Thorpe resigns his position with Montreal - conflict perhaps brewing in Edmonton. See link above.
My guess he was offered a job by Edmonton and resigned to prevent Wentenhall from suing them. Orridge has quite the mess on his hands. He better take control of this league.
Orridge should uphold his contract with Montreal and impose harsh penalties if this turns out as I suspect.
The Edmonton Eskimos, already slated for mediation with the Ottawa Redblacks over the hiring of head coach Jason Maas, may be headed for more conflict as they attempt to fill key vacancies on their coaching staff.
TSN’s Ryan Rishaug reported late Tuesday night that Montreal Alouettes assistant head coach and defensive coordinator Noel Thorpe has resigned his position with the Als.
It’s believed Thorpe could be headed to the Eskimos for a similar position as the one he held in Montreal.
Thorpe, however, has two years left on his contract with the Alouettes and no out clause, according to sources. No permission to speak with Thorpe was requested by the Eskimos.
If Thorpe does indeed end up in Edmonton, questions about the timing and process are bound to be asked.
Eskimos GM Ed Hervey was recently fined by CFL commissioner Jeffrey Orridge for admitting to tampering. Hervey lost his head coach Chris Jones, lured to the Saskatchewan Roughriders for more title, responsibility and money, and then watched as Jones took his entire coaching staff to the Riders.
When asked if he thought Saskatchewan had tampered with his former head coach, Hervey was blunt.
“As far as this league, we know that tampering does happen. It does. We do it. Everyone does it. It’s just a part of the CFL,? he said.
Hervey followed the rules in hiring Maas, asking the Redblacks for permission to speak with the coach before beginning the courting process. The Redblacks granted the request but subsequently informed the Eskimos they would be seeking compensation if Maas was offered a contract.
The Eskimos informed the Redblacks they would be hiring Maas but not participating in any compensation. Orridge was then dragged into the fray and brokered a settlement which allowed Edmonton to hire its new head coach but would also see the two franchises enter a mediation process to see if compensation for Ottawa is indeed warranted.
Orridge and league governors are already looking at the process of coaches jumping from one team to another while still under contract. It’s tradition in the CFL for teams to allow coaches to escape their contracts in order to take a promotion with another club. Position coach to coordinator, coordinator to head coach or head coach to GM. Protocol would have a senior executive from one franchise inform the organization of the targeted coach and seek permission to discuss a promotion.
In the case of Thorpe leaving his position in Montreal and potentially signing on in Edmonton, no permission was sought. Thorpe went straight to the stage of submitting his resignation.
Thorpe has had two stints with the Alouettes. He was the special teams coordinator and defensive backs coach from 2002 to 2007 and then was the defensive coordinator from 2013 to 2015. He has previously coached in Edmonton, from 2008-10 as special teams coordinator and DB coach.
so Thorpe has found a loophole to get out of his contract with the Als even though he has 2 years remaining and a no out clause.
If he does indeed resurface on another team as expected this league is a farce and so are it’s contracts.
the league might as well just scrap contracts altogether as the CFL has no policy in place to enforce them…nor a drug policy…nor an endzone size policy…nor a uniform concussion policy…nor a firm disciplinary policy…nor a marketing dept…nor a video game…nor a long term growth plan …nor a tenth team…nor a decent logo/mission statement…nor big name corporate sponsors…nor a visible Commissioner…etc etc etc etc…
[b]It’s believed Thorpe could be headed to the Eskimos for a similar position as the one he held in Montreal. Thorpe, however, has two years left on his contract with the Alouettes and no out clause, according to sources. No permission to speak with Thorpe was requested by the Eskimos.[/b]
And if that other team is Edmonton, at some point it has to be recognized that the one thread between Steinauer, Maas and Thorpe is that one organization.
Maas, at least didn't seem to have a no-out clause (but Hunt said something earlier about not liking how the whole thing was "rolled out"). But Steinauer and Thorpe reportedly did. Why are you going after guys with no-out clauses anyway, especially for what appears to be a lateral move?
A no-out clause is meaningless. Maas didn't have a specific out clause, which means he needs Ottawa's consent to terminate the contract early. A no-out doesn't prevent that, because if both parties agree to terminate a contract, it's terminated and the no-out no longer has any effect. It has no effectiveness in this situation whatsoever.
One of two things happened here:
Thorpe felt he wasn't going to get to the end of his contract in Montreal anyway if they have another bad year, and decided to try to get himself free so he can lobby for the opening in Edmonton.
Someone mysteriously leaked to Thorpe that he's a candidate for the Edmonton job if he can get himself out of Montreal, because they're not dealing with compensation again.
I know which one I suspect it is. It's just another act in the gong show that is CFL contract integrity.
I'm not sure I follow. It may be too soon in Thorpe's case to know, but it certainly didn't seem like there was agreement from both parties if he resigned as opposed to having his contract terminated by the team. And in Steinauer's case, if reports of a heated conversation with Austin are accurate, agreement was certainly not originally provided.
