CBA negotiations

[Blue In BC]

Yes, top to bottom, salaries in any league make no sense.  It has come back a little in QB's in the CFL, although Lawler's contact last year shows the position players moving up a bit into that range.

Minimum salaries in the NFL change, PR eligibility changes... it cycles through players that are working their way into a lineup, vs. the fringe players that just hang on..  once you start having to pay them "veteran's" salary, they become a lot less interesting than younger players with potential. 

Do we end up with ELC/min salary and min vet salary at different levels?  Do we have to have a matrix of PR + IR + AR games = Min Vet Salary, and if that is less than 24 any contract can be at ELC rate? 

To some degree it's simple math regardless of how high the SMS is set.

If you increase the bottom minimum, then either there are less at the top or those at the top have lower ceilings.

Like any job it's a question of how good do you want your benefits to be and how much less salary are you willing to give up for better salary? That's a common discussion in new negotiations.

It becomes a trade off money versus benefits. Benefits are a direct cost to employers and a benefit to employees.

I'd say younger people in general live more in the now and benefits are less important to some. That's not necessarily the best idea but the reality of youth. It needs to be a fair mix of those two factors.

Bombers lost Lawler, Desjarlais, M. Jones and a few others coming off of their ELC's to much better salaries on new teams. It's not like the real world where many workers might be lucky to get a 2% annual raise.  As mentioned a player coming off an ELC that is at the bottom skill set on the roster could easily be replaced by a new player getting an ELC deal.

There is no perfect formula. Where a player's earning curve is unpredictable in year 1. Turnover happens for many reasons.

If a team has 10 players on ELC's raising the minimum to $70K is only a $70K increase in the spend on their salaries against the SMS. That seems almost inconsequential in the big picture of total SMS spend.

OTOH giving M. Reilly an increase from about $450K to $700K in 2019 is incomprehensible. Or Lawler going from $63K to $300K as examples.

There was a report that many teams had spent close to current SMS by the time free agency was over. So if there is no or very little increase to the new SMS, any increase to the ELC will be very difficult. They go hand in hand.

That makes the suggestion of negotiating much earlier ( prior to free agency ) have more weight.

You mentioned scaled vet salaries at different levels. I don't think that works because free agency market decides how the 3rd year player will be valued somewhere in free agency.

OTOH, do we want to give a 3rd or 4th year player and increase he may not have deserved by mandate in the CBA? If he didn't earn it, chances are he gets replaced by the new ELC player.

If there is an increase to the 2022 SMS I think that money is spent late in the season renewing contracts ( prior to free agency ) as we've seen in the past. Or for players returning from NFL for example. Current players already have contracts in place.  I don't imagine an increase would be retroactive towards ELC's for example.

Each off season we see higher priced players displaced in order to pay other that deserve to get more.

I've worked in unions and I've worked in management. Paying someone based on time or job classification has both pros and cons. OTOH the CFL is both a union and a free market environment with free agency.

[blue_gold_84]

You pay. I pay for the beer.

What, no invite for the rest of us? I like beer.

[Blue In BC]

What, no invite for the rest of us? I like beer.

Come to Vancouver and I'll buy you a beer.

[theaardvark]

To some degree it's simple math regardless of how high the SMS is set.

If you increase the bottom minimum, then either there are less at the top or those at the top have lower ceilings.

Like any job it's a question of how good do you want your benefits to be and how much less salary are you willing to give up for better salary? That's a common discussion in new negotiations.

It becomes a trade off money versus benefits. Benefits are a direct cost to employers and a benefit to employees.

I'd say younger people in general live more in the now and benefits are less important to some. That's not necessarily the best idea but the reality of youth. It needs to be a fair mix of those two factors.

Bombers lost Lawler, Desjarlais, M. Jones and a few others coming off of their ELC's to much better salaries on new teams. It's not like the real world where many workers might be lucky to get a 2% annual raise.  As mentioned a player coming off an ELC that is at the bottom skill set on the roster could easily be replaced by a new player getting an ELC deal.

There is no perfect formula. Where a player's earning curve is unpredictable in year 1. Turnover happens for many reasons.

If a team has 10 players on ELC's raising the minimum to $70K is only a $70K increase in the spend on their salaries against the SMS. That seems almost inconsequential in the big picture of total SMS spend.

OTOH giving M. Reilly an increase from about $450K to $700K in 2019 is incomprehensible. Or Lawler going from $63K to $300K as examples.

There was a report that many teams had spent close to current SMS by the time free agency was over. So if there is no or very little increase to the new SMS, any increase to the ELC will be very difficult. They go hand in hand.

That makes the suggestion of negotiating much earlier ( prior to free agency ) have more weight.

You mentioned scaled vet salaries at different levels. I don't think that works because free agency market decides how the 3rd year player will be valued somewhere in free agency.

