HfxTC

J'approuve en partie le commentaire de Richard, notamment en ce qui concerne Tom Higgins. Il faut se rappeler du contexte qui précédant la saison 2014: Jim Popp avait certes sauvé la saison 2013 en congédiant Dan Hawkins, mais voulait le poste de HC. Wetenhall est passé par-dessus et a engagé Higgins, qui nous a amené en série en 2014 et a ramener un certain esprit de structure après Hawkins. Le gros problème de Tom était qu'il ne mettait pas ses culottes envers le coordonnateur offensif Turk Schonert, qui faisait n'importe quoi et ne comprenait rien au football à 3 essais. Considérant les tensions avec Popp, ça a servit de prétexte au congédiement de 2015, après une victoire à BC.
I think he was fired for what he did to John Bowman.
Everything I write is just an opinion formed from various sources. Some more reliable than others, it is expressed as a composite of facts, innuendos, emotions, personal experiences and complete fabulation into a gumbo for entertainment purposes alone.

HfxTC

Totalement simpliste de mentionner que les principaux déboires des Alouettes/le déclin de l'équipe sont dus,en grande partie, à l'embauche de Tom Higgins et la non-embauche de Brock Sunderland.

Tom Higgins est le seul entraîneur,au cours des 4 dernières années qui a eu un record d'autant de victoires que de défaites.9-9 en 2014. Il a,dé plus, amené l'équipe en séries et son record a été de 1-1.
Malheureusement,il a été congédié en 2015,suite à une victoire à BC et son record était de 3-5. ON lui reprochait d'avoir laissé de coté John Bowman,lors de cette partie.

Suite au congédiement de Tom Higgins Jim Popp a pris la relève et ce ne fut pas mieux.

Si Les Alouettes avaient embauché Sunderland, aurions nous un quart-arrière étoile? Qui serait-il? Si Andrew Wetenhall préférait Kavis Reed à Sunderland, c'était son choix. Déplus,il est possible qu'il n'était pas à l'aise avec le fait que Sunderland était près de Jim Popp. Nous n'aurons jamais les réponses.

Alors que je vous un grand respect à M.Wetenhall, le plus grand reproche que j'aurais à lui faire serait d'avoir donné les rennes de l'équipe à Jim Popp,après le départ de Larry Smith. Ce fut alors le début du déclin des Alouettes.

Jim Popp n'a jamais été capable de trouver un bon quart-arrière autre que Anthony Calvillo, durant ses 20 années avec les Alouettes; de plus, suite à son congédiement après la saison 2016, le talent canadien au sein des Alouettes était pitoyable. A Toronto, il passe pour un génie, grace au talent laissé par Jim Barker.

Il est facile pour plusieurs de pointer Kavis Reed  pour tous les déboires des Alouettes; il n'est pas sans reproches,mais il n'est pas la raison majeures de ces déboires. Son prédécesseur est une plus grande raison pour ces déboires.

Malheureusement, la situation n'es pas près de s'améliorer, à moins que quart-arrière étoile ne soit trouvé.

La Ligue a raison de s'inquiéter car je doute que M.Wetenhall soit prêt à perdre des millions.

Richard
You are forgetting quite a few other terrible moves. The firing of Ray Lalonde over replacing a 25 year old phone system and speaking truth to power is another beauty, `that one hurt the team's credibility a ton with the Montreal Sports media. Suing a very reputable company because there was 600 seats less than was planned during the expansion, only to tear out 2500 seats a year or two later. Suing Jim Popp for 127 000.00 while giving Khalil Carter four or five times that amount to stay home for two or three years. There have been so many terrible decisions that it is hard to keep track of them all.

RichardVeilleux

While the League is "phasing a new collaborative hosting arrangement",starting in 2018, the League will not be splitting  all Grey Cup profits equally between all teams,as HfxTC wrote; furthermore,there is no way that "this action alone puts about a million in Wetenhall's ledger every year". $200,000 to $300,000 is more probable,unless Grey Cup profits are in the $20. millions range.

