CBA negotiations

[Jesse]

It's $2.1M increase over 7 years per team. Not a $600K increase over 7 years. Even you said it the quoted line below this.

1+2+3+4+5+6= 2.1million per team 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. An ELC doesn't prevent you from paying more. It's the floor not the ceiling.

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.

EDIT: $600K over 7 years would make more sense. That number X 9 teams is $5.4M. So it's not accumulating to a $6.1 SMS in year 7 according to that unless the $18.9 M was a large typo.

It is 600k over 7 years per team.

I don't know what the salary cap is? 5.4M? That would mean the cap would increase to 6M by the end of the deal.

The 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.

This is what I mean. If you bring revenue sharing into the negotiation room, you need to share those revenues.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

OK, just looked at the CBA, and the entry contract is for NAT players... they are required to sign for 2 + 1 at $65 plus a modest optional bonus based on draft round selection.   If, for instance, Laurent Duvernay-Tardif flamed out in the NFL and came north in 2021, he would have to sign a 2+1 year deal at $65k max, plus $12.5k bonuses for the first 2 years (based on being drafted in the 3rd round).  Now, with his NFL experience, he would be free to sign whatever deal he wanted, with Calgary, his drafted team.

That clause probably contributed to 2nd round draft pick Andy Mulamba deciding not to sign with the Bombers after he couldn't catch on in the NFL.  It would be great to see it eliminated.

[buckzumhoff]

They want revenue sharing. They have their own agents negotiate their own contracts. Can go to other teams for more money. The league don't have the money to give the players when teams like Toronto and alot of teams don't have good attendance. What do they want to share. Half of everything. The league will never get off the ground . They should maybe get rid of teams who can't put people in the stands . Then there will be less jobs.

[Blue In BC]

It is 600k over 7 years per team.

I don't know what the salary cap is? 5.4M? That would mean the cap would increase to 6M by the end of the deal.

This is what I mean. If you bring revenue sharing into the negotiation room, you need to share those revenues.

No the increase is about @24M in total according to what Ambroise said.

There is $600K in total to be used for public appearances. $600K X 9 = $5.4 M give or take. This was a response to Aardy's saying SMS only increases by $600K which was incorrect.

The other $18.9M divided for each team = $2.1M adjustment to the SMS over 7 years per team, or about $300K / year on average.

Re-read the Ambroise published on CFL.CA

I / we only suggested that's a considerable increase compared to the initial offer over 10 years. Over and above that it's about a 40% increase in total to the current SMS.

My comment was that IMO a $600K increase over 7 years would make more sense in the current financial situation.



Here is the line from what Ambrosie said.

It increases total player compensation by more than $24 million over the term of the agreement ? plus an opportunity to share in revenue increases as we successfully work together to grow the league.

[the paw]

No the increase is about @24M in total according to what Ambroise said.

There is $600K in total to be used for public appearances. $600K X 9 = $5.4 M give or take. This was a response to Aardy's saying SMS only increases by $600K which was incorrect.

The other $18.9M divided for each team = $2.1M adjustment to the SMS over 7 years per team, or about $300K / year on average.

Re-read the Ambroise published on CFL.CA

I / we only suggested that's a considerable increase compared to the initial offer over 10 years. Over and above that it's about a 40% increase in total to the current SMS.

My comment was that IMO a $600K increase over 7 years would make more sense in the current financial situation.



Here is the line from what Ambrosie said.

It increases total player compensation by more than $24 million over the term of the agreement ? plus an opportunity to share in revenue increases as we successfully work together to grow the league.

Ambrosie is purposely conflating total compensation as a cumulative total, with the increase to the cap, in order to make it sound like big money.

As you say Naylor's math makes more sense.  A $100k increase to the cap is more than in some recent years, so it ain't nothing.  But it isn't overly generous either. Its a 1.9% increase annually, which is tracking well below inflation.

I actually think the players might go for it though IF the revenue share can be sorted.  The pool for appearance money is a smart offer, and good for both sides.

[Jesse]

No the increase is about @24M in total according to what Ambroise said.

There is $600K in total to be used for public appearances. $600K X 9 = $5.4 M give or take. This was a response to Aardy's saying SMS only increases by $600K which was incorrect.

The other $18.9M divided for each team = $2.1M adjustment to the SMS over 7 years per team, or about $300K / year on average.

