Started by theaardvark, May 06, 2022, 02:56:55 PM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on May 17, 2022, 04:59:52 PMCould 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.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 17, 2022, 04:39:37 PMI 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
Quote from: theaardvark on May 17, 2022, 06:06:21 PM$100k/per year SMS increase per team. So, from the base point, 100k in 2023, 200k in 2024, 300k in 2025, 400k in 2026, 500k in 2027, 600k in 2028. 1+2+3+4+5+6= 2.1million per team over 7 years2.1mil * 9 = $18.9million league wide. There's the math for you... that's guaranteed, not including any other money that may come into play.As some players have mentioned, that 100k in 2023 will not cover the added $5k in the minimum salaries for those players on minimum, so some vets will take a small haircut... tiny really.. yo have to have 20 players making minimum to use up all the SMS increase year one, and for the next few years, the increases more than cover it until 2027, when it goes up another $5k... so overall, there might be a little penny pinching at the top, but nothing like some players are suggesting.Were I a CFLPA player, this is NOT something I'd quibble about... in the face of probable declining revenue, a guarantee raise every year in $$$ available is a no doubt slam dunk "Yes please".
Quote from: Jesse on May 17, 2022, 06:19:22 PMTHAT was it!It's the accumulative difference of the cap.100k in year 1 + 100k in year 2 doesn't cost 200k, it costs 300k. That's how the math works to 18.9.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 17, 2022, 06:33:41 PMYes and no. Year 1 is 2022 and there is no raise currently. The 2nd year of the deal is the 1st year with a raise and so on. That's math too. lol
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 17, 2022, 06:33:41 PMYes and no. Year 1 is 2022 and there is no raise currently. The 2nd year of the deal is the 1st year with a raise and so on. That's math too. lolThat said, no raise in 2022 but $600K in the last year? That could be spread out something closer to an average over the length of the contract. Most of the players in the league in 2022 won't be in the league at the back end of the contract.Even the $5K 2nd increase in ELC in 2027 won't impact very many on current rosters. Any player that survives into their 5th year won't be on an ELC level salary.
Quote from: theaardvark on May 17, 2022, 07:31:18 PMIts not $600k *in* the last year, it is a cumulative $600k as of the last year. Just another $100k, so each year they get $100 raise in SMS, $5.5mil in 2022 up to $6.1mil total SMS in 2028As to the min salaries, its not ELC, but the minimum you can pay. ELC prevent you from paying more on first contracts, but the min salary is for any player in any year of their contract... there are many players that are ST specialists or NAT veterans who will get that minimum. Yo can play 15 years and never get a contract over the minimum... but you will always get at least the minimum.The changes to the "return from NFL" clauses means players coming in from the NFL are not subject to ELC's, which could have prevented guys from even bothering with the CFL after the NFL... not sure which players it has affected, but I'm sure it has in the past.
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 17, 2022, 08:43:45 PMIt's $2.1M increase over 7 years per team. Not a $600K increase over 7 years. ? $18.9 million in total guaranteed increases to the salary cap league-wide.Obvious comment about the ELC but I doubt anybody would ever get less than an ELC after their 1st contact. I also doubt many wouldn't be getting more after their 1st contract.I'm not sure that any player that managed 3 years in the NFL was going to sign at rock bottom prices. Even if that was true, so be it.
Quote from: theaardvark on May 17, 2022, 08:53:15 PMYou can't get less than an ELC, except by being on the PR.When you pay players like Collaros, Jefferson, and the like, you also have to have players making league minimums. So, either players on ELCs or vets glad to have a job, even at $65k/yr.In past CBA's, players had to sign ELC's if they had no CFL experience. I remember there being issues with players interested in coming to the league, but balking at the allowed salaries. I don't remember specifics, I'm sure someone out there knows. This change allows teams to recruit players and start them at a reasonable "star" salary rather than an ELC, based on their NFL time. There have been ex-NFL players interested in just playing, regardless salary, but this opens things up a little for CFL teams to pay "twilight" NFL players more than ELC to finish up here...
Quote from: Blue In BC on May 17, 2022, 05:09:16 PMThe union has no right to see the books of private owners. Doesn't matter if they are making millions or not. The leagues isn't intended as a non profit organization. All indications are that making any money is not easy on a yearly basis. The reno's to BC Place in 2010-2011 were about $630M. While that was absurd and the stadium is used for other functions, stadium costs and maintenance fall in some part to each team. I haven't heard anyone comment on whether the players were required to vote on the offer or whether that happened.Dead silence at the moment including nothing about new discussions planned.
Quote from: the paw on May 17, 2022, 09:39:03 PMThe union has a right to see the books if they negotiate a CBA with the provision included. In fact, the old CBA requires clubs to provide financial stmts to he CFLPA (some audited, some not) although that was more for SMS verification than examining revenues.But if owners want to base SMS raises on revenue growth, they have to be willing to have those revenues verified. Otherwise its a meaningless provision. If the owners don't want to provide financial transparency, then they should shorten the deal length and commit to more substantial concrete additions to cap.