Wetenhall & Ted square off on salary cap

He is still allowed to voice his opinion. Like I said, just because he doesnt like it does not mean he will not follow it..... Maybe the league should look a little more closely at the "Yes Men"

Well maybe he should have viced these concerns earlier which I am sure he did and did not get the attention of the majority. I believe the majority does out weigh the minority right Ro. The fact that the SMS may need some changes as it goes is not the issue it very well may need some changes. But we are into the first week and this guy is bitching already. Why did he not get his way? To dam bad as far as I am concerned. The health of the league comes first. If he does not like it sell the team he has that right.

He did voice his opinions all along....actually he hasn't stopped.
The point is that he is against it and is automatically accused(for lack of a better word) of breaking it....
Often its the ones that publicly agree with it are the ones to look out for.

Hmmm I did not say he was breaking it. But the point is it was voted on and now it is in play. So if he wishes for chnages he needs to convince other owners to vote in his ideas. The problem is if they do not get voted in to the SMS quit pouting!

Well what do you think he is trying to do? He has to speak out in order to do so,

He obviously failed the first time. Why does he not wait until at least the season is over do you think that would not be better. This guy figures no mean maybe!

I know I've said this before, but full disclosure on player salaries is the way to go. Just about every other sports league does this, you can go to the The Hockey's News' website and find out who is being paid what, and the length of his contract. Even salaries of guys that are in the minors are disclosed.

I think we pretty much agree how the SMS does need an upward adjustment and I do understand there is a mechanism on an annual basis which triggers same based on league revenues.
I have always said the starting point should have been $5M per team with a franchise player(used previously in the late 90's I believe) excemption.
All players on the taxi squad and injury list should be exempt from same.

If Cohon sticks to his guns and rejects Wetenhall's proposed changes, how long before Bob begins to cry for the head of the commissioner on a pike?

Because football is in the news now!
Waiting for the season to end will not have the same impact as now.
If he convinces them now, changes can prob be made for 2008. If he waits till the off season the changes prob wont be made till 2009.

Besides would you rather he played the hypocrite like many of the other owners did? “Yes boss! Yes boss! Great Idea Boss!” Then load up the contracts with signing bonuses last year because they don’t count towards the cap this year! That alone shows that many owners say they want the cap but will use any loophole that that can find!

[/b]

If the Als missed the boat on that, which I’m sure they didn’t, than should the rest of the teams in the league have to accomadate him for it ? Not likely. Everybody knows he is against it, but it is only going to be until those those frontloaded contracts expiry in the next 2 to 3 years, which by then the if revenues have increased, means so to does the spending limit.

How can he make an arguement against it, when it is the only thing keeping the league viable ? Speaking out against it only makes it seem like he doesn’t give a rats a$$ about the health of the league, whether that’s the case or not. Short term pain for long term gain was the only way to ensure the viability of all franchises in the league, which should be the ultimate goal of every responsible owner.

I believe the cap is needed without any loopeholes that any team may use. While maybe it might be a little low now it will be reviewed after each season. And yes, players saleries should be diclosed. The loss of all canadian draft picks can now occur if some owner becomes a rogue. No teams should get any exemption player (quarterback). Perhaps their could even be a max. placed on quarterbacks in order to maintain a proper perspective for the rest of player saleries. If players figure they are too good to play for less they can try a different league to play in. We cannot jepardise the CFL as a whole. People are quick to forget that many teams we in in troble a few years back and almost folded (Calgary, Sask., Winnipeg, Toronto, Hamilton and of coarse Ottawa) Montreal was gone before too! Ro you said Montreals owner was smart-- to me that sounds stupid and very Greedy. Enough said. Just my opinion and I have been a CFL fan since the early 70's. :thdn:

The point is…What is the point?
Everyone claimed it was the only way to keep the league viable yet they ALL front loaded the contracts!
They all said it had to be done yet they used a loophole!

Not to pick on one anyone team here but was not SSK one of the biggest complainers about the deep pockets of the private owners while all along they had one of the highest payrolls?

We have already had complaints and finger pointing towards certain teams yet in reality anyone who used the loophole has no-respect for the cap to begin with.
Don’t tell me that any of them(Mtl included) gives a rats ass about it. We all know that they will use any loophole there is, so why bother?

