Top 3 QB salaries

[TBURGESS]

The simple solution is to say that the minimum is X and the maximum is Y all outside the SMS. 

[Jesse]

The simple solution is to say that the minimum is X and the maximum is Y all outside the SMS.

It's not as simple as that unfortunately.

If you look at the spirit of the rule, it's so players are paid for off field appearances. My problem isn't so much that the number isn't capped, but that that it's a part of the contract and doesn't specific numbers attached to it.

There should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

[Blue In BC]

It's not as simple as that unfortunately.

If you look at the spirit of the rule, it's so players are paid for off field appearances. My problem isn't so much that the number isn't capped, but that that it's a part of the contract and doesn't specific numbers attached to it.

There should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

There has to be a cap otherwise cash rich teams will abuse the policy. Obviously clarification of how any given money spent is calculated to a perceived value. When a player gets $10K or less, it's not as great a concern. When a player like Rourke gets $200K there are questions about the world reality.

[TBURGESS]

It's not as simple as that unfortunately.

If you look at the spirit of the rule, it's so players are paid for off field appearances. My problem isn't so much that the number isn't capped, but that that it's a part of the contract and doesn't specific numbers attached to it.

There should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

Off field duties have always been included in the player's salary. This is just a separate bucket of money that teams can pay players outside the SMS that they chose to call marketing.

Your idea of paying by the hour is the furthest thing from simple, but it would be actual marketing money.

The simplest thing would be to eliminate the marketing money completely, but the players don't want that & teams that want to pay over the SMS limit without penalty don't want it either.

[Jesse]

Off field duties have always been included in the player's salary. This is just a separate bucket of money that teams can pay players outside the SMS that they chose to call marketing.

Your idea of paying by the hour is the furthest thing from simple, but it would be actual marketing money.

The simplest thing would be to eliminate the marketing money completely, but the players don't want that & teams that want to pay over the SMS limit without penalty don't want it either.

I don't know why it would have to be complicated.

And it doesn't need to be done away with. It was a negotiated point by both the league and the PA. Revenue's need to be increasing by quite a bit and the players certainly deserve their share.

And if there is a player who is putting in the community hours and making more appearances and being a part of all advertising and has a lot of hours connected to team promotions, they're entitled to more of a share than others. If Doman is putting a lot of money into advertising and Rourke needs to make multiple radio appearances, pose for numerous photoshoots, etc, shouldn't he be compensated for that time? Whereas cheapo owners in Calgary are doing the bare minimum in promotions so star players simply aren't asked to spend much extra time doing anything - do they need much marketing money spent?

We can easily say teams are simply circumventing the cap. But there are plausible explanations for why some players and some teams are spending more than other too.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I don't know why it would have to be complicated.

And it doesn't need to be done away with. It was a negotiated point by both the league and the PA. Revenue's need to be increasing by quite a bit and the players certainly deserve their share.

And if there is a player who is putting in the community hours and making more appearances and being a part of all advertising and has a lot of hours connected to team promotions, they're entitled to more of a share than others. If Doman is putting a lot of money into advertising and Rourke needs to make multiple radio appearances, pose for numerous photoshoots, etc, shouldn't he be compensated for that time? Whereas cheapo owners in Calgary are doing the bare minimum in promotions so star players simply aren't asked to spend much extra time doing anything - do they need much marketing money spent?

We can easily say teams are simply circumventing the cap. But there are plausible explanations for why some players and some teams are spending more than other too.

Paying players for using their image in team promotions could also be part of this marketing budget, much like they do now in US college football.

[TecnoGenius]

A $200K limit outside of the set SMS is reasonable. It's an SMS inside the SMS that can be used for non playing activities as intended for appearances / promotion.

Why 200k?  Why just make up more numbers?  Just say MM is $110k, min and max.  Period.

You want to pay a player more for off-field appearances?  Great, it's part of their normal on-SMS salary.  What they label that time the player is giving is an internal matter.  We don't care.  Just as long as it's all on the (SMS) books.

[TecnoGenius]

There should just be a legend for what players are given for each off field duty and they are paid at the end of the season for whatever things they actually did.

Exactly.  It can be like "scale" in the movie industry.  If a player spends an hour signing autographs, they get $X.

Maybe adjusted for a player's "worth" (percentage of salary?).  Clearly Zach showing up to the Bomber store for autographs is "worth more" than Benson (no dis to Benson!).

There's so many easy things they can do, and I bet even some of them are doable without redoing the contract.  Just issue "clarifications".  Then revamp it all on next contract negotiation.

[Jesse]

Why 200k?  Why just make up more numbers?  Just say MM is $110k, min and max.  Period.