Starting in 2018, after all cots are paid,"hosts will receive a LARGER portion of the profits with the remaining profit split equally amongst the remaining clubs". While we don't have the numbers/percentages, I doubt that a team hosting the Grey Cup will receive less than 60% to 70% of the net profits. We may have the answer in the future.

Richard

HfxTC

While the League is "phasing a new collaborative hosting arrangement",starting in 2018, the League will not be splitting  all Grey Cup profits equally between all teams,as HfxTC wrote; furthermore,there is no way that "this action alone puts about a million in Wetenhall's ledger every year". $200,000 to $300,000 is more probable,unless Grey Cup profits are in the $20. millions range.

Starting in 2018, after all cots are paid,"hosts will receive a LARGER portion of the profits with the remaining profit split equally amongst the remaining clubs". While we don't have the numbers/percentages, I doubt that a team hosting the Grey Cup will receive less than 60% to 70% of the net profits. We may have the answer in the future.

Richard
The way I read it, the profits will be shared among all teams equally every year no matter who hosts it. Basically the league is taking back control of the championship game. Which makes a lot of sense. So if a team wants to host the game, they no longer "buy" it from the league, they must submit a business plan and budget to the league.

RichardVeilleux

Maybe you should re-read,HfxTC. To me, host having the larger share does not mean that it's shared equally amongst 9 teams. If so, why bother hosting the Grey Cup. 

Enough said on this matter by me.

Richard

Johnny Ticat slayer

Any links to this GC revenue sharing? If not Google awaits!

Edit: Found this:


Starting in 2018, the league is phasing in a new collaborative Grey Cup hosting arrangement. Hosts will no longer receive all profits after costs, including a fee to the league, are covered. Instead, after costs are paid, hosts will receive a larger portion of the profits with the remaining profit split equally amongst the remaining clubs. The league is also developing a evaluation methodology to score Grey Cup bids and plans to assist in selecting Grey Cup hosts.
Starting in 2011, teams are required to purchase the rights to playoff games from the league for an apparent $100,000 (thanks Jacquie). (Last available figure, likely increased since 2011). Prior to 2011, teams had the option of purchasing the rights to playoff games from the league for a specific dollar amount and keep all profit (or incur any loss), or let the expenses/revenue be shared at the league level. It is unknown whether this practice has change since these reports.
Purchasing the game from the league has a cost of $100,000 plus assuming all expenses for the game, specifically both team's playoff shares and the visiting team's travel expenses (flights and hotel) as well as marketing costs. The host team's profit/loss is determined after all their expenses are paid against their ticket, concession and other ancillary revenue received from the game.
Winnipeg paid $4.3 million to the league for the right to host the 2015 Grey Cup.

https://cfldb.ca/faq/league/

https://edmontonsun.com/sports/football/cfl/jones-new-grey-cup-era-ushered-with-elimination-of-money-grab
"Shut up Wesley!"   Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Stardate 42354.7

okie

While revenues do not increase with the new spending cap, I suspect Andrew Wetenahall expects the new restrictions to football operations will help the Als become more competitive.  It would not surprise me one bit if Andrew came up with the idea.  If not him originally, somebody within the Als organization used that as an excuse to Andrew as why the Als are not any better.

Johnny Ticat slayer

While revenues do not increase with the new spending cap, I suspect Andrew Wetenahall expects the new restrictions to football operations will help the Als become more competitive.  It would not surprise me one bit if Andrew came up with the idea.  If not him originally, somebody within the Als organization used that as an excuse to Andrew as why the Als are not any better.
Whatever the Als are paying Joe Mack, it is too much!

HfxTC

Maybe you should re-read,HfxTC. To me, host having the larger share does not mean that it's shared equally amongst 9 teams. If so, why bother hosting the Grey Cup.

Enough said on this matter by me.

