We know you’re looking forward to a CFL season that starts on time and includes a full schedule of games. To get there, we need a new collective agreement with our players, one that creates a new and positive partnership. Today we presented an offer to the CFLPA that will meet this goal. We have communicated this offer directly to players this afternoon. We want to share this information with you, as well.
Well you may not like it, but this is hardly a pioneer effort and one element of public relations strategy.
If they players take the deal, on we go and all in the public forget about how it was done.
If the players do not take the deal, the CFL gets to say also "well, we put forward our best effort and felt the need to be transparent when doing so as well ...blah blah blah blah..."
That's good damage control especially from those flinging the same "lack of transparency" complaint with other common complaints at the league after the fact if no deal is done soon.
Agreed, and I am also not saying that every single point should necessarily be accepted as is, but it strikes me as not being a terrible offer coming from a league where many teams are losing money and it is certainly not way out there as some earlier reports indicated.
Well, Grover, I have responded in the main forum. An excellent offer and I am quite happy for the players. I also agree 100% to directly inform the players and the fans. It's good to know. If the players refuse, there will be a long strike.
The League/Owners have put money on the table/ in the pockets of the players.
Yes it is an element of public relations strategy, but possibly a poor one. I agree with your point about more transparency generally, but doing something like this can polarize the parties. This type of information is usually released when parties reach a dead end or negotiations stall. It can be seen as a sign of bad faith as well. We don’t know the player’s position but if the parties were very close I would think there would be no upside to releasing your position, but hopefully I am wrong. It is a transparent attempt to win over the public who want to see football games and not work stoppages. I do know something about negotiating but I know little about management/union dynamics. Perhaps @WeGotTheCup will have an insightful comment.
In principle I agree. But then there are details I don't know let alone know enough about like especially this one:
An opportunity for twenty-five per cent of all revenue growth over an agreed upon threshold, to be added to the salary cap starting in 2023.
If I am the PA, as merely one example, I'd be asking not only about the TV and streaming revenue components of this revenue growth, but also about the provisions that kick in with a new media contract for not merely the Canadian but ALL global media rights.
As the league is going global, and though restarting small outside of Canada, so should the revenue-sharing be based on global share not merely TSN or other Canadian media partner.
We have to disagree. Historically especially in our recent social media age, transparency wins the court of public opinion more often than not. @Grover made this point in the related CBA thread.
The NFL is a great example of what NOT to do for transparency and sure the fans have less ability to be critical given its shield and size, but Goodell and various owners take the heat far more than does Ambrosie.
And of course there are those criminal matters being addressed like in Washington also due to lack of transparency even with the owners and on and on.
Ambrosie made the right move on behalf of the owners here, but as for the content of the deal I don't know enough as stated above.
I don’t disagree that transparency wins in the court of public opinion and this information is clearly designed to do just that. In my experience, however, bringing outside influences into what should be a private negotiation often has a negative effect and almost certainly means you are not close. I don’t like the tactic in negotiations, but have no problem with transparency generally.
Seems ok in some areas. But the financials are laughable. A joke. About one percent growth forminimum salaries over 7 years. Lol. Hilarious. Are people drunk. Of course no union would accept that. Too funny. Inflation is 7 percent. Likely going to be 10 to 20 percent soon. As the 7 percent is a lie. And it’s not going to be good for the next decade. Minimum salary structure is so laughable I’d walk away from the table immediately.
And the growth of the cap in general is a joke.
“25 percent above a certain threshold”. Laughable. Means nothing. Why not 50 percent by the way? What world do these owners possibly think they are living in today? Do they expect the players to be minions? A joke. With inflation and the price of tickets, players know Damn well this contract is a joke financially. 7 years from now it’s a huge pay cut even. Hilarious.
