CALGARY — The Calgary Stampeders have announced the following changes to their football operations staff:
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.cfl.ca/2022/12/12/stamps-name-dickenson-gm-hufnagel-stays-as-pres/
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.cfl.ca/2022/12/12/stamps-name-dickenson-gm-hufnagel-stays-as-pres/
Raises the question in my mind as to whether they were ready to offer HC position to BLM.
His statements about still wanting to play may be as much about not being ready to coach.
1 Like
Dave should have been fired not given more authority dark days ahead stamps fans
1 Like
I wonder how well this is going to work in today's CFL. The days of one guy doing both GM and HC jobs are largely over. My feeling is that 2023 will be a transitional year where Dickenson does both jobs but prepares one of his assistants (Monson?) to take over as HC the following year.
2 Likes
The days of one guy doing both jobs are gaining momentum, likely because of the CAP. We now have 4 teams with those configurations & it looks like changes in Bomberland may be coming soon too. Whether that involves a HC/GM configuration we'll see.
We are seeing a lot more dual jobs such as HC/OC, HC/DC, OC/QBC since the CAP went in place. There have been a bunch of GM/HC jobs in the past but I'm guessing that you haven't seen half the league going that way before. You can prove me wrong because I'm not going to research it.
Because HC's typically get 3 year deals & may be found wanting during that period (Edmonton, Ottawa most recently), the best way to circumvent that & stay within the CAP is to get guys who will take on dual capacities & save money. In the Elks case Jones is GM/HC/DC & they still had to run 3 coaches short, according to a 3DownNation article because their President, GM & HC had 2 years left, as did their DC. The Riders didn't do a complete purge but we are seeing the consequences of that. How is that going to work out? I guess we'll see but it may mean starting a year late on what could be a rebuild if they can't attract the best co-ordinator (already seeing that) & players (ie. BLM for one).
1 Like
I hadn't thought about it, but it's true that it's happening more. But I still question the wisdom of it. It's one thing for a head coach to also be a coordinator. Doing both HC and GM full-time? That's a lot for one person.
Also, if you're counting Montreal, Maciocia stepped in as interim head coach, not permanent.
1 Like
I am in the camp that thinks it is difficult to impossible for one individual to do both jobs properly. It may be increasing because of the coaches cap, but since at least 2017 no one has won the Cup with the dual set up. So obviously it isn’t working. My solution, and I know many others on this forum are in favour of this, is to scrap the coaches cap.
And by the way, as discussed earlier, there is not one shred of evidence that the Bombers intend to break the mold. They haven’t done anything different than what they always do, namely signing coaches and management at the last minute, a practice I prefer when a coaches cap exists. Any talk of anything different is pure speculation on par with UFO sightings.
3 Likes
This not going to go well for the Stamps, he can't even manage the clock.
1 Like
That would be a mistake IMO. The cap, like the player salary cap, is part of what keeps wealthier teams from overpaying for whoever they want. And I say that as an Als fan whose team has not experienced one iota of success in the coaching cap era. 
Force teams to live with dumb decisions and bad hires. I'm in favor of that. Discourage them from hasty hires and fires. If they can't manage that, it's their problem. If we ditch the cap, parity takes a big hit.
2 Likes
I see both sides of the argument, and although I was on your side previously, others on this forum have convinced me otherwise.
One of the main problems is the lack of coaches as a whole that comes about as a result of the cap. Some teams have many position coaches, while others have a lot less because they can’t afford it. Many believe that the relative lack of coaching in the CFL directly impacts the on field deterioration of the product. Edmonton is paying their chief cook and bottle washer much of their available budget because of past hiring mistakes and it shows in the product on the field and butts in seats, which is not something the CFL needs or can afford.
Perhaps there could be a compromise along the lines of not having fired coaches count against the cap or at least some of them. There could even be a free fired coach not count against the cap every two or three years or some such thing so as not to strap already poor quality teams. I think it is somewhat ruthless to make a team limp along with coaches after firing unproductive ones. Starting this year teams that run a better business must pay money by way of equalization to those teams that run a poorer business. This is incongruous with the coaches cap. Either teams should pay for bad coaching/management decisions like you suggest and also pay for bad business decisions and poor attendance without being helped by other teams, or they should be helped in both instances, not one or the other.
