Salary Cap Breach Penalties?

Just today in the Australian NRL (Rugby League), the NZ Warriors were docked 4 competition points for the upcoming 2006 season (2 wins, in a 24 game season), for a $1.1 million AUS breach of their salary cap. Other teams guilty of this have seen entire seasons wiped out, or lost the right to the entry draft for years.

Does anyone know if there's a written plan for penalties on a CFL Salary Cap breach, with the new salary cap in effect?

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/feature.asp?fid=10598

excerpt:
First $100,000 = $1 for $1
$100,000 - $300,000 = $2 for $1
$300,000+ = $3 for $1

1 Like

Great stuff, thanks.

Topic for discussion.

I'm a big proponent of the salary cap because of parity and I believe the fines levied, if followed to a tee would keep teams from over-spending their budget. It'll make teams, including the Riders, manage their money a little better and hopefully make skill go farther for the amount they spend on them.

I think draft choices should be included in this in one way or another.

.......hmmm, I thought draft choices were in on this as well..........

I would like to see a public caning for first time offenders followed up with a stoning for a repeat offense......

Noooo...move their franchise to the Maritimes.

(it's quite often that a team breaching salary caps is actually one of the worst teams in a given league - an odd state of affairs).

Would draft picks be much of a threat? Don't most of the US players sign free agent contracts? You could always acquire players through trades as well.

To funny...I couldn't agree with you more..
The team that breaks the Cap rule first, will probably be broke anyways..
So why not resort to violence...
A good old fashion, Shunning could also be included..

That refers to "financial penalties and other punitive measures"...what other punitive measures? Did I miss something? All I saw were the fines.

Those fines are pretty steep, and should act as a deterrent to going way over the cap. If I'm reading it right, a $500,000 overspend will result in a $1.1m fine. I doubt anyone will think it worth $1.6 million to increase their payroll by a half a mill.

But I find this statement hilarious: "While 100% compliance is required in 2006, financial penalties and other punitive measures will not be imposed until 2007." Do they honestly think that ANY team is going to abide by the cap this year? To them, no penalties this year means no cap this year. And a lot of teams will be struggling next season to get the players under the cap.

Which may be why a lot of players are signing long-term contracts. I'll bet that with a close look at those contracts, you'd see that the first year pays a lot more than the others. Pay the bulk of the contract in year 1, when there is no penalty for exceeding the cap, and small amounts in the other seasons, to keep the team payroll low when the cap is enforced.

The New York Yankees would, actually. Remember that they pay a payroll tax on top of the $200million US they already spend.

The penalties for this year won't come until next year. It doesn't mean that penalties won't be assessed.

Well, with the signing bonus involved, yes the first year is generally better than the following years. But no, it's not an issue as to when it's enforced. 2006 penalties will be handed out in 2007. 2007 penalties will be handed out in either 2007 or 2008.

Yeah...I didn't think I had to specify that I was talking about the CFL. No CFL team has NY Yankee money.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, Steve-o. No penalties assessed for infractions in 2006. Teams are expected to comply, but no penalties will be imposed until next season. This is meant to give teams time to get under the cap, but what it really does is extend the "no-cap" period for an extra year. Some teams are already over the increased cap, and the short-sighted ones will put off the tough decisions until next year, and will find it harder than ever to get within the limit.

.........but it behooves a team to begin operating now under the cap limit, to see what life will be like once the penalties are in full effect......a team that tries to take advantage of the one year amnesty period to go out and buy itself a winner will find putting a team together next year under the cap will be awfully difficult.......in other words, IMO a team with foresight will already be under the 3.8 cap this season, a foolish team will be over it........

Unless they win the GC of course.

http://static.flickr.com/56/106433308_2c9a52df0c.jpg

Awesome post PIGSEYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who was over last year besides the Eskies?

I don't fully know how the new cap works, but I feel that they should get count after the preseason cuts, just before the real season starts.

and there needs to be a cap, I don't want another 1981 (where they couls have been a double cross over), do you?

Saskatchewan and a team in the East, I think it was Montreal.

I've heard reports that anywhere from five to all nine teams broke the barrier last year, to varying degrees, of course.....

Everyone here loves to accuse teams of breaking the cap yet no-one ever posts any proof!
Why is that?
Because no-one knows!!!!!!!!!