TBURGESS

From: https://3downnation.com/2023/03/16/veteran-qb-dane-evans-takes-team-friendly-contract-to-join-b-c-lions/

Quite frankly, all I care about is that the cheques don't bounce when someone takes over in Montreal. If Quebec wants to separate, they should, as long as they take their portion of the debt, don't use Canadian money or any other services, and allow whatever parts of Quebec that want to stay in Canada stay. Canada is like an unhappy marriage. Quebec is the wife who wants to leave everything behind except the benefits. The rest of Canada is the husband, who keeps giving things to the wife to keep her happy, despite knowing that it's all a farce.

Leggs Reals (Is this a thing now?) : 7th best FG kicker by %, .1 yard better than 8th. 1 FG >= 50 yards, tied with 2 other kickers for 8th. Missed 5 Converts, worst in the league. Game Winning FG's 2, Ott/Skn Game Losing misses 2, Mtl/Tor in the freakin GC. Ya Buts: We didn't need him to win most games. He punted well. He's not the only reason we lost.

Feels - It might have gone through. Reals - It was blocked.

Nice to have Bailey back & I'd like to know how much he got. I swear some of you guys are so triggered by my posts that you go off without even reading them.

Sorry Mike for agreeing with you. I find it hilarious that the "usual suspects" go on the attack when anyone, even Mike, says anything that's not uber positive. It's nice to know that it's not just me. I think Walters has had a great off season signing our own, but receiver is the only upgrade we've got from last year's shoulda woulda coulda won the Grey Cup team. It may be the only one we need as long as the older guys have one more year in them. MOS' "We use our MLB differently than other teams" is the same lame excuse he's used before for much less talented people than Bighill. I love Bighill, but he didn't earn his salary last year, especially at the end of the season when he was a step slow and didn't wrap up. I can only hope that was due to injury, not age. Jeffcoat's another guy who I don't think earned his salary last year. I'd have looked for younger/cheaper and used the extra to upgrade @ DT. Bryant was still all star quality last year, but not a dominant as he has been. At 36, the wheels could fall off at any time. Agodusi is a one game wonder, but that doesn't really matter because he'll be the 4th or 5th option. We're still the top team in the league because Collaros is head and shoulders above any other starting QB in the CFL. Rourke was the closest QB last year, and he's in the NFL now, so it's not even close now. Bring on the 'Yah Buts'.

You can and do 'ya but' valid points and invalid points. Biased? From you?

It's fun watching Mike make valid points and the usual suspects replying with 'ya buts'.

Agreements in principal aren't binding. Teams aren't announcing signings.

It only applies to draft picks 1st contracts.

That's what the CBA says. We can choose to renegotiate with any American player at any time.

I came here for Bomber news and found "How BLM signing with the Ticats affects the Riders". SMH

Bombers QB's - Collaros $600K + 2 backups. Lions QB's - VAJ @$350K + 2 backups. Therefore the Bombers use $250K more SMS for the QB spot, unless we pay our backups more or less than BC does. The real math is that the Lions take the full SMS value of the players off the books, not the net(- 6 game) savings. Example: Collaros gets hurt this year and retires. We get $600K of SMS room, not $600K - the 6 game SMS relief.

Both sides don't have good points. I asked myself and told myself that I was doing the right thing shouldn't be allowed to trump public policy. Lockdowns and mask wearing are political decisions, not science decisions. The science says they both work & less people would be dead & will die in the future if we used them. The "I don't wanna's" have made things worse for everybody & are allowing the deaths to go up. My wife and I are on our 5th round of vaccinations and got Covid after the 4th. Without the vaccines, we'd both likely have been in the hospital fighting for our lives. With the vaccines, we we in bed for a week hacking up our lungs. We've got long Covid symptoms. Can't get through the day without a nap. This is the result of a non-mask wearing, non-shutdown society that's run by politicians who care more about the polls than people's lives.

I got Pipkins salary wrong, he only saves them $80K. Using last years SMS hits... Pipkin @ $80K, Adams @ $75K, Rourke @ $71K, Burnham @ $165K = $391K of SMS savings. Is that the math that you wanted me to do?

The Lions had room for VAJ half of last year, so they've already incorporated both VAJ's and Rouke's salary in the SMS. Pipkin is probably getting $250K+, drop him and they're golden. Add in Burnham's $165K and they're ahead of the game. As for chopping 2-3 high end players, Burnham and Rourke are those players, they don't need to chop 2-3 more.

Assuming he starts all the games & throws 20+ TD's, that's 350ishK. $250K more than VAJ. Based on QB salary, we're in a significantly worse spot SMS wise than the Lions. Burnham's $165K salary is already off the books, and the Lions say they won't go shopping for another top end receiver. My guess is they keep VAJ, they don't sign BLM or Faj-JJ & they are still in the top 3 in the west.

