Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted December 28, 2022 Report Posted December 28, 2022 1 hour ago, TBURGESS said: 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. blue_gold_84 and bearpants 2
17to85 Posted December 28, 2022 Report Posted December 28, 2022 Feels over reals for some people Piggy 1 1
Pete Catan's Ghost Posted December 28, 2022 Report Posted December 28, 2022 3 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said: Interested to see what @TBURGESS has to say about this portion. Said nobody…ever. Why would you think it’s even a remotely good idea to reopen their conversation?
Mark H. Posted December 28, 2022 Report Posted December 28, 2022 Seriously guys - don't reopen this discussion. If I have to mod during my xmas break, I'm gonna get real cranky. Jesse, JCon, GCJenks and 1 other 4
Booch Posted December 28, 2022 Report Posted December 28, 2022 Interesting to see all the thanks but no thanks to the Riders about coaching position...and how they basically had to settle for their O.C....again...next up...exodus of free agents...have they resigned any of note? Bigblue204, Noeller and wbbfan 3
Tracker Posted December 28, 2022 Report Posted December 28, 2022 25 minutes ago, Booch said: Interesting to see all the thanks but no thanks to the Riders about coaching position...and how they basically had to settle for their O.C....again...next up...exodus of free agents...have they resigned any of note? Given all the pathos in Regina, I would think that the Riders will have no end of problems recruiting CFL free agents. They will have to rely heavily on those who cannot catch on anywhere else and American newbies.
Noeller Posted December 28, 2022 Author Report Posted December 28, 2022 59 minutes ago, Booch said: Interesting to see all the thanks but no thanks to the Riders about coaching position...and how they basically had to settle for their O.C....again...next up...exodus of free agents...have they resigned any of note? What's his face the DB.... Marshall.... I think he's the only "of note" FA they've re signed.
TBURGESS Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 4 hours ago, GCn20 said: Unfortunately, the next paragraph from the one quoted above says that he will pay him more if he stays. You are doubling down on a concept that has been undeniably disproven by the words and actions of Neil McEvoy. Not sure if it is ego, or just blissful ignorance on your part but the article thoroughly and beyond a shadow of a doubt completely debunks your entire argument. It is not up for debate, McEvoy states he will renegotiate his contract to get him a more competitive salary for this year if he returns. I can't imagine how you can possibly argue against the words of the BC GM. I suspected you would turn up and try to weasel out of what should have been an AHA moment for you, that is unfortunate. First you said his deal couldn't be redone, now you are saying it can be redone but with no increase in pay for this year...lmao...all the while you obviously did not read the article linked just the one paragraph quoted above....just like you didn't take the time to look up option year and what options players and teams have in the CBA...just chose to quote one provision from the CBA that only applies if the team chooses not to renegotiate but pick up the option. 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.
Piggy 1 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 3 hours ago, Mark H. said: Seriously guys - don't reopen this discussion. If I have to mod during my xmas break, I'm gonna get real cranky. Id suggest get cranky with you know who.......
Noeller Posted December 29, 2022 Author Report Posted December 29, 2022 Wanna-B-Fanboy, Jesse, blue_gold_84 and 1 other 3 1
SpeedFlex27 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 7 hours ago, TBURGESS said: 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. TBURGESS 1
SpeedFlex27 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 (edited) Deleted post. Edited December 29, 2022 by SpeedFlex27
GCn20 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 (edited) 14 hours ago, TBURGESS said: 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 will believe Neil McEvoy thank you very much. It is very clear what he said. You are down to a McEvoy is lying to the media, for some unknown reason, defence of your position now. There is zero point arguing this anymore. The proof has been quoted above and no one is interested in a game of silly bugger anymore. We, who knew better, will take our victory lap now and you SHOULD just exit the conversation gracefully. Edited December 29, 2022 by GCn20 Bigblue204 1
blue_gold_84 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 14 hours ago, TBURGESS said: Just another pigeon kicking over the pieces and strutting around like he's won. The lack of self-awareness is staggering. Bigblue204 and JCon 1 1
Booch Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, Noeller said: What's his face the DB.... Marshall.... I think he's the only "of note" FA they've re signed. yeah I said of note hahahah...that guy is garbage and not a vet you want "leading" a new team, or flipping culture Edited December 29, 2022 by Booch Noeller 1
Jesse Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 6 minutes ago, Booch said: yeah I said of note hahahah...that guy is garbage and not a vet you want "leading" a new team, or flipping culture Morrow re-signed too.
