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

[TecnoGenius]

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?

I've been following quietly and I think it's as clear as mud.

I haven't been convinced yet that you cannot pay Rourke $10 million in "marketing" salary off of the SMS for a no-show fake "job".

And if teams can do that then the SMS means nothing and "rich" teams can outbid the "poor" teams for every player they could ever want.

[Jesse]

I've been following quietly and I think it's as clear as mud.

I haven't been convinced yet that you cannot pay Rourke $10 million in "marketing" salary off of the SMS for a no-show fake "job".

And if teams can do that then the SMS means nothing and "rich" teams can outbid the "poor" teams for every player they could ever want.

Anecdotal evidence is that we didn't do it to retain our players that we wanted to keep.

Definitive evidence is the part of the CBA that reads: TOTAL Salary Expenditure Cap.

I'm not sure how people can read the words "total" and "cap" and come to another conclusion.

[TecnoGenius]

Definitive evidence is the part of the CBA that reads: TOTAL Salary Expenditure Cap.

If that's true then no one has explained how Rourke is getting $200k marketing salary in 2025...  Misprint?  Fake news?  Or BC just admitted to cheating?

And don't tell me BC is not spending to the normal cap so they have $100k extra room to spend on marketing.  If that was the case, why not just pay Rourke $640k normal SMS plus $110k marketing?

[Jesse]

If that's true then no one has explained how Rourke is getting $200k marketing salary in 2025...  Misprint?  Fake news?  Or BC just admitted to cheating?

And don't tell me BC is not spending to the normal cap so they have $100k extra room to spend on marketing.  If that was the case, why not just pay Rourke $640k normal SMS plus $110k marketing?

It's been covered, but I'll throw it out there again.

- 110k is a minimum. Anything more will come out of the cap budget. It's written in back and white.
- Rourke is their superstar, so they're probably going to ask him to do lots of marketing, hence getting a big chunk not money to do it.
- No one has spent to the 2025 cap yet, the year hasn't even started yet. If a GM spends his whole cap before the year even starts, they're going to blow past it at the first injury. Even teams teams like us who are tight to the cap left a bunch of room.
- Yes, BC is going to have to make some cuts to their current roster to fit in the Rourke contract

[TecnoGenius]

It's been covered, but I'll throw it out there again.

- 110k is a minimum. Anything more will come out of the cap budget. It's written in back and white.
- Rourke is their superstar, so they're probably going to ask him to do lots of marketing, hence getting a big chunk not money to do it.
- No one has spent to the 2025 cap yet, the year hasn't even started yet. If a GM spends his whole cap before the year even starts, they're going to blow past it at the first injury. Even teams teams like us who are tight to the cap left a bunch of room.
- Yes, BC is going to have to make some cuts to their current roster to fit in the Rourke contract

I hope you're right!  What you say makes sense, but doesn't explain why not pay him the extra $90k in normal salary?  Even if he shows up to tons more marketing gigs, he's not doing $200k worth.  Heck, he's not going to do even $110k worth of gigs.  Those numbers are both plain silly and everyone knows it.

And if you believe 2025 BC isn't going to spend to within $90k of the cap, I have a bridge near the BDI to sell you.  Yes, that's the future, but any GC-contender West team is going to spend to the cap -- and beyond.

If you're right, then the whole "marketing money" thing is just useless obfuscation.  Just say the cap is $110k more than it is now and if teams want to have players appear places, just write it into their normal contract.  Having this confusion and obfuscation does not aid league/team transparency.  It literally provides no value to anyone or anything.  It's dumb.

[Blue In BC]

I've been following quietly and I think it's as clear as mud.

I haven't been convinced yet that you cannot pay Rourke $10 million in "marketing" salary off of the SMS for a no-show fake "job".

And if teams can do that then the SMS means nothing and "rich" teams can outbid the "poor" teams for every player they could ever want.

You're always looking for a conspiracy.

[TBURGESS]

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.

The entire table is minimum, not just the 110K. 

[Jesse]

The entire table is minimum, not just the 110K.

Yes, the salary cap is a minimum. Makes total sense. Thank-you.

[TBURGESS]

Yes, the salary cap is a minimum. Makes total sense. Thank-you.

That's what the statement:  "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." says. 

[Jesse]

That's what the statement:  "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." says.

The "CAP" shall be no less. Meaning that the league can't suddenly decide to lower the cap.

