TBURGESS

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.

I'll believe it when I see it. FTR: Redoing his deal doesn't mean more money than the CBA option says for draft picks. My guess is that Rourke signs with an NFL team in January for north of $750,000 USD or 1 Million CAD. No way BC can be competitive with that money.

We don't have the money or the need to be active in Free Agency. We're a vet team with a lot of expensive players and the top paid QB in the league.

Not suspended. I realized that arguing with some folks around here is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks the players over, shits on the board, & then struts around like they've won the game. The locked thread is a great example. I say If you think that the 3rd year clause doesn't matter & you think that BC would keep Rourke's rights then you get to the same place as saying the 3rd year of the CBA option is the only option. A poster who can lock threads ignores the if clauses and says that I'm arguing something that I'm not then locks the thread, making him and others the pigeon's I mentioned in the first paragraph.

Congrats! You just got to the same place as me, from the other perspective. Exercise the option to keep Rourke = Stay within the CBA salary structure.

If he leaves for the NFL the Lions can retain him for next year by exercising the option in the draft contract.

You're purposely ignoring the question. FA or Lion in Feb when they have to decide? FA means every team gets to offer a contract if Rourke comes back next year. Lion means the Lion's are the only team that Rourke can come back to next year.

Rourke isn't signing a contract until he takes his NFL shot, so he's not going to sign in Feb, so that's not an option. It's FA or Lion. Which one is it?

Folks who think that BC can ignore the option year by not taking the option: If you're BC do you: a) Not take the option in Feb and make a Rourke a FA if he comes back to the CFL next year OR b) Take the option and keep Rourke as a Lion next year if he comes back knowing that means he won't get the money he deserves

I'm not disregarding the word OPTION. I'm saying it means what it says it means in the CBA in the section for draft picks. I'm saying it doesn't mean ignore the CBA rules do whatever you want at contract time.

I was gonna stop but you asked a question. It's not an argument about fairness. Fairness would be to give Rourke QB money right away, because he's a QB rather than let his passport screw him outta salary. Year 2 the Lions did ask to tear up his contract to give him more money and the league turned them down. The only difference in the 3rd year is the word OPTION. Folks around here take that to mean the team can refuse to take the option, turn Rourke into a FA & then offer Rourke a new contract that ignores the 3rd year in the CBA. I take it to mean what it says in the CBA in black and white... not more than 10% > 2nd year salary.

I don`t think either Ellingson or Schoen are back next year. We`ll need new top receiver.

What part of: not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary, is hard for people to comprehend? If teams/players/agents could say that Option means what it means in a different part of the CBA, then there is no reason to put the option in the draft picks salary section because it wouldn't mean anything. The simple fact that it's there means it's the option that is allowed. All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid. So yes, you still have to follow the salary grid even if you 'opt out' of the contract.

OPTION in the same section as draft pick salary is the OPTION that is used for draft picks. It's contract 101. Once again from the CBA: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary. Some of you have the reading comprehension of a spoon.

Option means what it says it means in the CBA.

Brady was drafted in 2019. From the CBA: Section 9.02 Length of First Contracts (starting in 2020) Therefore, Brady, and everyone before him doesn't matter to the conversation.

Source for how much did he make in his 3rd season?

We had a punt return for a TD and blocked a FG that would have put them up by 4 late in the game. They missed 2 FG's and had one blocked. They took RTP penalty that gave us an extra chance to win the game. It finally came down to a blocked FG in the last seconds for the Argos to win. I sucks to end a great season with a GC loss.

I don't know why you guys are upset that the media is trying to make this into a game that either team could win. That's what the media does. David vs Goliath has been told and retold for thousands of years. IMO We win this in convincing fashion unless Collaros is knocked out of the game. BC was closer to our level last week than Toronto is this week.

Again... the option part in stipulated in the Draft Pick section of the CBA. I'm not overlooking it, you and yours are. Still no info on Brady's contract? If it's over the CBA amount for his year 3, then you win. If it's not, then more of: CBA vs Opinion CBA vs Same opinion only angry CBA vs Same opinion even angrier CBA vs Your a troll. Nobody likes you, go eat some worms