Bye week discussion

[theaardvark]

If teams aren't being ethical then we see the Lions go over the SMS by $300K. It's allowed with a fine and loss of draft choices. Where do we draw the line whwn some teams have deeper pockets than others. That why we have an SMS.

I'd like an expanded roster as well. Not every team is profitable so it's not just a matter of increasing the SMS.

The idea of a " dressed PR player " player has some merit but then again it's both an SMS issue and ratio issue. The rule for an import would have to be different than for a Canadian.

In theory that player could play if another player is permanently removed from that game.

Canadian ratio, both starters and dressed would remain the same.  Your option for "dressed PR" would be at your discretion.  Dress Imps or Nats, they can still only substitute as the regulations allow, Imps for Imps, Nats for Nats, or Nats in for Imps.  Can give you extra DI's, or extra backup Nats, depending on what players you have that you need to dress. 

Min 21 Nats on the AR, start min 7 Nats.  1 or 2 Globals. Max 23 Ints.

As to affordability, "Dressed PR" would have a capped salary at min, max 2nd season in CFL, and for the non-profitable teams, transfer payments should cover that easily.  You would, of course, reduce the non-dressed PR by 4... 

Marginal increase in cost, decided increase in available talent on game day and replacements as necessary.

Win/Win/Win, really.  CFL, CFLPA and fans all benefit.   

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The PR can be 13 allowing for 2 global players. Currently we have 11 on the PR but only 1 global player. Yes we might have to 1 game IR a couple of players but I really hate having to dick around hiding players and using SMS money as a result.

Noting that an ELC player on the 1 game IR is about a $4k game check compared to $1K on the PR. So it adds up

Nice do you have a source on that? You're probably right I just can't find it. CFL DB still says:

Teams have the option to increase the practice roster to 12 (min. 2 Canadians) with the addition of up to 2 Global players.

[Blue In BC]

Nice do you have a source on that? You're probably right I just can't find it. CFL DB still says:

Teams have the option to increase the practice roster to 12 (min. 2 Canadians) with the addition of up to 2 Global players.

IDK. I've read that a couple of times on both forum sites. It seemed to have changed last year from 12 to 13.

ELC is $74K more or less. Just a guess that most PR players add $1K while on PR. That's $18K per season versus the $74K on the AR.

[Blue In BC]

Canadian ratio, both starters and dressed would remain the same.  Your option for "dressed PR" would be at your discretion.  Dress Imps or Nats, they can still only substitute as the regulations allow, Imps for Imps, Nats for Nats, or Nats in for Imps.  Can give you extra DI's, or extra backup Nats, depending on what players you have that you need to dress. 

Min 21 Nats on the AR, start min 7 Nats.  1 or 2 Globals. Max 23 Ints.

As to affordability, "Dressed PR" would have a capped salary at min, max 2nd season in CFL, and for the non-profitable teams, transfer payments should cover that easily.  You would, of course, reduce the non-dressed PR by 4... 

Marginal increase in cost, decided increase in available talent on game day and replacements as necessary.

Win/Win/Win, really.  CFL, CFLPA and fans all benefit.   

That's more than a marginal increase. If a PR player earns $18K per season while an AR player earns $74K, that's 4 X $55K = $220K. Now if you also reduce the PR by 4 than that reduces the net difference by 4 X $18K = $72K.

Between those 2 changes a net difference down to about $150K. The league has never been clear on transfer payments to equalize disparities. Beyond that some teams are privately owned while others are community owned. Didn't Montreal report a $6M loss before the new owners took over. I never understood how any team could lose that much but that's another story.

I don't know if the Lions made a profit last year but they also went over the SMS by $300K and subsequent fines. Do they deserve a transfer payment because they " lost " money while circumventing the SMS?

Besides profitability extends before the previous season in some cases.  We don't know or see all that information.

I agree more players on the AR is a type of win win for fans. I could argue reducing the back up Canadian players by 2 - 4 and adding 2 more imports would also improve the quality of play.  Having 14 back up Canadians for 7 starters doesn't really make sense. Conversely only 4 DI's for 16 non QB's?

Retaining 7 Canadian starters is ok and one thing. Adding in Nationalized americans, global and all those other designations is just a disguise to add more non Canadians.

Anyway, back to the proposed roster changes for game 1. Anyone want to take a shot at what they think happens?  I have mixed feeling suggesting Ayers and Vanterpool might get bumped. OTOH, that's the business aspect of the league. Part of that is the argument about ratio.

After the last pre season game I think most posters would pick Cooley to be on the AR instead of Peterson. It's a forced decision based on ratio and roster size. Nothing new really, happens every season on every team.

