Find someone who will look at you the same way Tburg looks at Rourke.

10 hours ago, KshyGuy said:

I don't know for sure one way or the other....but I admit that I don't know.

12 hours ago, Tracker said:

Should Mitchell land in Hamilton, and he is likely to, he will be the best quarterback in the East and the TiCats immediately become the odds-on favourite to win the division. Mitchell is not the force he once was, but he is still intelligent and knowledgeable about the CFL game. and can compensate for the loss of athleticism.

I don’t agree. I think with blm the east is still a hot mess where no one stands taller than the potential changes in fa. The cats still have a piss poor line play no running game and an offense that is beyond long in the tooth. 

I just wanna ask one question:

How many 3rd year starting National Offensive Linemen are playing for more than 80K?

The only way Rourke is back for 80k next year is if he has the dumbest agent of all time, or he himself is the dumbest guy of all time and chooses to do so. I don't think TBurg has even the smallest inkling of understanding about what an option year is.  Yes, the team could force him to come back for 80k next year if they are monumental idiots and are prepared to almost certainly lose him to even the flimsiest NFL opportunity. Will they? I doubt it very highly. They work out terms for a new contract, then BC doesn't exercise it's option on the 3rd year and 5 minutes later sign him to a shiny new deal in free agency. Literally happens all the time with many players.

You can't do it in the first 2 years of a draft pick rookie contract because it is the standard player agreement portion of the contract, but the whole reason they made the 3rd year an option year is so that teams didn't lose 3rd year NATS because of a wonky pay scale. It allows the team flex to renegotiate if they want to do so.

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by GCn20

14 hours ago, KshyGuy said:

The Lions have the OPTION to sign Rourke for another season at the 2+1 standard rate. What do you think happens if the Lions do not choose to use that option???

Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary - That's the option. It's in black and white in the CBA. How is this hard for anyone to understand.

No one can point to anything in the CBA that says otherwise, because it doesn't exist.

If the Lions could offer Rourke more this year, they would have. In fact, they asked the league for an out of the CBA to pay Rourke more.

Folks are pointing to the word option without reading what the options actually are even after I bolded it. A Canadian Draft Pick's option year in their first contract is not to exceed 10%  of the 2nd year base salary.

 

 

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by TBURGESS

10 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

No one can point to anything in the CBA that says otherwise, because it doesn't exist.

Because no one else is dumb enough to believe that the option MUST be used if they want him back.

20 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

 

If the Lions could offer Rourke more this year, they would have. In fact, they asked the league for an out of the CBA to pay Rourke more.

 

 

Source?

8 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Because no one else is dumb enough to believe that the option MUST be used if they want him back.

How can you read: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary & not understand that is the only option for a pay raise?

It doesn't say or ignore this. It doesn't say or a completely new contract that's greater than 10%. It doesn't say unless it's a QB. It doesn't say unless they have NFL tryouts. It doesn't say unless they are obviously worth more. It doesn't say you can do anything else, because it is the option, not one of the options.

If Rourke comes back next year, the CFL will have to exempt him from the CBA to give him the money he deserves.

7 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Source?

Twitter mid-year.

 

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Twitter mid-year.

 

😂

6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

How can you read: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary & not understand that is the only option for a pay raise?

It doesn't say or ignore this. It doesn't say or a completely new contract that's greater than 10%. It doesn't say unless it's a QB. It doesn't say unless they have NFL tryouts. It doesn't say unless they are obviously worth more. It doesn't say you can do anything else, because it is the option, not one of the options.

If Rourke comes back next year, the CFL will have to exempt him from the CBA to give him the money he deserves.

Twitter mid-year.

 

You are wrong on both accounts. The Lions asked to be able to terminate his SPC THIS year to pay him more, this year before he hit his option and were declined. Option year only needs to be negotiated if the team chooses to pick up the option. If they do not, they can release him and re-sign him to a contract of their choosing but risk losing him to another team should Rourke decide to pull a fast one. You keep thinking that the option year is mandatory and it IS NOT.

Please do us all a favor and look up what an option year is. You keep arguing that it is the only way Rourke plays with BC next year. It is not. The option year simply gives BC a team option to hold him to his rookie contract should they choose to do so.

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by GCn20

4 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

 

Twitter mid-year.

If I were grading your paper you would receive an F. 

I honestly thought you'd have a legitimate source lol. I'm not saying it didn't happen. But if this situation was reversed, there's not a chance in hell you'd accept "twitter" as a source. I mean, at the very least name the account. Ideally you'd share the actual tweet.

7 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

How can you read: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary & not understand that is the only option for a pay raise?

It doesn't say or ignore this. It doesn't say or a completely new contract that's greater than 10%. It doesn't say unless it's a QB. It doesn't say unless they have NFL tryouts. It doesn't say unless they are obviously worth more. It doesn't say you can do anything else, because it is the option, not one of the options.

If Rourke comes back next year, the CFL will have to exempt him from the CBA to give him the money he deserves.

