Blue Bombers Forum
August 10, 2022, 07:00:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 35
  Print  
Author Topic: CBA negotiations  (Read 15635 times)
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27929


« Reply #375 on: May 25, 2022, 05:35:43 PM »

I can't believe the league and owners are willing to jeopardize the season for the sake of a single "naturalized national" position.  It is only token lip service to the "contributions of our American players" and it does literally nothing to improve the business case of the CFL.  The impact on the "quality of play" would be imperceptible.  One can only conclude they are trying to get the thin end of the wedge in here, as part of a strategy to keep chipping away at the ratio.

If they really wanted to value the contribution of veteran American players, why not add a stipulation that all DI positions must be veterans of at least 3 years?  That gives a tangible incentive to keep aging veterans who have some flexibility in positions.  it could extend the careers of guys like Charleston Hughes, or Ed Gainey, or William Powell. 

Honestly, if I had been the league, I think I would have come back with 7 Canadian starters, one nationalized American position, and a $2 million signing bonus.  I bet that would have passed with flying colours. 

But you can accept that the CFLPA is willing to do the same? Why would they offer even more money? It's like putting lipstick on a pig. That won't make it any more prettier.

It's the same hill.

Earlier I thought perhaps moving the minimum wage up into 2022 might have been the carrot that made sense. Compared to giving signing bonus's to a large number of CFL players already making $100K+ along with those at the bottom.



« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 05:48:04 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23018



« Reply #376 on: May 25, 2022, 05:50:12 PM »

I can't believe the league and owners are willing to jeopardize the season for the sake of a single "naturalized national" position.  It is only token lip service to the "contributions of our American players" and it does literally nothing to improve the business case of the CFL.  The impact on the "quality of play" would be imperceptible.  One can only conclude they are trying to get the thin end of the wedge in here, as part of a strategy to keep chipping away at the ratio.

If they really wanted to value the contribution of veteran American players, why not add a stipulation that all DI positions must be veterans of at least 3 years?  That gives a tangible incentive to keep aging veterans who have some flexibility in positions.  it could extend the careers of guys like Charleston Hughes, or Ed Gainey, or William Powell. 

Honestly, if I had been the league, I think I would have come back with 7 Canadian starters, one nationalized American position, and a $2 million signing bonus.  I bet that would have passed with flying colours. 

The owners clearly see the ratio (or at the very least, the current extent of the ratio) as a net negative on the league and future of the CFL. You and others on here may disagree with their assessment but their actions are the best evidence of this. Don't forget the first offer they tendered was a no ratio league. I still can't fathom why on earth football fans would have a problem with the league wanting the best players they can possibly find from wherever they happen to be from. Makes no sense to me. You want credibility? That's how you get it.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 05:53:17 PM by Sir Blue and Gold » Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23018



« Reply #377 on: May 25, 2022, 06:04:02 PM »

@FarhanLaljiTSN
At this point PA leadership has been told by their members they don?t want to vote on a package that includes a ratio change. The league definitely wants them to put it to a vote
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4499


« Reply #378 on: May 25, 2022, 06:18:53 PM »

The owners clearly see the ratio (or at the very least, the current extent of the ratio) as a net negative on the league and future of the CFL. You and others on here may disagree with their assessment but their actions are the best evidence of this. Don't forget the first offer they tendered was a no ratio league. I still can't fathom why on earth football fans would have a problem with the league wanting the best players they can possibly find from wherever they happen to be from. Makes no sense to me. You want credibility? That's how you get it.

That's certainly the dominant owner narrative, and you are correct, I really don't see the logic to it.  I know you are convinced otherwise, but let me offer 3 points on this:

1.  Even if one accepts that getting rid of Canadian starters "improves the product", one position doesn't make any impact on that. So then its about some of the owners making an ideological stand on this.  Cause there is no business case for it in the next 7 years.

2.  the owners bargaining strategy has clearly been to drive a wedge between American and Canadian players and create disharmony in the CFLPA, and their media shills have been tweeting about "Locker room problems" incessantly.  I have to wonder if there aren't two camps among the owners on the ratio, and that while the anti-ratio owners are currently in ascendance, if the players hold the line, the other owners might rein in free market libertarian corporate types. 

