CFL allowed MTL to sign a player with an NFL out clause

:-[ :-[:-[

CFL allowed Alouettes to sign player with an NFL out clause – in violation of their own policy

“In this case, a contract for Justin Zimmer was registered with the CFL in November 2017. That contract included a clause that would grant Zimmer his release should he receive an NFL offer. This did not constitute a side deal,? the league said in a statement. “Having said that, such a clause is against our rules and procedures. That contract should not have been registered by the CFL. ?
The league has also cleared the Alouettes of any wrongdoing.
“That error rests with the CFL and so the Als are not under investigation,?


It seems the CFL wants to eat their cake and have it to.

Well said. I was also wondering about this issue. Thanks

[i] “Having said that, such a clause is against our rules and procedures. That contract should not have been registered by the CFL. ?

[/i]They've owned up that they made a mistake. Good enough in my books and kudos to them for doing so.

Similar to the mistake they made with Chris Williams' contract, allowing it to be filed even though a) his agent wasn't registered with the league, and b) he wasn't offered a two year contract required by the league.

(Not that the courts cared about that. They ruled that, even though the contract was non-compliant, it had still been signed by both the player and the team, so was still legally binding. Williams finally managed to force the Ticats into a settlement based on the unclear wording in the option year letter, a claim that was supported by the courts.)

Makes you wonder if anyone at the league office actually reads the contracts before filing them. And many other players are playing under non-compliant contracts.

Would it have been MTL Asst GM at the time Catherine Raiche that filed that contract?

I`m sure the Zimmer contract was not the 1st CFL contract to contain a NFL out clause.

The question is if the Wilder and Butler situations suddenly forced Ambrosie to make these contracts ''non-compliant.''

Teams can file whatever they want. The league has the mandate to review and approve them or send them back. This is on the league.

Wilder and Butler claimed to have side deals, not written in the contract. The optics on this are bad.

Oh, I agree,
I was just wondering if it would have been Catherine or Kavis that writes up the contracts

So you want to know who effed up? Johnny's money is on Kavis Reed.

Double post.

There is an explanation for why the CFL mistakenly accepted, this non rule compliant contract. The CFL hired this guy to review contracts:

How? They set a policy, failed to enforce it and admitted it was a mistake. If they were to review all other contracts and find that others had also been approved, with the Commissioners knowledge, then that suggestion holds water ... but one mistake does not "cake" make.

Yup. Nothing to see here.

It would be professional for the league to review all contracts active and on file and notify teams that any contracts found to be non compliant with the CBA will be declared null and void.

There is a lot to see... The League fines the Lions for this while they've been registering contracts that do not conform to the CBA. They look like incompetent fools.

I don't think they look like incompetent fools at all. And this doesn't equate to, as you state, them registering bogus contracts. Factually we know of ONE.

We do know there were side deals galore in years gone by. The CFL is now trying to clean that up that long held practice under a new commissioner who's been in place for a few months.

Let's not overstate this.

where's the beef? goes on all the time in many different ways. als ex-CB mincy is let go to try out with the NFL bears. halifax before QC.

Understand what you're saying, but if I recall the essence of the Lions issue was that they had a side-deal (unless I confusing it with another scenario) that the league never knew about.

Registering Zimmerman's contract, unless it was done before the Commissioner made the decision to not allow such clauses, was just a mistake ... plain and simple ... no deception involved