2022 CFL Season - Non Back 2 Back Champs News

[ShyGuy]

9 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Do you think that the option year paragraph you quote over-rides the Option paragraph in the CBA that is specific to Canadian draft picks on their first contract? I don't. If it did, then there would be no reason to put the option paragraph in the CBA for Draft Picks as it would have no meaning to anyone. It's there to give teams a salary certainty for draft picks for the first 3 years.

It would go a long way if you can cite what you are seeing that gives you the impression that you are correct instead of screaming into the void.

Again, hard to find 2022 CBA things but from here

https://tdnprod.wpengine.com/2020/01/07/the-comprehensive-cfl-collective-bargaining-agreement/

 

Quote

All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below (this term does not apply to Nationals who signed registered contracts in 2019):

Their commentary provided here

 

Quote

The usage of the term option year follows that of standard player contracts which would imply to me that this is a team option year. That would mean that players might not be able to sign two-year deals like recent draft picks seem to have negotiated for. Tunde Adeleke appears to have had a two-year deal, having left Calgary for Hamilton last year after playing only two years with his draft team.

Yes, you are correct in that the 3rd year TEAM option is included in the CBA and the Standard Player agreement in order to control costs for new draft picks. You may be correct in that the CBA language in that the salary structure of the contract may not be able to change as stated in the Standard Player Contract (teams may be bound to offering based on the structure laid out, not a minimum of 100% of the previous year + bonus).

What you can't seem to grok is that the Lions can literally let his contract run out by not exercising the option. Rourke would become a de-facto free agent and would not be bound to the third year option of his original contract as he would need to sign a whole new one.

Really the Lions have 2 options

1. Let Rourke test out his NFL option, lose him for a number of years based on how long he holds a clipboard and bounces around the practice squad... He may be released from his contract at this point... but his rights remain with BC? Like I've mentioned previously... hard to find exact language in the CBA around this. Presumably when he is done flirting with the NFL he could sign for whatever or have his rights traded

2. Reach an agreement with Rourke, allow the option to expire, sign him to a new deal (and hope no one swoops in with a ridiculous offer he accepts).

[TrueBlue4ever]

Me having to relive this debate from 3 weeks ago that still has settled nothing:

[Noeller]

Lolololol.... 17to85's been talking about the Riders "walking back" their Faj hate and begging him to come back: 
 

 

[greenrider55]

3 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Lolololol.... 17to85's been talking about the Riders "walking back" their Faj hate and begging him to come back: 
 

 

What you hear is me aggressively slamming my head against my keyboard at work.

[Booch]

Just now, greenrider55 said:

What you hear is me aggressively slamming my head against my keyboard at work.

that to me sounds like some worried back tracking by the Riders...and some internal thoughts/beliefs that they are essentially screwed at the position next yr...be interesting February for sure

[greenrider55]

1 minute ago, Booch said:

that to me sounds like some worried back tracking by the Riders...and some internal thoughts/beliefs that they are essentially screwed at the position next yr...be interesting February for sure

Well, they need to realize they’re screwed anyway. If you’re gonna finish last the west, you may as well bring in someone new. JOD’s decision to stick with Dickenson is a head scratcher for sure. 

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, greenrider55 said:

Well, they need to realize they’re screwed anyway. If you’re gonna finish last the west, you may as well bring in someone new. JOD’s decision to stick with Dickenson is a head scratcher for sure. 

yeah....it was...and if they keep a good chunk of that locker room why would anything be better??...weird

also...if it comes back to them wooing Faj....if I was him I'd hold them over a barrel and say show me the money, based on how they treated him the last few weeks....that was truly messed up

[Noeller]

more gems: 
 

 

[GCn20]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

You & others are ignoring: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary.

Option years aren't special when it comes to contract offers. You can offer a new contract to any player, who isn't a Canadian Draft Pick On Their First Contract, at any time, not just on an Option year.

@KshyGuy Do you think that the option year paragraph you quote over-rides the Option paragraph in the CBA that is specific to Canadian draft picks on their first contract? I don't. If it did, then there would be no reason to put the option paragraph in the CBA for Draft Picks as it would have no meaning to anyone. It's there to give teams a salary certainty for draft picks for the first 3 years.

@Bigblue204 Cutting Rourke and offering a new contract or 'Gentleman's agreement' as a way around the CBA. Maybe, but what stopped them from doing it this year? The CFL did. They still have final say.

I remember the first part, even if my only source was twitter. Source for the option year part? Cuz, as you know, that's not what it says in the CBA.

My source on option years? You can't possibly be serious? If you want, my source is every contract extension ever to any player entering their option year in the history of the CFL. Should be a few thousand for you to look at.

Edited November 17, 2022 by GCn20

[Booch]

9 minutes ago, Noeller said:

more gems: 
 

 

what a clueless dolt

[TBURGESS]

52 minutes ago, KshyGuy said:

It would go a long way if you can cite what you are seeing that gives you the impression that you are correct instead of screaming into the void.

Again, hard to find 2022 CBA things but from here

https://tdnprod.wpengine.com/2020/01/07/the-comprehensive-cfl-collective-bargaining-agreement/

 

Their commentary provided here

 

Yes, you are correct in that the 3rd year TEAM option is included in the CBA and the Standard Player agreement in order to control costs for new draft picks. You may be correct in that the CBA language in that the salary structure of the contract may not be able to change as stated in the Standard Player Contract (teams may be bound to offering based on the structure laid out, not a minimum of 100% of the previous year + bonus).

What you can't seem to grok is that the Lions can literally let his contract run out by not exercising the option. Rourke would become a de-facto free agent and would not be bound to the third year option of his original contract as he would need to sign a whole new one.

