We have discussed the Tate issue to death already.
But the Eddie Davis rule allows teams to use the 9 game list. If the player is available before then, they can pull him off the list. His salaries would count just like he was on the one game list. So there is no excuse, 6 weeks is fast for a broken bone, even Eddie Davis last they figured a minimum of 6 to 7 weeks. But he was ready in 4. Now if it happens they call him of the list and count the 4 games.
Its funny that 6 out of eight teams handle the injury situation well. Calgary lost 4 defensive starters and released players prior to the first game and lost them to other teams. Yet the riders seem to have their roster backed up in the Ir funny how that works.Yet Tillman complains about injury woes and yet the other teams have if not more injuries and no complaints why is that?
Really? I understood that once put on the 9-game list, you’re stuck on it until 9 games have passed and too bad if you are ready before that? If I recall correctly, Eddie Davis didn’t play the 5th to 9th game even though he was ready after the 4th game … because he could not be reactivated, I understood. The salaries of players while on the 9-game did not/do not count against the salary limit but I don’t think they could hop off before the 9 games was up.
I believe the riders have front loaded contracts as well like 20 of them. Again it has nothing to do with injuries it has everything to do with hiding players in the IR. Tate for example two years and counting explain that one.Is this dejevu? nobody said the Riders had no front ended contracts. But they have significantly less in total dollars invested than ANY OTHER TEAM. The Esks likely had the second smallest number and were 50% more than the Riders, if I recall correctly. And some teams **cough**Stamps**cough** were likely double, even triple the amount. So [b]if[/b] the Riders have 100,000 per year invested in the loophole, and the Stamps have 300,000 invested, and the Riders were 50,000 over and the Stamps were 100,000 under, in real dollars spent, the Riders were 150,000 over the cap and the Stamps were 200,000 over.
I’m holding back on this reply because I do respect a lot of the Stamps posters on here. I think part of the reason the Stamps are able to manage the salary as well as they are is because they were so cheap on the defensive side, which directly reflected the product they put on the field back there last year. Part of the problem was Creehan as well.
It is the “Eddie Davis Rule”. Twice a year a player can be removed from the 9 game early, but the player’s entire salary then counts against the cap.
Of course the Stamps, having had possibly the fewest number of injuries in the league last year, plus see my comments about the loophole…
The two teams that were over the cap last year also coincidently were the two teams with the highest number of injuries (in dollars). Go figure…
You might be mixing up last year and this year. Last year, 6 out of 8 teams managed to be under the cap; that doesn’t necessarily mean that they “handled the injury situation well”. They may well have had less “injury situation” to handle (I don’t have a source to link to but I recall that even the CFL said that Sask had the most days lost to injury than any other team last year).
You may be right for this year that, so far, other teams might have even more injury woes than Sask so far. Teams like Winnipeg and Edmonton already have been hit hard. If they continue, they could very well have the same challenge this year as Sask had last year, just that nobody asked them yet or, if they have, no one published their comments on this formum like the Tillman interview has been.
Yes the Eddie Davis Rule came into effect this year at the start of the season. I think it is a good move and should address a large number of concerns.
it is better than nothing, but I guarantee we had better plans discussed on these forums than that one.
Ah, I see. It’s starting this year - I learned something today; guess I won’t die today.
edited
Community owned teams pushed for the cap and at the time Winnipeg even complained it was too high.
I agree its too low. There should not be a cap in a league where the average salary is 70k and in a country where the cost of living varies so much that most national companies even have different pay scales for the same positions in different markets.
CFLPA is very, very poorly represented. Alan Eagleson would be an upgrade…
I still say there should be a six game and a nine game list rather than just a nine game list. It just seems to make more sense to have more options available. And then remove the ability to take a guy off of the nine game list.
Errrr Ummmm we had enough brains to win the Grey Cup. We’ve also enough brains to win every game we’ve played this year so far.
Handcuffed for years to come? Errrr Ummmm you were talking about brains?
I’m not sure but from what I understand you’ve got that last statement completely backwards.
I’m not saying I’m right because I don’t know all the details, but it is blatantly obvious that you are just another CFL fan that is jealous of the Riders.
Larry?
Anyway, these issues have been discussed ad nausea before, with all the links, all the facts right at your finger tips. The loophole was the last gasp of the uneven playing field and sure, if the Riders had wanted to go $1 million in debt in 2006, they could have used the loophole more extensively. For what ever reason, those silly incompetant Riders decided to actually spend within their budget when taking advantage of the loophole.
No excuses have been made, none need to be made. The salary cap is working just fine, and the Riders are working within the structure just like every other team. If a few fans such as yourself need to take off their socks to count to 20, who in blazes cares…
Yep, it's larry...no surprise there...tigers don't typically change their stripes, and this one is no exception...
Hang on ....The "reason" for the salary cap was for small market teams....at the time Ottawa and the two prairie community owned teams complaining about being able to compete...
Well considering the above since teams can spend as much money as they want on the nine game IR without any penalties this SMS dosen't answer any of the above reasons why it was created because the "cost" to the teams payroll includes the IR list. The whole thing is a big joke, the only thing its done is cheat long time veterans who were benefiting late in their carreer has a reward for having been underpaid early in their carreers.
Of course a development QB or a depth guy trying to keep his carreer going will accept to go on the 9GIL. And allowing teams to pull guys from it makes it even easyer for teams to convince a player to accept that.
So if a team has a 4.2m payroll and then spends 1m on the IR what's the point of the SMS. This thing is a marketing ploy that just makes things miserable to manage rosters and adversely affects the on field product, hurts veteran players.
Get ride of it.
You still have not answered why the riders have a second roster on the Ir list.
As already stated, the Riders have five players on the 9-game IR, '05.