Top 3 QB salaries

[TecnoGenius]

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

Worked great for all involved... until it didn't.  Hence the discussion.  At this point I'm starting to wish Doman never bought the Lions.  In just 1 season he's opened up 2 massive cans of worms, both of which required slapdowns by Ambrosie & the CFL.

I bet the other owners/prezs aren't too pleased about any of this.

[TecnoGenius]

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?

I also addressed that with a possible cost-of-living adjustment proposal.

I'm convinced you seem unable to see the forest for the trees, and you have a real hard time with the idea of proportionality and orders of magnitude.  And I mean no disrespect.  I'm a detail-oriented person too.

No one will say you can directly compare costs in Vancouver to Winnipeg.  However, the adjustment required is maybe 25-50%, not 4X, 6X, 10X.  You seem focused on "must account for some COL adjustment" equals "can't have a league-wide standard scale".  It's not either-or, it's both-and.  You are using the need for the former to justify the (potential) latter.

(Some companies and govs will pay an employee more if they live/work in core BC or TOR.  However, as a portion of their total salary it will be a few tens of percent at most.  So if the CFL did this too, in a tightly controlled and well-documented manner, no problem.)

Let's say Zach is getting $40k MM, which isn't hard to fathom if we are spending the min $110k.  This is a wild guess as I've seen no reports, but if some LB is getting $8, it seems reasonable.

That would mean Rourke is getting 5X Zach, for possibly similar "normal" QB marketing.  Even if my Zach guess is wrong, Rourke would still be 4X or 3X more.  Yes, BC costs more and maybe even is "worth more for media appearances as you said, but in no universe does a company pay an employee 5X COL bonus for BC over WPG.  Again, it's usually 20-50%, if that.  In any event it remains untenable to justify $200k for MM.

why should BC have to make do with far less actual marketing purchasing power than Winnipeg

I'm not sure what you think MM is used for, but I'm thinking it's the normal stuff QBs have been doing forever: like going to autograph sessions, making appearances on local TV or radio, going out to schools or kids events to promote the team/league, etc.  The cost and impact of such things are basically the same in all cities.

You make it sound like Rourke's MM bonus should pay for the cost of a billboard in downtown Vancouver vs Portage & Main... as that's the only type of area where costs would be different.  And such costs should not be paid out of MM.  Rourke should get paid for his time to pose for a billboard picture, not for the cost of renting the billboard just because his face is on it.

Lastly, I would argue that if anything, it's the opposite and that Zach's time here is worth more than Rourke's in BC because every Zach appearance helps towards the 32k crowd @PAS we often have, whereas Rourke's can only influence their ~20k (on a good day) crowd.  Zach's time helps bring in 60% more butts, and thus shouldn't Zach actually earn more per MM appearance than Rourke??

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I also addressed that with a possible cost-of-living adjustment proposal.

I'm convinced you seem unable to see the forest for the trees, and you have a real hard time with the idea of proportionality and orders of magnitude.  And I mean no disrespect.  I'm a detail-oriented person too.

You're a "detail-oriented" person with almost none of the details. You've taken what very limited information is known, filled in an extraordinary number of blanks that fit the way you want to feel and then gone on to draw conclusions and argue "passionately."

You say things like, "I bet the other owners aren't too pleased [post 45] " and "It leaves things wide open to 'cheating [post 44]'" and it's a "CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is" [post 20] and you've drawn these conclusions without a shred of real evidence that other owners are upset on this issue, that BC is miles ahead of marketing spend than every other team, or that it's creating an on-field advantage. (The actual results of the BC Lions over the last two years be damned.) And finally, if it's anything close to as serious or troubling as you'd have us believe, why did we have a near record increase in SMS as a result of overall league profits this off-season?

[Blue In BC]

What's clear is that the league can fix any loopholes in the marketing money without much difficulty.

[TBURGESS]

Each team has the same amount of 'marketing' money (unlimited) & they decide how to distribute it. The CFL doesn't want to get into how much marketing money each player is worth or how many hours they put in or what constitutes marketing in the first place. 

[Blue In BC]

Each team has the same amount of 'marketing' money (unlimited) & they decide how to distribute it. The CFL doesn't want to get into how much marketing money each player is worth or how many hours they put in or what constitutes marketing in the first place.

That's not the point. The point is if they set an amount ( maximum ) that then becomes charged to the SMS. The can use $1M if they want but in that format $800K would be charged against the SMS.

Deciding who is worth how much of MM is less relevant of a question.

[TBURGESS]

That's not the point. The point is if they set an amount ( maximum ) that then becomes charged to the SMS. The can use $1M if they want but in that format $800K would be charged against the SMS.