Twitter mid-year.

 

Honest question. What's stopping BC and Rourke from having a gentleman's agreement in place. BC cuts Rourke making him a FA. Only to turn around and re-sign him for a regular contract?

2 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

If I were grading your paper you would receive an F. 

I honestly thought you'd have a legitimate source lol. I'm not saying it didn't happen. But if this situation was reversed, there's not a chance in hell you'd accept "twitter" as a source. I mean, at the very least name the account. Ideally you'd share the actual tweet.

TBurg is confused it seems. Earlier this season the BC Lions asked if they could tear up his current SPC to pay him more this year. They were declined because the player had not hit the option year yet. Only the first two years there is no flex in salary or term, the 3rd year is an option year for both team and player. This by the very definition of the term, allows for a new contract to be worked out. I have no idea why the hell TBurg is being so thick.

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by GCn20

I am having a hard time finding a newer source but I can't imagine this has changed too much since or the CFLPA Would pitch a fit

https://cflpa.com/download/appendix-aa-standard-player-contract-option-year/ --> APPENDIX AA – STANDARD PLAYER CONTRACT – OPTION YEAR --> Originally posted 2014, updated 2020
 

Quote

15. On or before the date of expiration of this Contract the Club may upon notice in writing to the Player addressed to his permanent home address as indicated hereunder, renew this Contract for a further term until 12:00 Noon Eastern Standard Time the 2nd Tuesday in February following the said expiration, on the same terms as are provided in this Contract except that (1) the Club may fix the rate of compensation to be paid by the Club to the Player during the said period of renewal and the rate of compensation shall not be less than one hundred (100%) percent of the amount set forth in Paragraph 3 hereof and one hundred (100%) percent of any bonus payment or payments payable except signing bonus, and (2) after such renewal this Contract shall not include a further option to renew the Contract. The renewal of this Contract shall be understood to include all bonus clauses regardless as to the year described therein and bonus payment or payments of any nature whatsoever except that signing bonuses will not be included.

Under these terms, the Lions have until February 14th, 2023 to inform him that he will be signed for another year under the same terms... Actually reading this it almost seems like they can tell him he gets another year but technically they could pay him whatever he wants in that extra year as long as it is at least 100% of the previous salary. ANYWAYS, if he signs again I presume they decline the option and sign a 3 year deal at least similar to Collaros.  

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by KshyGuy

19 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

You are wrong on both accounts. The Lions asked to be able to terminate his SPC THIS year to pay him more, this year before he hit his option and were declined. Option year only needs to be negotiated if the team chooses to pick up the option. If they do not, they can release him and re-sign him to a contract of their choosing but risk losing him to another team should Rourke decide to pull a fast one. You keep thinking that the option year is mandatory and it IS NOT.

Please do us all a favor and look up what an option year is. You keep arguing that it is the only way Rourke plays with BC next year. It is not. The option year simply gives BC a team option to hold him to his rookie contract should they choose to do so.

And this is exactly what will happen...

 

18 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

If I were grading your paper you would receive an F. 

I honestly thought you'd have a legitimate source lol. I'm not saying it didn't happen. But if this situation was reversed, there's not a chance in hell you'd accept "twitter" as a source. I mean, at the very least name the account. Ideally you'd share the actual tweet.

Honest question. What's stopping BC and Rourke from having a gentleman's agreement in place. BC cuts Rourke making him a FA. Only to turn around and re-sign him for a regular contract?

And this has been done many a time...most recent with us with Kongbo...option is there sure..and used for role and special team type talent...and even in some those instances guys have had paperwork transactions done to re-up with out picking up an option...its a way to allow non stars to not get lowballed...and emerging stars to be enabled to earn their dollars when they can

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by Booch

34 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Honest question. What's stopping BC and Rourke from having a gentleman's agreement in place. BC cuts Rourke making him a FA. Only to turn around and re-sign him for a regular contract?

I'm pretty sure this is exactly what happens if BC chooses not to pick up the option year

45 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Honest question. What's stopping BC and Rourke from having a gentleman's agreement in place. BC cuts Rourke making him a FA. Only to turn around and re-sign him for a regular contract?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Boozer

21 minutes ago, KshyGuy said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Boozer

Yeah thats a risk. But I'd say there's way more examples where it works out exactly as planned that we just never hear about.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

How can you read: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary & not understand that is the only option for a pay raise?

It doesn't say or ignore this. It doesn't say or a completely new contract that's greater than 10%. It doesn't say unless it's a QB. It doesn't say unless they have NFL tryouts. It doesn't say unless they are obviously worth more. It doesn't say you can do anything else, because it is the option, not one of the options.

If Rourke comes back next year, the CFL will have to exempt him from the CBA to give him the money he deserves.

Twitter mid-year.

 

It doesn't have to say ignore this, it doesn't have to mention a new contract because it only applies if they exercise the option year! 

