Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taman: football ops cap bad idea, LaPo & Elizondo should've been able to interview

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by CalgaryRiderFan View Post

    On the subject of producing things what are some of the things Farhan has been so grossly incorrect on?
    IMWT

    Comment


    • #92
      Shocking that a GM thinks the operations staff SMS and roster limit aren't good. Also shocking a GM thinks he should be able to interview coaches from other teams, while restricting player movement with manditory longer term non-guaranteed contracts. Pretty sure most GM's would have these exact same thoughts. Wally and Popp also want to tie players into long term contracts... they just realized it costs them signing players as some would rather just wait it out for an NFL gig and now would rather look at the two new leagues in the U.S.

      Also good to hear LaPolice is still butt hurt about having to live up to the contract he signed... thoughts and prayers.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Mustard Tiger View Post

        So hereís an example: A six sack guy right now is worth 80k and a ten sack guy is worth 160k. How is that going to be made up in incentives? What happens when you change a DEís role and he has to drop into coverage more. He just gets paid less now?

        A flat base or everyone gets paid the same is a very minor league idea.
        Given your arguement parameters, let's say player A is making 80k, and player B is making 160k.

        Both players had a 60k base contract.

        Player A, who is a rookie, negotiated into his contract that for every 5 games he starts/plays 50% of defensive plays he get a $5000 bonus, He also gets another $5000 for every 5 sacks.

        Player B is a little more of a proven veteran, in his contract he negotiated $2500 per sack or Int, he also negotiated a play time bonus of $2000 per game he starts or plays 50% of defensive plays(max $36k). He is also chasing the teams MODP award, worth $5000 and the leagues MODP worth another $10000. On top of all that, if he plays at least 1 play in 6 consecutive games (or is on injured list) he receives $14000, can be achieved up to 3 times in a season(Max $42k).

        The team also puts into place a reward for each award. MOP, MOR, MODP, etc... at $5,000 for a team nod and $10,000 for winning the award.

        Scenario 1 (yours)

        Player A Salary assuming 18 games started and 6 sacks = $80,000
        Player B salary assuming 18 games started and 10 sacks, 0 ints = $163,000

        Scenario 2 (injury)

        Player A salary if injured in game 1, after recording a sack, and misses the season = $60,000
        Player B Salary if injured game 1, after recording a sack, and misses the season = $105,500 ($63,500 from base +play time; $42,000 from consecutive game/injury time)

        But the potential earning is higher.

        Scenario 3 (GC All-star season)

        Player A has a break out season and records 10 sacks, and wins the MORookie award = $100,000
        Player B has a break out year and get 21 sacks, 2 interceptions and wins MODP award = $225,500


        Again these are sample numbers, off made up negotiations to support the numbers you put forward...
        Last edited by Itzgodzilla; 02-06-2019, 11:03 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Everything he said I agree with

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Itzgodzilla View Post

            Given your arguement parameters, let's say player A is making 80k, and player B is making 160k.

            Both players had a 60k base contract.

            Player A, who is a rookie, negotiated into his contract that for every 5 games he starts/plays 50% of defensive plays he get a $5000 bonus, He also gets another $5000 for every 5 sacks.

            Player B is a little more of a proven veteran, in his contract he negotiated $2500 per sack or Int, he also negotiated a play time bonus of $2000 per game he starts or plays 50% of defensive plays(max $36k). He is also chasing the teams MODP award, worth $5000 and the leagues MODP worth another $10000. On top of all that, if he plays at least 1 play in 6 consecutive games (or is on injured list) he receives $14000, can be achieved up to 3 times in a season(Max $42k).

            The team also puts into place a reward for each award. MOP, MOR, MODP, etc... at $5,000 for a team nod and $10,000 for winning the award.

            Scenario 1 (yours)

            Player A Salary assuming 18 games started and 6 sacks = $80,000
            Player B salary assuming 18 games started and 10 sacks, 0 ints = $163,000

            Scenario 2 (injury)

            Player A salary if injured in game 1, after recording a sack, and misses the season = $60,000
            Player B Salary if injured game 1, after recording a sack, and misses the season = $105,500 ($63,500 from base +play time; $42,000 from consecutive game/injury time)

            But the potential earning is higher.

            Scenario 3 (GC All-star season)

            Player A has a break out season and records 10 sacks, and wins the MORookie award = $100,000
            Player B has a break out year and get 21 sacks, 2 interceptions and wins MODP award = $225,500


            Again these are sample numbers, off made up negotiations to support the numbers you put forward...
            So they miss out on a ton of money if they get hurt. Good luck with that one. Teams would love this model Iím sure but the players are getting screwed big time.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Mustard Tiger View Post

              So they miss out on a ton of money if they get hurt. Good luck with that one. Teams would love this model Iím sure but the players are getting screwed big time.
              How is this different than any incentive based contract they have now, you tell a player that he could roll the dice and have a 220k year - 110k year, or have a 160k... players will likely lean towards the ability to get more money.

              And the 110k example would have been for being injured in the first game... after a single sack and having no other impact for the year, which is very unlikely for most players.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Itzgodzilla View Post

                How is this different than any incentive based contract they have now, you tell a player that he could roll the dice and have a 220k year - 110k year, or have a 160k... players will likely lean towards the ability to get more money.

