Farhan LaljiVerified account
The #TiCats have denied the #Eskimos permission to speak with DC Orlondo Steinauer about their head coach job. O has 1 more year on contract
Farhan LaljiVerified account
Last year Austin stated that he contracted with Steinauer for a higher than is norm salary for a Coordinator, plus a longer length of term, in exchange for not moving prior to contract expiring Seems like a sane way to go.
Seems Austin likes to get out of contracts when it's in his best interest, but doesn't like to afford the same opportunities to others.
Probably has more to do with Steinauer wishing to stay in the Southern Ontario area where he's live most of his adult life. Guys like him and Thorpe will be HC in the CFL at some point anyway. Nice to see guys honor their contracts and show loyalty.
My take is it is up to the employer to offer a contract as they see fit.
It is up to the employee to accept or not or negotiate as they see fit.
I have no idea if Austins contract in Sask had a " no go" clause or not.
The employer should hold the employee to the contract and vice versa based on how it is worded.
If there is an "out" clause then the employee can exercise it, no problem.
If no "out" clause like Steinauer then fine.
So if you're Ottawa, you deny Maas the opportunity at the dream job? You think they're dumb to let him talk to Edmonton after denying the opportunity to talk to Winnipeg?
Totally depends on what you agreed to in the first place.
Personally I would structure all coordinator and HC job offers with no out clauses all together for the length of the contract.
The applicant can accept or not. Any re-ups can include a 1-2 month window before recommitment.
Ottawa is not in the biz to groom another teams head coach while under contract to their org.. Those openings will be available after a contract expires.
You'll end up with a bunch of 1 year deals that way. Why would you want to commit to two or three years if you know there's a chance you can be HC and get a nice bump in pay?
I assume that Maas' deal did not have an out since the team was able to deny him the opportunity to talk to Winnipeg (which he may not have cared about anyway).
if you "force" a no-out in your contracts, you might also limit the number (and perhaps quality) of coaches you can recruit. I shudder to think what things may have been like for Ottawa last year if Maas had refused to sign up because he didn't want to sign for more than one year.
I agree with slant in principle. I just don't think it's that simple (but I wish it were).
So be it then but I don't think so.
One year contracts will be inexpensive, lowly paid.
Well paid binding agreements with length will provide stability and lessen raiding. Raidings and movement, breaking contracts causes rising costs.
If the culture changes, if contracts are agreed to and binding then things settle down.
There are lots of quality coaches who would jump at 4 year stability and a good salary. Witness Steinauer. When his contract is up there will still be openings and he has demonstrated patience, has learned on a good staff and will be desired.
I do somewhat as well, but I also think you should have that incentive to do a good job and possibly get a promotion either within your organization or elsewhere.
As a Seahawk fan (different League I know) they've seen their past two DCs move on after a season to become HCs elsewhere. It attracts the best possible people to the positions that should have the best possible people in them.
This is actually “old” news. Gary Lawless said a few days ago that “he and Ticats have agreed he’ll stay in Hamilton.”[url=https://twitter.com/garylawless/status/673692769207099392]https://twitter.com/garylawless/status/ ... 9207099392[/url]
Now was there a threat, extortion, or some other arm-twisting involved? I will let you use your imagination.
Bluntly, I would never hire anybody in a ledership role anywhere who wanted an out free clause in their contract in case they want to accept a better job before they have lived up to their end of the agreement.
If I agree to hire them, train them, pay them for , say 3 "no out" years, then they are only going to get hired if that is suitable to them as well. If not I move on.
The culture just has to change. As it appears to have been done in Hamilton. Nobody talks to Condell either. But they will have an opp once the contract expires.
What you describe is the way it would be done in most places so I wonder if there isn't a reason why contract-lengths are a little more "loose".
In other words. I wonder if there wasn't a point where they felt that "restricting" people from chasing after promotions was harmful.
To go back to Maas as an example (not because he's in Ottawa now, but because he's seen both a refusal and a permission), who knows when that Edmonton job will come up again? So he doesn't want to commit to longer than a year, just in case, but a team will want him to commit longer. Not easy.
So I think one's position on this depends on who you relate to better. I can put myself in Maas' shoes. You view it more from the employer's standpoint.
No not really..Maas is free to say no to a multi-year contract that is binding.
He can counter with only a one year deal because he may want to move.
Then the employer can choose and be forewarned.
There are always dream jobs. Edmonton has had several coaches over the past years. Ottawa is not there to help them fill it
I'm just saying I would not be interested in any out clauses if I'm signing someone.
Really you have two business sides wrapped in one. You have each individual team then you have the league as a whole. From an individual team level you have a point, from a league wide level, you want to have options for the best suitable candidates to move into the best roles. It’s not good for the league to, say, have Winnipeg struggle year in and year out because they can’t hire a coordinator off of Hamilton for instance who would make a good HC. I personally want to see each team competative at least once in a while.
Experienced coaches will still be available if they run out their contract. There does not have to be constant poaching.
If you want a coordinator to stay three years then pay them, no move out clause and let them shop after wards.
If you don't care allow an out or one year deals.
I'm just saying the culture can change if you want it to.
Hamilton is an example.
Others could follow
I wouldn't give him permission to leave. He's under contract. His departure hurts my team.
So does keeping around a disgruntled coach.
First of all this is not about Maas. It's about coaches and management living up to what is in the contract, whatever they have agreed to. ( FWIW I believe Maas was under a 1 year deal..so he will be free to do whatever he wants soon)
As far as being disgruntled if you cannot break the contract. So? Let him flush his career down the toilet then. Will not happen to a coach who you want to bring in. If he causes those probs there he WILL cause probs here.
Again...I'm saying allow them an out if you want. Let them leave whenever more money comes knocking. But I contend a team does not need to give an out clause if they do not want to. And I would generally not