Madani: CFLPA Recommends Strike Vote To Members

[JuranBoldenRules]

The FACTs contradict each other.  Business models differ, but new stadiums in Hamilton and Ottawa should equal comparable revenue to the new stadium in Winnipeg.

 

Here's a FACT I'm interested in, does the CFLPA at least consult with an economist? 

 

Interesting numbers with the community owned teams in terms % of team revenue would go to player salaries.  What's the % for Toronto or Montreal?  I suppose they can't release that number because it would break the confidentiality they agreed to with financial statements.  It would likely be upwards of 50%.

[The Unknown Poster]

Interesting they point to increased revenue of IGF but not increased expenses.

I'll never by the argument that just because a business makes more money that the employees deserve it all. They were offered a 9% raise. Counter with something reasonable and let's move on.

[iso_55]

Anyone forget the CFL wanted an 8 year agreement? Or something long term like that? So much for the "CBA  too soon" & "let's wait until we see how Ottawa does" line of thinking. Why the hell are they in the league again if it's such a wait & see kind of thing? Make the players wait nearly a decade more for maybe the chance to finally make some money & then cry poor again the next time. I see the pattern here. No way I trust our slimy &  smilin' Commish's numbers anymore than I trust the players numbers. But I side with the players because they deserve a significant pay raise. 

[Tracker]

This is a game of brinkmanship and I suspect that the final settlement will be a lot closer to the proposal currently on the table than what the CFLPA is asking for. Don't worry- be happy. All will be well.

[Mr Dee]

This is a game of brinkmanship and I suspect that the final settlement will be a lot closer to the proposal currently on the table than what the CFLPA is asking for. Don't worry- be happy. Hall will be well.

 

This shall be the hallmark of negotiations where the CFLPA, being shallow in experience, will be challenged to marshall their members to eliminate shallow threats and further their cause to be a sort of catchall to refer in future dealings.

 

 

 

 

 

(this is by no means a statement that makes a whole lot of sense, but simply a reminder of who is no longer our backup QB….and who is.)

[comedygeek]

FACT: Our proposal provides for a salary cap of 35% of revenues. This percentage is based on a league wide average that excludes the high and low teams as outlined in the 2013 financial statements provided by the CFL. This does not include the new TSN TV revenue!!!!

 

 

Gotta love the professionalism of an official statement including FOUR exclamation points at the end of a sentence.

These players are showing how out of their league (no pun intended) they are in these dealings. They're throwing around "facts" that not only leave out important information, but also still don't completely support their position. Let's hope they smarten up before we lose real games.

Higher minimum salary than the league is offering, slightly larger increases overall, and a compromised contract length (5-6 years) should do it!

[iso_55]

They'll get to a minimum of a $5 million dollar salary cap, probably higher. 

[rebusrankin]

Exactly how high are the ticket prices in Ottawa and Hamilton going to be. THE CFLPA seems to think that their new barns means they will earn revenues similar to Winnipeg but ours holds 33500 and  theirs are around 24000 I believe. That means ours holds 40% more fans, so are they going to have ticket prices 40% higher?

[Jacquie]

When the team announced they would play in Guelph for a season, didn't Bob Young say there wouldn't be an increase in ticket prices for the Ticats first season in the new stadium.

[Rich]

They'll get to a minimum of a $5 million dollar salary cap, probably higher. 

 

The owners would sign this deal in a second if the players agree to no cap tied to revenues.

[DR. CFL]

Increasing theCap to 5 million in a new agreement doesn't necessarily have any immediate impact on players and cash in their pockets now. They are under contract and they would all need todo new deals to take advantage of an increase in the Cap.

[HardCoreBlue]

 

FACT: Our proposal provides for a salary cap of 35% of revenues. This percentage is based on a league wide average that excludes the high and low teams as outlined in the 2013 financial statements provided by the CFL. This does not include the new TSN TV revenue!!!!

 

 

Gotta love the professionalism of an official statement including FOUR exclamation points at the end of a sentence.

These players are showing how out of their league (no pun intended) they are in these dealings. They're throwing around "facts" that not only leave out important information, but also still don't completely support their position. Let's hope they smarten up before we lose real games.

Higher minimum salary than the league is offering, slightly larger increases overall, and a compromised contract length (5-6 years) should do it!

 

You forgot to add three exclamation points!!!

