Rourke released, Signed by Atlanta...and released again AND SIGNS WITH BC

[TecnoGenius]

A completely separate point from Rourke's specific situation. Even if we raised the cap by a million or two for the sole purpose of raiding NFL PR's of their QBs. Not only would players not come, but CFL teams wouldn't do it. How many QBs come here and look good right away? You think teams are going to offer the high end money before they prove themselves? Any salary cap increase goes to the guys already making top money.

That's why all my examples were retention.  Retaining Rourke.  Retaining Goosen.  It's not just QBs, it's about all positions, and maybe even NATs most of all.  (Maybe you can lure a bit more rookie talent too, but that's not my focus.)

Every season 1-3 very good NAT OL retire from the CFL for no reason at all, when they are young and probably have 5+ future years of being all-stars.  Why?  Well, probably because the money they earn doesn't compensate for the garbage health and strain on their body.  But they might stay for $50-$100k more each!

I'm not proposing the Rocket Ishmael era with no cap.  I'm saying the CFL is already close in $$ terms, if we get a bit closer logic says we'll keep more talent at the margins when money is the deciding factor.

It's a darn good thing we could offer Rourke $500-$750 because for $300-$400 he probably just sits in the USA waiting beside the phone.

[TecnoGenius]

Do we know that the "rest goes to normal SMS"? It seems like this is up for debate, according to Derek Taylor, among others? Either way, Rourke is great for the league and the CFL is better for it. But we need to have a proper salary cap to keep the league viable.

List all the team owners.  Then list their net worth.  Again, I don't believe the cries of "poor".  Does BC get equalization payments from WPG for 2023?  Ya, so if they're so poor, how come they just handed out the league-cushiest "marketing" salary?

I'll assume the new EDM owner is made of money.  The BC guy is.  Young @HAM sure is.  Unlimited funds.  I bet the MTL owner is too.

So really the only real "poors" would be community owned teams with bad attendance (CGY? maybe SSK this season?).

Ya, even CGY and SSK would find a way to scrounge up another half mill for a better cap.  And if they didn't, they'd probably just "equalize" it from us.

My point is: it's doable and won't really hurt the league.  In fact, who's to say that the improved talent and retention wouldn't make the product so much better we up the fan base (butts + TV) by 20%??  The whole "spend money to make money" thing?

[ichabod_crane]

I have some real issues with the unreality of some of you. EVEN a rich owner is not running a charity case forever no matter how deep they are in a community. They might be OK with breaking even on a team or even losing a bit for the benefit of the community and the net asset value of the team keeps rising. Still if I was an owner and kept losing money hand over fist, I'm not keeping that up forever UNLESS the value of the team keeps going up to compensate for that where I will get a nice payoff when I do sell the team! You don't get rich by throwing money down a black hole!

Same with the salary cap. One thing to DREAM if it could be raised and what effect it might have on the league. A totally different thing in reality. Where are ALL these new funds coming from? From the Wizard of OZ?!   Attendance dropping in many cities in a gate driven league....as TOM CRUISE SAYS "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" Money talks.....B.S. WALKS!!  

[TBURGESS]

What's the advantage to do it as a salary bonus as opposed to marketing money?

My gut reaction is that they are going to want him to make some appearances and the marketing money is tied to that expectation. That is what the money is intended for, after all.

That doesn't answer the question. Let me expand... People don't do anything unless there is something in it for them so there has to be a financial reason that BC chose to use Marketing money instead of salary or bonus. 

The CBA says:

Section 30.01 Salary Expenditure CAP

The Salary Expenditure CAP for each Member Club shall be no less than the

amounts set out in the following schedule for the following years:

Salary Expenditure Cap	Non‐Football Related Services minimum additional amount	Total Salary Expenditure Cap
2022	$5,350,000	N/A	$5,350,000
2023	$5,450,000	$60,000	$5,510,000
2024	$5,525,000	$110,000	$5,635,000
2025	$5,650,000	$110,000	$5,760,000
2026	$5,750,000	$110,000	$5,860,000
2027	$5,850,000	$110,000	$5,960,000
2028	$5,888,889	$110,000	$5,998,889

So it's clearly a minimum amount not a maximum amount. 

[Jesse]

That doesn't answer the question. Let me expand... People don't do anything unless there is something in it for them so there has to be a financial reason that BC chose to use Marketing money instead of salary or bonus.

The CBA says:

So it's clearly a minimum amount not a maximum amount.

It is a minimum amount. 100%. Teams have to award at least that much to players for appearances and non-football uses of their time.

Rourke getting so much must mean they are going to be asking to make quite a few non-football related appearances/signings/etc. But why x amount of Rourke contract was a bonus or housing allowance or performance bonus, we can't answer. It was a part of their negotiations. Kinda irrelevant, tbh.

The Total Expenditure column you posted is 110k above the salary cap. A + B = C. As B increases, A must decrease if you want C to stay constant.

[TBURGESS]

It is a minimum amount. 100%. Teams have to award at least that much to players for appearances and non-football uses of their time.

Rourke getting so much must mean they are going to be asking to make quite a few non-football related appearances/signings/etc. But why x amount of Rourke contract was a bonus or housing allowance or performance bonus, we can't answer. It was a part of their negotiations. Kinda irrelevant, tbh.

The Total Expenditure column you posted is 110k above the salary cap. A + B = C. As B increases, A must decrease if you want C to stay constant.

The Salary Expenditure CAP for each Member Club shall be no less than the amounts set out in the following schedule for the following years

What A B & C do would only matter if it was the maximum amount, but it's doesn't matter, because it's defining the minimum amounts.

A(Minimum) + B(Minimum) = C(Minimum)
D(Undefined) = Maximum

[Jesse]

What A B & C do would only matter if it was the maximum amount, but it's doesn't matter, because it's defining the minimum amounts.

A(Minimum) + B(Minimum) = C(Minimum)
D(Undefined) = Maximum

There is no D.

A = Salary Cap (Maximum) - Teams must also spend within 600k of this number.
B = NFRS (Minimum)
C = TSEC (Maximum)

A + B = C

[GOLDMEMBER]

You math heads crack me up!

[Jesse]

You math heads crack me up!

Hey, if anyone from the league or one of the teams would just give an honest answer, we wouldn't have to go through the mental gymnastics.

[Blue In BC]

We've beat this conversation to death and it seems that we know how this works and why. What more evidence do we need for clarification?

[Jesse]

We've beat this conversation to death and it seems that we know how this works and why. What more evidence do we need for clarification?

Some people just like playing the naysayer.

[TBURGESS]

There is no D.

A = Salary Cap (Maximum) - Teams must also spend within 600k of this number.
B = NFRS (Minimum)
C = TSEC (Maximum)

A + B = C

What part of 

shall be no less than

are you unclear about?

[Jesse]

What part of are you unclear about?

Not sure how long I'll keep repeating myself; but not a single person, ever, has ever suggested it can be less than 110k. In the quote of mine that you are talking about, I wrote "minimum".

I can't fathom what you're trying to suggest.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Maybe we can talk about how a defensive back doesn't need to turn to legally break up a pass?

[GOLDMEMBER]

Hey, if anyone from the league or one of the teams would just give an honest answer, we wouldn't have to go through the mental gymnastics.

It is your choice to bother doing mental gymnastics.