The Derick Armstrong deal/clause ....
Winnipeg apparently offered him a one-year, pro-rated contract for $150,000 ($10,000 per game) and $180,000 in his option year, which includes a preseason payment of $75,000 that won't count against next year's salary cap.
Is Darrell Davis (Leader Post) nuts? .... or did Hellard et al .... miss this loophole?
http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=news ... ;nid=12293Taman didn't discover it.
Everybody knows any money spent this year, ie., signing bonuses, will not count against next years cap.
I am willing to bet when Kevin Glenn signed his new deal, he got a signing bonus as well.
K .. but I read the $75K ...as being for 2007 ... not a signing bonus for 2006 (that he may have received 2 weeks ao)
Dunno????
I think the point is, all the GMs in the league know about the signing bonus "loophole" and Taman is not the first guy to figure it out.
When Hopson fired Roy, that was part of his so-called rationale...Roy was supposed to be signing all our potential free agents to long term contracts, by offering up all these signing bonuses.
As for the exact terms of the Armstrong deal it is a little moot to say the signing bonus was for next year, as opposed to this year. Does he have 75 grand in his pocket or doesn't he?
The trick is, the cash must show up on this years balance sheet because this year, there are 0 penalties if you are over the cap.
Next year, supposedly, they will actually enforce the cap.
Of course i'll believe it when I see it.
With Wright gone, who will police this thing?
I dunno .... I just read it as a payment for, and payable, next year
Maybe next year ... does not really start until Apr/May/June???
why do you think calgary signed 3/4 of their team to long term contracts. more money up front, and once the salary cap is in, they will still have these players for a couple more years.
I know Richard Karikari was signed to a big contract in which most of the money was paid during the first year (2006) for obvious reasons.
The preseason "loophole" is intriging...
And this is why the "evil" teams did not want a cap!
They said that teams will find ways around it, and it looks like they may have
I'm sure it won't start out perfect. After the cap is in place for awhile, they can then evaluate and change what needs to be changed.
I have a pretty good idea who you refer to as "evil" but it isn't as clear as you think.
Community owned teams do not have the ability to hide players under the "personal services contract" that privately owned teams use. Doug Flutie operated his entire CFL career working under the personal services loophole. Calgary which had been community owned the year before were able to sign Flutie away from BC only because they were bought out by Larry Rickman that year and now could use the PSC. The year before they could not have done it because they were community owned.
Community owned teams have to be accountable and therefore do not have the ability to "hide" players. Although they are over the cap, they aren't the worst offenders only the most visible because of their inability to hide salaries.
The point I was making is that posters were coming down on Mtl and EE an one other team for being against the cap. The reason they were against it was because there was always a way around it and it would drive salaries underground.
The above example shows they were right.
Not a bad point cfleskfan .... but
Reading the Eskimo financials ... is just as bad as reading a OTCBB stock's SEC reports ....
....very difficult to find 'real player salary costs'
Very valid point 3rdDown. I certainly don't say that the Eskimos are not capable or guilty of using and abusing the 'cap'. I am merely pointing out that they along with the Riders and Bombers don't have the personal services loophole and IMO that loophole is the most blatent abuse.
My all-time favorite salary loophole and congratulations to the Stamps for coming up with it (I would assume it has been closed)was. When Wally Buono was coach & Gm of the Stamps, the coach at that time (and may still)fell under the cap, while the GM didn't. Wally was paid the league minimum as coach and the rest of his salary as GM. I think at the time he made $35,000 as coach and $765,000 as GM. The numbers could be wrong since I am going by memory and it was a long time ago.
That is exactly the point. The teams that can work around the cap will and the teams that cant......cant.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am against the cap, I am only pointing out why teams that votes against it may have!
Well first off the stalling the cap to the year 2007 had to tell you that as a GM you do the high end of the contract this year and the low end the following years when the cap is in place. This was done by design for most teams. All teams are doing these types of contracts and if they didn't then it was too late and that is why you saw the Esks drop some large contracts this year. Thus at the start of the year the stamps were signing players to long term contracts heavey ended for 2006. Its a no brainer and not hidden! It took Taman up until now to figure it out that is why I am amused!
[quote="redwhite2005"]Well first off the stalling the cap to the year 2007 had to tell you that as a GM you do the high end of the contract this year and the low end the following years when the cap is in place. This was done by design for most teams. All teams are doing these types of contracts and if they didn't then it was too late and that is why you saw the Esks drop some large contracts this year. Thus at the start of the year the stamps were signing players to long term contracts heavey ended for 2006. Its a no brainer and not hidden! It took Taman up until now to figure it out that is why I am amused![/quote]
Maybe .... I am just confused by the fact that Armstrong's cap-exempt $75K payment is for 2007 (not 2006)
?????
Yes true1 Just maybe Taman hasn't figured it out or he had knowledge that the cap was going up a bit before being installed.