Re-read the Ambroise published on CFL.CA

I / we only suggested that's a considerable increase compared to the initial offer over 10 years. Over and above that it's about a 40% increase in total to the current SMS.

My comment was that IMO a $600K increase over 7 years would make more sense in the current financial situation.



Here is the line from what Ambrosie said.

It increases total player compensation by more than $24 million over the term of the agreement ? plus an opportunity to share in revenue increases as we successfully work together to grow the league.

Salary cap: 5.4M

2022+0
2023+100=5.5(+100 from 5.4)
2024+100=5.6(+200 from 5.4)
2025+100=5.7(+300 from 5.4)
2026+100=5.8(+400 from 5.4)
2027+100=5.9(+500 from 5.4)
2028+100=6.0(+600 from 5.4)

100+200+300+400+500+600= 2.1M

It is not 300k per year (that would be an insane increase). They are using real cost. How much it has increased from the original cap, and then the accumulated cost over the length of the deal.

[TecnoGenius]

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.   

Ya, but it only applies to NFL washouts who played in the NFL for 3 years.  That's basically nobody.  Who had 3+ years in the NFL recently and came back to the CFL?  I can only think of "Rouge" Ryan as an example in recent memory.  Most players pull a Bighill and spend 0.5 to 2 seasons in the NFL then come back.

In theory, though, it is a good idea and could incentivize future players to consider the CFL.

[TecnoGenius]

Regarding "opening the books" / audits... isn't that already going to be a feature of the CFL given the new "team revenue sharing" model?  Otherwise, how can "have" teams trust that the "have not" teams aren't crying "poor" and ripping us off?  We just going to take Ambrosie's word for what "have not" teams are making?  Pffft.

If the books are open for team "equalization payments" then they should simultaneously be open for player revenue sharing.

[Blue In BC]

Salary cap: 5.4M

2022+0
2023+100=5.5(+100 from 5.4)
2024+100=5.6(+200 from 5.4)
2025+100=5.7(+300 from 5.4)
2026+100=5.8(+400 from 5.4)
2027+100=5.9(+500 from 5.4)
2028+100=6.0(+600 from 5.4)

100+200+300+400+500+600= 2.1M

It is not 300k per year (that would be an insane increase). They are using real cost. How much it has increased from the original cap, and then the accumulated cost over the length of the deal.

I can't disagree that $300K a year would be insane and certainly hope your interpretation is correct. Then I take issue with the league letter from Ambrosie as very misleading. That letter is supposed to be about the offer and it says $24M increase.

It's difficult to read that last line in my post and to think otherwise.

[Jesse]

The 24M is concerning the revenue sharing, I believe.

[Blue In BC]

The 24M is concerning the revenue sharing, I believe.

Here's the quote from the CFL letter. Does it matter if the money comes from the left pocket or the right pocket so to speak? While I think we all agree $300K a year would be nuts considering the financial status of the league. OTOH, it's a 6% increase. The current inflation in Canada is 6.8%. I've lived through the days of 12% annual inflation.

Note that is includes an opportunity to include revenue sharing over and above the guaranteed increases.

Here are the details:
? $18.9 million in total guaranteed increases to the salary cap league-wide.

? $5.94 million in guaranteed compensation paid for community outreach and promotional appearances league-wide.


It increases total player compensation by more than $24 million over the term of the agreement ? plus an opportunity to share in revenue increases as we successfully work together to grow the league.

[Jesse]

Keep in mind it is not going up 300k per year, it is increasing by 100k each year starting in 2023.

It's the same thing with the 5.94M - each club contributes 110k per year (for a total pot of 990k). You multiple that by the final 6 years of the deal (starting in 2023) - you get the 5.94 number.

[theaardvark]

$5.5mil this year, will be guaranteed $6.1mil in year 7...  with no guarantees the league will increase revenue during that time.

Saw Derrick Dennis tweet out about the XFL's pay structure, etc... and comment that it will put a damper on rookie players coming north and that we need to treat our vets well.  Not sure there is a shortage of guys wanting to come up on a 2 year deal for min salary for an option to eventually make a lot more (as a CFL vet or NFL), Lawler is the posterboy for that.  

