Montreal to forfeit first round pick?

[url=http://tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=234609&lid=sublink03&lpos=headlines_main]http://tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=234609&lid= ... lines_main[/url]

I know we heard it before, but TSN is reporting that Montreal is over the cap enough so that they will have to give up their first round pick (4th overall).

Moreover, Hamilton gets an additional pick in the eighth spot, rather than all teams just moving up by one. They then resume the order with Hamilton picking ninth. Good news for Hamilton.

We've heard it all before, and TSN has little credibility on this issue.
However, the proposal to reward Hamilton with an extra draft pick gives this story legs. It is a very stupid thing to do. And in the CFL, stupid is often seen as best. So based on the sheer stupidity of that plan, I believe this story....

So, if I understand correctly, the league is going to take away a pick from Montreal and basically give it to Hamilton? :expressionless:

Seems to me there are a few errors in that story(Quelle Suprise!)

Sources said both Saskatchewan and Montreal surpassed the $4.05-million cap in 2007. However, the Grey Cup-champion Roughriders were less than $100,000 over and therefore will have to pay a fine but get to keep their 2008 first-round draft pick.
Seems to me that SSK doesnt have a first round pick. They traded it to Monreal.

Sask. picks fifth overall, ro...acquired from Toronto...

ah!

There's precedent on this....remember the David Archer plus a bonus pick the Riders got in the first great Ottawa dispersal.

Interesting Story here

[url=http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080418.wsptals18/GSStory/GlobeSportsFootball/home]http://www.globesports.com/servlet/stor ... tball/home[/url]
The Montreal Alouettes' right to retain their first-round pick in the April 30 CFL university draft will come down to whether they win an argument with the league over the matter of former defensive lineman Steve Charbonneau.

Charbonneau, a 10-year CFL veteran, was unable to play football last season because of a gastrointestinal illness, forcing the Alouettes into a dilemma at training camp.

Cutting him would have made his salary vanish from the club's salary cap, but Charbonneau would have been without medical benefits. Montreal opted to keep him on its roster the entire season.


ALSO
Montreal general manager Jim Popp confirmed that his team had received no final word from the league on where it stood in regard to last season's salary cap.

"The bottom line is we have not been notified by the league of anything like this, so where those sources are coming from, well, I have a pretty good idea," Popp said

If they kept him on the roster, knowing he couldn't play, so he could still receive benefits, wouldn't it have been smarter to stick him on the 9-game list a couple times? If they didn't, I suppose that's their own boneheaded move...

Lovely, Als would lose a pick because they showed compassion to a player, while Hamilton gets rewarded with a pick for being the worsed managed football team in North America for the second consecutive year.

While it was nice what the Als did, the league can't start making exceptions. Like jm said, couldn't they put him on the 9-game list?

Charbonneau never stepped foot on the field, not even an hour of training camp, he never made any roster, so it is coneivable that this was a grey area in paperwork and not incompetence on the part of the Als.

And this does not explain giving the pick. They could move that pick to the back of the draft or award it in a lottery system. CFL makes up rules as they go.

But we still don't have drug tests for athletes even after two deaths in the last year.

Absolutely right Jm.
On the otherhand, as there is no rule obligating the league to take a draft pick for cap infractions (teams MAY lose picks, not MUST), I am not sure they should forfeit a pick because they were just stupid....if it puts them over by 300,000+, then they really do not have an excuse. But if it is only 100,000+, which is how it is being reported, I'll be surprised (though not shocked) if the league takes away a pick...

Doesn't TSN learn, though? What happened last time they reported that a team was so far over they'd lose a pick, without waiting for official results to come out??

Oh yeah...that...

interesting predicament, and the decision will undoubtedly set precedent as well.

I hope none of this is true.

What the Als did for Charboneau should be rewarded and not punished. My hats off to the Als org. on that one. I am sure the CFLPA are going to have something to say to the league about it before the decision is made too.

Giving Hammer the pick is just wrong. Despite whether or not they need it, the process of just giving it to them is mind boggling. Why not just skip Montreal in the draft and move along in order ?

If the player's salary was the tipping point to get the Als over by more than $100K, there's no way the CFL should run the public relations risk of taking away a pick. If they were more than $100k over anyway, then I suppose rules are rules.

In these situations, you don't want to water down the SMS, what you want to do is change the benefit plans so that players do not have to be kept on active rosters to remain qualified.

There has got to be some reason why the Als did not put him on the 9 day list. I really dont think it is a case of "Stupidity" but you never know

Yes, you never know.
I think my point was, I don't believe a team should lose a draft pick for being over the cap by just 100,000+ anyway, unless it can be shown they deliberately did so, eg., if it happens every year. And in this case, if they could have avoided the issue altogether, by just putting the guy on the 9 game, then why add the loss of a draft pick? And Montreal was struck with an enormous number of injuries that are tough to budget for. Again, the rule does not automatically assess the loss of a draft pick at any point. It is an arbitrary penalty the league CHOOSES/has the option to do, not MUST do.
The only reason I can see for Montreal losing a pick is if for some reason the league wants to make an example of them. I think that would be a poor judgement on the league's part, but as you say, one never knows....

I am certainly not an expert on the Injury list clauses but if the reasons given by the Al's is true and they indeed kept him on the roster for compassionate reasons, the I would hope that the league would take this into consideration.

Even if they screwed up and are penalized, I applaud Montreal for putting the players welfare ahead of the accounts department and hope Charboneau is well on the road to recovery