OTOH, do we want to give a 3rd or 4th year player and increase he may not have deserved by mandate in the CBA? If he didn't earn it, chances are he gets replaced by the new ELC player.

If there is an increase to the 2022 SMS I think that money is spent late in the season renewing contracts ( prior to free agency ) as we've seen in the past. Or for players returning from NFL for example. Current players already have contracts in place.  I don't imagine an increase would be retroactive towards ELC's for example.

Each off season we see higher priced players displaced in order to pay other that deserve to get more.

I've worked in unions and I've worked in management. Paying someone based on time or job classification has both pros and cons. OTOH the CFL is both a union and a free market environment with free agency.

Yes, true.  Raising the minimums will drop the top, or reduce the number getting more than min. 

The question remains, is the current minimum too low. Is it an unreasonable salary for what is being asked of players. 

The answer is quite clear, nope.  There are no shortages of players that are willing to play for that. 

Now, I know the next argument.  "If we offered more money, we'd get better players."

Would we?  Would we upgrade the talent pool significantly by offering $70k/yr instead of $63K?  I don't think it would make one whit of a difference.

I also think dropping the base to $55k wouldn't make much of a difference in players we attract or retain.  In fact, dropping the base and adding 2 more roster spots would not affect the SMS total, and give the CFLPA more jobs for their members.  $55k/yr is the equivalent of someone making $27.50/hr for the entire year.  I don't think there would be any shortage of players willing to work for that, and the opportunity to play pro ball and potentially get a Lawler type contract or a Dejarlais type opportunity.

As soon as the CFLPA starts thinking this is a major league sport that can demand more money in the face of declining revenues because teams haven't gone broke yet, we will see one or more teams fail.

I like the USFL's idea of education incentives for all players, *that* is the kind of thing the CFL and CFLPA should be working towards. And while half the PA is covered by universal health care, the other half needs it. Taking care of the players longer term, not the PA just squeezing a few more bucks out of a broke league today.

[Blue In BC]

The other half needing better health care is a problem for the population of the USA. It's not something the CFL can resolve, even for just those players. Not sure the CFL can or should be responsible and doing more for just the Canadians wouldn't be a good precedent.

I think part of the idea of option out clauses for players to get an NFL offer had some merit when 1st year players stand out. Alford for example. OTOH that's really an exception for a 1st or even 2nd year player to strike NFL gold. Most players don't make it past a PR spot and often are back by LD.

Realistically I don't think it changed the real landscape but was a carrot of sorts for some players.

As you said there are hundreds of new players coming to TC every year. The majority of those that do well stay in the CFL. The very very good get drafted in the NFL and don't end up in the CFL for the most part.

Most players are university grads so education incentives probably not on their minds.

The USFL raised the minimum due to shorter season and similar ELC's. Players going into their 2nd season ( if there is one ) may have earned a raise but it's a flat amount. Aside from using an NFL offer as a way out, there is little upside.

At least in the CFL a player going into his 2nd contract could get substantially more.  The rookies in the CFL all could have decided to register for the draft in the USFL but they didn't.

I've suggested reducing the roster by 2 in order to use that money elsewhere within the roster. The problem is that more money by in large will go to a few top earners.

Maybe we'll hear how the negotiations are going tomorrow or whether players will show up for TC on Sunday etc etc.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The other half needing better health care is a problem for the population of the USA. It's not something the CFL can resolve, even for just those players. Not sure the CFL can or should be responsible and doing more for jusI think part of the idea of option out clauses for players to get an NFL offer had some merit when 1st year players stand out.

If you're going to take that stance at least know what you're talking about. The CFL currently provides support for injured players for 12 months after an injury through insurance provided by the team.

After that, no matter if the player is healthy or not, no further care is provided if they aren't on an active roster (if a player has suffured a long term injury lasting more than 12 months they probably have close to a 0% chance to be on an active  roster). This means lingering head injuries, further surgeries, etc, the player is on their own. Canadians still have access to healthcare which may help if the surgery is deemed necessary but no CFL player, Canadian or American is eligible for any workers' health benefits as a result of injuries sustained playing in the CFL.

So all those examples you threw out earlier about fireman and military service workers, if they can't work as a result of an injury suffered on the job have various forms of on-going assistance. CFL players who have mobility issues immediately or later in life do not. Guys with CTE do not. Guys with one and a half arms do not.

The CFL could absolutely do more by providing better and longer lasting and/or more thorough coverage for Canadians and Americans (like the NFL) but it's expensive so they don't. 

It may not bother you because you grew up in factories watching people get maimed but it bothers me and I wish we had the means, as a league, to take care of the players who get hurt playing for us making fairly pedestrian incomes.

[DM83]

Hey Blue,

Have you met any of the players at least with the Bombers?
They may have played at a University, but I think many of the guys I have met, are not the sharpest stick in the drawer.