Deciding who is worth how much of MM is less relevant of a question.

The whole point of the marketing money is that it's not charged to the SMS. 

If the CFL set a maximum, all the marketing money would still be outside the SMS. If teams went over the maximum, the CFL would need to put in clauses as to what happens like they do for the SMS. 

[Blue In BC]

The whole point of the marketing money is that it's not charged to the SMS.

If the CFL set a maximum, all the marketing money would still be outside the SMS. If teams went over the maximum, the CFL would need to put in clauses as to what happens like they do for the SMS.

That's not what I said. Anything below $200K would not be charged to the SMS. Anything above $200K would be charged to SMS. Marketing money is and should just be a limited separate SMS. If the league wants to set a higher max level that is fine to a certain limit.

I didn't say they couldn't spend more MM but it would have those parameters. That's the same as knowing any team can spend more than the usual SMS but is subject to fines above certain levels. The normal SMS is a little harder to control due to injuries and roster movements week to week.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that a team like the Bombers could just pay Collaros $600K in marketing money to circumvent the normal SMS as an extreme example.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

You're a "detail-oriented" person with almost none of the details. You've taken what very limited information is known, filled in an extraordinary number of blanks that fit the way you want to feel and then gone on to draw conclusions and argue "passionately."

You say things like, "I bet the other owners aren't too pleased [post 45] " and "It leaves things wide open to 'cheating [post 44]'" and it's a "CFL-destroying extreme that BC was/is" [post 20] and you've drawn these conclusions without a shred of real evidence that other owners are upset on this issue, that BC is miles ahead of marketing spend than every other team, or that it's creating an on-field advantage. (The actual results of the BC Lions over the last two years be damned.) And finally, if it's anything close to as serious or troubling as you'd have us believe, why did we have a near record increase in SMS as a result of overall league profits this off-season?

I think Doman pulled the wool over your eyes, unless Rourke is putting in 5x the amount of time marketing than Zach, he doesn't deserve to be paid 5x more for the same activity, no matter the cost difference between advertising in VCR and WPG. This is just theoretical as Zach does little marketing work, probably better to use Brady as an example.

In reality I think Doman negotiated Rourke's salary through his agent, they settled on a number that did not work well within the SMS, so he threw the contract into Rigmaiden's lap and told him to massage the numbers and make it work out the best he could. Unless the CFL audits marketing money spent vs. activity rendered, which is unlikely, they have no mechanism to show Rourke will not participate in $200k worth of marketing activities per season.  Plus, the CFL won't be quick to throw cold water on boisterous activities even if it looks suspiciously like cheating the salary cap, having Rourke back in the league in a major center is a positive for the league.

[TBURGESS]

That's not what I said. Anything below $200K would not be charged to the SMS. Anything above $200K would be charged to SMS. Marketing money is and should just be a limited separate SMS. If the league wants to set a higher max level that is fine to a certain limit.

I didn't say they couldn't spend more MM but it would have those parameters. That's the same as knowing any team can spend more than the usual SMS but is subject to fines above certain levels. The normal SMS is a little harder to control due to injuries and roster movements week to week.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that a team like the Bombers could just pay Collaros $600K in marketing money to circumvent the normal SMS as an extreme example.

What's the point? Anything other than MM is already charged to the SMS. 

MM is called marketing. It's actually just a separate, outside the SMS, pot of money to pay players with. 

As written, yes, you could pay Collaros $600K of MM outside the SMS. 

If you want to 'fix' the problem, put a hard cap on MM that teams can't pay more than. All contracts are verified by the league, so that's pretty easy to enforce. That fixes the need to say anything about going over the MM cap because they wouldn't be able to go over it. 

[Blue In BC]

What's the point? Anything other than MM is already charged to the SMS.

MM is called marketing. It's actually just a separate, outside the SMS, pot of money to pay players with.

As written, yes, you could pay Collaros $600K of MM outside the SMS.

If you want to 'fix' the problem, put a hard cap on MM that teams can't pay more than. All contracts are verified by the league, so that's pretty easy to enforce. That fixes the need to say anything about going over the MM cap because they wouldn't be able to go over it.

I was pretty clear about the point and a solution to the existing issue. Your solution to put a hard cap on MM would work just as well.

As you said contracts are verified and determinations are made about whether any team exceeds the SMS. It's not that difficult to determine a sub set of marketing money for example. They do have to determine that the minimum is spent, so why not the maximum.

Either way, the league should deal with the loop hole. They haven't even been able to determine what to do with the new 2025 SMS due to revenue sharing. That should have been determined when the new agreement was reached.

Go figure!!

