Madani: CFLPA Recommends Strike Vote To Members

[rebusrankin]

Actually the biggest thing I agree with is increasing the salary for the grunts. I think $50,000 going to $55,000 is a good offer. If it went from $45,000-$55,000 to an eventual $60,000 over the life of the deal that would be fine too.

 

In terms of teams making money, Winnipeg did but we have a huge stadium debt, Riders did and they have stadium debt too or will shortly. Toronto never seems to make $. Hamilton usually loses $ and they'll owe $ too with their stadium. Calgary made money but needs a new barn.

 

It's not the 1990s but I'd say we're not out of danger yet.

[iso_55]

I don't care about Hank  Burris as much as I do about the grunts who deserve more. 

[comedygeek]

How do the players deserve much more if the owners aren't making money or barely are?

I heard on the radio today Herb Z from Montreal say he heard from sources that in the last 10 years, Braley, Wetenhall, and Young have cumulatively lost about $90-100 million. That's insane.

Yes, these guys have money, but in this league that basically means they have the money to lose. The CFL isn't a financial windfall opportunity for any of these owners -- they own the teams because they love the game. Combine that with the 3 community-owned teams, which by design aren't out to screw over the players but basically break even (or have some emergency funds), and I don't know who the players really think they're going up against here.

 

Yes, a reasonable increase is due, and I think somewhere a little higher than what the owners are offering currently is probably where it should end up. But if there are actual games lost over this disaster, it'll be sad and ridiculous.

 

Nobody in the CFL is getting rich off of it, save for a few elite players and a couple top-end executives and coaches. Most players will never get rich, and most owners will lose money owning teams.

 

As a single guy, I'm perfectly happy and comfortable making $30,000/year right now. I lease a nice car, can go on trips, can eat, and besides the car lease am debt-free. Granted, things will need to change should I start a family someday, but chances are most of these league minimum players are not 22-year-olds with big families.

 

$50,000 for 6 months of work is pretty good for a league minimum in a league where the people paying the bills are probably losing money.

 

Let's just get a deal done so we can watch some damn football in a couple weeks.

[DR. CFL]

I am anxious to hear the reaction of fans when an increase in money to the players translates into increases in ticket prices to the fans. In Ontario it was anticipated that increasing the minimum wage will eventually trickle down to the consumers. People also talk about the a Bomber profit. I have yet to hear reports of the cost over run loan being paid back to CIBC or any instalments having been paid back on the debt servicing to the province.

[ALuCsRED]

Another concept lost in this whole negotiation is that the league has increased the number of CFLPA jobs by 12.5% with the expansion, and are proposing even more job increases with the expansion of the 42 man roster.

 

This shouldn't be taken lightly.  It will result in extended careers and opportunities of the CFLPA members.

[iso_55]

I am anxious to hear the reaction of fans when an increase in money to the players translates into increases in ticket prices to the fans. In Ontario it was anticipated that increasing the minimum wage will eventually trickle down to the consumers. People also talk about the a Bomber profit. I have yet to hear reports of the cost over run loan being paid back to CIBC or any instalments having been paid back on the debt servicing to the province.

Ticket prices have risen every year. You can't lay that at the feet of the players as they are going to go up anyway. Season ticket holders here in Calgary here are bitching about ticket prices rising something like 25 to 30% in the past 3 years yet player salaries haven't risen anything like that. Some are asking the Stamps come clean & explain why ticket prices are going up, up, up... Of course they won't. People are starting to stay away from the ball park.

[Atomic]

From ya boy Rod Pedersen:

 

 

 

Examining the events of the past 48 hours, CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon dropped what seemed to be a "Take it or Leave it" proposal on the players on Wednesday.  One CFL alumnus texted me saying it was a "heel to the face" of the players, but didn't think it was uncalled for.  I'm told Cohon has since softened his stance and there's still some wiggle room.