If I'm a GM, I wouldn't even approach someone with a no-out clause simply due to its intent. If I thought the candidate was blue chip, I might approach the organization first and see if they are willing to part with him after all.
Because if Edmonton approached two guys with no-out clauses for coaching positions, we've seen that all it does is cause trouble.
In a nutshell, a contract is in force unless both parties agree to terminate it, it's terms are completed, or a party with a specific termination clause (or out clause) invokes that clause.
A "no-out" clause is meaningless, because that's the default state of a contract. If you don't put a specific out clause in for the coach, they have no way out short of completing the terms or mutual agreement with the team (or maybe a resignation if they have a legal right to do that in the jurisdiction in question). A no-out clause does absolutely nothing. That's why Maas couldn't just cancel his contract despite not having a no-out clause: the contract is in force unless both he and Ottawa agree to terminate it. If there is a no-out and both parties mutually agree to terminate the contract, it's still terminated and the no-out has no effect as it's in a now terminated contract.
That's a key difference between coaching contracts and player contracts. The standard player contract (per the CBA) has an out clause for the team. Except in specific circumstances, the team can invoke that to terminate the contract unilaterally. The player can't do that, which is why a player can't just leave a team to go sign somewhere else in the middle of a contract.
Teams also can't cut a coach. If they remove him, they still have to pay out the contract unless a termination agreement is reached (like a buyout, or the coach finding another job elsewhere and wanting out to go take it).
Resignations can be a bit different, based on the contract wording and the relevant laws. In a lot of places an employer can't refuse a resignation from an employee. I am not a lawyer, so I'm not going to pretend to know exactly what Thorpe's situation is in regards to if Montreal can legally tie him up for those two years or not by refusing the resignation. (Note that if Thorpe can legally resign, a no-out clause also wouldn't stop him, as his resignation would be a legal right and a contract can't just waive that away.)
If I'm a GM, I wouldn't even approach someone with a no-out clause simply due to its intent. If I thought the candidate was blue chip, I might approach the organization first and see if they are willing to part with him after all. Because *if* Edmonton approached two guys with no-out clauses for coaching positions, we've seen that all it does is cause trouble.The circus atmosphere sure isn't helped by how weak contracts are in the CFL, for sure.
Because they know the League and Commish are cripples.
Ah whatever, I love watching the games anyways and see who wins the Grey Cup each year although I do like reading all the stuff by posters on this site. When does the 2016 campaign commence?
Oh, I see. We talked about this before.
My view (and I recognize how meaningless that is) is that if you agree to a no-out clause, then you don't even entertain the option of leaving. I think the way I worded it earlier is that you essentially waive the gentleman's agreement by which teams sometimes allow coaches to interview for other jobs.
That's why if I'm a GM and I know this clause exists, I don't even approach the candidate coach. It can only cause trouble because from his current team's perspective, they've already said "no" to any sort of movement. It's far too likely that you'd create an unpleasant situation which has happened once, and maybe now twice.
We don't know the details yet but Thorpe has put the Als in front of a "fait accompli". They can sue him for breach of contract but that's about it. They are still short a defensive coordinator/assistant head coach. So all they can hope to get out of him is money and that's a big "if". We are talking about Quebec here with its very own civil code.
In any other professional league the Commish would step in and uphold the league rules and contracts but I doubt we get that from the CFL and Orridge. The "pro NFL"media in Montreal is going to have a field day with this. From blaming Popp to ridicule the league.
By the looks of it. The two rich community owned team went around the league and poached every quality guy they wanted and so far damaged Ottawa, Hamilton and probably Montreal knowing the league won't do a damn thing about it. This is the kind of things that causes owners to throw the keys on the table...
HfxTC wrote: The "pro NFL"media in Montreal is going to have a field day with this. From blaming Popp to ridicule the league.That should really bolster these "pro NFL" media types in Montreal to get Montreal an NFL team. I'm sure Montreal is high on the NFL's list of cities to put a team especially with that Big O stadium of theirs. :D
This is it in a nutshell. As I said a few days ago, this league is broken. I am going to reevaluate my fan status this offseason. Not sure I can justify supporting a league that tolerates this kind of nonsense.
Fortunately as I say I just care when the 2016 campaign starts. I think it’s time for me to get off this site in all honesty.
No need to get off the site, but if this topic is of no interest or you find it irritating, avoid it altogether.
You don't get it, that's ok.
This isn't a partisan thing with me. I mean, right now it's hitting my team (the Als), but I felt the same way when SSK poached Jones and when Maas went to Edmonton. The credibility of this league is gone. Everything is fixed and coach contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on. As Hfx said, the two richest teams in the league just gutted other teams' coaches to suit their purposes and the league will not do a damn thing about it.
On top of that, the sheer amount of turnover in the coaching ranks this season will lead to lots of changes in systems and other personnel, which isn't all that good for the quality of play, especially on the teams being poached.
Might as well just decide who is where by throwing all the names in a hat and drawing randomly, at this point.