There is an article that states Calgary's kicker is working for a hockey team that the Flames own in Omaha. The Flames are part owners of the Stamps. Is this, hypothetically, any different than say a BC Lion working for Brailey in the off season. Is this a way that owners can reward players finacially (even if they are receiving legitimate work for money paid) so that it is not counted under the cap? It is obvious that the CFL knows about it as they are the ones reporting it. Thoughts?
Commisioner Campbell has been doing that for years!
This is one of the ways around the Salary Cap. Is it legal? Without fully knowing the details about the cap, who knows?
I think the question is... should providing offseason employment count against the cap or not? I guess that's where it becomes a tough call because teams can pay players large amounts of money for taking out the trash twice a month. I don't really know enough about the SMS or details of it to know for sure.
who cares, this is the cfl were talking about, it aint like this guy is getting paid a million dollars, plus he's a kicker, it aint they are desperate without him.
I aslo dont know all the details but on the surface I say yes it should count.
As discussed in the past, one way yo get around the cap is to pay players to shake hand.
It makes no difference as to how much he is being payed. What is to stop the owner to steal high profile players from other team and pay them all this way?
A cap is a cap and must be respected!
i have a question about the SMS. are they expecting all the teams to be under the cap for training camp to, or just the final roster
To answer the above question, teams never "have" to be under the cap. The CFL cap is a luxury tax, just like your personal income tax, and if you are over the cap amount at the end of the year, you pay a tax. The NFL is a hard cap, where you have to be under the cap number at all times.
To answer the initial question, payments to players for doing services other than playing football are not necessarily "capped", if the payments are made at fair market value. So, if an owner pays a player $5 for taking out the trash, that would likely be fine. $20,000 for taking out the trash would be a different story.
The guys wifes from the area, he went to university
in the area, his off season homes in the area,
and its a legitmate job, and youre telling me
it should be included in the cap.
Give your head a shake!
The Omaha Knights are a hockey team in the USA. I could see if he worked in the front office of the Flames. CFL football teams do this across Canada find off season employment for their players. So does that mean if a play does a commercial this should apply to their salary.
Sandro is working for the Flames not the Stampeders in the off season. And it is not for a huge amount of money.
no. you can't include it in the cap - that is absurd. Trying to monitor a players income in addition to their employment with the organization is outside the scope of what a salary cap is trying to enforce.
There are a million ways to beat a salary cap. A salary cap is put in place to try and keep teams honest .. nothing but morality is stopping a player from 'finding a bag of money on the side of the road' either ... its impossible to monitor 100%.
Well...StatiK76...what is a cap trying to enforce? It must be equality amongst teams, right? If a team is allowed to pay a player under the guise of a personal services contract affiliated with the CFL team, there is an opportunity for inequality.
Again, a FMV payment during the off-season is fine. Any payment above FMV by a team for a player service is not.
What is the use of a cap if the owner is going to pay a player 100,000 a year to sweep floors? If it is not counted then you might as well get rid of the cap all together because all the teams that can do so, will
....after the cap has been in play for a season....and it has fully been tested.....i'm sure there will be a lot of 'grey areas' that will have to be addressed....I agree with ro1313 that if a salary cap is going to be effective...it has to be adhered to ....otherwise...its not worth implementing..... :roll:
Rapidfire, good point about the fair market value. Not only would the CFL have an interest, but so would revenue Canada. As a self employed individual, I can hire my kids to work for me, but I can not exceed fair market value.
typo .. see next message.
Maybe my point is being missed. Yes, a salary cap is imposed by the league to try and keep teams honest, and control a franchise's direct payments to a player. What it is not designed to do, is cripple a persons ability to make money outside of that organization. Who cares if an organization is connected and nice enough to assist a player in finding addition income. Some employers are better than others.
Bob Cameron used to get to drive a new jaguar every year, and receive free supplies from McDermidd lumber to assist in his rental property upkeep. These are perks, and will forever be under the table. Granted this was not done to avoid Salary Cap restrictions, but done by the goodness of team sponsors to assist the Bombers while their cash flow was low.
Sidney Crosby makes 400,000 before incentives (due to the cap) .. The NHL Salary cap has no control over the 20 million or whatever absurd number he receives from Reebok, Tim Horton's or the other dozen endorsement deals he lands. Not that the Pittsburgh Penguins are responsible for these deals either .. its just pointing out that the salary cap is to be imposed on the team .. not the player.
You have good points StatiK76.
However, you are incorrect when you say “control a franchise’s direct payments to a player.” Remuneration to a player can be either direct or indirect - the SMS covers both types.
I understand a forensic auditor has been hired to trace the indirect stuff.
I don't have any problem with any money a player make from endorsemnts or employment outside the league PROVIDED that the job is in no way affiliated with the team he plays for or the owners of that team.
For example Jock Climie was a lawyer while he played for Montreal. Any money he made working for an independent law firm should not be included in the cap. However if he is employed by Wetenhall as a lawyer then it should be included.
[quote="ro1313"]I donYou're slightly incorrect ro1313.
If Jock Climie was being paid by Wetenhall at the fair market value rate for lawyers, it is not "cappable".
I don't believe that Sandro's situation in any way violates the "cap". Hiring a person to perform a ligitimate function is not the same as paying a player well in excess of the cap yet not claiming the money against the cap because he has a personal services contract with the employer. Sandro is already under contract with the Stamps and taking a job in Omaha with a hockey team has no effect.
If taken to an extreme, one could argue that no Argos could be hired to be a colour commentator on TSN because they own the team, yet players and coaches on any other team could be hired.
Edmonton hired Goldie Mclendon to work in the ticket office in the off season. IMO this is not the same as paying a player millions under a PSC and claiming none of it against the cap, while performing virtually no function other than playing football.