Madani: CFLPA Recommends Strike Vote To Members

[B-F-F-C]

So will the teams pay to bring in the rookies for rookie camp if they know that main camp might not start on time? 

[Goalie]

So will the teams pay to bring in the rookies for rookie camp if they know that main camp might not start on time? 

Just my opinion but i'd assume yes. I think the way this works here is until the season is officially umm on hold or whatever, you prepare like it isn't.

[iso_55]

 

 

i don't think the twitter comments are bothering anyone, i think what some of us are saying regarding those comments is they should shut up and not make them. If anyone thinks going on twitter and going on and on and on is helping their cause, that's being naive. Shut up, make a counter offer.. you want revenue sharing? then give the CFL something back.

 

These guys are all being unreasonable.. it does seem the players do want everything under the sun but dont want to give anything up. That's not how negotiations work. Take the NHL as an example, players got 300 million in a make whole payment, to get that they agreed to a lower cap. If the players want revenue sharing then they need to give the cfl the lower cap. If they want a higher cap, then they cant have revenue sharing also. That's not how these things work.

 

Players want it all like i said but dont seem to want to give anything back to the league. That's a problem. A big problem. To get you need to give something back... it seems the players dont want to do that. If that is indeed the case, then they wont get anything they want. A little give and a little take goes a long way here.

The CFL lowballed the players with an offer to increase the salary cap by $100,000. Works both ways. 

 

what did the players give back to the CFL tho? they made a ridiculous proposal, 6 million plus cap with revenue sharing and all sorts of things. They didn't give the CFL anything so why should the cfl give them something? 

 

I'm just saying both sides have to give not just the players. Both have taken ridiculous sides here. The $100,000 raise in the salary cap was a slap as was the players 56% revnue sharing & $7 mill salary cap. Now,  both need to get to work to find middle ground. 

[Atomic]

The problem is that the negotiations can't even begin until the players abandon the revenue sharing concept.  There's really no wiggle room there.... you either have revenue sharing or you don't.  Nothing to negotiate until that is resolved.

[iso_55]

I think the reason why revenue sharing is such a thorny issue is that the players agreed to abandon it in 2010 to help the league with the promise it would be looked at again in 2014 if things were better financially & the CFL has now balked at doing that. So, the players did sacrifice in 2010 when things weren't as good as now & just want to return to revenue sharing in good times & have been told no. 

[Goalie]

Are these good times though or are teams still barely making profits? 

 

People need to keep in mind, leave ottawa out of this, they are brand new, we dont know if they will make money or lose a ton of money

 

But what we do know is BC broke even apparently ,edmonton turned a 1.9 million profit, sask is gonna turn a large profit, winnipeg turned a 2.9 million profit...

 

What about Toronto? lost millions, hamilton? lost millions? montreal? rumors are they lost money or just barely broke even. Calgary? i dont know actually. let's assume they made a tiny profit also.

 

8 teams, 3 for sure made money, a tiny amount really, under 3 million. 3 definitely lost money. 1 we arent sure about... Is the league as strong as people think actually?

 

There seems to be an issue with the new tv deal, for some reason people seem to think teams are getting millions upon millions upon millions out of it, they arent tho, they are only getting a couple million each are they not? This isn't the NFL where each team is getting 100's of millions, they are getting in some cases enough to cover what they lost.

 

Is the league really in good times? Just cuz we got new stadiums coming and a new team and a new tv deal dont mean the good times are rolling.

[JuranBoldenRules]

I think the reason why revenue sharing is such a thorny issue is that the players agreed to abandon it in 2010 to help the league with the promise it would be looked at again in 2014 if things were better financially & the CFL has now balked at doing that. So, the players did sacrifice in 2010 when things weren't as good as now & just want to return to revenue sharing in good times & have been told no. 

 

The players actually asked to remove the revenue sharing in 2010, it was their idea.  At least that's the impression I get from Doug Brown and the CFLPA counsel currently and at that time, Ed Molstad.  At that point revenue was stagnant and they wanted more real dollars tacked on to the SMS limit.  Penton and Toth were giving Doug Brown a pretty good ribbing about it last night.

 

Goes to show how narrow the view of the CFLPA is, and I guess that makes sense since most of them aren't around more than a few years.