The Players Association took a roundhouse right between the eyes on Wednesday and they were left staggering for 24 hours.  Sportsnet's Arash Madani reported the players were told by the P-A to vent their anger on Twitter and several of them did, including the Ticats' Craig Butler and the Riders' Ricky Foley.

I can't think that helped their cause, particularly in the court of public opinion.

Listening to Players Association executives Scott Flory and Marwan Hage stammer with their comments at noon on Wednesday, it left me feeling this war is simply between the jocks and the suits.  The players are swimming with the big boys now and it's like sharks against goldfish.

My prediction is that Cohon's pre-emptive strike will shatter the union and bring a quick conclusion to talks on the new CBA.  There's word the players are battling amongst themselves, some publicly and some privately.  If they collect themselves, they could become strong again as a union and this could go on for awhile.  Or, they could completely unravel.

Many observers feel the players are simply receiving bad advice from their lawyer Ed Molstad.  After seeing him at the news conference on Wednesday, does he instil confidence in you?

[Jacquie]

I saw a tweet by Dave Naylor and he was saying Ed Molstad is the same lawyer the CFLPA used for the last CBA negotiations when revenue sharing was given up by the PA.

[Atomic]

I saw a tweet by Dave Naylor and he was saying Ed Molstad is the same lawyer the CFLPA used for the last CBA negotiations when revenue sharing was given up by the PA.

 

That's correct.  Ed Molstad has been involved with the CFLPA for many years.  He played in the CFL in the 70's and was a member of the negotiating committee back then.

[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.

 

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.

 

I never said I wanted to take labour rights from anyone.  I apologize for calling you a crybaby but when you dont like an opinion, you twist words to fit your attack. 

 

I dont *care* about most of these guys.  Why would I?  Aside from my general care for all human beings, I dont know them.  They *choose* to play football.  Credit to them for chasing their dream but is making $45,000 a year for six months to play football at the lowest end of the talent spectrum is the sacrifice they choose to make, then so be it.  I think the PA existing is good for the league and the players and they deserve a fair deal.  They were offered a fair deal that is obviously open to a fair counter proposal.

 

Right now, the players are being unreasonable.  So Im on the side of the league.  And if unreasonable players cost us regular season games, then I hope they suffer.  Not suffer in the sense of tar and feathering or water boarding but in the sense that they wont make up the money they lose and I hope the owners make up the money *they* lose by squeezing a better deal out of the PA.

[sweep the leg]

I saw a tweet by Dave Naylor and he was saying Ed Molstad is the same lawyer the CFLPA used for the last CBA negotiations when revenue sharing was given up by the PA.

Doug Brown said that after the last round of negotiations one of the owners commented that they "bent the players over the boardroom table". I'm not sure why they brought this guy back again.

 

I'll have to watch the PA's press conference now. I've read in a few places that it was amateur hour.

[mbrg]

The PA instructed the players to vent on twitter?  This might be the dumbest PA in sports history.

[mbrg]

Actually the biggest thing I agree with is increasing the salary for the grunts. I think $50,000 going to $55,000 is a good offer. If it went from $45,000-$55,000 to an eventual $60,000 over the life of the deal that would be fine too.

 

In terms of teams making money, Winnipeg did but we have a huge stadium debt, Riders did and they have stadium debt too or will shortly. Toronto never seems to make $. Hamilton usually loses $ and they'll owe $ too with their stadium. Calgary made money but needs a new barn.

 

It's not the 1990s but I'd say we're not out of danger yet.

The ham-n-eggers getting more money is probably the point every CFL fan is universally behind, and yet the PA somehow managed to get me off board of that with their ridiculous first proposal.  10% annual increases over 8 years you say....

 

If they send me their address I can mail them a calculator.  Obviously they don't have one.  I suppose they'll argue they can't afford one.

[robynjt]

Just sayin'... a lot or reports I've heard (Stephen Brunt, Madani) say the league is the one being "bullies".  I think the issue, for me, is:

- increasing base salary by 5K  - 5 *42 = 210,000

- add two new active roster players - let's say @ 50k - $100000

 

Note - Those base changes is $310,000 of the $400,000 increase.  Now, how many are at the "new" base salary now (aka around $50k). Will their salaries automatically increase by $5k? 

