Around The League: 2018 Offseason

[Rich]

CFL contracts aren’t registered to the NFL .   They don’t know what’s in them or what date they are signed  to.

It is the agents through which all of this occurs.  They are the ones who know the CFL and the contracts that have been signed there.  

Of course an agent is going to do what he has to for his client.  And do whatever he can to get him to the NFZl.  Because that gets him future clients and future revenue.  

But I would put this far more on the agents then the NFL. 

[max power]

So basically, lots of CFL players have lousy agents. Especially guys who have played one year in the CFL, making the league minimum.

Which makes sense, you get what you pay for. I don't imagine the commission on $50,000 goes a long way.

[kcin94]

This still falls under the fact that teams can wipe their ass with the contract players sign, but the players are idiots/selfish if they want to get out the contract.

[Mark H.]

5 minutes ago, kcin94 said:

This still falls under the fact that teams can wipe their ass with the contract players sign, but the players are idiots/selfish if they want to get out the contract.

The pot called the kettle black and threw in some righteous indignation for good measure. 

[Goalie]

3 minutes ago, kcin94 said:

This still falls under the fact that teams can wipe their ass with the contract players sign, but the players are idiots/selfish if they want to get out the contract.

In reality... Its 1 GM of 1 team who wont let his players go try... 29 year old Butler had zero NFL interest last year... Now at 30 he does? Ooook. 

[Goalie]

1 minute ago, Mark H. said:

The pot called the kettle black and threw in some righteous indignation for good measure. 

Tell that to the CFLPA who agreed to this tho. 

[Goalie]

So a year ago... Nobody gave a crap about Wilder or Butler... Nobody... No NFL teams gave a crap about them.. None.. Zero.. Zilch.. Nadda.  

Argos give these 2 a chance when nobody else does... Now they are whining and bitching about it? When a year ago nobody gave a **** about either of them? 

[Mark H.]

3 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Tell that to the CFLPA who agreed to this tho. 

What for?  Most teams don't do it.  

All they need to do is let him go and scout for another running back

How well do they think he's going to perform for them now?

[Mark H.]

10 minutes ago, Goalie said:

So a year ago... Nobody gave a crap about Wilder or Butler... Nobody... No NFL teams gave a crap about them.. None.. Zero.. Zilch.. Nadda.  

Argos give these 2 a chance when nobody else does... Now they are whining and bitching about it? When a year ago nobody gave a **** about either of them? 

That's not unique to Wilder & Butler - which player came to play in the CFL for any other reason?

[Goalie]

18 minutes ago, kcin94 said:

This still falls under the fact that teams can wipe their ass with the contract players sign, but the players are idiots/selfish if they want to get out the contract.

NFL teams can do the same. 

[mbrg]

1 hour ago, Stickem said:

You have to wonder why our league allows this b.s....and where the players get the audacity to walk on a signed contract...The NFL has to be reminded that these players are legally bound and to respect that fact

Absolutely.

I'm sure Darian Durant's cheque for $130,000 just got placed in the Allouette's outgoing mail.

[Mark H.]

14 minutes ago, Goalie said:

NFL teams can do the same. 

Depends on the contract - usually a portion of their contracts are guaranteed

With mostly the players at the top of the salary heap sitting at the negotiating table for both leagues, that is very unlikely to change

In the CFL, guaranteed money for lower rung players means less money for National ratio busters & QBs

It's a nasty business, which is why I side with the players, especially the ones making the minimum or sitting on the practice roster

[Bigblue204]

31 minutes ago, Goalie said:

So a year ago... Nobody gave a crap about Wilder or Butler... Nobody... No NFL teams gave a crap about them.. None.. Zero.. Zilch.. Nadda.  

Argos give these 2 a chance when nobody else does... Now they are whining and bitching about it? When a year ago nobody gave a **** about either of them? 

That's pretty much how football works...one year a team like say....the Raiders have a solid defence and look to be rounding a corner...the very next year they basically suck, their D has taken a huge step back and they need to rethink things, making them go looking under all rocks/leagues etc to see about someone who might be able to help them. Interest isn't "COME PLAY FOR US, YOU"LL BE A STAR!!! LIFE LONG TEAM MEMBER!!!" It's probably more in line with, "hey you put up some nice numbers, wanna come try out?" considering the money any player would basically be dumb to say "no sorry you didn't like me last year". So yes, one year someone might have no NFL interest, the next they  might. I mean Jeff Fisher kept getting head coaching positions for christ sake.

[Tracker]

The bottom line is that if you do not have diminished capacity and sign a contract, you are bound to it. Period. Even if the contract is horribly lop-sided, you are bound to it, and it happens all the time. If the Argos want to create some goodwill, that is their prerogative to void the contract, but then a precedent has been set that other players can reference in a tort suit. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Stickem]

1 hour ago, mbrg said:

Absolutely.

I'm sure Darian Durant's cheque for $130,000 just got placed in the Allouette's outgoing mail.

So when do we tell Darian that his cheque is on the way and when he should expect it...lol...Jesting about someone else's cash loss is never wise BUT I'm sure Darian knew when he signed on the dotted line that the possibility existed his bonus could spring wings...Thems the rules for players...not so for management, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles

[Nickthesizz]

I don't understand is why would the Argos hold this stance? There is no upside for them in holding these players to these contracts. The players have become very disgruntled and will now never come back to play for them regardless of if they make the NFL or not. Also sets a very poor precedent for the Argos as the players talk and might make it tough for them to sign players in free agency and NFL cast offs.