[gbill2004]

I think the reason why revenue sharing is such a thorny issue is that the players agreed to abandon it in 2010 to help the league with the promise it would be looked at again in 2014 if things were better financially & the CFL has now balked at doing that. So, the players did sacrifice in 2010 when things weren't as good as now & just want to return to revenue sharing in good times & have been told no.

The players actually asked to remove the revenue sharing in 2010, it was their idea. At least that's the impression I get from Doug Brown and the CFLPA counsel currently and at that time, Ed Molstad. At that point revenue was stagnant and they wanted more real dollars tacked on to the SMS limit. Penton and Toth were giving Doug Brown a pretty good ribbing about it last night.

Goes to show how narrow the view of the CFLPA is, and I guess that makes sense since most of them aren't around more than a few years.

I also listened to that conversation last night between Toth, Brown and Penton. That's definitely not the impression I got.

My understanding was that the PA allowed the owners to go back to a fixed cap because the league was in hard times and that the league would consider a cap tied to revenue in the future if revenues increased. But the hard cap was requested by the owners.

I'm sure if the PA requested the removal of revenue sharing last time and now want it back, that the owners would be making a bigger deal about it, during these negotiations.

[JuranBoldenRules]

 

 

I think the reason why revenue sharing is such a thorny issue is that the players agreed to abandon it in 2010 to help the league with the promise it would be looked at again in 2014 if things were better financially & the CFL has now balked at doing that. So, the players did sacrifice in 2010 when things weren't as good as now & just want to return to revenue sharing in good times & have been told no.

The players actually asked to remove the revenue sharing in 2010, it was their idea. At least that's the impression I get from Doug Brown and the CFLPA counsel currently and at that time, Ed Molstad. At that point revenue was stagnant and they wanted more real dollars tacked on to the SMS limit. Penton and Toth were giving Doug Brown a pretty good ribbing about it last night.

Goes to show how narrow the view of the CFLPA is, and I guess that makes sense since most of them aren't around more than a few years.

I also listened to that conversation last night between Toth, Brown and Penton. That's definitely not the impression I got.

My understanding was that the PA allowed the owners to go back to a fixed cap because the league was in hard times and that the league would consider a cap tied to revenue in the future if revenues increased. But the hard cap was requested by the owners.

I'm sure if the PA requested the removal of revenue sharing last time and now want it back, that the owners would be making a bigger deal about it, during these negotiations.

 

 

The switch to a fixed cap was sort of the $3,000 bonus and immediate raise of that negotiation.  Have some money now, and you have can probably get some more later, but lets just get it done on the league's part.  Like now, the players wanted more money, but the revenue sharing agreement wouldn't give that to them.  The PA only deals in the here and now, which is difficult when the league is dealing with sustainability.  I don't think any pro league has the same dynamic, ones with collective bargaining anyways.

[TBURGESS]

A few points of clarity:

 

1. It's about the money.  Most of the non-money issues have already been agreed upon.

2. Profit sharing is by definition about the money.

3. All teams except Regina have submitted their numbers to the players association (See the PA press conference).  Not sure why the union thinks its their business though.

4. There is no problem getting young players to sign for $45K a season, and that's just for 6 months work, so no, it's not too low.  If the CFL couldn't find players to take the minimum, they'd have to raise it.

5. All professionals have to do work they don't get paid for.  In pro sports, that's keeping yourself in top shape.  If you don't, you won't make the team and you won't get paid.

6. The players gave up Revenue sharing last contract because there was no revenue to share.  Now that there is, they want it back.  They will need to give some concessions if they want revenue sharing because the league isn't going to just give it back.  (No talk from the player about any kind of concessions)

7. Most Pro leagues don't have revenue sharing, just the top 4.  They also have billions of dollars, lots of teams to spread out the risk and only take the best players in their sport.  The CFL doesn't have any of those things.  

8. The players have been negotiating in the media since talks started.  Kind of two faced of them to complain about the league doing it too.

9. Twitter comments bother some and don't bother others.  Best course of action for the players is to stop them.

10. Revenue sharing appears to be the hill both sides are willing to die on.  The league has deeper pockets, so I expect they win.