So Ro you feel that they should not have bothered with the SMS and kept it the way it was. That is wrong. You have to start somewhere and they did yes the front loaded contracts because the teams could take advantage one time only. Obviously someone that owns an eastern team was not smart enough right so everyone is wrong. Give me a break. There will be changes in the future and the changes will probably be the payroll amounts as the CFL attracts more revenue. What gets me Ro is the Montreal owner has already lost his argument in voting but still bitches about it. Why is that? Just maybe he knew his team will need to rebuild and require high price free agents to do that. The viablility of this league depends on a solution not the old status quo. Yes, the Riders did have a high payroll to remain competitive but how long Ro would they be able to do that do you suppose. What if we late your moronic owner of your team have his way then we would be watching maybe four team in the league vs eight. And what about reviving the Ottawa team do you not think the SMS will help in doing this vs the status quo. Please Ro you make me laugh. :roll:

Remember I was against the SMS before they created it. But now you can see that the future of the league requires it and that changed my mind.

The bottom line is!

If you voted for the cap and used the front loading loophole.....you are a hypocrite!
You cannot tell me that anyone who did both cares about the viability of the league!
You cannot say that "We must put an end to the spending".....then spend millions because its still legal.

The difference is that BW was against the cap then, and is against it now. He obviously does not say one thing and do another like most of the other owners!

On a side note I would like to see the entire article from the newspaper. Not just selective quotes in a forum.

It has nothing to do with the fact he did not take advantage of the loophole right Ro! The problem as I see it is BW required high priced free agents to rebuild the success of his team. With the front loading this did not occur. It sort of like being asked to a party. You think it is a costume party and show up as a turkey and find that it is a black tie affair. Why is it not right for teams to keep their players for a few years after the start of the SMS. It seems everyone did this including BW to a degree.
Again you have to start somewhere and in a couple of years this process will be more of an effect. I find it funny that the majority of the owners agreed to this yet BW pouts and says it is unfair. I can tell you one thing even with the front loaded contracts this is better then where it was before the SMS. BW does not like it get out and sell the team.

You cannot say that "We must put an end to the spending".....then spend millions because its still legal.
You gots to keep up with the Joneses and it was ok cuz everybody was doing it.

Do you know for a fact that he didn’t?
Do you know for a fact that he did?
Again all he is doing is voicing his opinion,’
He franchise player idea was already discussed here. Why is it a problem is he talks about it?

No it was not OK!
He only shows that the owners who voted for it are hypocrites!
If there is a cap there is a cap. The fact that everyone was doing it only shows that no-one really wants it and only Wetenhall has the guts to say it!

[url=http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/sports/story.html?id=ca386b3a-1396-4107-8ccb-d212b6f66e5c]http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/n ... 12b6f66e5c[/url]

Salary cap needs tweaking, Als owner Wetenhall says
'Because we're in a fan-driven league, we need our veterans to attract crowds'
HERB ZURKOWSKY, The Gazette
Published: Friday, June 29, 2007
As the Canadian Football League prepares to monitor its teams' spending habits, one of its most influential governors has expressed his concerns over the newly imposed salary management system.

"The salary cap, while approved by the governors, needs some very serious adjustments," Alouettes owner Robert Wetenhall said yesterday, in a shocking disclosure. "Montreal will propose some adjustments to the guidelines." The league has instituted a $4.05-million salary cap this season. Teams must provide full disclosure regarding player salaries, bonuses and side deals. The league hired a forensic accountant, Trevor Hardy, who came to Montreal last week to examine the Als' books. There are financial sanctions against any team exceeding that ceiling.

"We will do our best to work cooperatively with the other CFL franchises in terms of honouring the salary management system ... to set guidelines and an economic model," Wetenhall said.

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****"Because we're in a fan-driven league, where ticket sales generate most of our income, we need to have exceptions to the cap, which allow us to keep our veteran players, the veterans who attract fans to our games." Asked if the Als would adhere to the cap, Wetenhall refused to comment.

Montreal has played in five Grey Cups since 2000, losing all but one of those games. And it would appear Wetenhall is determined to get the team back there again - at any cost.

The owner isn't frustrated by his team's futility in championship games.

"I look at it the other way ... the glass being half-filled," he said. "To appear in five of the last seven is a significant success story." Notes - Als cornerback Mark Estelle, as expected, will miss tonight's game against Saskat-chewan with an injury to his right shoulder. ... Receiver Eric Deslauriers, the Als' first-round (seventh overall) draft choice in 2006, has been released by the Pittsburgh Steelers. ... Rush-end Tim Cheatwood, attempting to recover from offseason knee surgery, has been placed on the nine-game injured list, making him unavailable until at least early September.

hzurkowsky@ thegazette.canwest.com

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2007
other stories

Based upon those statements in bold, I would say his motives are strictly driven by his own interests and to hell with the everyone else.

So whats the problem?