Riders Spent in Excess of $5 Million in '06?!?

It’s not Nyquil you need to worry about…it’s the empty bottles of Lagvulin…but my gun is safely locked away in a museum somewhere, so you should be safe enough…

Just for you guys, lets see if I can figure out how to use these silly emoticoms…

:D :roll: 8) :D :P :rockin:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Good come back Arius!

Simple question then, Sambo.
As a Rider fan, who was better last year than the Riders?
I’ll start you off by conceding BC was.
Next?

I can think of six other teams ahead of the riders.

I can think of six other teams ahead of the riders.
I didn't realize the Stamps somehow managed to be 9th in an 8 team league?

...the stamps were clearly the better team in the regular season, but the riders did take the western semi in our own yard...i dunno, I'd call it a draw for supremacy....for what it's worth I can't agree with '05s assessment either....if there were six teams ahead of the riders one of them would be the esks or the ticats and clearly that is not even arguable...

Actually, if you look close, in the post 2005 quotes, I already conceded the Lions as being better, and 2005 then says 6 “other” teams, which can be read that he is saying we were the worst.
He may have meant just 7th…but it could go either way.
Anyway, I am sort of waiting for Sambo to give us his take.
But obviously from my previous post, I don’t necessarily agree with “the stamps were clearly the better team in the regular season”. But I don’t completely disagree with that statement either.
But once Sambo weighs in, I’ll give you a 3 pager…

Well hopefully less than that…for all our sakes…

Wo you might have to remove your shoes to count. You stated that BC would be ahead of the riders so would that not leave 7 teams. Including your riders. So If I stated I can think of 6 teams ahead of your riders would be accurate would it not.

Well thats looka at not with wins or loses here redandwhite thats make it a redwhite2005 popularity contest and say that BC is first and then six teams and then the riders. :lol: :lol: I am sure to confused Arius now and expect nothing less then a three page essay. :lol: :lol: You see Arius I was having fun once again with you. But you had to screw up the math didn’t you.

If the Riders were over the cap by 1.1 million last year, then how much were the Eskimos (the richest team) the Alouettes and Lions over? 2 or 3 million? If the Riders were the only team over the cap (I am not saying that is the case), then they paid heavily for their wins. It seems that we do not have the whole story for 2006. let us hope that for 2007 (now that the cap is enforced) we will have a better TRANSPARENT picture.
By the way, I have to mention (ok I am still bitter) that in 2005, the Eskimos (who beat the Alouttes by 3 points in double overtime in the Grey Cup), spent at least 700 000$ more for that season in salaries than the next most spending team. I welcome the cap.

I did not screw up any math.

I got that you were funnin’ with me.
So I was just funnin’ back…

Don’t make me go to 3 pages on this…I’ll even do 4 if necessary…

For transparency, we will need to wait a few years because the ability to use last years signing bonuses for salaries in the future will distort the numbers until all those contracts run out.
Plus, as far as I know, the league does not plan to make salary expenditures available for public consumption.
I certainly favour knowing exactly how much each team spends.

Correct Arius, too many teams went overboard, not that I am mentioning the Stamps, Als and Lions as extreme abusers, but one just needs to look at the jettison of players from the other clubs to realize this.

Actually the Eskimos were only $390,000 over the $3.8 million dollar cap this past season. $850,000 in total if you include the signing bonuses that they gave out(remember that every team did this). Obviously the Riders spent way more this past season.

[url=http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Edmonton/2007/03/01/3681222-sun.html]http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/ ... 2-sun.html[/url]

Losing is winning

Esks miss playoffs, make profit
By JONATHAN HUNTINGTON – Sun Media

Taking advantage of a salary cap loophole only available until Grey Cup Sunday last year, the Esks signed 13 players to new bonus-laden contracts. (Sun File/Darryl Dyck)

Brickner makes some history

The Edmonton Eskimos were $850,000 over the $3.8 million salary cap last year - but still showed a major profit.

In the unique financial world of the CFL, the Green and Gold have posted a $610,168 profit from last year partly because the club missed the playoffs for the first time in 35 years.

“There is a whole financial sensitivity in the CFL of: the farther you go on the field, the more it costs you in dollars,” said Edmonton Eskimos president Rick LeLacheur.

Case in point came in 2005 when the Esks had to spend almost $365,000 on Grey Cup costs - from travel to championship rings.

As a result, the club only posted a $163,839 profit in 2005. But also helping the bottom line is the Esks massive $8.72 million stabilization fund.

By being able to draw a bottom line number of $456,634 in investment income off that fund, it greatly helped offset the ballooning player salary costs.

Of the $850,000 over the cap, $460,000 was signing bonus money for 13 veteran players.

Taking advantage of a salary cap loophole only available until Grey Cup Sunday last year, the Esks signed 13 players to new bonus-laden contracts.

The bonus money doesn’t count toward the 2007 salary cap of $4.05 million.

BONUS CLAUSES

The bonus clauses also allowed teams to sign players to lower base salary long-term contracts to help get under the enforced cap this season.

“It made some sense,” said Eskimos head coach Danny Maciocia.

“These are some guys that were going to be free agents or were entering their option year.”

Key veterans like Mookie Mitchell, Robert Brown and Joe McGrath are on the list.

So is rising star Adam Braidwood.