[The Unknown Poster]

Increasing theCap to 5 million in a new agreement doesn't necessarily have any immediate impact on players and cash in their pockets now. They are under contract and they would all need todo new deals to take advantage of an increase in the Cap.

Would it also not depend on the Salary floor?  If the cap goes up, assuming the floor goes up, would that impact current contracts (ie. teams needing to renegotiate to actually reach the floor) or are teams in the position where they'd potentially over-pay lesser players just because thats the contract holes they have to fill?  if I recall, the current floor and cap are about $200,000 apart...

[Armchair GM]

Oh brother... seriously?!?!

From the CFLPA:

FACT: Mark Cohon boasts about 6 of 8 healthy franchises at Grey Cup 2012. - 25% unhealthy franchises is not a number to aspire to.

FACT: Players' salaries are the only regulated form of spending on the teams. Profitability varies due to differing business models, which is why our proposal is based on revenue. - Profitability varies because 25% of the franchises are unhealthy financially.  You're basing it on revenue because there's no chance of negative revenues.  I say this in full understanding that linking it to profitability would simply allow teams to get creative with their accounting to stagnate salaries though.  Maybe you should say that instead? 

FACT: The Commissioners argument that we cannot compare ourselves to the other major professional sports leagues is just not true, we are all the same, just on a different scale. Their real issue isn't a salary cap tied to revenue, it's a league wide system of revenue sharing so all the teams can exist through good times and bad. - How does the league exist through good times and bad, when you have 5 franchises with year-to-year profitability, 1 completely new franchise, and 3 franchises that are tax writeoffs for their owners; and they all share revenues?  The 5 profitable ones subsidize the 4 money losers, and the tax writeoff team owners go to bed with guilty thoughts of legal robbery, and paying more tax.  So save the "same type of league on a different scale" rhetoric.  If scale and substance mean that revenue sharing can't exist, it's not the same.

FACT: Our initial monetary proposal would still allow for a distribution of an additional $1M per Club. - What this statement doesn't get into that IS beneficial for the players, is that this goes to the bottom end of the players, the ones this CBA will benefit.

FACT: Winnipeg's revenues grew by $7.5M to $24.2M with a new stadium, a rise of approximately 45%. We can only assume Hamilton?s and Ottawa?s revenues will be comparable.- Nice math.  And way to extrapolate a historically strong football fan base to a historically weak one, and a new one that in the past was weak.  That's not transparent at all.

FACT: The standard set by the other North American sports leagues is the salary cap is approx. 50% of total gross revenue. Our initial ask is for 25.7% of Winnipeg?s revenue, 33.6% of Edmonton?s revenue, and 18% of Saskatchewan's revenue! - While we're on the topic of choosing figures that prove our arguments in only the most positive of lights... please provide Toronto's, Hamilton's, and Montreal's... for transparency's sake.

FACT: Our proposal provides for a salary cap of 35% of revenues. This percentage is based on a league wide average that excludes the high and low teams as outlined in the 2013 financial statements provided by the CFL. This does not include the new TSN TV revenue!!!!
- The whole premise of the CBA providing more for the players is based largely on the new TV contract, because outside of Winnipeg (new stadium revenue streams), football related revenues are only rising by the rate of inflation, and are otherwise stagnant. 

Scott Flory - CFL Players' Association - President

For more information on the CFLPA, please visit www.cflpa.com.

Media Enquiries: Deanne Mitchell CFLPA 1.800.616.6865 x204 d.mitchell@cflpa.com

 

[Armchair GM]

Anyone forget the CFL wanted an 8 year agreement? Or something long term like that? So much for the "CBA  too soon" & "let's wait until we see how Ottawa does" line of thinking. Why the hell are they in the league again if it's such a wait & see kind of thing? Make the players wait nearly a decade more for maybe the chance to finally make some money & then cry poor again the next time. I see the pattern here. No way I trust our slimy &  smilin' Commish's numbers anymore than I trust the players numbers. But I side with the players because they deserve a significant pay raise. 

 

Why do the players deserve a significant pay raise?  A CBA with an overriding premise of increasing minimum salaries mainly impacts the bottom-end players.  I think the constant inbound and outbound trains out of Winnipeg this offseason indicate that there is great demand to get a foot in the door in the CFL, in hopes of earning a career playing football, or maybe even a shot at the big show. 