Yes, USFL and XFL do draw down on the talent pool.  And the CBA will cause that to worsen in some cases.  like with Dobson and other NAT talent especially.  Have to wonder if the NAT part of the CBA with NFL "time served" exemption should be extended to XFL/USFL.... its one thing to lose players to the NFL, but if we're going to lose them to those other leagues, lets at least open the path back afterwards.

That said, the pool of players that "just miss" the NFL talent wise is broad and deep.  Like Lalji said recently, just because CFL players get paid less than 10% of NFL players doesn't mean they are only 10% as good... many are 95% as good... the difference in talent is not that big.

With the league's setup, the coaching, the fans... even if we end up with lesser rookies and a lower overall talent pool than we presently have, the product will remain far superior to USFL and XFL, for sure.  Much deeper playbooks, much more intensive coaching, much more continuity with players/coaches will keep our game much more watchable and enjoyable.  Watching this weeks USFL games took me about an hour.  The play has not improved, the playbooks have not been extended, if anything, they seem to be simplifying to try and improve effectiveness, which does not seem to be happening.  Lots of blown coverages, lots of dropped balls, lots of DLine blasting through.  And a lot of confused looking QB play.  

The CFL is going to remain the best football league for players to showcase their talents for the NFL, and to improve their play to try and make that jump.  It will be interesting to see how many USFL players get NFL looks, and more importantly, how many get AR spots.  CFL stars will have actual game film of players in competent systems making plays.  USFL players will get to showcase raw talent in being able to make athletic plays, but showing the ability to make plays as part of a finely tuned system like the NFL, not so much.  Scouting USFL talent is akin to watching a very good player dominate a pickup game in a schoolyard.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

$5.5mil this year, will be guaranteed $6.1mil in year 7...  with no guarantees the league will increase revenue during that time.

Saw Derrick Dennis tweet out about the XFL's pay structure, etc... and comment that it will put a damper on rookie players coming north and that we need to treat our vets well.  Not sure there is a shortage of guys wanting to come up on a 2 year deal for min salary for an option to eventually make a lot more (as a CFL vet or NFL), Lawler is the posterboy for that.  

Yes, USFL and XFL do draw down on the talent pool.  And the CBA will cause that to worsen in some cases.  like with Dobson and other NAT talent especially.  Have to wonder if the NAT part of the CBA with NFL "time served" exemption should be extended to XFL/USFL.... its one thing to lose players to the NFL, but if we're going to lose them to those other leagues, lets at least open the path back afterwards.

That said, the pool of players that "just miss" the NFL talent wise is broad and deep.  Like Lalji said recently, just because CFL players get paid less than 10% of NFL players doesn't mean they are only 10% as good... many are 95% as good... the difference in talent is not that big.

With the league's setup, the coaching, the fans... even if we end up with lesser rookies and a lower overall talent pool than we presently have, the product will remain far superior to USFL and XFL, for sure.  Much deeper playbooks, much more intensive coaching, much more continuity with players/coaches will keep our game much more watchable and enjoyable.  Watching this weeks USFL games took me about an hour.  The play has not improved, the playbooks have not been extended, if anything, they seem to be simplifying to try and improve effectiveness, which does not seem to be happening.  Lots of blown coverages, lots of dropped balls, lots of DLine blasting through.  And a lot of confused looking QB play.  

The CFL is going to remain the best football league for players to showcase their talents for the NFL, and to improve their play to try and make that jump.  It will be interesting to see how many USFL players get NFL looks, and more importantly, how many get AR spots.  CFL stars will have actual game film of players in competent systems making plays.  USFL players will get to showcase raw talent in being able to make athletic plays, but showing the ability to make plays as part of a finely tuned system like the NFL, not so much.  Scouting USFL talent is akin to watching a very good player dominate a pickup game in a schoolyard.

There is nothing "for sure" about that in the XFL context. The USFL does seem flawed but if the XFL launches successfully it could very easily supplant the CFL as the "next best" league outside of the NFL. And quite quickly, too. They have a giant market to work with, a massive media partner and could scale salaries quickly. Again, it's also failed twice and could certainly do so again, but the ingredients for a successful launch are there. I certainly wouldn't be making any "for sure" statements about it.

[Jesse]

XFL suddenly has Disney behind it.

I tell you this, I laugh at these spring/start up leagues as much as anyone, but if it's on Disney+ or Prime, I'd probably watch it.