Are you sitting there thinking that the salary cap is a minimum? Then why are teams fined for going over the cap?

[TBURGESS]

The "CAP" shall be no less. Meaning that the league can't suddenly decide to lower the cap.

Are you sitting there thinking that the salary cap is a minimum? Then why are teams fined for going over the cap?

Teams get fined for going over the 'salary expenditure cap'. It remains to be seen if they get fined for going over the 'Non‐Football Related Services minimum additional amount'. I don't think so.
 

Section 30.03

 ...
A...


Starting in 2024 and continuing for every year of the collective agreement, each Club will include in the Salary Expenditure Cap an additional $110,000 in respect of those Non-Football Related Services. These special amounts will be the mandatory minimum amount for each Club and will be subject to strict audit rules.

The Clubs will have sole discretion on which players shall received these payments and the amounts to each player, but in no case should these amounts be less than $60,000 per Club in 2023 or less than $110,000 per Club, per year thereafter
 
 For greater clarity, and by way of example, should Defined League Revenue never exceed the Initial Baseline Revenue, the table outlined above in 30.01 summarizes the Salary Expenditure Cap for each Club.
 

TLDR: The table is only used IF the league revenue never exceeds the initial baseline revenue, the team choose who and how much & the amounts are minimums.

IMO:
If the league revenue has exceeded the initial baseline at any time, then BC is off the hook.
If BC thinks that revenue will exceed the initial baseline, then they're off the hook.
The contract doesn't specifically state that there is a fine for going over the Marketing money cap, so BC could argue that they didn't read it like there was.

[Jesse]

Teams get fined for going over the 'salary expenditure cap'. It remains to be seen if they get fined for going over the 'Non‐Football Related Services minimum additional amount'. I don't think so.

You are now shifting the goal posts. You said in your previous comment that the whole table was a minimum. That's clearly not true. You cannot exceed the salary cap without fines. It is a maximum number. Period.

In the same table. There is a "total salary expenditure cap". It is a maximum number. This number is very clearly the amount of the salary cap + 110k in marketing money.

This continues to be as simple as A + B = C.

Your final quoted point about league revenue is a completely separate topic. Under the "Revenue Growth Sharing Model". It's in a different article of the CBA than what we're talking about. You are now obfuscating the discussion with irrelevant information. There are clauses about revenue and if it exceeds a certain point, teams can add money to play off bonuses, pensions, or other things. It was nothing to do with our current discussion.

[TBURGESS]

You are now shifting the goal posts. You said in your previous comment that the whole table was a minimum. That's clearly not true. You cannot exceed the salary cap without fines. It is a maximum number. Period.

In the same table. There is a "total salary expenditure cap". It is a maximum number. This number is very clearly the amount of the salary cap + 110k in marketing money.

This continues to be as simple as A + B = C.

Your final quoted point about league revenue is a completely separate topic. Under the "Revenue Growth Sharing Model". It's in a different article of the CBA than what we're talking about. You are now obfuscating the discussion with irrelevant information. There are clauses about revenue and if it exceeds a certain point, teams can add money to play off bonuses, pensions, or other things. It was nothing to do with our current discussion.

The bottom of the table says: 

*Subject to 30.03 below

. My quotes are from 30.03, no it's not a completely separate topic. 

The table is defined as minimum by the statement that I've posted ad nauseum. It's use is defined in 30.03. 

You are using an example table as Max + Max = Max. 

Lets see what happens in the off season. That's when we will likely find out who is reading the CBA correctly. 

[J5V]

You're always looking for a conspiracy.

and ...

[TecnoGenius]

IMO:
If the league revenue has exceeded the initial baseline at any time, then BC is off the hook.
If BC thinks that revenue will exceed the initial baseline, then they're off the hook.
The contract doesn't specifically state that there is a fine for going over the Marketing money cap, so BC could argue that they didn't read it like there was.

But everyone here assured me the league/teams is/are poor and destitute and about to go bankrupt!  (And can't possibly raise the cap by 500k.) LOL

So why would any team ever look at any chart or section that starts "if the league revenue has exceeded baseline".  LOL

If BC is counting on that to bail them out, they're in for a surprise!  WPG revenue can only carry the rest of the league so far!

P.S. All the replies since I chimed in are, yes, clear as even muddier mud.  I have no idea what's going on.  The league needs to make these things clear and simple.  Until then, let's bring every top-10 FA player into WPG in 2025 by giving each one a $1M marketing bonus!  Yay!