[JuranBoldenRules]

The players should vote to strike but show up for camp with the strike looming, basically they can walk out at any point without a current CBA.  That to me would be the only leverage they could hold over the league at this point.  MLBPA and NHLPA have both used this tactic to varying success.  Imagine if the players said two weeks before Labour Day that they won't play starting that week if there is no deal...leverage.  Even that might not be enough to move the league, but it's something.  I'm not sure their leadership is savvy enough to organize something like that.

[Rich]

A few points of clarity:

 

1. It's about the money.  Most of the non-money issues have already been agreed upon.

2. Profit sharing is by definition about the money.

3. All teams except Regina have submitted their numbers to the players association (See the PA press conference).  Not sure why the union thinks its their business though.

4. There is no problem getting young players to sign for $45K a season, and that's just for 6 months work, so no, it's not too low.  If the CFL couldn't find players to take the minimum, they'd have to raise it.

5. All professionals have to do work they don't get paid for.  In pro sports, that's keeping yourself in top shape.  If you don't, you won't make the team and you won't get paid.

6. The players gave up Revenue sharing last contract because there was no revenue to share.  Now that there is, they want it back.  They will need to give some concessions if they want revenue sharing because the league isn't going to just give it back.  (No talk from the player about any kind of concessions)

7. Most Pro leagues don't have revenue sharing, just the top 4.  They also have billions of dollars, lots of teams to spread out the risk and only take the best players in their sport.  The CFL doesn't have any of those things.  

8. The players have been negotiating in the media since talks started.  Kind of two faced of them to complain about the league doing it too.

9. Twitter comments bother some and don't bother others.  Best course of action for the players is to stop them.

10. Revenue sharing appears to be the hill both sides are willing to die on.  The league has deeper pockets, so I expect they win.

 

Agree with most everything you say, but been doing some reading today on 2010 when the last deal was signed to see if I could find any mention of why revenue sharing was taken out.  Found this which answers why revenues are the players business.  http://www.cfl.ca/article/cfl-cflpa-announce-new-4-year-cba

 

 

The agreement replaces the provision that had required the league to devote at least 56 per cent of defined gross revenue to players’ salaries with negotiated minimum team salary and annual increases in the salary cap.

This change allows CFL teams to retain incremental revenues as they build their franchises, and it ensures players that the salary cap will grow, at a minimum, from $4.2 million in 2009 to $4.4 million in 2013. Teams will continue to share audited financial statements with the players’ association.

 

And from the actual agreement (http://www.cflpa.com/Collective%20Bargaining%20Agreement%20June%2016%202010%20(E5788660).pdf):

 

 

 

ARTICLE 30: RECOGNITION OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Section 30.01

Salary Expenditure CAP

79.

The Salary Expenditure CAP for each Member Club shall be no less than the amounts set out in the following schedule for the following years:

Section 30.02

2010 - $4,250,000.00 2011 - $4,300,000.00 2012 - $4,350,000.00 2013 - $4,400,000.00

Financial Statements

The C.F.L. shall provide the C.F.L.P.A. on or before the 1st day of June in each year, an audited financial statement with respect to the year inclusive of the preceding season.

The Member Clubs in the C.F.L. who prepare audited financial statements with respect to football operations shall provide the C.F.L.P.A. on or before the 1st day of June in each year, an audited financial statement with respect to the year inclusive of the preceding season.

The Member Clubs in the C.F.L. who do not prepare audited financial statements with respect to football operations shall provide the C.F.L.P.A. on or before the 1st day of June in each year, a financial statement prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles with respect to the year inclusive of the preceding season.

The information contained in the financial statements provided to the C.F.L.P.A. shall be kept strictly confidential and shall be used only by the President of the C.F.L.P.A., First Vice-President of the C.F.L.P.A., Legal Counsel for the C.F.L.P.A., and an accountant appointed by the C.F.L.P.A. for the purposes of determining the compensation payable to players related to total revenues.

The C.F.L. and the Member Clubs in the C.F.L. shall allow the C.F.L.P.A. and an accountant appointed by the C.F.L.P.A. access to all financial records, with respect to football operations, for inspection, review and audit at any time or times during reasonable business hours and upon reasonable notice to the Member Club and/or the C.F.L.

 

If a Member Club and/or the C.F.L. fails to comply with this Section, the C.F.L.P.A. may submit the matter to expedited arbitration in accordance with the procedure described in Article 4, Section 4.13 of this Agreement, and the expedited Arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to order compliance and to order payment of any penalty in order to enforce compliance.