It actually scared me.  As a condition of playing at the U of M, or maybe even to stay in a  Faculty, you had to have a certain grade point average. Everyone must have heard of past Great junior players who play out their junior eligibility, then go to university.  Finally a few years ago then CIS placed an age restriction in it. That was Canada.

 I met and practiced against super American athletes, who were either going to, or had just played pro and didn?t make the team for one reason or another.( I couldn?t believe they didn?t make it, they were great) but they didn?t have anything of substance to fall back on, and seeing that was  scary.  Football was their ticket , and then it was gone. Some guys stayed in Winnipeg and have become entrepreneurs, that was the good. 

However as an educator myself,  I would like to think some guys without education might benefit like a program like junior hockey provides.  Not sure if guys who were cut could access it, but certainly, younger guys making the team, with the only priority for a young man is playing, partying  and having fun, Is awesome in your early to mid twenties, but after that, you need to plan on the post playing days.  Some sort of tuition paid for for just an example first year of a program, could  a return to working at McDs.

So, I disagree with your comment about all the guys being university educated??? I would be dubious of the accuracy of that. Our Canadian guys are better suited to post playing days, because at least for the Bisons you had to have  a passing grade in at least three courses, to continue.  Hence my comment that it would be nice to take care of the guys afterward.to a certain degree.  On my wish list!  Lol!

[Blue In BC]

Hey Blue,

Have you met any of the players at least with the Bombers?
They may have played at a University, but I think many of the guys I have met, are not the sharpest stick in the drawer.

It actually scared me.  As a condition of playing at the U of M, or maybe even to stay in a  Faculty, you had to have a certain grade point average. Everyone must have heard of past Great junior players who play out their junior eligibility, then go to university.  Finally a few years ago then CIS placed an age restriction in it. That was Canada.

 I met and practiced against super American athletes, who were either going to, or had just played pro and didn?t make the team for one reason or another.( I couldn?t believe they didn?t make it, they were great) but they didn?t have anything of substance to fall back on, and seeing that was  scary.  Football was their ticket , and then it was gone. Some guys stayed in Winnipeg and have become entrepreneurs, that was the good. 

However as an educator myself,  I would like to think some guys without education might benefit like a program like junior hockey provides.  Not sure if guys who were cut could access it, but certainly, younger guys making the team, with the only priority for a young man is playing, partying  and having fun, Is awesome in your early to mid twenties, but after that, you need to plan on the post playing days.  Some sort of tuition paid for for just an example first year of a program, could  a return to working at McDs.

So, I disagree with your comment about all the guys being university educated??? I would be dubious of the accuracy of that. Our Canadian guys are better suited to post playing days, because at least for the Bisons you had to have  a passing grade in at least three courses, to continue.  Hence my comment that it would be nice to take care of the guys afterward.to a certain degree.  On my wish list!  Lol!

I met many players in the past in my younger days. I played in the touch league in Vancouver and " pick up " games when I was younger. In some cases that included tackle with no equipment against a few that were in the CFL but it was during the off season.

At times I played with players from UBC that ended up in the CFL a year later for example.  Yes some were not very bright and others were on the path to become doctors, lawyers and very technical positions. That's true with any group in society. Some don't get a chance at a university education and some are not as smart as others. Some billionaires didn't finish high school.

All of that was between mid 1970's and 1993.

[Blue In BC]

Just heard on the local news that there was a full day of negotiations and that will continue today as well. Nothing specific either positive or negative but the two sides are talking.

Crunch day for some trimming of roster, down to 85 today and then again on Tuesday, down to 75. Hard to tell how many players are non counters at the moment, but probably going to see 15 or so released in the next few days.

[theaardvark]

We can't solve the US health care issues, but we can take care of our players after they leave the league.  Its not that expensive, and it is the right thing to do.  Extending health care removes the issue we saw with Hefney.

As to DM83's comment about players not being the sharpest stick in the drawer, most drafted players have completed a university programme.  Some are glorified basket weaving courses designed to keep grade point eligibility for sports, while others get legit degrees that they use the rest of their lives.  Some even become doctors...

But not all finish their education, or get one that serves them post career.  Hence the opportunity to finish or redo their schooling will have a very positive outcome for many players.  Again, like healthcare, not all will benefit, but those that need it, it could be a vital support mechanism post career.  If the USFL can put together such a programme, I am sure the CFL can find a way, I'm sure, if negotiated correctly, the cross promotion opportunity could make it almost cost neutral.

I forgot about NFL windows in my original CBA.  There should be a NFL opt out window for *every player* between Jan 1 and Jan 21 each year.  That give everyone a chance to get a look, and teams a chance to re-sign players aftger the NFL window and before FA starts 

[Blue In BC]

We can't solve the US health care issues, but we can take care of our players after they leave the league.  Its not that expensive, and it is the right thing to do.  Extending health care removes the issue we saw with Hefney.