 

Basic supply and demand indicates that the minimum salary is sufficient to put potential career plans on hold for one last shot at playing football for a living.  Besides, if players are able to stick it out for a couple of years, they'll earn more than the minimum. 

 

No one deserves anything they don't earn.  Take the minimum salary to earn your shot, and reap the rewards of your effort later.  Provided that minimums are increased annually to factor out inflation (which they are and will be), it's not a raw deal by any stretch.

[iso_55]

 

They'll get to a minimum of a $5 million dollar salary cap, probably higher. 

 

The owners would sign this deal in a second if the players agree to no cap tied to revenues.

 

Yep, they're close I believe.I think it'll get done. Like 5 to 5.5 million.

[Mr Dee]

 

 

They'll get to a minimum of a $5 million dollar salary cap, probably higher. 

 

The owners would sign this deal in a second if the players agree to no cap tied to revenues.

 

Yep, they're close I believe.I think it'll get done. Like 5 to 5.5 million.

 

I don't think the odds are that bad.

[Rids]

 

I can't think of another institution that has the uniqueness of working together in the same workplace that is the CFL.

I mean, who else has an import, non-import ratio in a sports environment?

 

Outside of the big North American 4 (NHL, NFL, MLB, NBA) most leagues have ratios based on nationalities. The MLS also has a maximum number of non-North American players per team that can be traded from franchise to franchise. 

 

European hockey, soccer, basketball all have limits on how many foreign born players can suit up; Australia and New Zealand basketball leagues do as well. The CFL is the only one that allows more foreign born players than home grown players. 

[Mr Dee]

Enlightening.

It just goes to show the CFL isn't the only league showing ratio bias…even if it is in reverse.

[Mr Dee]

I think I misjudged the CFLPA's overall knowledge of the CFL team's financial status after reading what Josh Bourke stated to the Montreal Gazette.

I mean if of the team's Player reps can't account for his own team's financial status, I would begin to wonder how much he understands the status of any of the teams in the league.

 

*******

'While emphasizing his respect for Wetenhall, whom he called a tremendous owner, and admitting he hasn't seen the Als' financial statement, Bourke sounded perplexed over the team's plight.'

 

"There's no reason why Montreal shouldn't be doing at least fairly well," Bourke said. "I don't understand. Maybe they need to take a look at how the business is being run in certain areas — if you're not making money and damn near selling out most of the stadium. But I'm not in the marketing department or the front office."

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/football/montreal-alouettes/Zurkowsky+proposal+union+venting/9879362/story.html

[iso_55]

I think it goes back to the 1930's when teams like Winnipeg would bring in ringers like Fritzie Hansen to help them win & sell tickets. I don't think there was enough Canadian talent back then to totally stock teams coast to coast... I think at that time each team could only have 3,4 or 5 Americans on their roster. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

I think I misjudged the CFLPA's overall knowledge of the CFL team's financial status after reading what Josh Bourke stated to the Montreal Gazette.

I mean if of the team's Player reps can't account for his own team's financial status, I would begin to wonder how much he understands the status of any of the teams in the league.

 

*******

'While emphasizing his respect for Wetenhall, whom he called a tremendous owner, and admitting he hasn't seen the Als' financial statement, Bourke sounded perplexed over the team's plight.'

 

"There's no reason why Montreal shouldn't be doing at least fairly well," Bourke said. "I don't understand. Maybe they need to take a look at how the business is being run in certain areas — if you're not making money and damn near selling out most of the stadium. But I'm not in the marketing department or the front office."

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/football/montreal-alouettes/Zurkowsky+proposal+union+venting/9879362/story.html

 

The funniest part of that article is when Bourke says "look at the numbers, they don't lie. It's not like we're asking for a crazy amount."

 

Followed by, I've never actually looked at the numbers.  Only 4 members of the PA executive have access to the audited financial statements of the private teams, but still, it's kind of a funny way to put it and then contradict yourself in the next quote.  The numbers are almost becoming mythical outside of the negotiating table.

 

But as you said, the more the PA speaks, the more ignorant they sound.  Their policy of telling players to take any and every opportunity to speak to media and vent on Twitter is really backfiring, you'd think there'd be enough media consultant's itching for a small consulting fee and the CFLPA on their resume that they could take advantage of for some basic media policy advice.  

