Coddled Dome Dwellers @ Back 2 Back Champs: The Week Of Thread

[Wideleft]

9 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

You have not shown anything that suggests it can't happen. The only thing you have demonstrated is that the standard rookie contract is a 2+1. Nothing in there that states a player can't be extended in his option year. Only that if a team chooses to pick up the option on the 3rd without an extension that there are pay limits in effect. I would be shocked if a team couldn't extend a player in his option year. I can't see how the union would ever let that happen. It would make zero sense.

If BC tries to hold him to his rookie contract, Rourke would be nuts not to hold out.

[GCn20]

4 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

If BC tries to hold him to his rookie contract, Rourke would be nuts not to hold out.

He could hold out for sure. I think that is a very distinct possibility. If, in fact, there is some rule prohibiting him from signing an extension before the end of his contract....and that is an unfounded rumor until proven by TB....then I would think the CFL BOG will scrap it in the offseason at BC's request and for the good of the league. There is less than 1% chance that Rourke is playing in the CFL next year for 85k imo.

Edited October 27, 2022 by GCn20

[TBURGESS]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

You have not shown anything that suggests it can't happen. The only thing you have demonstrated is that the standard rookie contract is a 2+1. Nothing in there that states a player can't be extended in his option year. Only that if a team chooses to pick up the option on the 3rd without an extension that there are pay limits in effect. I would be shocked if a team couldn't extend a player in his option year. I can't see how the union would ever let that happen. It would make zero sense.

	1st  Year	2nd Year
Max. - Min. Salary	$65,000	$65,000	Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary
Max. Sign or Housing (Optional)	$7,500	$7,500
50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional)	$7,500	$7,500

This is the same thing that I posted before with the Option year info highlighted this time.

 

 

[Saidin]

Why can't they just tear up the contract and give him a new one to properly compensate Rouke?   I guess they could be dicks and hold him to it but I'd imagine in good faith they'd pay him what he's worth.  

[17to85]

16 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

	1st  Year	2nd Year
Max. - Min. Salary	$65,000	$65,000	Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary
Max. Sign or Housing (Optional)	$7,500	$7,500
50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional)	$7,500	$7,500

This is the same thing that I posted before with the Option year info highlighted this time.

 

 

Yeah and that doesn't really say what you think it does... if they just do an option year sure, but they would be doing a new contract which would not have those limitations, and even the  doesn't look to me like there are limits to anything other than base salary...

[Booch]

9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Yeah and that doesn't really say what you think it does... if they just do an option year sure, but they would be doing a new contract which would not have those limitations, and even the  doesn't look to me like there are limits to anything other than base salary...

if they were to do a new extension and extend him...that option yr stuff is out the window and moot

[TBURGESS]

Quote

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...

It doesn't say that you can tear up the contract and offer a new one and I would think that the Lions would have already done that if they could. Rourke has certainly earned a bigger contract than $65K.

As I read it, 3rd year salary is $65,000+$6500(10% of 65K)+$7500(Housing)+$7500(Snaps) =  $86,500. Rourke should be way more than that and if there's a way for the Lions to do it, I'm sure they will.

 

[17to85]

14 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

It doesn't say that you can tear up the contract and offer a new one and I would think that the Lions would have already done that if they could. Rourke has certainly earned a bigger contract than $65K.

As I read it, 3rd year salary is $65,000+$6500(10% of 65K)+$7500(Housing)+$7500(Snaps) =  $86,500. Rourke should be way more than that and if there's a way for the Lions to do it, I'm sure they will.

 

It's 2 years plus an option. "No we're not picking up the option, but hey here's a new multi-year deal as your 2nd contract". Pretty standard stuff really.

[Booch]

18 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

It's 2 years plus an option. "No we're not picking up the option, but hey here's a new multi-year deal as your 2nd contract". Pretty standard stuff really.

this is exactly it...right there...case closed. They can not pick it up...and sign him to whatever.....time to move on now...geeez

[Noeller]

Really really excited for Christian to show his PBP skills. He's a hard worker and has earned a shot.....

 

[Pete Catan's Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Really really excited for Christian to show his PBP skills. He's a hard worker and has earned a shot.....

 

Next man up. 

Break a leg Christian….uh, check that. 

[TBURGESS]

46 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

It's 2 years plus an option. "No we're not picking up the option, but hey here's a new multi-year deal as your 2nd contract". Pretty standard stuff really.

Quote

Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary + All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid.

These two clauses spell out what teams can do in the option year. If teams could simply not pick up the option, why would the CBA say you have to follow the salary grid & base salary not to exceed more than 10% of the 2nd year salary?

[17to85]

Jesus christ it's in the name of the ******* deal... OPTION. As in club has the option of making the deal a 3rd year with the above terms. Nothing says they have to exercise that option. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

16 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

These two clauses spell out what teams can do in the option year. If teams could simply not pick up the option, why would the CBA say you have to follow the salary grid & base salary not to exceed more than 10% of the 2nd year salary?

