Riders exceed Salary Cap by 87K's

Pretty good, considering the plethora of injuries!

Only 87000 is excellent. Kudoos Mr. Tillman, wherever you are....

http://cfl.ca/article/cfl-sms-provides-cost-certainty

2005 - 25,454
2006 - 25,293
2007 - 27,457
2008 - 29,996

ET's method of keeping a half dozen extra bodies around, and eating the league's fines is A-OK with me as long as we keep selling 75,000 extra tickets / year. ( 5000 / game X 9 home games + 30,000 playoff game ).

If that's what needs to be done to be competative, even when you put a guy on the injured list 34 times, so be it.

Kudos, Indeed.

Too bad Commisioner Cohon was fined for the Riders going over the salary cap. Maybe then the league would come up with a way NOT to punish teams for an exorbent amount of injuries.

It would unfortunately create a bureaucratic nightmare sorting through true injuries. Granted last years Riders situation was a black and white situation and not the Grey area that would normal plague such decisions. It's pretty cut and dry with broken bones - no arguments. The problem comes when players have those grey area injuries that you have to take on faith. It would saddle the league with "prove injury" hearings.

I would suggest that the fix is in how the injury reserve is handled. Had the players who where injured and did not dress ( but were not gone for 9 games ) - had those salaries excluded from the SMS the riders would have been well under the SMS.

Maybe something like .... Teams can place up to 5 players on a short term injury reserve list ( 3-9 games ) and have the applicable time on that list excluded from the SMS. Players on this list must dress for all games on return or be released. This would also would only be eligible for dressed players - thus preventing teams from placing players on this list just to protect them and not actually playing them.

The problem with the current 9 games is that with bye week it could mean sitting a player out for 2/3's of a season in order to get SMS relief. That much time lost means the player has to be replaced.

Leave it the way it is. It minimizes the risks of hiding guys through short-term, phantom injuries. Last year for Saskatchewan was about as bad as it can ever get, and if the net result is a $78,000 fine, then there's really no problem with the system. You'll get bigger problems with the "fix".

How exactly is he keeping extra bodies around?
The roster is 46(44?) players. He cant pay people to wait around in case of injury. The riders went over the cap because of injuries, not because of extra players in case of injury.

Perhaps he's referring to Tate, who some fans felt was "stashed" on the 9 game list. Maybe the thought was that there were others. But it makes no sense, as those players wouldn't impact SMS numbers anyway.

You are right - the injury problem was the number of less-than-nine game injuries, where players were hurt, yet both their salaries, and their replacements, counted against the cap.

This stems from the argument that they were paying Morley and Best to sit on the 46-man and be game-time cuts all year. Morley's salary was estimated in the $130k range. If they had made a decision after training camp of who to go with, they only needed 1 or 2 of Parenteau / Best / Morley, but kept all three.

When the recievers returned from the 9-Game ( Fantuz, Bowman ), they didn't release anybody. The defensive ends were usually pretty deep as well ( Chick, Williams, Bake, Baggs, Verndon ). There was probably a way they could have squeezed under if they had to by sacrificing some depth.

They decided to put themselves "where they needed to be" instead. The fine is a small price to pay for enough depth to remain competative.

Good idea. Similar to the 3-6-9 plan I've proposed in the past where a player can be placed on injury reserve and extended if needed and if he is extended to 9, the team receives the SMS break. Another method ( and my favourite) is force teams to include an "injury reserve" in their budgets. Set an amount that teams can spend anyway they want---injuries, extra players etc, but that CANNOT be spent on roster players. Then if you want to carry that 4th QB, eg., Tate, do so. But then if your injuries mount, be prepared..... That system would give teams the flexibility they claim the 9 game does not, and allow them to protect their depth without cheating the system. The amount could be determined by the 5 year average injury amounts or just set an arbitrary amount--maybe 10% of the total 4.2 million--so 420,000. Teams spending lesser amounts could possibly be rewarded as they are now by being allowed to carry any excess forward as bonuses etc. I imagine most teams would burn through their alloted amounts anyway.

The play them or cut them as they come off the list would make any such changes "self policing". If they play them it forces teams to make cuts to fit them in.

Why not just leave it like it is?
We have wanted a cap for years and since day one, people have been looking for ways to change it. Looking for ways to allow teams to spend more.

A cap is a cap. Either it is a fixed amount or dump it....More clauses give teams more chances to find loopholes.

If you were to do that, you would only need to lower the cap to 3.8 again, and exclude all the injuries from the cap. Same effect, only it doesn't punish teams for having injuries. Protecting the practice roster from other team's poaching would basically remove the whole problem of hiding players on the injured list. The 4-man reserve doesn't cover enough positions for teams to develop players in the manner they want.

I think we are actually trying to close loopholes that currently exist and streamline the rules to make them more transparent and more flexible.

In effect, right now, a team must budget for injuries anyway, so the effective cap is likely in the 3,8 range. But under the current system, teams are encouraged to try to circumnavigate the SMS and the roster limits by abusing the injury list. By forcing teams to budget a minimum amount for "non-roster" players and then not differentiating that amount between injured, not injured players, it should result in less tom-foolery and abuse. No system will every be foolproof.
The reason practice roster players are not protected is because a player has the right to make a living. Practice roster players only make 500 a week. If a team is willing to put them on the roster and pay them a full salary (the only way they can be poached) then that is fair. There likely are ways to tweak that system---particularly for draft picks--to make it slightly more difficult to poach. But I think the number of players poached each year is actually relatively small, so not much needs to be done.

But, because of that, teams need to use the injured list to protect players for non-injured reasons. If the players could be protected from poaching on the PR by paying them full salary, teams wouldn’t have to hide them on the injured list. They would be able to cut costs at the expense of reduced numbers ( instead of paying full salary on the injured list, and bringing in a PR player, they could protect someone using the PR and save on the replacement ). Considering the savings is $500 / week, I don’t see it being a major concern to too many teams. Mainly just optics.