 

Bourke's played in every CFL city multiple times, spent several days in all of them, and he really wonders how the Alouettes would struggle to "do at least fairly well?"  They are the second team in a one team city.  They play in one of the oldest standing stadiums in North America, which is also damn near inaccessible by any modern mode of transportation.  When they were selling out they were selling an amount of tickets that would have put the Bombers on the brink of folding.  They also lack control over a bunch of ancillary revenues.  The Rolling Stones aren't playing Percival Molson if they come to Montreal.  Since Wetenhall sunk a bunch of money into upgrading the stadium a bit and adding some seats, they haven't been selling out.  It's pretty simple math.  A team selling 22,000 seats isn't going to post strong revenues in a league where 25,000 is the relative breakeven point.

[iso_55]

The CFLPA needs a professional running the show who has experience in bargaining like a Donald Fehr. Obviously not saying it should be him but someone from the sports world to take over the CFLPA & run it the way it should be. What does Bourke or Flory know about labour negotiations? Likely nothing. 

[iso_55]

 

I think I misjudged the CFLPA's overall knowledge of the CFL team's financial status after reading what Josh Bourke stated to the Montreal Gazette.

I mean if of the team's Player reps can't account for his own team's financial status, I would begin to wonder how much he understands the status of any of the teams in the league.

 

*******

'While emphasizing his respect for Wetenhall, whom he called a tremendous owner, and admitting he hasn't seen the Als' financial statement, Bourke sounded perplexed over the team's plight.'

 

"There's no reason why Montreal shouldn't be doing at least fairly well," Bourke said. "I don't understand. Maybe they need to take a look at how the business is being run in certain areas — if you're not making money and damn near selling out most of the stadium. But I'm not in the marketing department or the front office."

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/football/montreal-alouettes/Zurkowsky+proposal+union+venting/9879362/story.html

 

The funniest part of that article is when Bourke says "look at the numbers, they don't lie. It's not like we're asking for a crazy amount."

 

Followed by, I've never actually looked at the numbers.  Only 4 members of the PA executive have access to the audited financial statements of the private teams, but still, it's kind of a funny way to put it and then contradict yourself in the next quote.  The numbers are almost becoming mythical outside of the negotiating table.

 

But as you said, the more the PA speaks, the more ignorant they sound.  Their policy of telling players to take any and every opportunity to speak to media and vent on Twitter is really backfiring, you'd think there'd be enough media consultant's itching for a small consulting fee and the CFLPA on their resume that they could take advantage of for some basic media policy advice.  

 

Bourke's played in every CFL city multiple times, spent several days in all of them, and he really wonders how the Alouettes would struggle to "do at least fairly well?"  They are the second team in a one team city.  They play in one of the oldest standing stadiums in North America, which is also damn near inaccessible by any modern mode of transportation.  When they were selling out they were selling an amount of tickets that would have put the Bombers on the brink of folding.  They also lack control over a bunch of ancillary revenues.  The Rolling Stones aren't playing Percival Molson if they come to Montreal.  Since Wetenhall sunk a bunch of money into upgrading the stadium a bit and adding some seats, they haven't been selling out.  It's pretty simple math.  A team selling 22,000 seats isn't going to post strong revenues in a league where 25,000 is the relative breakeven point.

 

So then... why are Ottawa & Hamilton building stadiums that won't break even capacity wise? Maybe because the break even point is 19-20,000 & not 25,000? 

[gbill2004]

From Ed Tait:

Canadian Football League Players' Association boss Scott Flory has studied lots of numbers lately, including those on the financial statement recently released by the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

So while the CFLPA and the league are set to resume talks towards a new collective bargaining agreement Wednesday in Toronto, Flory is convinced there is a way for everybody to get some -- and for the Bombers to make a profit AND meet their stadium-debt payments -- as part of a partnership that would include revenue sharing.

"Let's remember the first $15 million (of the Bombers' stadium loan) is interest free," said Flory Monday from Montreal. "And that $2.9 million profit they announced (not-including one-time stadium costs) is affected by their payment of more than $1 million in coaches and management severance costs because those salaries were guaranteed.

"I think it's important to understand there is no regulation on any part of their business other than player salary. They can spend what they want in every other aspect of their business except there's a cap on what players can earn. If we're going to regulate salaries then there has to be some connection as to how those salaries are linked to revenue."