 

- consider how much the salaries of the "big name" players are increasing - definitely not $1000 per year.  I'd LOVE to see the median salary.  I think the owners will just throw the extra money at a few players (which will likely happen regardless of the # of the cap) 

- only about half the players can vote on this - the vets that make more money.  

- yes the league IS smaller - but they still are bringing in a ton of TV revenue now - and ANY league with that much tv revenue has revenue sharing. 

[robynjt]

I DO agree that the CFLPA's proposal is off base as well.

[mbrg]

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

Not specific to last year, but in general I have the sense that over the last decade the consistently profitable teams are Saskatchewan, Edmonton and Calgary (amounts will obviously vary).  BC and Winnipeg seem to be more of a year by year scenario - some years it's red and others black.  If we didn't fire coaches semi-annually that might change.  Hamilton and Toronto (in non-Grey Cup hosting years) are consistent money losers.  Montreal seems hard to pin down.  They have the smallest stadium in the league, so in a year like this last one where a coach got fired that might be enough to turn a small profit into a small loss.  Or a small loss into a bigger loss.  Wettenhall seems to want to keep that all private.  Ottawa?  We'll see, but my expectation is that they will need 3 years to make money, at least if attendance and local sponsorships play as big a part there as they do here.

 

The new TV deal might be enough to move all those teams into the black

[road griller]

The 6 month a year thing really does not fly anymore. It is not the 60's where these guys lived in the city they played and were given jobs that worked around their football.

They train 12 months a year most live far away to live with their families and it's pretty tough to hold down a decent job when you need 25 weeks vacation a year. All in a row, during the summer......

[TBURGESS]

The 6 month a year thing really does not fly anymore. It is not the 60's where these guys lived in the city they played and were given jobs that worked around their football.

They train 12 months a year most live far away to live with their families and it's pretty tough to hold down a decent job when you need 25 weeks vacation a year. All in a row, during the summer......

That idea doesn't fly either.  Players have 6 months of time that they can choose to use to do anything they want, including having another job.  Training is an unpaid requirement of a pro football career.  Most professions have an unpaid training requirement too, it's just not in the gym.

[Rich]

The 6 month a year thing really does not fly anymore. It is not the 60's where these guys lived in the city they played and were given jobs that worked around their football.

They train 12 months a year most live far away to live with their families and it's pretty tough to hold down a decent job when you need 25 weeks vacation a year. All in a row, during the summer......

 

This is somewhat true.   Some of the guys can and do pickup a part time job with the offseason whether it is in sales, trainers in gyms, etc.

 

Also, the ones making the league minimum are usual in the 20 - 25 year old age.

 

If you were in that age range and were told you could get paid 45 - 50k per year to play professional football 6 months of the year, have 6 months off to dedicate to training full time, all for a chance to make it to the big show, would you take it?   Sometimes it is Risk vs Reward.

[Mike]

Just sayin'... a lot or reports I've heard (Stephen Brunt, Madani) say the league is the one being "bullies".  I think the issue, for me, is:

- increasing base salary by 5K  - 5 *42 = 210,000

- add two new active roster players - let's say @ 50k - $100000

 

This "2 new active roster players" thing is being misinterpreted by a lot of people, fans and players alike. There are no new costs associated with the 2 new roster spots, they're simply expanding the game day roster from 42 to 44 and decreasing the size of the reserve roster from 4 to 2. It's still 46 game cheques being handed out (the players on the 4 man reserve get a game cheque too) it's just that teams can now dress 2 extra players instead of paying them to stand in civvies on the sideline.

