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

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

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.

Says nothing about the tam having to lock into an option year.  the player is locked in. If BC wants to stick it to Rourke, then they make him honour that OPTION year 3 at the stated grid you pointed out. What people here are saying, is that if BC was fair, they would negotiate a new contract with Rourke that would be a fair starter top end salary and once they get the agreement on the new contract... they would let the old contract expire without exercising their option for a 3rd year on the old contract, and then sign the new fair starting QB contract.  

It sucks because these contracts are geared majorly towards the team's best interest... I think they had it in place to make draft picks and their investment into them more valuable. 

Anyways, I see your point- if BC exercises its option for a 3rd year, Rourke has to take it @ the salary grid mentioned.  The point you seem to be at odds with is whether BC can let the rookie contract expire after only 2 years if they decline to opt for the 3 year option- they can, hence why it is an option year. It would be more accurate to call it a 3 year team mandated option year... 

 

ANyways- no flaming - just thoughtful discussion and clarification.  I do appreciate the discussions you bring to the forum. 

[17to85]

35 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

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.

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit eh? Nothing in what you posted says they need to do the third year as an option. 

[Jesse]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit eh? Nothing in what you posted says they need to do the third year as an option. 

I think there’s enough ambiguity that we can’t know for certain until it’s confirmed from the league. 
 

we may never get confirmation if he’s released and headed south though.

[SpeedFlex27]

Of course it's ambiguos. That wat TBurgess can muddy the water any way he wants. 

[GCn20]

At any rate, Rourke's 3rd year is a moot point anyhow. The Lions are unable to do any kind of extension until his NFL option has expired and it is almost a certainty that he will look at NFL offers and that he will receive them. The state of QBing in the NFL is questionable right now and there is this 24 year old kid out there that just ripped the 2nd best league on the planet a new arsehole. Anyone thinking there will be anything but massive interest in Rourke is dreaming in technicolor. He has demonstrated at a very young age that he can ball, that is an NFL scouts wet dream. If he was 26 or 27 the interest might be lukewarm, but at 24, teams can really take their time and develop him and still get a young QB out of the deal. He's gone imo. The NFL will come for him, not because he is better than a Zac Collaros or BLM in his prime, but because he is so much younger than either of them were when they demonstrated they could ball up here.

Even if the Lions throw 600k at him he likely still bolts. I mean, why not if you were him? Take your shot. If it doesn't work out you come back to the CFL to the highest bidder in a couple years and make your bank for the next 10 years. At his age, he would be monumentally stupid to not bolt to the NFL next year and at least try to live the dream. He will, at the very least, be a PR lock for any team that takes him.

[TBURGESS]

14 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit eh? Nothing in what you posted says they need to do the third year as an option. 

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It's not my reading comprehension that needs work.

@SpeedFlex27 It's not ambiguous & I'm not muddying the waters.

Rourke's out is the NFL, and I agree with GCn20, he'll get his shot next year. I doubt he comes back to the CFL next year and if/when he does, he'll get paid like the starting QB he is.

[GCn20]

9 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It's not my reading comprehension that needs work.

@SpeedFlex27 It's not ambiguous & I'm not muddying the waters.

Rourke's out is the NFL, and I agree with GCn20, he'll get his shot next year. I doubt he comes back to the CFL next year and if/when he does, he'll get paid like the starting QB he is.

Was just reading an article by Dave Naylor stating he does not know if an extension is allowed next year or not but that it cannot be worked out before the NFL window when he enters his option. He stated the exact same thing that the wording is ambiguous and that league sources had not replied to him on his inquiry on the matter. The article was from August.

Edited October 28, 2022 by GCn20

[Tracker]

Realistically, as good as he has been so far, the jury is still out on Rourke. In any case, if the Lions choose to have him play tonight or even in the WSF, they are a pack of idiots. They are likely one and done in the WSF and they have to weigh the risk against screwing up his promising future. Adams is not a saviour but has shown some ability to win, so the outcome in the WSF is apt to be the same in either scenario. 

There is a rule in gambling: Don't play with money you can't afford to lose.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Tracker

[Jesse]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It's not my reading comprehension that needs work.

@SpeedFlex27 It's not ambiguous & I'm not muddying the waters.

Rourke's out is the NFL, and I agree with GCn20, he'll get his shot next year. I doubt he comes back to the CFL next year and if/when he does, he'll get paid like the starting QB he is.

Up until this post, I wanted to defend you.

But it is ambiguous, we don't have precedent to go off of, and if you continue to say it is as black and white as you previously claimed, you absolutely are muddying the waters.

[GCn20]

4 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Up until this post, I wanted to defend you.

But it is ambiguous, we don't have precedent to go off of, and if you continue to say it is as black and white as you previously claimed, you absolutely are muddying the waters.

There was a bunch of talk by Naylor and Lalji about the Lions being unable to do anything about his contract this year. In so far as the first two years go it's definitely a no-go for extensions or pay raises in that time frame. The question remains about what a team's ability is in the option year. TBurg may very well be right, but it just seems farfetched to me that the CFLPA would insist on the 3rd year to be an option year, and then allow there to be no options to speak of.

1 hour ago, Tracker said:

Realistically, as good as he has been so far, the jury is still out on Rourke. In any case, if the Lions choose to have him play tonight or even in the WSF, they are a pack of idiots. They are likely one and done in the WSF and they have to weigh the risk against screwing up his promising future. Adams is not a saviour but has shown some ability to win, so the outcome in the WSF is apt to be the same in either scenario. 