Flory reached out to CFL commissioner Mark Cohon on the weekend in an effort to get the two sides talking and, hopefully, negotiating again. The CFLPA also issued a 'Statement of Facts' on Sunday in which they clarified some of the numbers issued by the CFL in letters to fans and veteran players last week -- all part of the public posturing between the two sides that heated up after a winter of very little negotiating and with the current deal set to expire on Friday.

Among the CFLPA's statement of facts, the players' union pointed out that the Bombers saw their revenues grow by $7.5M to $24.2M -- a rise of approximately 45 per cent -- and maintained their proposal provides for a salary cap based on 35 per cent of revenues based on 2013 financial statements and not including the new TSN TV revenue.

Here are some of the key CFLPA takes heading into Wednesday's meeting, courtesy an interview Flory did with the Free Press on Monday:

Q: Why did you feel it was important to reach out to the commissioner to get talks going again?

Flory: "We haven't broken off talks and we've been consistent with our message from the start: we always want to meet and sit down and talk. At the end of the day we can't create a partnership or come to a solution if we're not in a room talking. That's why I called the commissioner."

Q: There is a report the CFL wishes to proceed with training camps under the terms of their current agreement and will not lock the players out providing there is no strike. Do you have the results yet on a strike vote and is there a possibility camps could still open if negotiations are progressing?

Flory: "We don't have the results from the strike vote yet. And I can't predict what might happen. We're going to wait until we get into the room and see if we can't work towards a solution where we are a partnership. A partnership is just that, it's not one side dictating terms to the other side."

Q: Clearly the CFLPA had quite a bit of frustration with what unfolded last week, with the league pushing away from the table and then blitzing their message through the media and their website. But if the PA is pushing for revenue sharing and the league says it's a non-starter, how do you even begin to bridge that?

Flory: "The difficult thing for us is we are supposed to be in a partnership. The players are the product on the field. What we're asking for in our initial proposal I think is pretty reasonable.

"The models out there are for 50-50 of total revenue going to players' salaries. Our initial proposal called for a minimum of 35 per cent. People see how much this league has grown in the past four-five years and the growth pattern it is on and for our players not to share in that growth... it just doesn't make sense for our guys. They're part of the reason there are more ticket sales, sponsorship revenue and a new TV contract.

"The business model out there works. You see it in the NFL, NHL, in the NBA... it works. There's still room for investment and growth. And when it grows, everybody wins. And when it goes down, we're prepared to do that because we understand the cyclical nature of the business. When it goes down, the cap will go down. That's the model that's out there and works, but we're just on a smaller scale."

Q: A lot of NHL players were able to survive their labour impasse because they had months to get ready for it and earn significantly more than CFL players. You guys are regular Joes with mortgage payments and mouths to feed... how still if the resolve of the players?

Flory: "Well, you just hit a nail on the head here. We ARE just regular Joes, we're not millionaires. What we're asking for isn't unreasonable. We think it's reasonable that our guys should be adequately compensated for what they do.

"We have (strike payment) plans in place. We're going to keep those in house."

Q: The CFL proposal called for a 12 per cent pay jump and increased minimum raise for the players. There's a lot of regular people out there who would kill for that kind of deal. Why isn't it enough?

Flory: "First of all, their numbers are different than ours (the league states the average salary is $82,900; the CFLPA has the average at $71,700). I'm not sure what they put in to calculate their average salary. But it's important to remember that the 12 per cent is over the term of a five-year agreement and the cap increases will be eaten up by the jump in the minimum salary."

Q: The league has made so much progress over the past few years. There seems to be a lot of anger from fans right now, perhaps many of them tired of the labour wars in the NHL, NFL and NBA over the last little while. Can this league really weather the backlash a work stoppage might bring?

Flory: "That's a question I would ask you to pose to the league. We first met in February and we asked them before that for their financials in order to understand any proposal they put forward. It took us 3.5 months, only through the efforts of a conciliation officer, to get any financial information. We were asked to put forward a proposal and we did, two days after receiving those financials. This is part of a negotiating strategy and tactic and it's unfortunate because we should have been much further along in the process.

"But I want to be clear: we want to come out with a fair deal and get our guys on the field and that's why I reached out to the commissioner on the weekend."