CBA negotiations

[Jesse]

Somewhat 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.

And 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.

[Jesse]

Transparent? 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.

I 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.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I 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.

True. Although I'm not really pro player or owner in this so far, that first "deal" wasn't an actual, realistic deal and since the players went on strike it may have been a real miscalculation instead of a successful strong-armed tactic that will help them. We will see. I still think everything gets set right pretty quick, but I didn't think there would be a strike either, so here we are.

[TBURGESS]

Profit and loss isn't what matters. It's not what offers are based on. Therefore, it's none of the players business.

[Blue In BC]

I 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.

We don't know what the CFLPA's first demands were. Regardless the 1st deal is not the current deal. Extreme 1st " offers " " positions " are typical in union negotiations, that just a reality.

In the expired CBA, players earned ELC's of $63K and the top players earned about $500K+. In the new deal the ELC's would rise to $70K in 2023 and the union isn't satisfied.  

There seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors from the CFLPA IMO but no real details of exactly they want, as least in the public forum. I've already tried to ask / suggest how wages / versus benefits come out of the same pocket. Pick the ratio you want if players feel greater need for more benefits and less wages.  You can't keep adding to the ask.

What are the details of their position?

Padded practices? This isn't flag football. Does the NFL practice with pads?

You don't think taking a strike vote is the CFLPA trying to run roughshod over the CFL?



Google info about NFL and padded practices starting on 8th day of TC.


There will be contact, but teams aren't going to get overly physical or tackle each other to the ground in a training camp setting. But McCarthy did make the obvious point that putting on pads will allow the more physical aspects of the game, such as offensive and defensive line play, to shine.

Now teams are allowed 14 practices in pads each season, once a week through the first 11 weeks. The other three are parceled out over the final six weeks, preventing a coach from hording sessions for December. A coach can put his team in pads twice in one week only once during the first 11 weeks, and players help monitor whether teams follow the rules.

[Blue In BC]

More NFL comparison info regarding lack of more padded practices. Note that the NFL allows more padded practices than what the CFL is asking for. The NFL has a slightly shorter regular season after increasing to 17 games in 2021. Note there were comments about the lack of padded practices leads to lesser conditioning which leads to injuries.


Coaches are having difficulty melding their long-held philosophies with the league's new approach. Proponents of hard-hitting football cultivated by rugged practices are upset with the mandated scaled-back approach. They assert the lack of contact will leave their squads unprepared for the intensity and physicality of the game.

How else will these rule changes affect teams? Here are three possibilities:

1. Tackling could suffer. Defensive coaches are worried about the prospect of shoddy tackling without full-speed contact drills on a consistent basis. Although defenders have spent years crafting their skills, the frenetic pace of the game requires players to work on proper angles and tackling fundamentals regularly. Granted, some defenses have been able to flourish without banging daily, but it's hard to replicate the tempo, aggressiveness and angle discipline needed without contact.

2. Running game will feel a pinch. From an offensive standpoint, the lack of hitting could hurt run-heavy attacks without the benefit of intense nine-on-seven drills that focus on execution. To be successful on the ground, offenses must own the line of scrimmage and generate consistent push. This requires the offensive line to move defenders off the ball. While elements can be simulated without pads, the best rushing attacks sharpen timing and execution by pummeling scout team defenders in a series of brutal team sessions.

3. The reduction of full-contact practices will also impact the passing game. Teams will find it challenging to refine pass protection under the current circumstances. Offenses will have limited opportunities to work against pressures in live contact blitz periods. This will lead to more miscues and blown assignments in protection, which could result in quarterbacks taking a pounding. With blockers unable to learn how to handle the speed, strength and power of attacking defenders through repetition, building up the necessary toughness to win physical confrontations could become an issue. That fortitude is only

[Jesse]

See, 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).

[theaardvark]

Revenue 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.

[Blue In BC]

See, 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).

The 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't

Padded 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.

[Blue In BC]

Revenue 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.

Are we certain the CFLPA or players don't get some of the revenue from merchandise? Note that not all merch has players names and players don't own the team name etc. There should be no issue with named players stuff getting some amount of that revenue. OTOH, that's something that should be / could be handled on a given players contact, not at at CFLPA level.

CFL teams don't all own the parking and concessions.  Even if they did, teams have to pay stadium costs etc etc.


As has been mentioned countless times, CFLPA wants a slice of any pie that generates revenue. They don't share any of the loss / cost pie. It's not reasonable.

[Jesse]

The 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't

Padded 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.

For 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?

[theaardvark]

Is the sticking point gambling?  Is the CFLPA worried about CFL single game wagering and other gambling revenue becoming a substantial part of league revenue?

Are they concerned about the new marketing arm of the league, the splitting off of the TV revenue into a new partnership, that the CFL has offered the a board seat on?

It seems like it is deeper than padded practices and a cut of hot dog sales...

[Blue In BC]

For 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?

I didn't see the $100K increase to the SMS in year 2.. My impression was that none of the increases would be done until 2023. Since the increase was $18M over that 6 years that's $300K increase on average 2023-2027. You may be correct.

Now that's just an average and it there may have been a proposed smaller increase in 2022?  I'm not sure it really matters, since player contracts are in place already. It would give teams more room to add NFL returnees at the end of the year but it's after the fact at the moment.

If the $100K is an actual fact and they agreed to use that to increase the ELC in 2022 that's a different option. I'd guess most teams only have a dozen or so ELC's? That would consume that $100K and I'd have no issue with some explanation of the increase on a year to year basis. However I assumed an equal amount each year.

What you're saying is that the annual increase starts off on a smaller curve and rises through the agreement length. Previous CBA only had $50K increases in the last 2 years IIRC. So $100K in year 2 seems to follow that path except for nothing in 2021.

In theory the SMS could increase by $1M in 2021. It doesn't mean teams will spend any or all of it. That's a catch 22.

Even if the duration is reduced to 5 years from 7, then the total would reduced proportionately. $300K X 5 instead of $300K X 7

[3rdand1.5]

I am not siding with one side here but to me a community owned team walks away and the taxpayers pick up the tab. The remaining owners claim to be losing money, but they walk away and are still multi millionaires/billionaires, the veterans and star players walk away with potentially some signing bonus money they earned to get them by into a new chapter, it's the rest, the majority of the players, the ones who are barely making ends meet, just starting out, trying to put food on the table, make a better life for their families etc. those are ones with the most to lose. Many of them can't get $60k with benefits a year outside of football and those that have the education and can, it's the mental damage they suffered having it "the dream" taken away from them.

No disrespect to Adam Bighill and the rest of the guys leading the charge, but they could "afford" to stop work, they have other careers, roots in the community they have received signing bonuses that will hold them over. I want to hear from the "foot soldiers" who are counting on even $60k/year to pay their bills or guys like Lawler who is set to make monster money but didn't get anything upfront, I want to know what a guy like him thinks if this drags out and he starts bringing in zero income having that monster contract, the one that could change his life oh so close, yet slipping away from him every day that passes by.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

And 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.

Could be that some of the private owners are opposed to opening their books up to audit, especially if they're not single entities and integrated with other businesses as in the case of the Stamps and Argos.