As to DM83's comment about players not being the sharpest stick in the drawer, most drafted players have completed a university programme.  Some are glorified basket weaving courses designed to keep grade point eligibility for sports, while others get legit degrees that they use the rest of their lives.  Some even become doctors...

But not all finish their education, or get one that serves them post career.  Hence the opportunity to finish or redo their schooling will have a very positive outcome for many players.  Again, like healthcare, not all will benefit, but those that need it, it could be a vital support mechanism post career.  If the USFL can put together such a programme, I am sure the CFL can find a way, I'm sure, if negotiated correctly, the cross promotion opportunity could make it almost cost neutral.

I forgot about NFL windows in my original CBA.  There should be a NFL opt out window for *every player* between Jan 1 and Jan 21 each year.  That give everyone a chance to get a look, and teams a chance to re-sign players aftger the NFL window and before FA starts 

So it's not that expensive but the USA won't provide good healthcare to it's own citizens? It may be the right thing to do but unless you have revenue like the NFL it is not feasible. Not every CFL team is currently showing a profit.

Now if the CFLPA wants to " take "$5K - $10K from every player and put it into an insurance kind of fund for seriously injured players, then maybe that's part of a solution. An offset from a pension entity.

CTE may not become known for years or decades. Broken legs, arms, leg injuries and other common injuries can also have long term impacts. Very few instances of issues like the Hefney example.

Matt Dunigan could have increased cognitive issues as he gets older including CTE. A few others come to mind. I know a former DT that I coached with died of suspected CTE.  A couple of CFL names come to mind that died after a hit during a game. Also a couple in the NFL.

Zack Collaros could be a player that might suffer some level of CTE down the road. There could be a number of players in that category.

Regardless it's a very small number and I don't know what the CFL can do to cover the unknown issues down the road. Some injuries are career ending but are non cognitive problems: Theisman's compound broken leg. Horrifying to watch.

[TecnoGenius]

OTOH giving M. Reilly an increase from about $450K to $700K in 2019 is incomprehensible. Or Lawler going from $63K to $300K as examples.

That escapade did serve a very useful purpose: it demonstrated to the league and the players that pay like that will kill a team.  Never again will you see a team overpay by that percentage for a QB.  The repercussions for those involved were quite severe.  Lions had a horrifically bad 2 years.  Claybrooks will probably never HC again.  Hervey lost his job.  Fans were unhappy.  Everyone suffered, even M.Reilly; taking a huge number of sacks.

Maybe you need an episode like that once in a generation to remind people why it's a bad idea.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

That escapade did serve a very useful purpose: it demonstrated to the league and the players that pay like that will kill a team.  Never again will you see a team overpay by that percentage for a QB.  The repercussions for those involved were quite severe.  Lions had a horrifically bad 2 years.  Claybrooks will probably never HC again.  Hervey lost his job.  Fans were unhappy.  Everyone suffered, even M.Reilly; taking a huge number of sacks.

Maybe you need an episode like that once in a generation to remind people why it's a bad idea.

.....and yet the Elks double all reasonable expectations of what a CFL receiver could earn by signing Lawler to a $300k/season contract, this coming after the worst season of attendance in their history....I'm not sure the CFL ever learns from it's lessons.  It's somewhat like watching a friend go out and blow $100k on a luxury auto while being underwater on a huge mortgage.

[ModAdmin]

Farhan Lalji
@FarhanLaljiTSN
1h
The latest memo from @CFLPA
 to @CFL
. I?ve heard from a few sources that the two sides are getting closer to a deal but a MOU has not been signed yet. As players begin physicals with their teams, bargaining continues & additional updates expected later today. @CFLonTSN

[Blue In BC]

https://www.cfl.ca/2022/05/14/a-letter-from-commissioner-randy-ambrosie-to-cfl-fans-players/

Some of the info was a little on the vague side. If I interpreted this correctly, kicks in for 2023.

1. Going back to 3 QB's any nationality. If teams roster 2 Globals that eliminates another Canadian by adding back a 3rd QB in 2023. No mention whether that increases the roster by 1 more or whether there is still a non dressed player at # 46?

2. One veteran American will be classified as a National starting in 2023. Technically that reduces the number of actual starting Canadians by 1.

3. Minimum salary increases twice. Once in 2023 to $70K and to $75K in 2027. You think there would be annual raises between 2023 and 2027 rather than  3 years with no raise?

4. 7 year deal with a $2M SMS increase over 7 years = about $285K per year which is significantly more than in recent years.

5. Partially guaranteed contracts for some veterans possible. At the discretion of the team. Not sure how this varies from current deal with veteran cut off dates.

6. Revenue sharing above a set level.


Sounds like a deal the CFLPA would accept.  Anybody think of any areas of contention?