ESKS denied permission to talk to Steinauer for HC

I guess that is between them and and the organization. I'm not going to sit around and complain if a team choses to let a coordinator or another member of the organization leave for a better opportunity though. If you think that's the best way to run an organization, go for it. You will probably limit candidates that way though or sign for shorter deals.

Mass has not prove him self yet.

That threat would go away pretty quickly if the league force people to honor their contracts.

I wouldn't give him permission to leave. He's under contract. His departure hurts my team.
[/quote]
So does keeping around a disgruntled coach.
[/quote]
That threat would go away pretty quickly if the league force people to honor their contracts.
[/quote]
The League is not a party to the contract known as Contract of Employment. The terms and conditions of a Contract of Employment can be changed at any time through the negotiation between the Employee and Employer of the subsequent Contract Amendment. The change can be proposed by either party, Employee or Employer.

According to RDS. Ed Hervey hired Maas as HC and Barron Miles as DC. :thup:
No recycling :thup: :thup:

The league does force people to honor contrats.

  • mutual agreement to void a contract is honoring the contract,
  • the exercise of an "out" clause in the contract is honoring the contract,
  • paying severence for termination before expiry is honoring the contract,
  • mutual agreement to change any clause of the contract is honoring the contract,
  • granting permission to another potential employer to interview an employee under contract is honoring the contract.

What you are asking for is not about honoring a contract but a league mandate that contracts can't be altered, must have strict terms and must run to their conclusion. If you want such an iron-clad contract, to be fair, it should also disallow early termination of employment because the team wants a coaching change. If it is really about honor, it must run both ways.

Unless the assistant coaches and coordinators form a union and establish a standard CFL coaching contract, the contract can be whatever the two parties want within general employment law and CFL tampering rules. In a small league with limited opportunities overly constraining advancements in employment means quality will suffer. You want to constrain someone from leaving you better believe the demand for higher severence on termination will escalate too.

Edmonton Fan should be thankful the Esks were denied the opportunity to speak with Weasel Steinauer. The guy is not HC material.

How do you suppose Mass is less "proven" than Weasel Steinauer?

Neither has experience a coordinator level. But Mass' offence humiliated Weasel Steinauer's defence when they went head to head in the ESF.

CFL News ?@CFL_News
Orlondo Steinauer is not being denied anything. He signed his deal knowing full well what it entailed. - @JoshSmith_82 #CFL #Ticats

I was replying to something when the forums switched over and now I can't find that post, but I think it was in this thread.

What's the point of a no-move provision in a coaching contract? You can't trade coaches, so he can't move unless the team agrees to let him. If the team agrees to let him, the clause means nothing as they're agreeing to end the contract early anyway.

Putting that in there doesn't make a whole lot of sense except to convey the point that they don't want him to leave early, but are they really going to stop him? It's the same thing as the Jones situation. The provision is entirely redundant, the contract itself already carries that force if they wish to enforce it.

This is the equivalent of the government passing a law saying the government has to balance the budget. It has no meaning because if the government doesn't want to balance the budget, they can just repeal that law at the same time.

It's kind of funny how coaches can get out of contracts so easily for promotions, and their contracts are guaranteed if they get fired. Players are often held to entry level contracts when they could get far more money elsewhere after a good season, and their contracts can be terminated on a whim by the team.

The power imbalance in these two situations is staggering.

There was a lot of interesting stuff on Steinhauer in the Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/10/cf ... th-eskimos

There was plenty of action happening in the hallway outside the boardroom, however, at The Signature at MGM Grand, and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats organization was right in the middle of it.

The issue was Ticats defensive co-ordinator Orlondo Steinauer, who has now been granted permission to speak to the Edmonton Eskimos about their vacant head coaching position even though his contract has a year remaining on it and a no-move clause in it.

It was probably no coincidence Ticats head coach and GM Kent Austin was overheard having a long, heated phone conversation with someone on Wednesday afternoon. Then on Thursday the team's two presidents, Edmonton's Len Rhodes and Hamilton's Scott Mitchell, came out of the meeting room three times to have hallway conversations about Steinauer.

In other words, it appears Steinauer had to fight for the right to interview for the Eskimos job, and the Ticats finally let him do it.

Stay tuned.


Interesting...

Right. I'm all for letting guys pursue a better opportunity. But Steinauer basically waived that right. If he regrets it now, too damn bad.

Austin isn't the most cuddly guy, and I've seen a comment to the effect that he should remember when Saskatchewan let him out of his contract to pursue the Mississippi gig. Sure, but the situations may not be the same. If Austin did not have a no-out clause in his contract at the time, then his release from Sask is irrelevant.

Looks like Orridge has decided all teams will play by the same "non rules" :thup: :thdn: :thup: :thdn:

Watch. Hervey will play be the same rules as Barker and the rest. Sign Coach O as HC/DC and Maas as Assistant Head Coach/OC and pay them both HC salaries.

Edmonton, Ottawa, Hamilton and Calgary take a hit
Saskatchewan and Winnipeg get a boost

Voila ! Instant parity.

But that’s the thing, the “no-out” clause is meaningless. That’s the default state of a contract. A contract is not “three years if you feel like it”, it’s “three years”. Legally, you need an out clause to unilaterally terminate it early (which is how the teams do it to players, per the CBA the standard player contract gives the teams a termination clause but doesn’t give one to the player).

The no-out clause is meaningless, because it’s saying something that’s already true. Steinauer already doesn’t have the power to get out of the deal, because there’s no specific out clause. If Hamilton chooses to let him out, it doesn’t matter if there’s a no-out or not, because if both parties agree to terminate a contract, that’s that. None of the provisions in a contract can stop that if there’s mutual agreement.

None of this is in the CFL rules. It’s a custom that coaches be allowed to seek promotions despite contract terms, not a rule. Teams don’t have to do it, and they don’t need a special clause for it. They just need to say “no, we’re not letting you out of your contract.”

I don’t disagree, but when they mentioned a “no-out” clause earlier in the week, I took that to mean that there was an agreement by Steinauer to not take advantage of the custom you describe.

Otherwise, I find it odd that it a no-out clause would be reported specifically for him when, as you say, it’s actually built in by mere virtue of being, you know, a contract. My say he has one when in reality, they all do? Was there something about Steinauer’s contract? If there was, it seems like he successfully squirmen out of it.

They probably added a clause specifically to try and send a message that they weren't going to let him out early... which they did anyway.

Maybe that clause contains something more specific that hasn't been reported, like a financial penalty if it is terminated early. That would make more sense, as a normal contract wouldn't have that. Because if it's literally just a no-out, it's only purpose is symbolic.

Now wouldn't it be hilarious if, after all the screaming and yelling, he got interviewed but didn't get the job? :smiley:

ACTUALLY we have know idea of what these contract say/read or the clauses they contain. So no answer is right or wrong.

WE JUST don't know, unless we help wright the contract.

You would think Steinauer is smart enough to know the chances of him getting the Edmonton job. Reason is that he might have already burned a bridge between he and Austin. Austin could very act like this was an act of treason. Might as well get ready in case Jeff Reinebold is the named the next DC in Hamilton.