GCn20 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 17 hours ago, Booch said: Interesting to see all the thanks but no thanks to the Riders about coaching position...and how they basically had to settle for their O.C....again...next up...exodus of free agents...have they resigned any of note? From what is being said in Regina, many of their top FAs have also informed the Riders they intend to test FA. Riderfans sees this as not an issue, they will re-sign, but I have not seen a ton of players say they are going to test FA because they want to stay. Riders can get players, but they will have to do it the hard way by massively overpaying. Noeller 1
TBURGESS Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 1 hour ago, GCn20 said: I will believe Neil McEvoy thank you very much. It is very clear what he said. You are down to a McEvoy is lying to the media, for some unknown reason, defence of your position now. There is zero point arguing this anymore. The proof has been quoted above and no one is interested in a game of silly bugger anymore. We, who knew better, will take our victory lap now and you SHOULD just exit the conversation gracefully. 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. Bigblue204 1
17to85 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 52 minutes ago, Booch said: yeah I said of note hahahah...that guy is garbage and not a vet you want "leading" a new team, or flipping culture But he is the best CB in the league.... The saddest part of Rourke likely getting an NFL deal is good old tburg won't ever have to accept his wrongness. Noeller, JCon and Booch 3
Booch Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 still beating that drum with loose skin....sheeesh Bigblue204, GCJenks, Piggy 1 and 1 other 1 3
Bigblue204 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 10 minutes ago, TBURGESS said: 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. Just REEEEEAAACHING to not be wrong!! I also love the "If every invested entity in the deal comes out and says that I'm wrong....then I'll gladly admit it!" If McEvoy was limited to only a 10% raise why wouldn't he say it? Why wouldn't he say? "We would love to give him a better deal, but under the current rules we're limited to 10%." Piggy 1 1
Rod Black Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said: If McEvoy was limited to only a 10% raise why wouldn't he say it? Why wouldn't he say? "We would love to give him a better deal, but under the current rules we're limited to 10%." Because he is a real General Manager in the CFL that gets real advice from real lawyers that breath real contracts. But you know that.;)
GCn20 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 3 hours ago, 17to85 said: But he is the best CB in the league.... The saddest part of Rourke likely getting an NFL deal is good old tburg won't ever have to accept his wrongness. I wish Rourke well in the NFL, but I wish the interest would have come one year later so that TBurg could finally admit he was wrong. 3 hours ago, Bigblue204 said: Just REEEEEAAACHING to not be wrong!! I also love the "If every invested entity in the deal comes out and says that I'm wrong....then I'll gladly admit it!" If McEvoy was limited to only a 10% raise why wouldn't he say it? Why wouldn't he say? "We would love to give him a better deal, but under the current rules we're limited to 10%." Reaching does not even begin to cover this level of forum Waterloo. He is like Napoleon making his last stand and choosing the hill he wishes to die on.
GCn20 Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 3 hours ago, Booch said: still beating that drum with loose skin....sheeesh I am sorry I quoted the article. I thought he could comprehend what he reads and would slink away into the night on this topic. Instead he is calling McEvoy a liar, and reaching by playing verbal gymnastics to alter what McEvoy was very clearly stating. Honestly, I don't know of a single person who reads that article and still doesn't believe that the Lions are going to give Rourke a big raise if he stays. rebusrankin 1
rebusrankin Posted December 29, 2022 Report Posted December 29, 2022 39 minutes ago, GCn20 said: I am sorry I quoted the article. I thought he could comprehend what he reads and would slink away into the night on this topic. Instead he is calling McEvoy a liar, and reaching by playing verbal gymnastics to alter what McEvoy was very clearly stating. Honestly, I don't know of a single person who reads that article and still doesn't believe that the Lions are going to give Rourke a big raise if he stays. Not your fault somebody else has a Trump level of delusion.
Recommended Posts