                And the 110k example would have been for being injured in the first game... after a single sack and having no other impact for the year, which is very unlikely for most players.
                No one to my knowledge has such an incentive laden deal unless they are incentives that work to their advantage, like a backup QB. Players donít have the majority of their pay wrapped up in incentives. Itís very different.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by IMWT View Post

                  You keep hanging onto the disgruntled theory Stronson. Lapo was the guest speaker at Manitoba Junior Football gala a few days ago and specifically stated he was very much looking forward to the coming season with the Bombers. He did not appear "disgruntled" in any way. Since, no one can actually produce a single statement from Lapo indicating otherwise I will go with what Lapo actually said over a Farhan says. Particularly when Farhan has been on a roll of being grossly incorrect over the past few months. You believe what you want to believe...but that doesn't make it so.

                  Originally posted by go riders View Post


                  IMWT , I take it you are backing away from your statement about Farhan being on a roll with grossly incorrect statements the past few months? You believe what you want to believe...but that doesn't make it so.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Bump... some of us are curious what Farhan has been so far off the mark with...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mustard Tiger View Post

                      No one to my knowledge has such an incentive laden deal unless they are incentives that work to their advantage, like a backup QB. Players donít have the majority of their pay wrapped up in incentives. Itís very different.
                      If the majority of the contract is based on individual stats, such as sacks or interceptions, from the example used, that doesn't really lend itself to good team play. Players become focused on making their numbers and get frustrated if they are asked to do something for the good of the team that keeps them from reaching these numbers that maximize their contracts. While incentives/bonuses have their place, if they make up too large a portion of the contracts they could take away from team success, even though guys may be maximizing their incentive pay.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ChuckT View Post

                        You miss the memo when the league introduced a rule specially dealing with this? If Lapo doesn't have an "out", which I'm not even sure he could do, there is a rule that doesn't allow him to leave without his team's approval. Why do you think that rule was implemented, if no team had an issue with this practice?

                        Off the top of my head, teams had an issue with Maas, Thorpe, Elizondo and Lapo.

                        I'm not saying they should or shouldn't ultimately allow it, but to suggest that teams should willingly make an opposition stronger, while their own team weaker is just plain stupid. It's a organization decision that they need to make, and not an easy one. And personally, as a Rider fan - I'd prefer we didn't do it either. Coaches have a lengthy career, if the opening doesn't work out AND they keep doing their job, another chance will open up.

                        As for it impacting future coaches, highly unlikely. These are guys who can't get NFL or NCAA jobs... it's not like they have a plethora of options and often then guys with no CFL experience are doing it as they have little, to no, other options. And in fact, it's quite often, an ex-player who are turning to coaching. I'm sure it will barely register with any coaches decision.
                        Dude what are you talking about? WHAT "new rule" doesn't allow coaches to leave without the team's approval? There is no such "new rule." That's what the contract is for! Why have a "new rule" to require a coach to get his team's permission to get let out of his contract when that's what the contract does in the first place. Like, that's the whole point of the contract: to cement the relationship between coach and team, and getting out of that contract always - ALWAYS - required both parties agreeing. And, that being said, it has always been standard practice for teams to let their coaches go for career advancement. And for good reason. You're referring to Orridge's ruling that Noel Thorpe had to remain property of the Als after he resigned his position as DC in order to try and sign on as DC with the RedBlacks.

                        Not even close to the same scenario we are talking about now. As to your assertion that coaches are guys who can't get NFL or NCAA jobs - I call B.S. to that. A lot of them probably could get assistant jobs in the NCAA if they were so inclined - and get the free education for their kids that comes with it. The fact is, it is standard practice not just in the CFL but in the wider world of football to let coaches advance. So if the CFL is the one organization that hinders that then the CFL becomes the least desirable place to be a coach.

                        Identifying as a Rider fan and publicly stating support for a stupid policy that would hurt the team going forward doesn't strengthen your argument. The Riders were right to let Jones go, the Bombers were wrong for not letting LaPo interview, and you're completely shortsighted for seeing it the way you do.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ChuckT View Post

                          You miss the memo when the league introduced a rule specially dealing with this? If Lapo doesn't have an "out", which I'm not even sure he could do, there is a rule that doesn't allow him to leave without his team's approval. Why do you think that rule was implemented, if no team had an issue with this practice?

                          Off the top of my head, teams had an issue with Maas, Thorpe, Elizondo and Lapo.

                          I'm not saying they should or shouldn't ultimately allow it, but to suggest that teams should willingly make an opposition stronger, while their own team weaker is just plain stupid. It's a organization decision that they need to make, and not an easy one. And personally, as a Rider fan - I'd prefer we didn't do it either. Coaches have a lengthy career, if the opening doesn't work out AND they keep doing their job, another chance will open up.

                          As for it impacting future coaches, highly unlikely. These are guys who can't get NFL or NCAA jobs... it's not like they have a plethora of options and often then guys with no CFL experience are doing it as they have little, to no, other options. And in fact, it's quite often, an ex-player who are turning to coaching. I'm sure it will barely register with any coaches decision.
                          the "new rule" is kinda known as the Ottawa rule. It dictates that if you expect compensation for allowing someone to go elsewhere that it must be agreed upon and in writing in advance of the interview. It has nothing to do with a coach being granted permission or not. Nothing has changed there.
                          #keepthepromise

                          Everybody knows you never go full Gary.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by go riders View Post

                            Comment

                            Announcement

                            Collapse
                            No announcement yet.

                            Announcement

                            Collapse
                            No announcement yet.
                            Working...
                            X