[theaardvark]

That's more than a marginal increase. If a PR player earns $18K per season while an AR player earns $74K, that's 4 X $55K = $220K. Now if you also reduce the PR by 4 than that reduces the net difference by 4 X $18K = $72K.

Between those 2 changes a net difference down to about $150K. The league has never been clear on transfer payments to equalize disparities. Beyond that some teams are privately owned while others are community owned. Didn't Montreal report a $6M loss before the new owners took over. I never understood how any team could lose that much but that's another story.

I don't know if the Lions made a profit last year but they also went over the SMS by $300K and subsequent fines. Do they deserve a transfer payment because they " lost " money while circumventing the SMS?

Besides profitability extends before the previous season in some cases.  We don't know or see all that information.

I agree more players on the AR is a type of win win for fans. I could argue reducing the back up Canadian players by 2 - 4 and adding 2 more imports would also improve the quality of play.  Having 14 back up Canadians for 7 starters doesn't really make sense. Conversely only 4 DI's for 16 non QB's?

Retaining 7 Canadian starters is ok and one thing. Adding in Nationalized americans, global and all those other designations is just a disguise to add more non Canadians.

Anyway, back to the proposed roster changes for game 1. Anyone want to take a shot at what they think happens?  I have mixed feeling suggesting Ayers and Vanterpool might get bumped. OTOH, that's the business aspect of the league. Part of that is the argument about ratio.

After the last pre season game I think most posters would pick Cooley to be on the AR instead of Peterson. It's a forced decision based on ratio and roster size. Nothing new really, happens every season on every team.

So, the cost is $150k for adding 4 players to the sidelines in pads.  Raise the $SMS 150k.

Some teams lost money, but some teams also overspent the cap.

So, limit the $150k "Dressed PR" transfer to teams that both lost money and stayed under the cap.  And take it out of revenue gained from penalties for roster violations, plus some from the "haves". 

As to the current 4 DI's to back up 16 Ints, vs. 14 Nats to back up 7 Nat starters, that's not the way it works.  The 14 non starting Nats back up all 21 players, Nat and Int. 

Adding in 4 "Dressed PR" players (DPD's) regardless of nationality, are all backups/ST.  And can add depth like an 8th Oline, of 9th Dline, or 3rd RB.  You could dress Kornelson, Ayers, Vanterpool and Cooley.  Get them reps on teams, or in game due to injury.  And protect them from being on the PR (of course, dressed PR players are not subject to scooping).

Is our team a lot better with 4 DPR's?  I think so.  And those players benefit from live fire game action, even if it is limited to teams and a few plays. 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

So, the cost is $150k for adding 4 players to the sidelines in pads.  Raise the $SMS 150k.

Some teams lost money, but some teams also overspent the cap.

So, limit the $150k "Dressed PR" transfer to teams that both lost money and stayed under the cap.  And take it out of revenue gained from penalties for roster violations, plus some from the "haves". 

As to the current 4 DI's to back up 16 Ints, vs. 14 Nats to back up 7 Nat starters, that's not the way it works.  The 14 non starting Nats back up all 21 players, Nat and Int. 

Adding in 4 "Dressed PR" players (DPD's) regardless of nationality, are all backups/ST.  And can add depth like an 8th Oline, of 9th Dline, or 3rd RB.  You could dress Kornelson, Ayers, Vanterpool and Cooley.  Get them reps on teams, or in game due to injury.  And protect them from being on the PR (of course, dressed PR players are not subject to scooping).

Is our team a lot better with 4 DPR's?  I think so.  And those players benefit from live fire game action, even if it is limited to teams and a few plays. 

There maybe teams that lost money last year, but hard to claim any CFL team is "poor" anymore. Some are owned by conglomerates and some are owned by very wealthy owners who can easily finance any minor losses, plus flagships in Wpg. and Sask. Seems prime time to move ahead with greater plans as I don't think the CFL has experienced this level of stability before.

[Blue In BC]

So, the cost is $150k for adding 4 players to the sidelines in pads.  Raise the $SMS 150k.

Some teams lost money, but some teams also overspent the cap.

So, limit the $150k "Dressed PR" transfer to teams that both lost money and stayed under the cap.  And take it out of revenue gained from penalties for roster violations, plus some from the "haves". 

As to the current 4 DI's to back up 16 Ints, vs. 14 Nats to back up 7 Nat starters, that's not the way it works.  The 14 non starting Nats back up all 21 players, Nat and Int. 

