Started by theaardvark, May 06, 2022, 02:56:55 PM
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on May 17, 2022, 01:33:49 PMSomewhat true, however, Winnipeg, Saskatchewan and Edmonton are required to be completely transparent on their financial performance every year as community-owned entities. Anyone can look at their annual reports at any time. It's not like other clubs do significantly better, (and some do far worse) so there is a lot more known than unknown. Nobody is getting rich off of CFL ownership. Edmonton lost over a million dollars last year and the league says they lost 60-80 million during the pandemic which, even if inflated, is still a lot of losses for a league that doesn't make a lot.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 17, 2022, 12:55:08 PMTransparent? All you have to do is look at the attendance in stadiums. In the good old days the Lions would get 45K in the stands. Now they are lucky to get 25K. Toronto attracts flies. Montreal used to sellout in the days of AC, now it's obviously never a filled stadium.Running roughshod over the players? That's something union's like to say. It's a feeling of entitlement which is out to lunch.
Quote from: Jesse on May 17, 2022, 01:41:57 PMI struggle to see how you can look over some of the terms of the first deal the league handed out and describe it any differently.
Quote from: Jesse on May 17, 2022, 03:35:57 PMSee, and I feel as if the CFL is being vague and it's the CFLPA who are simply asking for clarity.CFL promises an increase of 18+ million for the salary cap, when it's 100k/year starting in year 2. PA asks for clear language.CFL promises revenue sharing. PA wants revenue defined. Or shorten the length of the deal so they can renegotiate once the new TSN deal is finalized.CFL wants padded practices. PA wants medical assurances (this is the least clearly defined stance. I' not sure what they want, but media indicates they are willing to deal on this point).
Quote from: theaardvark on May 17, 2022, 03:41:56 PMRevenue sharing... there is one spot that I think does need to be addressed, and that is in player identified licensed merchandise sales. If the team makes a t-shirt with your name on it, the CFLPA should get a chunk of those sales, with the named player getting half. If the team sells a jersey with your name on the namebar, same. These are incentives that give the players a reason to stay team loyal, and build a brand, as well as rewarding them for doing so. The other half the revenue from these sales that is given to the CFLPA should be distributed equally among players based on games played that year. A small "dividend" cheque or a credit towards their union fees. THAT is revenue sharing that makes sense.Trying to justify other revenue sharing, or create a profit sharing model, just too much paperwork and potential for disputes. Give the CFLPA a cut of parking, or beer sales, or some other revenue stream with easy to monitor metrics, that players can enhance by improving overall revenue streams by bringing an improved product to the table. Maybe even a cut of the sale of the GC game. Players appearing in the game get a taste, but 7 teams worth of players get diddly. Set the GC price at X amount, with a premium if it sells out, giving that premium to the CFLPA to distribute.I agree with enhanced healthcare, and if the CFL gets padded practices in return for that, I'd say its a win/win. Term should be the same as the TSN deal, and CBA should expire Jan 1, although for the terms of contracts in force, they should survive the CBA until FA day, unless adjusted in a new CBA arrived at between Jan 1 and FA day.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 17, 2022, 03:43:37 PMThe CFL issued an outline of their proposal. The details would be more specific in the actual written offer.In the outline I saw nothing suggesting $100K in year 2. I saw an increase to $70K in 2023 and $75K in or by 2027. Whether there were annual increases of just a lump increase in 2027 was vague in the CFL outline, but it would have to be clear in the written offer.Revenue sharing. How complicated can it be: TV revenue, attendance revenue, local stadium advertising and merchandising. That's if you think players are even entitled to revenue sharing which I don'tPadded practices I covered in my 2 posts above. The number the CFL asked for is less than in the NFL, so it's not outrageous. I also covered the aspect of medical assurances: here's the pot, split it however they want. I also pointed out that younger players will almost certainly opt for more money NOW.
Quote from: Jesse on May 17, 2022, 04:24:17 PMFor the record, none of this is my opinion, I'm sharing what I'm reading from Bighill et al. The players want more clarity, so I don't think there are more details in the actual proposal, which is one of the major issues.100k refers to the increase in salary cap, not the minimum salary. You are absolutely correct about the minimum numbers. In regards to revenue sharing - the league wants to retain the definition from the previous CBA - I think the players don't want to risk being shorted from any new revenue over the next 7+ years. It's a key difference. Probably a big sticking point.I agree that the padded practices is a fair ask in the amount that they're asking. I'm not sure what the counter is from the players? Perhaos just a guarentee they'll be fully covered in the event of a tragic injury such as Hefney?
Quote from: Jesse on May 17, 2022, 01:41:02 PMAnd that's fine, I understand all of that.But given those factors, I wonder why it's so hard for the CFL to open their books and say this is exactly what we're working with. This was the determining factor in the federal handout as well. The league refused to open their books and didn't receive additional funding - which directly affected the players as that was the final nail in the coffin on the season.