[Mark H.]

42 minutes ago, tracker said:

The bottom line is that if you do not have diminished capacity and sign a contract, you are bound to it. Period. Even if the contract is horribly lop-sided, you are bound to it, and it happens all the time. If the Argos want to create some goodwill, that is their prerogative to void the contract, but then a precedent has been set that other players can reference in a tort suit. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We're all aware off and can name several players / situations with whom that precedence has already been set.  I teach some contract Law in grade 12.  There is definitely wording in  Canadian law about the contract needing to be satisfactory for both parties.  But there are very few CFL players who could afford a civil law suit, and those who could don't really stand to gain anything from it - so there goes that threat.

[SpeedFlex27]

3 hours ago, max power said:

So basically, lots of CFL players have lousy agents. Especially guys who have played one year in the CFL, making the league minimum.

Which makes sense, you get what you pay for. I don't imagine the commission on $50,000 goes a long way.

Kids, especially Canadian ones coming out of university are broke. They take whatever help they can get. Unless a Canadian player is figured to go in the top 2 or 3 rounds they won't be represented by a top agent.

[WBBFanWest]

4 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Sorry, but I'm with Wilder on this one.  On his side the contract is legally binding, on the team's side it's a piece of toilet paper that can be flushed any time, if they no longer want / need his services.  

Other CFL players have been released so they could take a shot at the NFL, which does create a precedence, which by the way can become law if it happens often enough.  Just ask yourselves which scenario is more common: giving players the opportunity for an NFL shot, or forcing them to abide by a contract that the other side can thrash at any time.

As for the NFL not being allowed to speak to Wilder while he's under contract, methinks the CFL would need to get their own house in order before they tackle that issue.  Let's not pretend it doesn't happen before free agency in the CFL - it's obvious that it does.

This does not look good, and it is not a good way to encourage talented players to come to the CFL.

While again, I really don't have an issue with a player deciding to sit out the remainder of a contract, I will point out that it is somewhat unusual for a guy with less than a full season under his belt to expect that he should be entitled to be released/renegotiate just because he feels he should.  If he was a veteran player that had built up a reputation as a solid player, maybe, 

As for the idea that a team can cancel a contract at anytime, while it might not seem fair, it is simple supply and demand economics.  Nine CFL teams versus hundreds of players that couldn't get into the NFL but still want to play means that the CFL holds most of the cards.  Not fair?  Maybe, but again, everyone knows the rules going in.  Wilder is prepared to sit out and that's his right.  The Argos can refuse to allow him out of his contract, that's their right. 

I agree with you completely on the tampering stuff.  I'm confident that it happens all the time so no one should pretend shock or outrage.

[WBBFanWest]

44 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

We're all aware off and can name several players / situations with whom that precedence has already been set.  I teach some contract Law in grade 12.  There is definitely wording in  Canadian law about the contract needing to be satisfactory for both parties.  But there are very few CFL players who could afford a civil law suit, and those who could don't really stand to gain anything from it - so there goes that threat.

That's funny.  You might want to check a bit more on that.  If you find something solid, give Rogers/Bell/Telus a call and tell them that they are in big trouble.

[Mark H.]

32 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

That's funny.  You might want to check a bit more on that.  If you find something solid, give Rogers/Bell/Telus a call and tell them that they are in big trouble.

A contract can favour one party over the other, but one party cannot 'hold all the cards' so to speak.

 https://npc.gvsd.ca/web/rschroeder/2013 - Canadian Law PowerPoints/PPT 15 - Elements of a Contract.pdf

Page 9: Consideration

[Mark H.]

41 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

While again, I really don't have an issue with a player deciding to sit out the remainder of a contract, I will point out that it is somewhat unusual for a guy with less than a full season under his belt to expect that he should be entitled to be released/renegotiate just because he feels he should.  If he was a veteran player that had built up a reputation as a solid player, maybe, 

Given the way he played last year, one can see why teams would be interested and why he believes he has a shot.

[17to85]

The simple fact of the matter is that unless you are the cream of the crop as a football player there is always going to be someone younger and cheaper and just as good as you looking to take your job, and they're going to get it by being cheaper than you are. 

 

It's a numbers game, there are a metric assload of players coming out of the NCAA every year all looking for professional work and just not that many professional positions available. 

[WinnipegGordo]

2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Given the way he played last year, one can see why teams would be interested and why he believes he has a shot.

NFL teams are supposed to contact CFL clubs if they are interested in working out a player under contract.  For example Walters would know exactly how much interest there was in Bond based on how many teams contacted him.

Then again maybe NFL teams realize these guys are still signed for another year so they speak to the players' agents instead.

[WBBFanWest]

3 hours ago, Mark H. said:

A contract can favour one party over the other, but one party cannot 'hold all the cards' so to speak.

 https://npc.gvsd.ca/web/rschroeder/2013 - Canadian Law PowerPoints/PPT 15 - Elements of a Contract.pdf

Page 9: Consideration

Seriously?    Common sense says that it is inherent in a contract that parties exchange something for something else .  Otherwise there would be no need for a contract.   That's not at all the same as "satisfactory to both parties" which is what you claimed earlier.