SMS or Cap who's who?

Oh my there's lots of talk of the Saskatchewan & Montreal being over the cap. Lots of speculation too.

I'm wondering whats up with the other teams have they been audited yet? Are they all under the cap?

Of course no one will know everything yet because it seems the league is still debating what should & what shouldn't be considered salary. (I could be wrong there too) but I think by now we should have general idea on how all of the teams did.

Are the other 6 teams comfortably under the cap or is it anybody's guess?

I know Sask. tried to get under the cap, in fact I believe they did more than most, but circumstances (injuries) seemed to quash that effort.

Judging from some points of view in this forum it seems they did something dreadful...

Or is it all just steam left over from the season?

No, they just happen to be the first teams where the work is complete enough that someone close to the situation said something.

Who said it was complete. Tillman said it was not. How about this. Wait until the CFL says the numbers are this or that. Dont kick Riders or Tillman until they come out. And if those numbers come out and TSN was wrong. And Tillman was right. You and Mervin and a lot of people will you say you were wrong?

TSN says $150,000. Tillman said around $50,000. We will see. But why cant some people wait?

Did we really need another thread on the same topic?


I thought I would try & change the topic to the other teams.
Thats what I'm asking, I'm asking about the other teams.

We've got what... about 50 pages on Montreal & Sask, what about the others?

Austin I'm not putting the Riders down I am asking if the others are saying anything.

So please if you want to reply just leave the Riders & Montreal out, that topic has been already well documented if you've comments on them then take them there.

This thread is for the 6 other teams.

...this thread is based on pure speculation...ironically, so was the other one...


Actually I would say its more like 49 1/2 on SSK and 1/2 on Montreal :lol:

Can we talk about the actual penalties under the SMS? I read through I don’t know how many pages of the other thread and you guys are right. Alot of speculation, very little specifics. I wanted to make this post but felt it would have been lost.

I’d like to try and clear up some of the penalties, and how they have been defined by the league. if anyone has feedback that would be great.

  1. for the first 100k a team is charged a 1:1 ratio, and a draft pick. Is that the teams first round pick? or the First(and highest) pick the team owns? If a team traded for a higher pick during or prior to the draft period, would they lose that pick instead? and does it seem like a bit of a non-issue to anyone else? in an 8 team league how much of an impact does losing your first pick make?

  2. above 100k teams are fined a 2:1 ratio, now does that mean if they are 150k above they pay at 1:1 for 100k, and then 2:1 for the remaining 50k - or is it 2:1 for the entire sum?

I wish the league would make a statement soon, and better define the fines and penalties under the SMS. Because leaving room for interpretation really damages how inforceble the system is.

I think it’s the lack of clear definition that is heaving up all the hot air and speculation. not to mention a biase here or there, eh?

any word on an official statement?

There is some ambiguity in the wording of the rules, so I understand your confusion. It is the CFL we must remember--if there wasn't confusion, what would we have.

Anyway, I believe the FIRST 100,000 is fined at 1:1.
That doesn't change when you go further over. Then 2:1 from 100,001-300,000. And 3:1 from 300,000+.
So if you are over by 50,000, the penalty is 50,000.
If you are over by 150,000, the penalty would be 100,000 + (50,000*2=100,000), so 200,000.
The financial penalties are "non-discretionary". That means if you are deemed over by said amount, you must pay. No if, ands, or buts.
The draft picks are different.
They are up to the discretion of the league.
There is nothing in the wording of the rules that says a draft pick will or will not be lost at level X.
People are saying it is as soon as you are over, the Edmonton Journal and Jim Barker think it is once you are more than 100,000 over.
Nobody ever says what their source for that is.
But the rules as posted on the CFL website do not particularly support those beliefs.
The loss of a draft pick is a serious penalty. Why would it be one of the first penalties, or even the middle penalty. It is only logical that it is applied AFTER the finacial penalties are exhausted, not first. And as that is how the rule appears to be worded, there is really no reason to assume differently.
And it still makes no sense to have a team that is 299,999 over not lose a draft pick, but one that is 300,001 over will?
I suspect the logical thing , and this is where discretion comes in, would be to not take a draft pick until a team is well over the 300,000 mark, say 400,000.
But it is a discretionary penalty, so at no time MUST the league take a draft pick. Personally, I think the league should only take a draft pick if a team has flagrantly, or repeatedly ignored the cap.

