This is an argument between what is in the CBA and folks who think that the CBA doesn't apply to the third year. Facts vs conjecture.

Salary - Defined in the CBA for draft picks - What's outside the CBA for draft picks, doesn't matter.

Option - Defined in the CBA for draft picks - What's outside the CBA for draft picks, doesn't matter.

Zero proof for the idea that the 3rd year for draft picks doesn't matter & it's in the CBA that it does matter.

Zero proof that the league turned BC done because Rourke wasn't in his option year. Turned them down, yup, because it wasn't his option year, nope.

Zero examples of draft players in their 3rd year, since 2019 (That's the CBA we're looking at & I don't know if the clauses were in older CBA's), who got to ignore the 3rd year option in the CBA. One poser did say there were thousands of examples, but couldn't come up with any.

Disproving me? 🙄🤣

 

Because reasons.

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

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.

If the option year isn't really an option as you are suggesting, then it wouldn't be a 2+1 contract... it would just be a 3 year contract.

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

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.

so what is the point of an option year?... in what you're describing, the team has the option to pick up his third year and follow the salary grid or decline his third year but then are hamstrung to sign him to the exact same contract... doesn't sound like much of an option... 

17 minutes ago, Sard said:

If the option year isn't really an option as you are suggesting, then it wouldn't be a 2+1 contract... it would just be a 3 year contract.

All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid

You have the reading comprehension of a spoon.

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

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.

Quick question.

I have Rourke's rookie contract. 2 +1 and all that...

Year two he's being paid $80k- tears up the field, making all kinds of history and all that jazz...

I say- "Damn, that rookie contract is not fair, I don't want to cheat him out of a payday because $88k (as per not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary salary grid) is not a fair price for his services...

So I tear up the rookie contract, draft up another one @ ... saaay...  3 yr contract @ $500k a year plus incentive bonuses with $250k up front in hard money with a guarantee of 1/2 the final year. He signs, all is good. 

 

 

Now does the above hold true or are you saying I have to Honour the grid salary stuff and the 1st year of the new contract has to be $88k?

How do you block threads? 

1 hour ago, Geebrr said:

How do you lock threads? 

This is the proper request. 

Both sides have been beaten into the ground. So lock the thread. If and when Rourke signs, we can re-open it so whichever side is right can come back and  gloat Riderfans-style about how wrong the other side was. 

Please put an end to this thread. My Gawd. The discussion is just going round & round. It has all the excitement of a spoon.

 

Edited November 23, 20223 yr by SpeedFlex27

18 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Please put an end to this thread. My Gawd. The discussion is just going round & round. It has all the excitement of a spoon.

 

What do you have against the Tick's battle cry?

20 hours ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Quick question.

I have Rourke's rookie contract. 2 +1 and all that...

Year two he's being paid $80k- tears up the field, making all kinds of history and all that jazz...

I say- "Damn, that rookie contract is not fair, I don't want to cheat him out of a payday because $88k (as per not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary salary grid) is not a fair price for his services...

So I tear up the rookie contract, draft up another one @ ... saaay...  3 yr contract @ $500k a year plus incentive bonuses with $250k up front in hard money with a guarantee of 1/2 the final year. He signs, all is good.

Now does the above hold true or are you saying I have to Honour the grid salary stuff and the 1st year of the new contract has to be $88k?

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.

 

The word option is a pretty significant ******* word.

4 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The word option is a pretty significant ******* word.

No kidding. A word he is entirely disregarding in both context, and in the CBA definition.

11 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

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.

 

So they tried to release Rourke and then resign him to a new contract? at the beginning of this year?

 

My take away, that you are saying is- no matter what, Rourke gets paid $88k this upcoming year in the CFL. Is this correct?

13 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

So they tried to release Rourke and then resign him to a new contract? at the beginning of this year?

 

My take away, that you are saying is- no matter what, Rourke gets paid $88k this upcoming year in the CFL. Is this correct?

Yes, they tried to extend him earlier this season and could not. The important caveat to this is that they tried to do so before the option in the contract. Teams and NAT draft picks are locked into a salary scale on the first two years of the contract per the CBA, as this portion of the contract contains no options until the 3rd season. TBurg just does not have a clue what the OPTION year means to any contract. He really needs to read more than one paragraph of the CBA.

Who cares? 

54 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

So they tried to release Rourke and then resign him to a new contract? at the beginning of this year?

 

My take away, that you are saying is- no matter what, Rourke gets paid $88k this upcoming year in the CFL. Is this correct?

No, he's already said if Rourke gets paid more it's not because he's wrong. It's because the CFL breaks their own CBA. This way his butt is covered when he is inevitably proven to be wrong.

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.

The greatest shame of it all is that Rourke is going to take an NFL shot and we won't get the chance to show tburg how incorrect he is.

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

Edited November 24, 20223 yr by TBURGESS

8 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

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

This is literally what people have been telling you this whole time.

Don't take the option/cut him/tear up the contract - whatever they call it - with your right hand, and hand him his new FA contract with your left hand.

8 minutes ago, Jesse said:

This is literally what people have been telling you this whole time.

Don't take the option/cut him/tear up the contract - whatever they call it - with your right hand, and hand him his new FA contract with your left hand.

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?

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

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?

If he's in the NFL, the "Lion" isn't an option, is it?

1 minute ago, Jesse said:

If he's in the NFL, the "Lion" isn't an option, is it?

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.

Just now, TBURGESS said:

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.

I'm not avoiding the question, I just don't know if it's reality.

If he leaves for the NFL, can the Lions retain his rights or is he automatically released?

5 minutes ago, Jesse said:

I'm not avoiding the question, I just don't know if it's reality.

If he leaves for the NFL, can the Lions retain his rights or is he automatically released?

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