Adding in 4 "Dressed PR" players (DPD's) regardless of nationality, are all backups/ST.  And can add depth like an 8th Oline, of 9th Dline, or 3rd RB.  You could dress Kornelson, Ayers, Vanterpool and Cooley.  Get them reps on teams, or in game due to injury.  And protect them from being on the PR (of course, dressed PR players are not subject to scooping).

Is our team a lot better with 4 DPR's?  I think so.  And those players benefit from live fire game action, even if it is limited to teams and a few plays. 

Yes that is the way it works. The odds of an import being hurt is greater because 16 are starting. It's more probable an import replaces an injured import than a Canadian via a DI. That's part of the focus in choosing DI's that make sense. So all things are not equal. Many extra Canadians will never do anything besides play ST's.

OTOH not every player can or will play ST's. That applies to both nationalities. You won't expect Vanterpool to play on ST's would you?

Again some teams are privately owned and we don't see their profit and loss statements. So it's not as easy as you suggest.

[Blue In BC]

There maybe teams that lost money last year, but hard to claim any CFL team is "poor" anymore. Some are owned by conglomerates and some are owned by very wealthy owners who can easily finance any minor losses, plus flagships in Wpg. and Sask. Seems prime time to move ahead with greater plans as I don't think the CFL has experienced this level of stability before.

A loss is a loss. Just because some owners can absorb a loss doesn't mean they should have to. In the end every business needs to be profitable.

The CFL does have more stability than recent years but are also experiencing lower live attendance. That's a downward spiral that needs to be figured out. League is gate driven.

The next TV deal may decide things one way or another.

[TecnoGenius]

O'Shea also talked about how they're trying to bring Dillon Mitchell along, trying to bring him back to what they've seen him do on film.  Apparently he didn't come to camp in the best shape or with the right mindset, could be it was not emphasised on Chris Jones team, which to be fair is all he's known.

Yay, a "project" player.  Ugh.

I was worried this was what was going on after all the TC reports (and lack thereof) on D.Mitchell.  So we won't babysit Grant to get him signed, but we're coddling D.Mitchell to get him to FIFO?

He's good, but he's not Kenny.  I'm actually very surprised we aren't running him out of town already.  It isn't like Mafia to play patty-cake with players.  I guess we'll give him till game 4-7, as we did A.Bowman.

Someone needs to tell this kid that this is his best chance to make it big in the CFL!  Otherwise he'll be gonzo.  (Must suck even more for M.Mitchell right now, knowing you got beat out by a goof just because he may have more inherent talent.)

[TecnoGenius]

A loss is a loss. Just because some owners can absorb a loss doesn't mean they should have to. In the end every business needs to be profitable.

It doesn't if you're a very rich guy and you want the ego boost of owning your own team.  Look how many billionaires buy F1 teams just to lose 100's of millions.  Sometimes you do it just because you can.

[BomberFan73]

I hate not playing opening weekend!   

[Waffler]

If it turns out that D. Mitchel is a bust I will always think that his bonus would have kept Lawler though you never know how high Hamilton would have gone if they had to. Anyway, he's here now and he's a Bomber so I am cheering for him.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

There maybe teams that lost money last year, but hard to claim any CFL team is "poor" anymore. Some are owned by conglomerates and some are owned by very wealthy owners who can easily finance any minor losses, plus flagships in Wpg. and Sask. Seems prime time to move ahead with greater plans as I don't think the CFL has experienced this level of stability before.

It would be very interesting to know collectively what teams make in relation to expenses and also what the league brings in nationally (we get parts of the story from the community owned teams). Part of (maybe significantly more than part of) the reason the league didn't open their books in COVID for bailout money is because they make far more money than many people realize. "The league is poor" narrative, I think, is outdated.  It's not NFL money or whatever but they've got nice coffee makers over at head office and throughout the member clubs. Maybe Edmonton is a bit of an exception at the moment. However, when collective salary caps go up without much of a mention or any negotiation it is a sure signs things are good. That just doesn't happen in the CFL historically.

[Jesse]

A loss is a loss. Just because some owners can absorb a loss doesn't mean they should have to. In the end every business needs to be profitable.

The CFL does have more stability than recent years but are also experiencing lower live attendance. That's a downward spiral that needs to be figured out. League is gate driven.

The next TV deal may decide things one way or another.

I don't know if you can make the case that we're experience new highs in revenue when attendance is at a historical low and still say we're gate driven.

[Jesse]

If it turns out that D. Mitchel is a bust I will always think that his bonus would have kept Lawler though you never know how high Hamilton would have gone if they had to. Anyway, he's here now and he's a Bomber so I am cheering for him.

Lawler followed the money and we picked Schoen. Simple as that.