You want to start this up again? What a pigeon. You: Coo Coo, Ignore the CBA Me: Section 9.02 You: Angry Coo Coo, Ignore the CBA Me: Section 9.02 You: Angrier COO COO, You're wrong Me: Prove it Round and round for weeks. Naylor: Tweets that the Lions can make an offer because the CFLPA and the CFL signed off on it. You: Kicking the pieces off the board, shitting all over everything and strutting around like you won. This proves I'm right, you're wrong, you should slink off after apologizing. Me: New information explains how they can make an offer. Why didn't you come up with that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of the ideas as to why the Lions could ignore the CBA that you and yours came up with were correct, yet you want to declare a victory lap and want me to apologize for being right about Section 9.02 all along. The whole argument could have been avoided if anyone has said, don't like the clause, get the parties of the contract of the change it. The key is and always has been, that the only way they can make that offer is if the CFL and the CFLPA have signed off on a clause change in the current CBA. I'm guessing that happened some time during last season & I said that in the last go around that you started. You were too busy kicking stuff and strutting to notice.

I don't. Turns out you don't need an account to do a search. If he re-signs with BC I'll be surprised, but it most likely means that the CFL and the CFLPA changed the 3rd year option rule for Rourke. You can't sign him to a new contract because of the rule, so change the rule never occurred to anyone around here until yesterday.

Not what I said pigeon. Contract 101 - If all parties to a contract agree to a change the contract in writing, (because the CBA is in writing, changes must also be in writing) then it can be changed. That seems to be Naylor's take and he's right. Anyone think they were making that claim before today? I remember days or weeks of OPTION means something it doesn't & one person saying that the CFL would have to sign off on any exception to the CBA rules.... me.

I gave up my twitter account when Musk took over, so if you want me to read them, you'll have to post them. Of course the CFLPA would be on board, they want the players to make the most money they can. Of course BC would be on board they want to sign Rourke without having to give up his rights. If the CFL gives Rourke and BC an out for the year 3 rule.. great, but that's not the same as saying you can do whatever you want in the 3rd year without special dispensation from the league. Which I said a long time ago.

You're right, he mentioned this coming season. Still don't see how that can happen.

Proof requires all 3 things: Offer, acceptance, & the CFL ratifying the contract. A GM saying they'll make a "competitive offer" isn't proof. It's 1 point, the first tangible one, in favour of the 'you can do whatever you want in the third year no matter what it says in the CBA' group. I'm not a lawyer and never pretended I was. Contracts 101 is enough. I thought about McEvoy's statement while running errands this morning. I think he's acknowledging that Rourke won't be in the CFL next year so the CBA draft rules won't apply to his next contract.

McEvoy says he'll can offer a “competitive contract" (What the CBA says is the maximum is a definition of a competitive offer) & will "redo his deal" which could also mean offering what the CBA says. It could also mean ignoring the CBA rules and making the CFL make the final decision on what the CBA says or make Rourke a special case because he deserves it. Proof would be Rourke getting offered a contract that is bigger than what's in black and white in the CBA and the CFL agreeing to it and knowing that it's not a special one off case. If that happens, I'll happily admit to being wrong this time. I'll be interested to see if BC picks up the the 3rd year on Rourke's contract in February. If they don't that, then all teams have equal access to Rourke should he come back to the CFL next year. If they do, then the 3rd year CBA rules stay in place even for the 'Just don't exercise the option' folks.

It doesn't say how much more (10% anyone?), nor does it debunk or undeniably disprove anything. McEvoy can say anything he wants because he knows that Rourke will be in the NFL this year. After a year in the NFL McEvoy or any other GM for that matter, can offer Rourke anything they want because he will no long be on his first draft contract. Oh yah, what a GM says in public isn't binding to anything, but the CBA is. I said that the deal is written in black & white in the CBA and I posted it several times. In the third year the option is: Option year base salary to be negotiated not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary I'm still saying that. It's not that I didn't bother to look up option year in the CBA, it's that the Option as defined in the same section of the contract is the option that is in effect for that section of contract. Note that draft pick contracts are different than all other CFL contracts & that teams can offer a new contract in any year, not just an option year, so an option year isn't special anyway. BC not picking up the option means Rourke is a FA at that moment, & BC no longer has any control over the situation. Rourke's team will know exactly how much other teams are willing to pay before signing with anyone. Paying more than the 10% after not picking up the option means BC is paying more than the CBA allows them to. The only way that works out is if the CFL gives them an out on the Draft Contract, which is something they asked for and didn't get last year. The fact that I have to re-state my position because you've got it so wrong shows your lack of reading comprehension. Just another pigeon kicking over the pieces and strutting around like he's won.