Richard
I take it to mean that they must cover costs as part of their share. Before the teams would cover their costs, plus get all the profits minus the fee paid to the league. This created some abuse with costs rising. The most notable was the 9 million the Federal government pumped in the 100th. Grey Cup that was never broken down despite many, many requests by the media.

This is a major bonus for teams like Hamilton who haven't hosted a GC in over 20 years or Montreal who can't host one for the foreseeable future.

Imagine if Bob Young had gotten a cut of the GC profits for the 15 years he's owned his team. We are talking millions.

LeStaf

Historically the owners have never been interested at funding or managing a troubled franchise. They let Montreal fold, Ottawa fold twice and they would have let Hamilton fold had it not been for Bob Young. The only battleground they've refused to abandon is Toronto and it paid off after 20 years of misery.

Now they can't be faulted for the inability to develop or find a starting quarterback, but there is no questions that it has made attracting one through free agency next to impossible so there is still a tie there.
C'est vrai, mais je pense qu'une leçon a été apprise après la débâcle des Renegades, et lorsque les Argonauts sont devenus par la suite en position plus précaire, la ligue s'est impliquée davantage.  Je pense que si les Alouettes devaient se retrouver dans ces bas fonds, l'approche serait la même.  L'enjeu de la valeur des contrats de télévision est trop important.
For translation  ---->  http://translate.google.ca/

HfxTC

C'est vrai, mais je pense qu'une leçon a été apprise après la débâcle des Renegades, et lorsque les Argonauts sont devenus par la suite en position plus précaire, la ligue s'est impliquée davantage.  Je pense que si les Alouettes devaient se retrouver dans ces bas fonds, l'approche serait la même.  L'enjeu de la valeur des contrats de télévision est trop important.
You are right. Anyway there will be parties involved in taking over the team. They just won't be interested in buying it from the current owners. It will take a massive "lift" to bring this team back to profitability so they are better off waiting for Wetenhall to bury himself. 

A guy who lost his business cool because his President bought a phone system isn't going to handle it too well when his toy starts costing him 3 to 5 million a year, 

For myself the only question is does he get out after this season or does he drag it out another year.

idealsheldon

To say Lalonde was fired for putting in a phone system is nonsense. He was fired because he did not do what he was hired for - improve the bottom line.

How about his taking logos that generated $150,000 off the field.

http://www.cflapedia.com/nonplayers/articles/lalonde_ray2.pdf
I`m not always right, I just think I am.

tony

To say Lalonde was fired for putting in a phone system is nonsense. He was fired because he did not do what he was hired for - improve the bottom line.

How about his taking logos that generated $150,000 off the field.

http://www.cflapedia.com/nonplayers/articles/lalonde_ray2.pdf
When I clicked on the link and saw the clipping scanned onto pdf, it made me think of the days going to the library and scrolling through old newspapers on film.

I know, off topic.  Sorry could not help it. ;)

tony

To say Lalonde was fired for putting in a phone system is nonsense. He was fired because he did not do what he was hired for - improve the bottom line.

How about his taking logos that generated $150,000 off the field.

http://www.cflapedia.com/nonplayers/articles/lalonde_ray2.pdf
On the flip side, $6 million in corporate sponsorship prior to Lalonde then dipping to $2.5.

Smith may have been promoting himself and not so good in the office day to day, but I do recall that there were several big companies logo's in and around the stadium.  Yellow Pages, Hydro, Casino de Montreal, Telus....

idealsheldon

When I clicked on the link and saw the clipping scanned onto pdf, it made me think of the days going to the library and scrolling through old newspapers on film.

I know, off topic.  Sorry could not help it. ;)
Yeah, the way they posted this article was a little old school.

But www.cflapedia.com is an amazing resource on the history of the league and players.
 


Users Online

62 Guests, 4 Users (14 Spiders, 1 Hidden)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
PatLynch, rshmglsky, Garney 26, Google (AdSense) (2), Google (12)

Most Online Today: 114. Most Online Ever: 489 (Nov 26 2017, 08:38 PM)