 

 

 

[TBURGESS]

That certainly explains why the union gets the financial statements.  

[Mr Dee]

Some random observations...

 

-The players are failing to get the fans to see their point of view.

-They have shown they want to be more militant by removing one leader for one who wants to stand more firm.

-They have shown they know how to do math but the sheer reach of their ask just shows they want to play the game of negotiating more than the game of football.

 

-The word bravado has been used in describing what the union is doing. That is accurate but shouldn't be a part of a description of one side in a negotiation.

-If we lose a year,,,we lose the league, i don't see how some teams bounce back from that.

-The statement from some players that they don't believe some teams lose money, is unbelievable in itself, and shows they know nothing of the going ons all around them. Either that or they're just not playing attention.

-Half the teams are barely breaking even now ,,,how is that not acknowledged?

 

Average salary is just that, average salary, of course there will be higher and lower, but how fast can a good player move up in the salary scheme? 2 years and he can get a substantial raise…tough eh? Start at 46 bump up to 50 or more in 2 short years.

 

Owners know how negotiations work…players know how to use twitter…whoops, what's going on there?

 

At the beginning, I was firmly in the player's corner, but gradually, they are doing/not doing enough to keep me on their side…I've sent out my pissed off notice.

[rebusrankin]

I thought the CFL's latest proposol was fair, upping the minimum to $50,000, increases to the overall SMS levels. The thing is how many teams make money: Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, BC, Calgary? Toronto and Hamilton don't and pretty sure the Als don't. Players need to make sure they don't kill the golden goose.

[gbill2004]

I thought the CFL's latest proposol was fair, upping the minimum to $50,000, increases to the overall SMS levels. The thing is how many teams make money: Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, BC, Calgary? Toronto and Hamilton don't and pretty sure the Als don't. Players need to make sure they don't kill the golden goose.

Cohon said the Als lost money last season and BC broke even.

[iso_55]

Of course, that's before the new tv deal. 

[gbill2004]

Of course, that's before the new tv deal.

True. So going forward maybe the Als break even and BC makes a million or so per year.

[TBieber]

I thought the CFL's latest proposol was fair, upping the minimum to $50,000, increases to the overall SMS levels. The thing is how many teams make money: Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, BC, Calgary? Toronto and Hamilton don't and pretty sure the Als don't. Players need to make sure they don't kill the golden goose.

I think the issue was the increase afterwards which is about 1% over four years. Awful.

[gbill2004]

I thought the CFL's latest proposol was fair, upping the minimum to $50,000, increases to the overall SMS levels. The thing is how many teams make money: Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatchewan, BC, Calgary? Toronto and Hamilton don't and pretty sure the Als don't. Players need to make sure they don't kill the golden goose.

I think the issue was the increase afterwards which is about 1% over four years. Awful.

Minimum goes from $50,000 to $55,000 over life of the proposed deal. That's a 10% increase AFTER the year one $5000 increase.

[The Unknown Poster]

I hate to say this, but if the players strike, I hope the League breaks them. We're finally turning the corner with the CFL, with multiple massive community investments across the league, mostly financially healthy teams, an expansion franchise and now this TV deal which finally allows the league itself to be profitable but also solidifies the stability of the teams. And the players think they should get a massive increase? I think the players deserve to share in the success. But the CFL's offer does that. And knowing that no one makes an offer without the expectation of a counter, it means the CFL is willing to pay even more.

If the players thumb their noses at the CFL's reasonable offer, then they can all borrow money from their agents and come back by week 3 for less pay.

Guys make $45,000 a year & you want to break them? That's utterly ridiculous. Why not just find another league to follow?

Dont be a crybaby. Where did I write exactly what you accused me of? Where did I write "That guy making $45,000, how dare he make that much, lets break him".

I said if the players thumb their noses at the CFL's reasonable offer and end up striking over it, I want the league to break them. ie. break the union. ie. win the battle. ie. get us back playing without mortgaging the future of the CFL to the players. You'd rather the players win everything they've demanded?