Really the Lions have 2 options

1. Let Rourke test out his NFL option, lose him for a number of years based on how long he holds a clipboard and bounces around the practice squad... He may be released from his contract at this point... but his rights remain with BC? Like I've mentioned previously... hard to find exact language in the CBA around this. Presumably when he is done flirting with the NFL he could sign for whatever or have his rights traded

2. Reach an agreement with Rourke, allow the option to expire, sign him to a new deal (and hope no one swoops in with a ridiculous offer he accepts).

Bold - Quoted from the CBA.

Section 9.02 Length of First Contracts (starting in 2020)
(a) National Players
All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below

If the Lions let Rourke out of his current contract or allow the option to expire, then re-sign him to a new contract that is outside of the salary section, they are in breach of the underlined clause.

Option year (3rd Year) Base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary

When the option year is defined in the same section as the rest of the rules applying to Draft Picks, then you don't need to look outside Section 9.02 to find another definition. The definition within Section 9.02 is the definition of Option year as it pertains to Draft Picks.

Section 36.01 - Effective 2020 and going forward, all players under contract will be eligible for the NFL Option Window, described herein, at the end of each season, regardless of the length of their contract. This proposed clause is subject to agreement from the NFL.

It's not BC's option to allow Rourke to test his NFL options. It's in the CBA.

In the event that the N.F.L. Club terminates the Player’s N.F.L. Standard Player Contract, and the Player’s C.F.L. Standard Player Contract has not expired, the Player’s C.F.L. Standard Player Contract and any renewal thereof between the Player and the Member Club shall become effective and shall remain in effect until its expiration date, and all benefits in accordance with the said C.F.L. Standard Player Contract and Collective Agreement shall continue to remain in effect

Assuming Rourke stays in the NFL for the entire CFL season or if BC lets him out of his contract, he becomes a free agent. A lot of teams would make offers.

Questions?

 

 

 

[rebusrankin]

[TBURGESS]

8 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

My source on option years? You can't possibly be serious? If you want, my source is every contract extension ever to any player entering their option year in the history of the CFL. Should be a few thousand for you to look at.

So you got nothing but trying to obnoxious then.🙄

[17to85]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

You & others are ignoring: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary.

Not at all, simplying saying there are options to not have his 3rd year be an option year.

[Geebrr]

The sexual tension in this thread is through the roof 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

The sexual tension in this thread is through the roof 

 

《Text alert》

Rourke option year!

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Wanna-B-Fanboy

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

Lolololol.... 17to85's been talking about the Riders "walking back" their Faj hate and begging him to come back: 
 

 

This display of Rider head coach Dickenson's piercing intellect is why the Riders are the way they are today. 

[SpeedFlex27]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

more gems: 
 

 

What? Now I've heard everything. 

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

more gems: 
 

 

Have I mentioned recently how extremely grateful I am to have oshea as our head coach?

[JuranBoldenRules]

7 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

If I were grading your paper you would receive an F. 

I honestly thought you'd have a legitimate source lol. I'm not saying it didn't happen. But if this situation was reversed, there's not a chance in hell you'd accept "twitter" as a source. I mean, at the very least name the account. Ideally you'd share the actual tweet.

Honest question. What's stopping BC and Rourke from having a gentleman's agreement in place. BC cuts Rourke making him a FA. Only to turn around and re-sign him for a regular contract?

They will literally have the contract signed ready to file the same time they file to decline the option.

[GCn20]

55 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

They will literally have the contract signed ready to file the same time they file to decline the option.

Exactly. This is what TBurg is forgetting about the CFL. Contracts get torn up and new contracts filed all the time. All in the matter of a NY minute.

[TrueBlue4ever]

3 hours ago, Geebrr said:

The sexual tension in this thread is through the roof 

Best post in this entire thread. 

[Noeller]

Lolololol Dan Clark given an award tonight to keep the Rider "fans" from freaking out and throwing them a bone... Sickening. 

[SpeedFlex27]

14 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Bold - Quoted from the CBA.

Section 9.02 Length of First Contracts (starting in 2020)
(a) National Players
All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below

If the Lions let Rourke out of his current contract or allow the option to expire, then re-sign him to a new contract that is outside of the salary section, they are in breach of the underlined clause.

Option year (3rd Year) Base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary

When the option year is defined in the same section as the rest of the rules applying to Draft Picks, then you don't need to look outside Section 9.02 to find another definition. The definition within Section 9.02 is the definition of Option year as it pertains to Draft Picks.

Section 36.01 - Effective 2020 and going forward, all players under contract will be eligible for the NFL Option Window, described herein, at the end of each season, regardless of the length of their contract. This proposed clause is subject to agreement from the NFL.

It's not BC's option to allow Rourke to test his NFL options. It's in the CBA.

In the event that the N.F.L. Club terminates the Player’s N.F.L. Standard Player Contract, and the Player’s C.F.L. Standard Player Contract has not expired, the Player’s C.F.L. Standard Player Contract and any renewal thereof between the Player and the Member Club shall become effective and shall remain in effect until its expiration date, and all benefits in accordance with the said C.F.L. Standard Player Contract and Collective Agreement shall continue to remain in effect

Assuming Rourke stays in the NFL for the entire CFL season or if BC lets him out of his contract, he becomes a free agent. A lot of teams would make offers.

Questions?

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Noeller said:

Lolololol Dan Clark given an award tonight to keep the Rider "fans" from freaking out and throwing them a bone... Sickening. 

Dan Clark: "No qb was sacked while writing this speech." Lol.

[GCn20]

18 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

So you got nothing but trying to obnoxious then.🙄

If disproving you is obnoxious than I'm guilty I guess.