But contrary to public reports, the Esks didn’t file a ridiculously low $52,000 base salary contract for Mitchell with the league office.

BASE SALARY

The Sun has learned Mitchell’s base salary is closer to $65,000. Regardless, Mitchell should be making a base-salary contract near $100,000 - but with a significant signing bonus, he still gets the total money he wants.

While player salaries are rarely revealed, the Sun has also learned the Esks handed out bonuses ranging from $2,000-$35,000, with the high end bonus clauses coming with several conditions.

But LeLacheur strongly pointed out last night at the club’s annual general meeting that he didn’t dip into the stabilization fund for any player contract money.

SHORT HIT: As usual, the Esks led the league in total attendance with 368,700 people filing through the stadium.

But that was down from 414,644 in 2005 because of the 7-11 regular season record and suspect weather conditions.

FINISH LINES: Sponsorship dollars continue to rise. The club pulled in $2.7 million in sponsorship sales, up almost $300,000 from 2005.

“We are now getting to a point when we are running out of inventory,” remarked LeLacheur.

In the CFL, a strong gate and sponsorship department make all the difference in the world.

“The biggest difference between the CFL and NFL: 85% of our revenues come from bums in the seats and sponsorship and 15% from the league,” said LeLacheur.

“It is about the opposite in the NFL because of the TV contracts.”


LUCKY 13

The Eskimos signed 13 veteran players last fall to bonus-laden new contracts to help get under the 2007 CFL salary cap.

They included RB Mike Bradley, FB Mike Maurer, SB Mookie Mitchell, OL Patrick Kabongo, DE Antico Dalton, SB Pat Woodcock, SB Andrew Nowacki, DT Robert Brown, LB A.J. Gass, DE Adam Braidwood, FB Deitan Dubuc, OL Joe McGrath and LB Mike Botterill.

I welcome a Cap as well but only if it is enforceable, transparent and the same for all teams. The problem in the past hast been the fact that privately owned teams have had a greater ability to “hide” players salaries. Edmonton, Regina, and Winnipeg have been unfairly criticized for their spending when other teams have been far worse. The bigger problem to me is teams which have spent beyond their means. Criticize the Eskimos all you want but it is the Edmonton fans that have paid the freight, not a deep pocketed owner or other more financially responsible teams.

Believe what you want about the Riders spending, if you truly believe that any team not playing in an covered stadium have spent the most money over many years, I have some great bottom land in Florida to sell you.

Actually the Eskimos were only $390,000 over the $3.8 million dollar cap this past season. $850,000 in total if you include the signing bonuses that they gave out(remember that every team did this). Obviously the Riders spent way more this past season.
Two good posts from two Eskimo fans. Thanks for the info, 123. I don't think I would interpret the difference in Rider spending and Esk spending as quite, "way more", but...

As I have said all along, the Esks spending is only a couple of hundred less than the Riders.
If we were 1.1 over and they were .850 over, that is $250,000.
Coincidently, The two contracts I have mentioned, KJ and Armstead, added more than that amount to our payroll–just KJ instead of Nealon was likely an extra 175-225,000–than the difference in spending.
And as KJ has taken a 150,000 reduction, and I believe Armstead took a cut as well, that means that for the rest of the team, in the race to get under the cap, both teams are pretty even.
I notice also that the Esks supposedly spent 460,000 on the "loophole, for 13 players.
The Riders signed 20+ players at the deadline, so obviously we spent a considerable amount as well. We likely spent less on more players though.
I would like to point out that 460 divided by 13 is an average of over 35,000, whereas the article suggests that 35,000 was the maximum, so there are some discrepancies in the article.
But it is just the Sun…

Meanwhile, as Eskfan says, maybe the Esks spend lots of money, but it is all earned honestly from the community and those that support the team.
Cannot fault them for that.

Now I await the details on Calgary’s or Toronto’s spending…
Oh…what’s that you say? There are no such details…Oh well…

How do threads like these continue? They are so boring, and honestly none of us actually know all of the info anyways so we are arguing over nothing...

Here is how it seems to work, Signings bonuses skewed alot.

Winnipeg seems to have spent the lowest going beyond last year 3.8M cap(3.9-4.2M with bonuses)
EVERY team went past the cap, but alot of teams were out of view of that cap.

Alot of teams were at 4.4-4.5M
Edmonton was at 4.2M before all their bonus payments?

Edmonton Spent 4.6M (way over the cap)
Regina 5M (WAY over the cap)
All other teams are there too, although I am very interested at what Hamiltons situation is, because they stunk up the league so a low team salary would be hoped for.

All teams need to smarten up and get their player costs down to under 4.15M

the Cap is 4.05, but spending up to 4.25 is fine, that just helps low revenue teams(revenue sharing)
Targets should be set at 4.05 but there is nothing wrong with teams being slightly over, aslong as the money goes to were it needs to be, WINNIPEG :smiley:

If the Riders were over the cap by 1.1 million last year, then how much were the Eskimos (the richest team) the Alouettes and Lions over? 2 or 3 million?
The Eskies may be the richest (with $15M in cash reserves), but I dispute the assertion that they spent the most. According to released Financial Statements, the Riders had more revenue than the Esks, and substantially more than the Lions or Als.

The Riders $15+ mil revenue last year dwarfs any other club.