I think that's why it is called an option year... meaning the team can either pick up the optional 3rd or opt for the option of not taking that option... I don't see how that is not clear as day, unless of course you take the blinders option or opt for the "new English" option of the word option. No skin off my nose with which ever option you choose- it is ultimately your option. I am just letting you know that you have options here.  

[Booch]

10 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Jesus christ it's in the name of the ******* deal... OPTION. As in club has the option of making the deal a 3rd year with the above terms. Nothing says they have to exercise that option. 

well u know....u can lead a horse to water eh?......

8 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

I think that's why it is called an option year... meaning the team can either pick up the optional 3rd or opt for the option of not taking that option... I don't see how that is not clear as day, unless of course you take the blinders option or opt for the "new English" option of the word option. No skin off my nose with which ever option you choose- it is ultimately your option. I am just letting you know that you have options here.  

there is an option...or not.....lol

[Bigblue204]

There are no options....only the illusion of options.

[K-Shack]

5 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

The no backup dbs on the roster is strange.

In Halletts we trust?

[Jesse]

6 hours ago, Noeller said:

this line-up I assume is just for a quarter, then there's gonna be all sorts of mixing and matching out there, but I'm intrigues. That Biggie to WIL thing is really really interesting to me. Ford at Corner is just to get him some reps and see what the kid can do...got no problem with that. 

Not a ton of depth in a lot of of positional groups. More guys than I thought will be playing all game. 

[Noeller]

5 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Not a ton of depth in a lot of of positional groups. More guys than I thought will be playing all game. 

But not for very long...the guys most needing to rest/not get hurt will only play a quarter or so...

[Tracker]

5 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Yes, Calgary does present a bigger obstacle to us than BC.

Better than BC, yes, but in their last two outings, neither Maier nor the Cowgary offence looked sharp.

[Noeller]

13 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Better than BC, yes, but in their last two outings, neither Maier nor the Cowgary offence looked sharp.

Neither of those teams is anywhere as good as Winnipeg. Any Given Sunday and all that, but neither one of those teams SHOULD beat Winnipeg. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

5 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

	1st  Year	2nd Year
Max. - Min. Salary	$65,000	$65,000	Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary
Max. Sign or Housing (Optional)	$7,500	$7,500
50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional)	$7,500	$7,500

This is the same thing that I posted before with the Option year info highlighted this time.

 

 

So decline the option and sign a new contract.  Rourke will sign the first NFL deal he sees otherwise in the window.  There's nothing compelling guys to come back in the option year window now too.  They used to have 10 days to sign with a new NFL team if they were cut and had to sign to active roster.  Now nothing.

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

It doesn't say that you can tear up the contract and offer a new one and I would think that the Lions would have already done that if they could. Rourke has certainly earned a bigger contract than $65K.

As I read it, 3rd year salary is $65,000+$6500(10% of 65K)+$7500(Housing)+$7500(Snaps) =  $86,500. Rourke should be way more than that and if there's a way for the Lions to do it, I'm sure they will.

 

Rourke wouldn't sign a new deal.  He's headed south.

6 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

The no backup dbs on the roster is strange.

Think they would move Darby back and use Kramdi at SAM if they needed to.  I'm sure Cole could play SAM too.

[Booch]

14 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

So decline the option and sign a new contract.  Rourke will sign the first NFL deal he sees otherwise in the window.  There's nothing compelling guys to come back in the option year window now too.  They used to have 10 days to sign with a new NFL team if they were cut and had to sign to active roster.  Now nothing.

Rourke wouldn't sign a new deal.  He's headed south.

Think they would move Darby back and use Kramdi at SAM if they needed to.  I'm sure Cole could play SAM too.

Yeah lots of options to move guys around if need be

That's the beauty of Darby's versatility..can play sam...safety...hb...corner

Edited October 27, 2022 by Booch

[voodoochylde]

My thoughts on this game .. it's completely meaningless, a tune-up game before heading into the playoffs.

My feelings on this game .. I hope we **** them up royally and show BC they have no business hanging with the B2B champs.  Do not go into the post-season giving *anyone* confidence.

[TBURGESS]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Jesus christ it's in the name of the ******* deal... OPTION. As in club has the option of making the deal a 3rd year with the above terms. Nothing says they have to exercise that option. 

Something says they have to exercise the option. It's called the CBA & says: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary. But wait, there's more, the CBA also says: All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid.

According to the CBA, drafted players must follow the salary grid & sign a 2+1 contract & their 3rd year is not more than 10% more than the 2nd year.

According to the fans on this site, no they don't, the club can tear up that contract and offer them something different in the third year cuz it's their option, even though it explicitly stated in the CBA what they have to do.

According to Naylor?/TSN?/Twitter? (I can't remember where I heard/read it) BC asked the CFL for a exemption for Rourke's contract. They wouldn't need an exemption if they could just tear up the contract and offer a new one.

I'm done arguing this one. Flame away folks. You know you want to.