New Salary Cap/Minimum pay problems

I’ve been thinking about the new CBA and some of the problems it has caused regarding salaries. Some of my math is approximate so go easy on me.

The minimum salary is about $11,000 per year (up 20%) to $65,000. This is a good move as it makes the league more competitive with the XFL .
The Salary Cap has gone up only $50,000. I read a week ago from a GM (I forget who),that the new minimum salary is costing teams an extra $140-150,000 a year but they only have $50,000 more to play with.This leaves teams with $100,000 less to work with then last year. As a result teams are having trouble offering some player their old market value . (How else do you explain Larry Dean’s 50% pay cut??)
This is not good for our game. I wish there was a way to make up the extra $100,000.
I calculated is you add a 60 cent surcharge on every ticket sold (80 games times 20,000 fans per game times 60 cents , you would be $106,000 per team.
I know the salary cap is already funded partially by ticket sales, but I am just throwing ideas out. Another idea would be to cap starting quarterback salaries at $450,000-$500,000 a year. (It looks like this has already unofficially happened with 7 out of 9 teams) IMO The league needs to figure out how to get that salary cap up closer to 6 million if they really want to avoid the kind of gridlock in the future. Also, I realize spending other peoples money is pretty easy from the comfort of my computer chair.

This is only a problem for the players. It may even have been a strategic move by the board of governors to create some downward pressure on top-end salaries.

It only becomes bad for the league if it causes players to start shunning the league, but that may never become the case. The only other non-NFL option that might compete with the CFL on salary is the XFL, and it remains to be seen whether future CFL stars will choose the XFL over the CFL, and whether the XFL will have any longevity.

I think this is a one off problem that’ll balance out next free agency. I agree that what you’ll see is the top wages come down a bit

I agree with both responses, but if the XFL sticks around, then the CFL will have to figure something out to compete. A substantially larger salary cap is the first place to start. I read the XFL has set their budget with about 18,000 tickets sold per game in mind , and they seem to have much more in terms of start up funds and decent TV coverage then the AAF did a year ago. It would cost TSN about $6.3 million dollars a season to help the league get to the $6 million salary cap. That could be money well spent if it kept good players in the league.

The more likely outcome will be a continued squeeze on the mid level salaries. Teams will still pay up for the stars. At the mid level where there is more choice the teams will bargain harder. I’m sure the CFLPA will take a look at this in the next contract. In a fixed total system one group will always pay a price for another groups gain. It all boils down to who you want to gain and who you want to pay.

for starters Dean wasn’t worth 220k

He’s worth more then 110.
We offered him 175 to stay last year.
If a player the caliber of Dean can only get 110, this league is in trouble down the road IMO. Hopefully this is a one year blip until teams adjust to the new financial limitations.

Of course cap restrictions will always be a problem in every league.
Lately however for the first time, at least for me, I’ve been hearing across several CFL Media coverage shows from team reps from several franchises.
In talks with the high end star power players about how their franchises, ownership groups, & the cities in which they are located. Off the field financial opportunities that these players can make off the field that coincide with there star power.
John Murphy from the Argos discussed this in an interview on the Rod Peterson Show. Is one example

I’m surprised more teams don’t exceed the cap and just pay the fine. Even though a team may lose a first round pick (plus money), if the trade-off is signing a star Canadian, they may be ahead in the end.

The owners have shown no intention of spending more on players than they absolutely have to.

The money already exists to increase the cap, but there is no desire from ownership to do so. The Players Association for their part, took a deal, which although was definitely a step forward for the minimum pay scale but was was obviously going to be an issue for veteran players.

Its not good for the game, but here we are.

Ya know what. A lot of people may have us for saying this. But I agree. It’s actually been discussed on reputable news outlets that cover the CFL seriously.
Comparing it to like. A Luxury Tax that we see in MLB.
Now the point was made that only some of the richer teams can afford it.
The rebutle was a logical one.
Share that Luxury type tax money among the teams that don’t go over.
Hence a type of profit sharing to give the less richer franchise a cut of the richer ones pie.
More money for all = more parity.

I understand the concept of the “soft cap” and the suggestions that if you can afford the fine to exceed the cap limit, then maybe you should take advantage of that, exceed the limit and pay the fine. The suggestion to share those fines among the “have nots” is a noble sentiment.

However, that whole exercise strikes me as immoral. It is like a big rich polluter fouling your air, and excusing his behaviour by claiming to pay the carbon tax and the environmental fines. The air is still fouled. With the salary cap, all the Governors have agreed to work towards parity by instituting a cap. Going ahead with exceeding it, and treating the fine like a luxury tax, is still exceeding the cap and fouling the agreed upon course of behaviour. Either you follow the rules established, or change them. Being rich should not mean being able to ignore the established, agreed upon codes of conduct. Here endth to-day’s sermon. :grinning:

I understand the issue of competitive balance and the league wouldn’t be much fun if the “haves” could outspend the “have-nots”. However, we hear the same thing every year at free agency time, how could team X sign all those players without going over the cap. They can because there is nothing in place from stopping a team from doing so. If the desire isn’t to have teams exceed the cap, they should set a hard cap, no exceptions.

I would contend that it could be in Hamilton’s best interest next year to exceed the cap since they host the Grey Cup. Saskatchewan did the same thing when they hosted the cup and while it gets mentioned every once in a while, it was just kind of accepted.

I don’t want to be compared in the same breath as Saskatchewan.

They cheat.

We don’t.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
However, it was agreed upon in the cba that if you go over the cal there are penalties.
So if you go over the cap and are willing to accept the penalties of times and lost draft picks. You are playing within the rules as per agreed upon.
You may think it’s immoral. But it’s not cheating.
With MLSE now owning the Argos.
They can easily go over the cap by alot.
Compared to the amount they pay just one superstar Leads player. The regular cap and the penalties for exceeding it is peanuts in comparison.
Just Saying.

Just a reminder, the Argos former owner was a billionaire who could easily afford to go over the cap by a lot too. And that billionaire is stilll the owner of the Lions and can easily afford to go over the cap by a lot.

The way the cap is set up, though, the more you go over, the more penalized you become. Minor overages can be overcome by having a Braley- or MLSE-sized bank account, but beyond that you start to handicap your team with losses of draft picks and ever-increasing fines.

As you say cflSteve, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I suppose this is one of those cases where we just agree to disagree.

But as I see it, exceeding the cap is breaking the rule, and there is no being excused because you can afford it, or are in a position of privilege. To go to the extreme, I would compare it to the guy who feels it is okay if he speeds, talks on the phone when driving, runs red lights or whatever, because he can afford the fines. He is still breaking the law, and violating the trust of his community, and flaunting a “me first” mentality.

To me, the rule isn’t going over the cap is okay if you pay the fine, the rule is that the fine is a negative consequence of breaking the rule of exceeding the cap.

To be equitable, I would propose that an owner should pay the fine each time he meets his payroll, and it is over the cap. After 18 fines, he may modify his behaviour.

But, that’s just my take.

Thank you Palmer.
In a very civil way we were able to discuss both sides of this cap issue.
Honestly, I don’t know what is right or wrong about this either or whether I agree with it.
But in a nutshell together we basically pointed out the two schools of thought on this.

Yes indeed I agree with you 100%.