You're so hung up on what is written you are willfully ignoring the option to just not use the option year. Sure BC could force Rourke back that cheaply by simply picking up the option year... but why would they do that when they could give him a new multi-year deal and secure the most important position long term rather than gambling that the guy will be happy making peanuts because bc wanted one more cheap season?

 

This is much ado about nothing anyway, 2/3 of the NFL have expressed an interest in Rourke and he has flat out stated that he is willing to bet on himself when it comes to the NFL and doesn't care about the money. The NFL is his goal...his words..not mine. The guy is gone at least until the end of this current contract. We will never know if BC could re-sign him or not because they will not get the chance to do so. 2/3 of the NFL interested? That's almost unprecedented level of interest for a CFL player. He will get an NFL contract for sure, and he is willing to take the gamble on losing money by doing so.

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by GCn20

 

11 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

This is much ado about nothing anyway, 2/3 of the NFL have expressed an interest in Rourke and he has flat out stated that he is willing to bet on himself when it comes to the NFL and doesn't care about the money. The NFL is his goal...his words..not mine. The guy is gone at least until the end of this current contract. We will never know if BC could re-sign him or not because they will not get the chance to do so. 2/3 of the NFL interested? That's almost unprecedented level of interest for a CFL player. He will get an NFL contract for sure, and he is willing to take the gamble on losing money by doing so.

He did say tho...that he wont be open to just being a pr guy...or clip board holder...wants to go and stay if he is actually contributing...there is that too...and knows he can come back and play for good money

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

It doesn't have to say ignore this, it doesn't have to mention a new contract because it only applies if they exercise the option year! 

You're so hung up on what is written you are willfully ignoring the option to just not use the option year. Sure BC could force Rourke back that cheaply by simply picking up the option year... but why would they do that when they could give him a new multi-year deal and secure the most important position long term rather than gambling that the guy will be happy making peanuts because bc wanted one more cheap season?

You & others are ignoring: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary.

Option years aren't special when it comes to contract offers. You can offer a new contract to any player, who isn't a Canadian Draft Pick On Their First Contract, at any time, not just on an Option year.

@KshyGuy Do you think that the option year paragraph you quote over-rides the Option paragraph in the CBA that is specific to Canadian draft picks on their first contract? I don't. If it did, then there would be no reason to put the option paragraph in the CBA for Draft Picks as it would have no meaning to anyone. It's there to give teams a salary certainty for draft picks for the first 3 years.

@Bigblue204 Cutting Rourke and offering a new contract or 'Gentleman's agreement' as a way around the CBA. Maybe, but what stopped them from doing it this year? The CFL did. They still have final say.

3 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Earlier this season the BC Lions asked if they could tear up his current SPC to pay him more this year. They were declined because the player had not hit the option year yet. Only the first two years there is no flex in salary or term, the 3rd year is an option year for both team and player.

I remember the first part, even if my only source was twitter. Source for the option year part? Cuz, as you know, that's not what it says in the CBA.

9 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Do you think that the option year paragraph you quote over-rides the Option paragraph in the CBA that is specific to Canadian draft picks on their first contract? I don't. If it did, then there would be no reason to put the option paragraph in the CBA for Draft Picks as it would have no meaning to anyone. It's there to give teams a salary certainty for draft picks for the first 3 years.

It would go a long way if you can cite what you are seeing that gives you the impression that you are correct instead of screaming into the void.

Again, hard to find 2022 CBA things but from here

https://tdnprod.wpengine.com/2020/01/07/the-comprehensive-cfl-collective-bargaining-agreement/

 

Quote

All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below (this term does not apply to Nationals who signed registered contracts in 2019):

Their commentary provided here

 

Quote

The usage of the term option year follows that of standard player contracts which would imply to me that this is a team option year. That would mean that players might not be able to sign two-year deals like recent draft picks seem to have negotiated for. Tunde Adeleke appears to have had a two-year deal, having left Calgary for Hamilton last year after playing only two years with his draft team.

Yes, you are correct in that the 3rd year TEAM option is included in the CBA and the Standard Player agreement in order to control costs for new draft picks. You may be correct in that the CBA language in that the salary structure of the contract may not be able to change as stated in the Standard Player Contract (teams may be bound to offering based on the structure laid out, not a minimum of 100% of the previous year + bonus).

What you can't seem to grok is that the Lions can literally let his contract run out by not exercising the option. Rourke would become a de-facto free agent and would not be bound to the third year option of his original contract as he would need to sign a whole new one.

Really the Lions have 2 options

1. Let Rourke test out his NFL option, lose him for a number of years based on how long he holds a clipboard and bounces around the practice squad... He may be released from his contract at this point... but his rights remain with BC? Like I've mentioned previously... hard to find exact language in the CBA around this. Presumably when he is done flirting with the NFL he could sign for whatever or have his rights traded

2. Reach an agreement with Rourke, allow the option to expire, sign him to a new deal (and hope no one swoops in with a ridiculous offer he accepts).