[Pigskin]

My Granddaughter did a little home work. This is where Bombers player rant on the pay scale.

QB: Collars. (3) $600K, $100 bonus. Doesn't look like any marketing money. 

DB: Kramdi. (7) $145K
    Nichols (12) $136K
    Holm:  (14) $135K, $40K bonus, $5K marketing.

RB: BO20.  (1) $240K, $65K bonus, $50K marketing
    Logan. (6) $107K, $10K bonus, $7500K marketing

DL: Jefferson: (6) $200K, $100K bonus.
    Vaughters: (13) $160k, $45K bonus.

RW: Denski. (4)  $225K, $10K marketing.
    Schoen. (16) $160K, $75K bonus.

OL: Bryant. (14) $170K, $75K bonus.

LB: J. Jones (12) $120K, $15K bonus, $8K marketing.
    T. Jones (13) $117K, $15K bonus, $5K marketing.

K:  Castillo. (6) $115K, $30K bonus

Looks like anyone on a existing contract did not get any marketing money.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I think Doman pulled the wool over your eyes, unless Rourke is putting in 5x the amount of time marketing than Zach, he doesn't deserve to be paid 5x more for the same activity, no matter the cost difference between advertising in VCR and WPG. This is just theoretical as Zach does little marketing work, probably better to use Brady as an example.

In reality I think Doman negotiated Rourke's salary through his agent, they settled on a number that did not work well within the SMS, so he threw the contract into Rigmaiden's lap and told him to massage the numbers and make it work out the best he could. Unless the CFL audits marketing money spent vs. activity rendered, which is unlikely, they have no mechanism to show Rourke will not participate in $200k worth of marketing activities per season.  Plus, the CFL won't be quick to throw cold water on boisterous activities even if it looks suspiciously like cheating the salary cap, having Rourke back in the league in a major center is a positive for the league.

This post is the perfect example of jumping to conclusions and following others down the rabbit hole.

The CFL has stated that they do audit every marketing dollar every year.
The CFL has stated that after their internal audit, it's also independently audited.
The CFL has stated that any marketing dollars that get paid and then aren't earned are subject to the SMS in that year.

Source: State of the League address 2024.

[theaardvark]

Worked great for all involved... until it didn't.  Hence the discussion.  At this point I'm starting to wish Doman never bought the Lions.  In just 1 season he's opened up 2 massive cans of worms, both of which required slapdowns by Ambrosie & the CFL.

I bet the other owners/prezs aren't too pleased about any of this.

I opened up a can of worms the other day, and they just sat there.  No idea what the fuss or concern is about opening a can of worms.

"Marketing money" was put in place at the discretuion of the owners/GMs, with the proviso it needed to be used appropriately, and that the league would step in if it was not.

We made $7mil last year. If any team was to use marketing money, it would be us.  Yet we barely made the floor.

%5k, $10k even $20k spread over a year is reasonable for any rostered player, if they do regular appearances, either signings, hospital visits, remote community trips, etc.  Those are very easily justified.  .

How do you "earn" $200k in appearance money?  Especially after you stunk so bad that you actually cost your team the cup appearance at home?  This is an obvious misuse of the funding to circumvent the $SMS.  And even using this cheat code, they still went over more than any team has in history.

There should be a "reasonable expenditures" list made for the GMs that list, for instance:

Signing session (game week): 1% of contract
Signing session (non game week): 1.5% of contract
Signing session (remote community): 2% of contract
Personal appearance: 1.5% of contract.
etc

That way, Rourke or Collaros get $5kish for a signing, Eli gets $1k

At the end of the year, if you paid Rourke $200k in marketing money, and he didn't earn it as per the chart, then you get a warning.  2nd time, you get your marketing money capped.

Some GM's are going to do this already because they are frugal and prudent.

Some have no budget or care.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Do you actually believe the Lions are being honest about this?  What do you suppose the league will discover when they audit their marketing spending in 2025? So all is above board and on the level as far as your concerned?

Well gee, I'm not a forensic accountant but I think it's more likely an accomplished businessman isn't cooking the books with his CPAs (who livelihoods depend on being truthful) to try win the freaking Grey Cup. Do you actually believe that it's more likely he would? Maybe don't answer that.

I'm giving you facts where they exist and pointing to the actual results of the 2024 season as proof points. That's enough for me and probably most others who are trying to be reasonable and fair. I concede that there are probably better ways to do this from the exceptionally-passionate-fan perspective that would be more transparent. But anyone trying to sell you that it's "CFL-destroying" can only do so by taking what the reality is today and bending it into some absurd end state of which we're not close to nor likely to ever arrive at.