Okay sure, we could hope, after losing a month of the season, that both sides are kind and professional and reasonable. Not me. If that happens, I want the side responsible to pay for it. And that side is the PA. If my union demanded unreasonable demands after being offered a 9% raise, I'd expect my company to start pulling things off the table if we walked out and cost them money.

Im on the side of reason. You can be on the side of players making an average of $80,000 for six months of work who claim they "cant eat".

I'm not a crybaby but you're becoming a big bag of wind. You said you hope the CFL breaks the union. it's right there for everyone to read. I think that is a ridiculous statement. People say & tweet things in the heat of the moment. This is an emotional issue.You don't? And like Bluto said, for every Burris contract there are 10 or 15 players, maybe more who make the minimum. You want to break them? What did they do to you?

Why is this so personal to you? You take a lot of things personally man. It's my opinion that if the players strike I hope the league wins. Do you hope the players win? The health of the league is more important than individual players.

And no I don't really care about a few guys who make $45000 to play football for six months. This isn't the hunger games. If they don't like it they can get a real job.

[bluto]

FWIW, at the end of the season, Cohon said that 7 teams made money.

[Mr Dee]

FWIW, at the end of the season, Cohon said that 7 teams made money.

Not disputing what you said, but in what context? and before financials were done?

[Jacquie]

FWIW, at the end of the season, Cohon said that 7 teams made money.

He also said no teams were over the cap iirc.

[iso_55]

 

 

 

 

I hate to say this, but if the players strike, I hope the League breaks them. We're finally turning the corner with the CFL, with multiple massive community investments across the league, mostly financially healthy teams, an expansion franchise and now this TV deal which finally allows the league itself to be profitable but also solidifies the stability of the teams. And the players think they should get a massive increase? I think the players deserve to share in the success. But the CFL's offer does that. And knowing that no one makes an offer without the expectation of a counter, it means the CFL is willing to pay even more.

If the players thumb their noses at the CFL's reasonable offer, then they can all borrow money from their agents and come back by week 3 for less pay.

Guys make $45,000 a year & you want to break them? That's utterly ridiculous. Why not just find another league to follow?

Dont be a crybaby. Where did I write exactly what you accused me of? Where did I write "That guy making $45,000, how dare he make that much, lets break him".

I said if the players thumb their noses at the CFL's reasonable offer and end up striking over it, I want the league to break them. ie. break the union. ie. win the battle. ie. get us back playing without mortgaging the future of the CFL to the players. You'd rather the players win everything they've demanded?

Okay sure, we could hope, after losing a month of the season, that both sides are kind and professional and reasonable. Not me. If that happens, I want the side responsible to pay for it. And that side is the PA. If my union demanded unreasonable demands after being offered a 9% raise, I'd expect my company to start pulling things off the table if we walked out and cost them money.

Im on the side of reason. You can be on the side of players making an average of $80,000 for six months of work who claim they "cant eat".

I'm not a crybaby but you're becoming a big bag of wind. You said you hope the CFL breaks the union. it's right there for everyone to read. I think that is a ridiculous statement. People say & tweet things in the heat of the moment. This is an emotional issue.You don't? And like Bluto said, for every Burris contract there are 10 or 15 players, maybe more who make the minimum. You want to break them? What did they do to you?

Why is this so personal to you? You take a lot of things personally man. It's my opinion that if the players strike I hope the league wins. Do you hope the players win? The health of the league is more important than individual players.

And no I don't really care about a few guys who make $45000 to play football for six months. This isn't the hunger games. If they don't like it they can get a real job.

 

Wow, not meaning to offend you but you say some outrageous things & when you get called on it you revert to name calling by calling me a crybaby. I thought we were having a serious discussion until now.

I believe that you truly don't care about the guys making $45,000 & want to take their labour rights from them because you think they're overpaid when they're not. I do care about the guys making the minimum. They're the grunts on Special Teams who sacrifice & put their bodies on the line every game so we fans can be entertained.

It sounds like I got under your skin which wasn't my intention but so be it. You're the one crying about players making tweets you don't like. You're the one who said he hopes the CFL breaks the union which I & others take exception to when the guys that play our game are nowhere close to being spoiled brat pro athletes, You're the last one who should be pointing fingers at anyone. If there's any professional league in the world where the majority of the players are basically playing for the love of the game & deserve more, it's the CFL. If anyone is making his position a hill to die on, it's you.