[Rich]

 

Just sayin'... a lot or reports I've heard (Stephen Brunt, Madani) say the league is the one being "bullies".  I think the issue, for me, is:

- increasing base salary by 5K  - 5 *42 = 210,000

- add two new active roster players - let's say @ 50k - $100000

 

This "2 new active roster players" thing is being misinterpreted by a lot of people, fans and players alike. There are no new costs associated with the 2 new roster spots, they're simply expanding the game day roster from 42 to 44 and decreasing the size of the reserve roster from 4 to 2. It's still 46 game cheques being handed out (the players on the 4 man reserve get a game cheque too) it's just that teams can now dress 2 extra players instead of paying them to stand in civvies on the sideline.

 

 

 

Do you know if those guys travelled with the teams last year?   If not, there would be a minimal cost increase to the clubs for this on travel.

[robynjt]

 

Just sayin'... a lot or reports I've heard (Stephen Brunt, Madani) say the league is the one being "bullies".  I think the issue, for me, is:

- increasing base salary by 5K  - 5 *42 = 210,000

- add two new active roster players - let's say @ 50k - $100000

 

This "2 new active roster players" thing is being misinterpreted by a lot of people, fans and players alike. There are no new costs associated with the 2 new roster spots, they're simply expanding the game day roster from 42 to 44 and decreasing the size of the reserve roster from 4 to 2. It's still 46 game cheques being handed out (the players on the 4 man reserve get a game cheque too) it's just that teams can now dress 2 extra players instead of paying them to stand in civvies on the sideline.

 

Thanks for the clarification.  Is there a different "minimum" for non active players?  

[Mike]

 

 

Just sayin'... a lot or reports I've heard (Stephen Brunt, Madani) say the league is the one being "bullies".  I think the issue, for me, is:

- increasing base salary by 5K  - 5 *42 = 210,000

- add two new active roster players - let's say @ 50k - $100000

 

This "2 new active roster players" thing is being misinterpreted by a lot of people, fans and players alike. There are no new costs associated with the 2 new roster spots, they're simply expanding the game day roster from 42 to 44 and decreasing the size of the reserve roster from 4 to 2. It's still 46 game cheques being handed out (the players on the 4 man reserve get a game cheque too) it's just that teams can now dress 2 extra players instead of paying them to stand in civvies on the sideline.

 

Thanks for the clarification.  Is there a different "minimum" for non active players?  

 

 

Nope, for all intents and purposes, it's the same contract. Maybe there are bonuses for "dressing" or something, but it's still the same standard player contract.

 

Which leads me to wonder why they even bother having it. If you're paying 4 (now 2) guys the same as you would be if they were playing, why not just let them play?

[Mike]

 

 

Just sayin'... a lot or reports I've heard (Stephen Brunt, Madani) say the league is the one being "bullies".  I think the issue, for me, is:

- increasing base salary by 5K  - 5 *42 = 210,000

- add two new active roster players - let's say @ 50k - $100000

 

This "2 new active roster players" thing is being misinterpreted by a lot of people, fans and players alike. There are no new costs associated with the 2 new roster spots, they're simply expanding the game day roster from 42 to 44 and decreasing the size of the reserve roster from 4 to 2. It's still 46 game cheques being handed out (the players on the 4 man reserve get a game cheque too) it's just that teams can now dress 2 extra players instead of paying them to stand in civvies on the sideline.

 

 

 

Do you know if those guys travelled with the teams last year?   If not, there would be a minimal cost increase to the clubs for this on travel.

 

 

In most cases, they travel. Only time they don't is when they're doing a roster shuffle to keep an injured guy off the 1-game IR or something (less cap cost that way) but if they're healthy bodies, the majority of the time they're travelling.

[kelownabomberfan]

Which leads me to wonder why they even bother having it. If you're paying 4 (now 2) guys the same as you would be if they were playing, why not just let them play?

I agree. With the number of injuries we see during games sometimes, the more guys on the sidelines suited up the better. It makes no sense to have two OL go down in a game and having a guy standing there in civvies on the sideline who could have gone in as a sub, instead of putting some poor DL out there doing his best impression of a turnstyle.