Top 3 QB salaries

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Its not so much as arguing for or against, its more about putting clarity to it. What are the parameters, expectations etc?
No cap league has a big loophole that everyone is aware of whereby the salary cap can be so easily circumvented.
 I do like the idea of each team having one player exempt from cap, allowing them to get that difference maker for their market

Agreed that clarity would help, especially amongst really engaged fans which is what everyone here likely falls under.  There are obviously a lot of other stakeholder groups the league is balancing and that's very likely the reasons why they don't, or at least, haven't been willing to so far.

[Waffler]

I do like the idea of each team having one player exempt from cap, allowing them to get that difference maker for their market

They had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

[TBURGESS]

There is some kind of value for money marketing dollars audit paid to players by the league and afterward, an independent party, if you believe what Randy Ambroise said when asked at last year's state of the league address.

I will repeat that it's really hard to argue for or against the marketing dollar system because too much of it is unknown. At this point, the only thing you can really say is that it likely hasn't had much affect on who wins football games.

One other thought - seeing as Rourke's contract seems to be the lightning rod - do you know how downright stupid it would for the league to not try and market the best Canadian quarterback to play in the CFL in 40 years? So in that sense the system being flexible is really great from a pure marketing perspective if you put on that hat specifically and forget about being a fan for a second.

I'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it. 

Players images are allowed as per the CBA I quoted. The CFLPA gets $450K a year to allow it. I don't think you can argue that a player's face is not part of images. 

The CBA and the Standard Player's contract both allow for clubs to market the player's images, which means they can market the heck out of Rourke or any other player for that matter. 

Any player can 'reasonably' object to the use of their image and the CFL would have to replace it, but that could be another image of the same player.

The C.F.L. and each of the Member Clubs further covenants and agrees that should an individual Player reasonably object to the use of a Player Image comprising his image on religious or moral grounds, or on such other grounds that the use of the Player Image puts the Player in a conflict position with a third party, the C.F.L. and/or the Member Club, as the case may be, shall forthwith replace that Player Image with a suitable alternative
 

TLDR: As I read the contracts, and I'm not a lawyer... in uniform = covered by the CBA/Player's Contract. Out of uniform = player's right to negotiate compensation. 

Examples: Autograph signing in uniform = covered. Ad for car company out of uniform = separate contract with car company. 

[Jesse]

Where are you getting that from?

It's in the Marketing section. That's where the "separate deals" part comes in.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it.

Players images are allowed as per the CBA I quoted. The CFLPA gets $450K a year to allow it. I don't think you can argue that a player's face is not part of images.

The CBA and the Standard Player's contract both allow for clubs to market the player's images, which means they can market the heck out of Rourke or any other player for that matter.

Any player can 'reasonably' object to the use of their image and the CFL would have to replace it, but that could be another image of the same player.


TLDR: As I read the contracts, and I'm not a lawyer... in uniform = covered by the CBA/Player's Contract. Out of uniform = player's right to negotiate compensation.

Examples: Autograph signing in uniform = covered. Ad for car company out of uniform = separate contract with car company.

I'd like to see more cooperation between the players and the league pushing in the same direction when it comes to brand promotion.  Noticed last year quite a few instances of players wearing gear representing different teams in different leagues, which sends the wrong message especially to the younger audience.  Common sense has them promoting gear that supports their salaries and not forgetting who puts butter on their bread.  Bombers are as bad as anyone including Zach, Wade should fine players that choose not to promote the clothing they receive for free, standard FIFA.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I'm not arguing for or against the marketing dollar system. I'm arguing that it doesn't apply to the so-called marketing money clause because that clause doesn't have any parameters to it.

How would you know? How could any of us know? It sounds as if there's some mechanism for auditing marketing dollars so therefore there has to be some criteria to compare the activation with the dollar renumeration. Just because it's not disclosed to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

[ModAdmin]

They had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

They had this in the 90s. Rich owners payed Doug Flutie more than a million per annum. Rocket Ismail got 4.5 million. It lead to disparity then and would now also. If you want a strong league and maybe a 10th team, making the salary cap stricter is the way to go. Cost certainty brings a reasonable hope to compete and that is all a fan can ask. I remember many years of losing out on the top QB free agents just because we got out spent. That was the main reason for the Grey Cup drought here in my opinion. After Dunigan left, who did we have? Reggie Slack, Khari Jones and an endless parade of nobodies. I don't want to see that again for any team.

I would hardly classify Khari Jones as a "nobody".

Check his stats with the Bombers and you will see otherwise.