Much like the ratio and the ever changing rules for fake Canadians, the coaches cap also appears to have been ignored and circumvented more than once. Most recently Chris Jones with the Argos and Khari Jones with the Ticats don’t appear to have counted against the coaching cap because they were “consultants”. I don’t know how it works with someone like Khari whose salary presumably counted against the Als cap after he was fired. If he was paid by the Ticats shouldn’t that salary count against their cap and be wiped from the Als cap? Some say Danny coached the Als in part because of coaches cap restraints. Whether he did or not that easily could be the case on other teams in the future. What if a coach goes to the US or retires? Does their salary still count against the cap?
Although I get the concept behind it, overall the coaches cap appears to be an indecipherable mess and would seem to be inherently unfair and at odds with other league initiatives like the equalization payments I mentioned. When rules get to be this bad and don’t achieve their original intention I say scrap ‘em.
Or work on them until you get it right. 
The issue of how well the cap is implemented is a separate one from whether or not a cap should exist.
KJ had part of his Als contract paid by Hamilton in return for the consultant tag, I believe. I agree that the league should crack down on consultants. Removing the cap entirely is not a solution to me. Look, the Argos, the team that's always in trouble for not drawing fans, just won the Grey Cup against the two-time defending champs and all-around juggernaut Bombers. That's great! I have no interest in saving Edmonton from their own idiocy and wastefulness. Let them flounder until they run their team properly. And I'll say the same for every team in this league.
I honestly think the coaches' cap is much less of an issue than the limited practice time per week for players who now make enough not to work part-time jobs in the offseason. Negotiate with the PA to increase weekly practice time and you'll see a dramatic increase in game quality. Right now coaches are all running vanilla crap because it's all they have time for.
There we go. That solves the problem. The current years coaching cap is what has to be adhered to. The past firings should have nothing to do with current year operations if we want a respectable product on the field. Prior year follies should come out of some other form of punishment, ie. President and GM's salaries, shared with a loss on operations for the year that do not come into play when dividing up revenue sharing.
Yes I agree. Your suggestions could be workable. I expect there are other forms of punishment that could be implemented as well.
You didn’t opine on equalization payments. Presumably your let them sink or swim in the pool they filled attitude would lead to being opposed to equalization payments as well.
Could also add a slice off the top of the Commissioners salary for approving the idiotic GM's contract who couldn't see past two years when hiring coaches.
Explain to me what an equalization payment is again? Not sure I grasp it.
Among Ambrosie’s planned changes is the league’s first revenue-sharing agreement in more than three decades, under which the more successful franchises – such as the community-owned Saskatchewan Roughriders, Edmonton Elks and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers – subsidize money-losers owned by wealthy individuals or multibillion-dollar corporations, such as Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment’s Toronto Argonauts.
2 Likes
the league calls it “revenue sharing” but it’s essentially equalization payments by more financially successful and healthier franchises to those teams with less successful fanbase but super rich owners who don’t give a rat’s arse about their team even if they win the grey cup lol.
2 Likes
As I understand it, the basic concept starting this year is that all teams will open their books to each other. The most successful teams financially (for sure including the Bombers and Sask) will pay money to the least successful teams financially (for sure including Toronto) by way of an “equalization” payment. I think they pay into a pool that is then distributed to the have nots.
I can’t tell you the details of how that will work and am not sure that has been made public. There have been posts in past threads with some links to CFL announcements in that regard. Perhaps someone else knows more of the details.
The basic concept is helping out the poorer teams. A cynical way to look at it would be to say that the Bombers must pay the Argos for the privilege of being beaten by them in the Grey Cup.
My point was that if you aren’t running a very good business you still receive free cash from those who are. The Robin Hood rule. Your point is that if you don’t hire good or successful coaches then too bad, you must pay. The two concepts are at odds and that is why I wondered whether you would be against the new equalization rules, which conceptually would appear to be at odds with your stance on the coaches cap.
3 Likes
I don't mind revenue sharing, because it contributes to the overall health of the league. The very idea of a salary cap is community-oriented in mindset. Even if you get cash from another team after a bad year, the onus is still on you to make smart hiring and personnel decisions. The NHL has had revenue sharing since the aught-lockout era, so it's not a revolutionary concept.
1 Like