TBURGESS

The Lions had room for VAJ half of last year, so they've already incorporated both VAJ's and Rouke's salary in the SMS. Pipkin is probably getting $250K+, drop him and they're golden. Add in Burnham's $165K and they're ahead of the game. As for chopping 2-3 high end players, Burnham and Rourke are those players, they don't need to chop 2-3 more.

Assuming he starts all the games & throws 20+ TD's, that's 350ishK. $250K more than VAJ. Based on QB salary, we're in a significantly worse spot SMS wise than the Lions. Burnham's $165K salary is already off the books, and the Lions say they won't go shopping for another top end receiver. My guess is they keep VAJ, they don't sign BLM or Faj-JJ & they are still in the top 3 in the west.

You want to start this up again? What a pigeon. You: Coo Coo, Ignore the CBA Me: Section 9.02 You: Angry Coo Coo, Ignore the CBA Me: Section 9.02 You: Angrier COO COO, You're wrong Me: Prove it Round and round for weeks. Naylor: Tweets that the Lions can make an offer because the CFLPA and the CFL signed off on it. You: Kicking the pieces off the board, shitting all over everything and strutting around like you won. This proves I'm right, you're wrong, you should slink off after apologizing. Me: New information explains how they can make an offer. Why didn't you come up with that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of the ideas as to why the Lions could ignore the CBA that you and yours came up with were correct, yet you want to declare a victory lap and want me to apologize for being right about Section 9.02 all along. The whole argument could have been avoided if anyone has said, don't like the clause, get the parties of the contract of the change it. The key is and always has been, that the only way they can make that offer is if the CFL and the CFLPA have signed off on a clause change in the current CBA. I'm guessing that happened some time during last season & I said that in the last go around that you started. You were too busy kicking stuff and strutting to notice.

I don't. Turns out you don't need an account to do a search. If he re-signs with BC I'll be surprised, but it most likely means that the CFL and the CFLPA changed the 3rd year option rule for Rourke. You can't sign him to a new contract because of the rule, so change the rule never occurred to anyone around here until yesterday.

Not what I said pigeon. Contract 101 - If all parties to a contract agree to a change the contract in writing, (because the CBA is in writing, changes must also be in writing) then it can be changed. That seems to be Naylor's take and he's right. Anyone think they were making that claim before today? I remember days or weeks of OPTION means something it doesn't & one person saying that the CFL would have to sign off on any exception to the CBA rules.... me.

I gave up my twitter account when Musk took over, so if you want me to read them, you'll have to post them. Of course the CFLPA would be on board, they want the players to make the most money they can. Of course BC would be on board they want to sign Rourke without having to give up his rights. If the CFL gives Rourke and BC an out for the year 3 rule.. great, but that's not the same as saying you can do whatever you want in the 3rd year without special dispensation from the league. Which I said a long time ago.

You're right, he mentioned this coming season. Still don't see how that can happen.

Proof requires all 3 things: Offer, acceptance, & the CFL ratifying the contract. A GM saying they'll make a "competitive offer" isn't proof. It's 1 point, the first tangible one, in favour of the 'you can do whatever you want in the third year no matter what it says in the CBA' group. I'm not a lawyer and never pretended I was. Contracts 101 is enough. I thought about McEvoy's statement while running errands this morning. I think he's acknowledging that Rourke won't be in the CFL next year so the CBA draft rules won't apply to his next contract.

McEvoy says he'll can offer a “competitive contract" (What the CBA says is the maximum is a definition of a competitive offer) & will "redo his deal" which could also mean offering what the CBA says. It could also mean ignoring the CBA rules and making the CFL make the final decision on what the CBA says or make Rourke a special case because he deserves it. Proof would be Rourke getting offered a contract that is bigger than what's in black and white in the CBA and the CFL agreeing to it and knowing that it's not a special one off case. If that happens, I'll happily admit to being wrong this time. I'll be interested to see if BC picks up the the 3rd year on Rourke's contract in February. If they don't that, then all teams have equal access to Rourke should he come back to the CFL next year. If they do, then the 3rd year CBA rules stay in place even for the 'Just don't exercise the option' folks.