[Waffler]

I would hardly classify Khari Jones as a "nobody".

Check his stats with the Bombers and you will see otherwise.

I agree. I meant excepting those two players I mentioned and perhaps Kevin Glenn and Buck Pierce I should have mentioned also. After that you would have a hard time listing the rest. Not allstar after allstar like you would see in Toronto and other places that could out pay us.

[TBURGESS]

How would you know? How could any of us know? It sounds as if there's some mechanism for auditing marketing dollars so therefore there has to be some criteria to compare the activation with the dollar renumeration. Just because it's not disclosed to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

Contract 101: If it's not in the contract then it doesn't exist for purposes of the contract. 

Because they say it means it exists & there are some criteria? The religion argument. They say God exists so he must exist and the bible is his word. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Contract 101: If it's not in the contract then it doesn't exist for purposes of the contract.

Because they say it means it exists & there are some criteria? The religion argument. They say God exists so he must exist and the bible is his word.

Hahahaha - I think the concussion spotters are pulling you for evaluation now. 

[TecnoGenius]

How would you know? How could any of us know? It sounds as if there's some mechanism for auditing marketing dollars so therefore there has to be some criteria to compare the activation with the dollar renumeration. Just because it's not disclosed to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

The fact Ambrosie had to make that very public announcement that he was keeping an eye on MM use and (taps nose) expects teams to be reasonable proves that there was no mechanism whatsoever.

Just like most everything in the CFL, it's all willy-nilly and gentleman's agreements.  Works great, until it Doman't doesn't.

[TecnoGenius]

I don't think we have enough evidence yet to say what's actually happening. It hasn't been around long enough.

The league has told us what it's for, but if you want to make the claims that they're lying or teams are abusing a loop hole, you have to wait for proof as such.

But that's what some (probably including you) were saying mid-season when Rourke came back and almost everyone could see BC would be $300k+ over the cap.

A "crime" is taking place right in front of you, and you say "don't do anything" because no judge has ruled against the criminal yet?

No, we have probable cause and a pattern of behavior, and thus it's reasonable to infer the MM cheatcode will continue to be abused, and probably by more teams and to a higher degree.

What people who say "don't jump the gun" do is keep the outrage subdued at the exact moment something can be done, and then when the full crime is revealed they just say "meh, you're arguing with yourself, it's all moot now".  Look at how many just shrugged off the BC $350k overage because by April 2025 it was "old news".  The same thing will happen with BC paying players like $400k MM and gaining "free cap".

[TecnoGenius]

Doman has been nothing but good for the league. I haven't see any negatives.

He's been ok for BC, I'm not sure he's done anything for the rest of the teams/fans.  He's bumped up attendance 5 or 10k at his stadium on average.  That's basically it.  And he bought the extra engagement with subsidized superstar rapper concerts, which probably lost him money overall...

Negative 1: Other teams have watched them get away with MM cheatcodes and have followed suit with big MM-laden contracts.  Many of the signings this FA on many teams included a note about hefty ($40k+) MM.  How many teams went from spending ~$110k MM to spending much more this season after being green-lit by BC?

Negative 2: We got a glimpse of this with Mack in MTL, other teams have seen that you don't have to be prudent when your NFL rejects come back.  This one has yet to fully pan out, but I expect to see more overages by "rich" teams.

[TecnoGenius]

Absurd narrow view. Players do all sorts of public appearances. Their images might be used in advertising. So yes, the marketing money is exactly that.

Before MM money existed, they did "all sorts of public appearances" just the same.  So what changed?

It used to be just a normal part of the CFL player/team contract.  It didn't need a special category.  If team wanted a player to do more fan-engagement, they could just include that in their normal contract as part of their normal (SMS!) salary.

TB is 100% right: this is just an extra pot of money that (it appears) all parties wanted to allow richer teams a backdoor to pay certain players more than the SMS would allow.  They probably all agreed to it because during 'vid upping the SMS outright (which would have the same effect) would be bad optics.

Where they screwed up was not capping the MM (i.e. overages go onto the SMS).  I'm pretty sure they didn't expect a Doman-aire to come along and start blowing half a mil on MM!

[TecnoGenius]

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. 
[...]

This is super awesome.  More of this.  Give her my thanks and kudos.  It would be so handy to have an exhaustive list like this that encompasses every team.

P.S. It looks like WPG spent almost exactly to the $110k.  And if anyone deserves the biggest chunk, it is Brady with his numerous Northern trips and all the highly visible dog rescue work.