus to players. But removes $450k from 2022 cap and $675 in guarantees in ?28. The ?28 cap may not be affected if revenue sharing kicks-in#CFL

$1M per team?  or $1M shared over the whole league?  Who pays the $1M?  The league?

$450k cap reduction, is for sure per-team right?

If the $1M is per team right now vs a $450k cap reduction, and they are dropping the 3-FAKENAT rule, then you sign this deal right now.  It's a good deal.  I'm glad to see Ambrosie is playing ball.  No one wants missed games.

Now, on to bookkeeping: most teams have spent to their 2022 cap already... so how do they retroactively change contracts to achieve the $450k reduction??  Sounds like a big headache for GMs.

P.S. Who cares about 2028
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 08:22:45 PM by TecnoGenius » Logged

Never go full Rider!
GOLDMEMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25469


R.I.P. BLUE BONGER


« Reply #357 on: May 24, 2022, 08:23:39 PM »

So we won?t know till Thursday now if there is a deal or not?

How the heck is GOLDIE gonna plan his Friday night now?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 08:30:17 PM by GOLDMEMBER » Logged

I LOSHT MY MEMBER IN AN UNFORTUNATE SHMELTING ACCSHIDENT!
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14712



« Reply #358 on: May 24, 2022, 08:25:22 PM »

$1M per team?  or $1M shared over the whole league?  Who pays the $1M?  The league?

$450k cap reduction, is for sure per-team right?

If the $1M is per team right now vs a $450k cap reduction, and they are dropping the 3-FAKENAT rule, then you sign this deal right now.  It's a good deal.  I'm glad to see Ambrosie is playing ball.  No one wants missed games.

Now, on to bookkeeping: most teams have spent to their 2022 cap already... so how do they retroactively change contracts to achieve the $450k reduction??  Sounds like a big headache for GMs.

P.S. Who cares about 2028

The CFL seems to word things from a league perspective.

I?m guessing the 450 cap reduction is actually 50k per team.

The million would also be divided across the league (bonuses based on some sort of seniority scale?).
Logged

My wife is amazing!
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6661



« Reply #359 on: May 24, 2022, 08:38:17 PM »

The CFL seems to word things from a league perspective.

I?m guessing the 450 cap reduction is actually 50k per team.

The million would also be divided across the league (bonuses based on some sort of seniority scale?).

Well, if the cap and bonus changes are either both league-wide or both per-team, then it's a good deal, sign it.  If the cap is per-team and the bonus league-wide, then it's a bum deal taking advantage of the math-challenged.

You must be right... teams can adjust for a 50k cap reduction, but how would you adjust for a 450k one!

Sign it!  And all the IMPs that abstained (due to laziness), get off yer butts and vote this time.  Call all your IMP friends.  Don't just moan about it, do something.
Logged

Never go full Rider!
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 35
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!