It doesn't say how much more (10% anyone?), nor does it debunk or undeniably disprove anything. McEvoy can say anything he wants because he knows that Rourke will be in the NFL this year. After a year in the NFL McEvoy or any other GM for that matter, can offer Rourke anything they want because he will no long be on his first draft contract. Oh yah, what a GM says in public isn't binding to anything, but the CBA is. I said that the deal is written in black & white in the CBA and I posted it several times. In the third year the option is: Option year base salary to be negotiated not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary I'm still saying that. It's not that I didn't bother to look up option year in the CBA, it's that the Option as defined in the same section of the contract is the option that is in effect for that section of contract. Note that draft pick contracts are different than all other CFL contracts & that teams can offer a new contract in any year, not just an option year, so an option year isn't special anyway. BC not picking up the option means Rourke is a FA at that moment, & BC no longer has any control over the situation. Rourke's team will know exactly how much other teams are willing to pay before signing with anyone. Paying more than the 10% after not picking up the option means BC is paying more than the CBA allows them to. The only way that works out is if the CFL gives them an out on the Draft Contract, which is something they asked for and didn't get last year. The fact that I have to re-state my position because you've got it so wrong shows your lack of reading comprehension. Just another pigeon kicking over the pieces and strutting around like he's won.

I'll believe it when I see it. FTR: Redoing his deal doesn't mean more money than the CBA option says for draft picks. My guess is that Rourke signs with an NFL team in January for north of $750,000 USD or 1 Million CAD. No way BC can be competitive with that money.

We don't have the money or the need to be active in Free Agency. We're a vet team with a lot of expensive players and the top paid QB in the league.

Not suspended. I realized that arguing with some folks around here is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks the players over, shits on the board, & then struts around like they've won the game. The locked thread is a great example. I say If you think that the 3rd year clause doesn't matter & you think that BC would keep Rourke's rights then you get to the same place as saying the 3rd year of the CBA option is the only option. A poster who can lock threads ignores the if clauses and says that I'm arguing something that I'm not then locks the thread, making him and others the pigeon's I mentioned in the first paragraph.

Congrats! You just got to the same place as me, from the other perspective. Exercise the option to keep Rourke = Stay within the CBA salary structure.

If he leaves for the NFL the Lions can retain him for next year by exercising the option in the draft contract.

You're purposely ignoring the question. FA or Lion in Feb when they have to decide? FA means every team gets to offer a contract if Rourke comes back next year. Lion means the Lion's are the only team that Rourke can come back to next year.

Rourke isn't signing a contract until he takes his NFL shot, so he's not going to sign in Feb, so that's not an option. It's FA or Lion. Which one is it?

Folks who think that BC can ignore the option year by not taking the option: If you're BC do you: a) Not take the option in Feb and make a Rourke a FA if he comes back to the CFL next year OR b) Take the option and keep Rourke as a Lion next year if he comes back knowing that means he won't get the money he deserves

I'm not disregarding the word OPTION. I'm saying it means what it says it means in the CBA in the section for draft picks. I'm saying it doesn't mean ignore the CBA rules do whatever you want at contract time.

I was gonna stop but you asked a question. It's not an argument about fairness. Fairness would be to give Rourke QB money right away, because he's a QB rather than let his passport screw him outta salary. Year 2 the Lions did ask to tear up his contract to give him more money and the league turned them down. The only difference in the 3rd year is the word OPTION. Folks around here take that to mean the team can refuse to take the option, turn Rourke into a FA & then offer Rourke a new contract that ignores the 3rd year in the CBA. I take it to mean what it says in the CBA in black and white... not more than 10% > 2nd year salary.

I don`t think either Ellingson or Schoen are back next year. We`ll need new top receiver.

What part of: not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary, is hard for people to comprehend? If teams/players/agents could say that Option means what it means in a different part of the CBA, then there is no reason to put the option in the draft picks salary section because it wouldn't mean anything. The simple fact that it's there means it's the option that is allowed. All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid. So yes, you still have to follow the salary grid even if you 'opt out' of the contract.

OPTION in the same section as draft pick salary is the OPTION that is used for draft picks. It's contract 101. Once again from the CBA: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary. Some of you have the reading comprehension of a spoon.

Option means what it says it means in the CBA.

Brady was drafted in 2019. From the CBA: Section 9.02 Length of First Contracts (starting in 2020) Therefore, Brady, and everyone before him doesn't matter to the conversation.