At least this is how I understand and interpret the rules.
As no one has ever actually been fined yet, and as far as I know the league has never fully explained these things, there is room for me to be mistaken.

Hope that helps, LB.

Where do you get the $50,000 figure from. The last I saw was from ET was a little shy of $100,000.

How about we let the rider fans create the rules? Now I am not being a jerk here. Your a rider fan what would be fair rules for the sms?

I do not think there needs to be many changes, just perhaps a sliding scale when it comes to injuries with an adjustment based on a 369 game list. But other than a bit more transperancy from the CFL I would be willing to keep it the same.

The problem Leeing the injury concessions are already built into the budget. I can see however where a team does not set the concessions the same as another team and may go over. So the league now they have one year of sms being enforced should look at enforcing an injury portion of the budget of teams. Teams would require to set aside so much for injuries. Like I said this is done already but it is up to the individual teams what they have a available for injuries. So thats say you have 4.5 million salary in place have a percent of injuries allowed in the salary. Anything over that is not covered. If you exempt injuries you will create a loophole. A team doctor could easily play a factor in hiding players in the injury list. So they need to have a guideline for teams to foolow regarding injuuries but still not go over the cap.

Agree, thats why I prefer doing it by number of games as at least in this case the player can not play. As I said, I would be happy to keep it basically the way it is, but I think a slightly shorter number of games with perhaps a prorated amount of salary would be ok.

This may surprise you. It surprises me.
But you aren't completely out to lunch with that idea, 05.
Instead of an overall cap, divide it into the "real" cap, the actual gameday costs, and have a separate catagory that could cover everything from injuries to flying in new recruits.
That would have the effect of somewhat banishing the note from the doctor to the trash bin.
One of the ongoing problems with the league (all leagues I suspect) has been the "taxi squad". Guys hanging around town with a paper cut. If you have a certain amount of room within the cap system designated for injuries (or develoment), then teams can use that portion as they see fit--no need to justify why the guy is in town, but not really hurt.

I think you still need all/most of the guidelines and rules covering these areas, but your idea, with a little polishing, could streamline things--increase the transparency.

Regarding just the injury issue, even within this new arrangement, some teams can be devastated by injuries.
So some means to allow for that issue still needs to be implemented.
The 9 game list was some help, but it was to inflexible.
With the Riders, Matt Dominguez, in hindsight, should have went on the 9-game (and then most of the issues regarding the riders--over or not--would have never arose), but the original diagnosis was 4-6 weeks. You don't place the best receiver in the league on the 9 game if he will be back in 4 weeks.
BC had the same issue with DD.
So a new 3-6-9 list seems the way to go.
The league can hash out the details, but essentially, if you place a guy on the 3 game, things work as normal. But if you extend that player to 6, the effect on the cap changes, and then if you extend him again, you still receive all the benefits capwise that occur under the current system.

What the system needs is flexibility and transparency.
These two relatively simple concepts could fix a lot of problems.
Props for both your ideas, Leeinq and 05.

And it could very well be done like this in the future but as far as 2007 you can not change rules after the season has ended. But this type of idea would work in the future. The problem now is credibility of the injured. We have seen it in the past pllayers listed injured only to be hidden that way. I am not saying the riders did this but it could leave that impression.

[url=] ... 3-sun.html[/url]

Bombers were under in 2007 because they front loaded in 2006. 2008 is shaping up like a nightmare for Taman however.

I'll say it.
The Riders had a few players with "papercuts".
Drew Tate, the 4th string QB and Brian Jones for sure.
Maybe one or two others.
But the Riders likely paid them their full salary anyway, which may be a point of contention in determining the cap tally.
But more importantly, it allowed them to circumnavigate the rules regarding how many players are allowed at camp/practice. (An interesting dilemma, don't you think? Should expenditures used to break a different rule, be counted against the cap?)
And I am not so naive as to not suppose every team in the league does this.
Your suggestion, which is similar to something I suggested earlier, would alleviate some of these issues and problems.