3.  If I was a member of the CFLPA, the ratification bonus would have been the first thing I gave up.  It's ridiculous.  The problem is that the owners used a ratification bonus (in conjunction with a vote that included rookies) as a way to grease the acceptance of a crappy deal last time.  The CFLPA wised up to the strategy of buying off rookies with no skin in the game, but now all the members think the ratification bonus is a given thing.  It was a mistake last time, and now its turning around and biting both parties in the butt. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Jesse
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 14583



« Reply #379 on: May 25, 2022, 06:19:30 PM »

Both sides have dug in over the ratio position.

I hate talking about worst case scenarios because both sides need each other too much to let it come to that point, but this is not ideal.
Logged

My wife is amazing!
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23018



« Reply #380 on: May 25, 2022, 06:26:14 PM »

That's certainly the dominant owner narrative, and you are correct, I really don't see the logic to it.  I know you are convinced otherwise, but let me offer 3 points on this:

1.  Even if one accepts that getting rid of Canadian starters "improves the product", one position doesn't make any impact on that. So then its about some of the owners making an ideological stand on this.  Cause there is no business case for it in the next 7 years.

2.  the owners bargaining strategy has clearly been to drive a wedge between American and Canadian players and create disharmony in the CFLPA, and their media shills have been tweeting about "Locker room problems" incessantly.  I have to wonder if there aren't two camps among the owners on the ratio, and that while the anti-ratio owners are currently in ascendance, if the players hold the line, the other owners might rein in free market libertarian corporate types. 

3.  If I was a member of the CFLPA, the ratification bonus would have been the first thing I gave up.  It's ridiculous.  The problem is that the owners used a ratification bonus (in conjunction with a vote that included rookies) as a way to grease the acceptance of a crappy deal last time.  The CFLPA wised up to the strategy of buying off rookies with no skin in the game, but now all the members think the ratification bonus is a given thing.  It was a mistake last time, and now its turning around and biting both parties in the butt. 

It absolutely makes a difference. If the owners really want a reduction/elimination, they will eventually get it, the only difference is how.

The first way is the continuation of a gradual reduction through a process like this. The second is a scorched earth policy of a lock-out followed by an aggressive large one time reduction. The third is probably the most unlikely and would be a strategy to break the union altogether through a hostile policy of trying to play with those in camp who show up. Might not be possible in all markets due to labour laws but the league could possibly go down that road if there was enough conviction.

Only the owners know how strongly they are united and how strongly they feel they need to do this for the long term success of the league.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 30834



« Reply #381 on: May 25, 2022, 06:42:57 PM »

Saw a tweet supporting players, saying its not rght for Canadian players to be treated as second class citizens in their own country.

I was shocked at that thought.  The irony of it.

Every Canadian on a roster gets paid more than an equally talented American.

There are Canadians on rosters who have jobs instead of an equally or more talented American.

Purely due to a ratio that requires about 50% of a CFL roster have a link to Canada through some arcane set of rules.

So, literally, Americans are being treated as second class citizens.

Canadian players should be darned happy with all the gains made, they will continue to get paid more, will have jobs they otherwise wouldn't have, and get a ratification bonus.  And for the pseudo "Canadians" who qualify as Nats but do not reside in Canada, they get extended health care. 

If the CFLPA does not ratify by Thursday, they lose more than some TC time.  They put the league (and Canadian jobs) in jeopardy.

Right now, the CFL has a lot to lose.  But as soon as they lose even a pre-season game, then I can see them going for a union busting ratio change.  Instead of the NAT players losing 1 in 21 jobs, (which they probably pick back up on the PR), they could lose most of their jobs, most of their NAT pay disparity, and the security of the Ratio.  Because if the CFL has to re-negotiate, you can bet any ratio is off the table.  If you're gonna risk dying, get what you need to survive the impending XFL / USFL competition.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 07:09:39 PM by theaardvark » Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23018



« Reply #382 on: May 25, 2022, 06:53:28 PM »

Aardvark -- what the heck -- you nailed it!
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4499


« Reply #383 on: May 25, 2022, 07:02:02 PM »



So, literally, Americans are being treated as second class citizens.