There is a rule in gambling: Don't play with money you can't afford to lose.

I am not sure why you would roll out a wounded duck QB just before the playoffs either? 

[TBURGESS]

40 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Up until this post, I wanted to defend you.

But it is ambiguous, we don't have precedent to go off of, and if you continue to say it is as black and white as you previously claimed, you absolutely are muddying the waters.

What's ambiguous? The CBA says what options are available to draft picks in year 3 in black and white. Folks who are saying the word OPTION makes it ambiguous are the one's muddying the waters.

We don't have a precedent because we haven't had a draft pick any where near Rourke's level since Russ Jackson and the CBA's been changed a lot of times since those days.

[17to85]

An option year it just that, it's an option (by the team in this case) to have that player for the 3rd year at a known cost. But nowhere does it say a new contract can't be drawn up which renders the option year moot.

[TBURGESS]

16 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

An option year it just that, it's an option (by the team in this case) to have that player for the 3rd year at a known cost. But nowhere does it say a new contract can't be drawn up which renders the option year moot.

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It doesn't say a new contract, that renders the CBA moot, is an option. If it did, you'd be right.

[bearpants]

Something that hasn't been mentioned... I think if the team chooses not to pick up the 3rd year option... that would make Rourke a free agent.... now obviously, if BC was going to do that with the intention of re-signing him... a massive contract would already be in front of him at the time of the declination... at least, that's how I understand the option year to work... otherwise, it's just a 3 year deal, not a 2+1. 

[Noeller]

even by the very low standard set by this message board, this is just such an insane conversation that I cannot believe is still going.... my goodness, thank **** it's a game day...

[Jesse]

16 minutes ago, bearpants said:

Something that hasn't been mentioned... I think if the team chooses not to pick up the 3rd year option... that would make Rourke a free agent.... now obviously, if BC was going to do that with the intention of re-signing him... a massive contract would already be in front of him at the time of the declination... at least, that's how I understand the option year to work... otherwise, it's just a 3 year deal, not a 2+1. 

It has been mentioned. It's either been dismissed or held up as confirmation by either side already. 

This where the ambiguity exists. And if Naylor doesn't know the answer, then neither do we.

[Wideleft]

27 minutes ago, Noeller said:

even by the very low standard set by this message board, this is just such an insane conversation that I cannot believe is still going.... my goodness, thank **** it's a game day...

If this conversation was happening at my kitchen table, I would have walked out of the house hours ago.

I'm not sure if it's more insane than inane, but I don't want to start a whole new conversation related to it.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Wideleft

[Booch]

4 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

If this conversation was happening at my kitchen table, I would have walked out of the house hours ago.

I'm not sure if it's more insane than inane, but I don't want to start a whole new conversation related to it.

what about if it was happening in the rumpus room? lol

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, Booch said:

what about if it was happening in the rumpus room? lol

The lego house would be smashed.

[17to85]

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It doesn't say a new contract, that renders the CBA moot, is an option. If it did, you'd be right.

On that contract, not on a new contract  

[SpeedFlex27]

10 hours ago, GCn20 said:

At any rate, Rourke's 3rd year is a moot point anyhow. The Lions are unable to do any kind of extension until his NFL option has expired and it is almost a certainty that he will look at NFL offers and that he will receive them. The state of QBing in the NFL is questionable right now and there is this 24 year old kid out there that just ripped the 2nd best league on the planet a new arsehole. Anyone thinking there will be anything but massive interest in Rourke is dreaming in technicolor. He has demonstrated at a very young age that he can ball, that is an NFL scouts wet dream. If he was 26 or 27 the interest might be lukewarm, but at 24, teams can really take their time and develop him and still get a young QB out of the deal. He's gone imo. The NFL will come for him, not because he is better than a Zac Collaros or BLM in his prime, but because he is so much younger than either of them were when they demonstrated they could ball up here.

Even if the Lions throw 600k at him he likely still bolts. I mean, why not if you were him? Take your shot. If it doesn't work out you come back to the CFL to the highest bidder in a couple years and make your bank for the next 10 years. At his age, he would be monumentally stupid to not bolt to the NFL next year and at least try to live the dream. He will, at the very least, be a PR lock for any team that takes him.

So, if he won't stay in BC for $600,000 a year & is looking at millions in the NFL as you say then why is he willing to risk it all tonight for $70,000 CDN? 

Edited October 28, 2022 by SpeedFlex27

[Jesse]

57 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

So, if he won't stay in BC for $600,000 a year & is looking at millions in the NFL as you say then why is he willing to risk it all tonight for $70,000 CDN? 

Because he’s 24 and has been drilled with a team-first mantra his whole life. Because he’s a competitor and hasn’t differentiated the game from the business yet.

[Booch]

Milt hit nail on head...organizations look at the now.... not the later....

Also...all said on panel that they have called medical experts in the U.S...and all said he would not play again...well shouldn't be...yet he has super powers according to Sujtor haha

[Goalie]

I'm gonna be legit... I don't see an NFL team giving Rourke a legit shot. He's not that good in reality 

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, Jesse said:

Because he’s 24 and has been drilled with a team-first mantra his whole life. Because he’s a competitor and hasn’t differentiated the game from the business yet.

Well, if Rourke comes in all rah rah then he'll get an attitude adjustment at some point. he needs his agent to watch out for him. Pro football is a business. They'll chew him up otherwise. He has to make decisions with the future in mind.