You want to pay a player more for off-field appearances?  Great, it's part of their normal on-SMS salary.  What they label that time the player is giving is an internal matter.  We don't care.  Just as long as it's all on the (SMS) books.

I don't even think there does need to be a cap. It just needs to be tied to specific things and paid out after the season (or end of calendar year). Not pre-paid as part of their contract with nothing directly tied to it.

[TecnoGenius]

Off field duties have always been included in the player's salary. This is just a separate bucket of money that teams can pay players outside the SMS that they chose to call marketing.

This.  Did players never show up in public or promote the team before the MM started?  When did MM even start?  The last CBA?  So a few years ago?

Yes, so nearly forever in CFL history the players showed up for appearances all time and they got paid for it as part of their normal on-SMS salary.  It was expected (and probably in their team contract).  And that worked.

I think what happened here is MM was introduced as a way for rich teams to pay players more without simply raising the SMS league-wide.  Remember, if this came in the last CBA, that was a time when teams were screaming "poor"!

That said, I'm pretty sure the spirit of the rule was teams were supposed to spend $110k more, not $200, $300, $400 like BC.

I'm pretty sure if the league had upped the SMS $400k that year (instead of this year) then the impetus to introduce the concept of off-SMS MM would have been moot.  And then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Once again the CFL takes something that should be dead simple (just up the SMS) and turns it into a convoluted, complicated, loophole-ridden, disaster of a mess.

[TecnoGenius]

I don't even think there does need to be a cap. It just needs to be tied to specific things and paid out after the season (or end of calendar year). Not pre-paid as part of their contract with nothing directly tied to it.

But you must agree that the rate for work must be standardized in some way?  Zach can't get $10k for one autograph session whilst Rourke gets $50k.  Otherwise the teams are just winking and cheating again.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

But you must agree that the rate for work must be standardized in some way?  Zach can't get $10k for one autograph session whilst Rourke gets $50k.  Otherwise the teams are just winking and cheating again.

...of course players should be paid different rates. It's true on the field and it's true off the field.

Rourke may absolutely be worth more than Collaros. What is being asked? How much of a time commitment is it? What is the size of the market? How big is their following?

Let's rephrase -- how on earth would it make any sense to pay Zach Collaros the same marketing fee, as say, Tua Eli? I'm not trying to disrespect Eli, but there is a significantly different level of platform and audience between the two.

Let's rephrase again, does a company pay all content creators on social media the exact same amount for a campaign tactic -- think unboxing video or some such thing? I'll answer for you: no.

[Jesse]

But you must agree that the rate for work must be standardized in some way?  Zach can't get $10k for one autograph session whilst Rourke gets $50k.  Otherwise the teams are just winking and cheating again.

Well, I guess this is why they just let teams figure it out.

At the end of the day, this is the CFL. No one is writing blank checks. And whether they pay Rourke 500k or 1.5M, it won't make him play any different.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Straw man.  That has nothing to do with the argument up to this point.  And if it did, the proper solution for that is for the CFL to create a "local cost of living" adjustment to the SMS, not for BC to just cheat using a loophole.

Again: you try so hard to make up every excuse you can for BC.  It's very strange, like you're on the orange side instead of blue & gold.  I really don't understand it.

It's not a strawman argument, you just don't understand what I'm saying.

Put it very simply: do you think it costs more to market in Winnipeg or Vancouver?

If the intention of the money really is marketing the league to more fans, and you at least have the basic common sense and humility to concede to costs more for everything in Vancouver compared to Winnipeg, then who really is adverse to a bit of a varience?

Not the players. They want league viewership and revenue to grow so the cap goes up. Not the owners, they want more profitable franchises. To drop the cry baby act for a minute, if we cap marketing dollars at "Winnipeg" rates, why should BC have to make do with far less actual marketing purchasing power than Winnipeg or Regina/Saskatoon? And how is that good for the game?

The only real concern is whether or not it causes a competitive advantage (or disadvantage) and the fact is (unless you want to pretend this is somehow unfair as well), is no, it hasn't so far (even if we accept your unproven theory that the Lions are blowing the doors off the rest of the league). The proof? BC historically overspent last year on cap and possibly led in marketing dollars and managed to finish third and lose in the west semi final. What. An. Advantage.

At least think through your outrage first, eh?

[TecnoGenius]

Let's rephrase -- how on earth would it make any sense to pay Zach Collaros the same marketing fee, as say, Tua Eli? I'm not trying to disrespect Eli, but there is a significantly different level of platform and audience between the two.

I addressed this already in an earlier comment when I mentioned Benson.

Yes, you should have a scale based on player salary, position or "star power": or all 3.

The example then is should Rourke earn 5X in MM what Zach earns per appearance?  To me that leaves the door wide open to "cheating"... and similar conversations next year.