At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the American players aren't citizens at all.  If they were, they's be Nationals..... Roll Eyes
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23018



« Reply #384 on: May 25, 2022, 07:04:37 PM »

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the American players aren't citizens at all.  If they were, they's be Nationals..... Roll Eyes

Well... some of the American players are nationals. Everyone knows the best Canadians come from California.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 30834



« Reply #385 on: May 25, 2022, 07:15:28 PM »

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the American players aren't citizens at all.  If they were, they's be Nationals..... Roll Eyes

They are citizens, American citizens. 

And there could be Canadian citizens that do not qualify to be NATs.   Many US players who have moved permanently to Canada to play here would seek a Canadian citizenship rapidly if they could get NAT status with it, but they wouldn't qualify.

So, would "Canadian" CFLPA players accept a new definition of "NAT"?  That you must have Canadian Citizenship at the time you sign your current contract as the only requisite. 

Instead of:

National (N, NAT)
    The 2019 CBA defines as National player thusly:
    (a) Canadian citizens at the time of signing the Player?s first C.F.L. Standard Player Contract or Practice Roster Agreement;
    (b) A Player classified as a National prior to May 21st, 2019; or
    (c) A Player who was physically resident in Canada for an aggregate period of five years prior to attaining the age of 18 years.
    2019 ? An American or Global Player who is draft eligible no earlier than the 2021 Draft and has played football for a minimum of three (3) year at a USports institution and has graduated with a degree at that institution.
    2020 ? In addition to the 2019 amendment above, the following will take effect the day before the start of training camp in 2020:
    An American player on a roster with the same CFL team after three (3) consecutive years or four (4) years in the CFL. These players apply only to the starter ratio and not the roster allocation.
    Introduced with the ratification of the 2014 CBA, a National player was defined from 2014 to 2019 as:
    (a) was a Canadian citizen at the time of signing his first contract,
    (b) was classified as a non-import prior to May 31, 2014,
    (c) or was physically resident in Canada for an aggregate period of five years prior to reaching the age of 18.
    The National designation replaces the Non-import designation used before 2014.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27929


« Reply #386 on: May 25, 2022, 08:19:35 PM »

@FarhanLaljiTSN
At this point PA leadership has been told by their members they don?t want to vote on a package that includes a ratio change. The league definitely wants them to put it to a vote

A vote could have been held immediately after practice yesterday or today and sent to CFLPA. That didn't happen and may not happen from the sounds of it.

Sad day for the CFL.

I'm still trying to figure out how the one nationalized american would really be implemented into an additional import starter. There is no addition to the roster of imports to the overall roster. Best guess is that Grant becomes a full time starter ( in place of Woli ) or a 2nd import DT start ( in place of Thomas ). That would leave 3 imports backing up 18 starters and 14 Canadians backing up 6 starters. Makes no sense.

That's not much of a plan to be set in motion changing the ratio  for the next 7 years. Logically they should have just added one more import and eliminated 1 more Canadian. From the starting position of totally eliminating the ratio over the length of the CBA, the one nationalized import is a big step back.

Lock them out.


« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 08:27:55 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
GOLDMEMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25008


R.I.P. BLUE BONGER


« Reply #387 on: May 25, 2022, 08:21:23 PM »

A vote could have been held immediately after practice yesterday or today and sent to CFLPA. That didn't happen and may not happen from the sounds of it.

Sad day for the CFL.
what a bunch of idiots!
Logged

I LOSHT MY MEMBER IN AN UNFORTUNATE SHMELTING ACCSHIDENT!
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23018



« Reply #388 on: May 25, 2022, 08:31:53 PM »

@TSNDaveNaylor
Hearing the @TorontoArgos have postponed tomorrow?s scheduled flight to Ottawa for their Friday preseason game against the @REDBLACKS. Team will wait for the @CFLPA to make a decision on league?s offer. If accepted, Argos will fly Friday day-of-game to Ottawa. #CFL #CFLPA
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23018



« Reply #389 on: May 25, 2022, 08:37:28 PM »

@TSNDaveNaylor
The question is often asked ?why does the @CFL want to reduce the # of Canadian starters?? Answer: it believes it would improve product. And its research says 2 groups they want to reach: younger fans and general sports fans prefer to see best players over Cdns.#CFL #CFLPA

...least shocking research ever.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 35
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!