2014 CBA thread

Didn't see anything with a tittle specifically on the CBA talks...sorry if i missed it. I know it has been talked about on various threads of course.

perhaps a sticky would be beneficial until something is ratified?

At any rate, I thought this was a good reed:

http://cfldb.ca/2014/01/revisiting-cba-negotiations/
Revisiting the CBA Negotiations

Published on January 4, 2014 4:34 PM by dbo.

With time comes wisdom. In the months since I examined the CBA negotiations from both sides, little has been said publicly, but actions on both sides provide some indication as to what each side expects.

The players have been clear they want their share increased, potentially returning to a percentage of revenue model. Currently player salaries consist of about 25% of a team’s expenses. Attaching themselves to revenue ensures that they receive proportionate increases as revenue increases, but creates an inflationary expense for teams as their revenues increase, so do their labour costs. The players, while avoiding any direct threat of action, have made it clear that they would consider a strike to achieve their position.

With the conclusion of the season, only a few contract renewals occurred before the expansion draft. This was expected as many teams left as many players as possible as potential free agents for the expansion draft. Since the draft, however, the number of contract extensions has been numerous. I expected, besides new signings, that existing players would not sign new contracts, whether they had years left on their contract or were set to become free agents Feb. 15, until more information about the owner’s position was known. Not signing extensions or new contracts until negotiations had progressed to a satisfactory point was one action that was available to the players before training camp opened to show their solidarity.

This makes me suspect the players have been told by their executive what to expect. In my guess at the player’s opening offer, I included a clause where existing contracts would get a 4% increase on remaining years. I included this to look after the membership who were under contract, I thought there was a small chance it would be in the initial offer and slim chance it would survive. Now I don’t believe it will be a consideration from the association.

Rather than broad increases as I predicted, the CFLPA, with its knowledge of the CFL operations, will focus on increases in the areas outside of the regular season salary — pension, pre and post-season pay, other benefits. An increased minimum salary and mandating that to practice roster players may be in their proposal. Of course, they will present their expectation for salary cap increases, perhaps as large as I initially guessed, perhaps not, in their opening position.

At the same time, the teams seem content on extending and signing players without knowing what the salary cap will be in 2014 (knowing it will be at minimum the same $4.4 million as 2013). This leads me to expect the league will be pushing for increased rosters and increased minimum salary. In a five year deal, they may propose a $200,000 increase in the first year, but $100,000/year in subsequent years. More money may be thrown at the players in the post-season and pre-season as well, but my sense is that a $200,000 increase in the first year and $100,000 in subsequent years, 4x and 2x the annual increases from the last CBA, will be the league’s generous opening offer. I think the players are committed to seeing the minimum salary be raised and with other increases in the pre and post season as well as other benefits, they can accept this.

Does this invalidate what I guessed previously? Yes, if the game allows, I’m changing my guess based on new information. I got pretty carried away with the money on the table and ended up with both sides not too far apart. Now the $10 million over 5 years from the league’s perspective looks ridiculous. $5.4 million in league-wide salary cap increases plus change (< $1 million) for other benefits seems more likely, and perhaps as the final deal, not the opening, for the league.

While my expectation is for increases to be immediate and in effect for 2014, it is possible that 2014 will offer the same annual increases as the last CBA, with 2015 targeted as the year for any large initial jump to be fair to teams and players if negotiations go long, possible based on prior history.

I expect that though the sides may have not met face to face, they have exchanged opening position outlines of their key points of discussion, if not detailed proposals. I would expect the two sides would be meeting face-to-face in January to present their positions and begin talks. If so we may hear some reports on proposal leaks or at least meeting schedules. Hopefully it doesn’t take until training camp to have an agreement worked out and go to a vote. It would be nice to have both sides satisfied and it complete before then so teams, players and fans know where things stand.

as a reminder of the last CBA, in 2010, both sides agreed to a contract in principle, and started the season...officially ratifying it later. Hopefully, at very minimum, the same will be done this go...ideally, something will be agreed to quickly, but I think we all know this will be a tougher round table.

[url=http://video.thechronicle-online.com/search/all/cfl-commissioner-introduces-cba/105243916001/page/1761]http://video.thechronicle-online.com/se ... /page/1761[/url]

A bunch of things in this article make no sense whatsoever.

1-Why would the players forego 2014 revenues? When the league is pocketing the money. Players will never get that year back.
2-100k increase is ridiculous. It reflects an average 2 percent raise. Won't even cover fluctuations in currency.

3-Players would be crazy to start the season without a deal in place as the league would demand a no strike agreement.

The league could have started negotiations one or two years ago. To wait into free agency is disrespectful to the players IMO.

Thanks depop.

The writer states that players roughly receive 26% of league gross revenue.
That % is just how it rolled out, not necessarily a formula, correct?

The players can get the nice raise without resorting to the "share" formula the league had fortunately gotten rid of.

Each team's revenues will increase by about 15% starting this year, so the players should get a 15% raise too. Most players already have contracts under the previous SMS ($4.4M) and will get a nice boost with their next contract.

The SMS should go up to $5M ($4.4M x 15%) as soon as possible (2014/15), with incremental increases of $100k, for example.

The minimum salary could go up to $50k...a nice salary for a player in his first couple of seasons, but now with a chance for a decent raise as a veteran. Many non-QB starters will be making $200k with this new SMS.

I hope the players don't rock the boat and come up with a bunch of crazy demands. They league isn't strong enough to endure a labour struggle. Players and management need to work together to keep the league on its path of success and growth. :thup:

Of expenses , not revenues !

I agree with this, never been a fan of the share formula. All it leads up to is what we see in the NHL each time their CBA runs out.

correct....it is just random that they make that, and yeah, 25% of the expense and 25% of revenue are not the same thing by any means.

When the share x% was in place, players were essenitally locked at their salary because gaurenteed minimum was greater than x% or revenue. Both parties saw this and implimented the +50k/season thing, regardless or revenue. Prior to that players we making a lot more than their x% cut, because the anticipation was that revenue was going to spike wiith US expansion. There is a reason many leagues are flailing desperately to get away from it...it causes gross inflation on the product (tickets).

Might I suggest you re-read in, as you are taking only portions of given points. You are clearly blocking stuff out and seeing what you want.

Just commenting on things that would not make sense to the players. The writer is speculating about revenues made by teams, what players would accept... Interesting article but the foundations are built on what the writer thinks is reality which puts him on the same level as the rest of us.

Exactly, the so called article was taken from a site that looks like a CFL official site but it states "not affiliated" with the CFL, it's some bloggers opinion. So none of his facts can be verified, it's all opinion.

I agree.....pretty much sums it up,no matter how you want to look at it...I'm sure they'll come to an equitable settlement before any radical action is taken...by either party.... Only makes sense for the league...

well, they obviously can't demand the moon...but they have some ground to stand on, unlike the last several negotiations. Do I think the players should get a 50% cap hike...no, do I think the bottom end needs to come up significantly...yes. I hope the players dig in a bit, becase any increased strength in their contracts attracts talent, and that makes trying the NFL dream harder...even if just a small amount. The players have been nothing but cooperative with the last few contracts, and the league is doing well...the players do deserve a fair shake here.

The article is obviously someone's specualtion, as there is simply nothing out there for how talks have went. It does however bring up some stuff that makes a lot of sense for how the legue might look to spend some of this money in a non-contract way...yes give raises, but build some legacy matters.

Traditionally the league sets up the Imports against the Non-Imports during negotiations. The players have been badly represented in the pass.

Totally true. In the last negotiations, the league did just that and the P.A. folded like cheap deck chairs. Look for more of the same this time around.