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? 🙄🤣

 

30 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

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

Yes, that is what they would do for sure. The only way BC is not exercising the option is if they have pre-agreed upon contract extension worked out. If he goes to the NFL, they obviously can't do that until he comes back although they will almost definitely be whispering numbers in his ears to try get him to pass on the NFL. It likely takes 600-700k for that to happen.

I really hate this thread

Just now, Bubba Zanetti said:

I really hate this thread

You have the "option" of not reading it! 

Or do you?

16 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

You have the "option" of not reading it! 

Or do you?

option = mandatory around here, or haven't you been paying attention?

25 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

You have the "option" of not reading it! 

Or do you?

Just the sight of it angers me

7 minutes ago, Bubba Zanetti said:

Just the sight of it angers me

Agreed. I wish the mods would give it a mercy kill already. The whole conversation has been hashed and rehashed to death and is just going in circles now.

The Bombers may have lost the Cup, but with this thread, TBurg has won the troll equivalent to winning the Grey Cup, the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the Masters and the World Series combined.  

5 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Yes, that is what they would do for sure. The only way BC is not exercising the option is if they have pre-agreed upon contract extension worked out. If he goes to the NFL, they obviously can't do that until he comes back although they will almost definitely be whispering numbers in his ears to try get him to pass on the NFL. It likely takes 600-700k for that to happen.

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.

On 2022-11-18 at 10:18 AM, JuranBoldenRules said:

You’re arguing about contract terms for weeks but lack a fundamental understanding of what an option is.  An option doesn’t obligate the team to do anything.  The contract terms only hold if the team chooses to pick up the option.  If they don’t the third year of the contract doesn’t exist.

So yeah, BC could be jerks to Rourke and pick up the option to force him to play for cheap next year if he doesn’t make the NFL.  But how do you think that would play out for them in the long-term?

This is the 3rd post in the thread.

On 2022-11-18 at 1:05 PM, TBURGESS said:

I meant to type poster, not poser. However, if you see yourself as a poser, you are a poser.

It's in black and white in the CBA. What more proof do you want? You're the one saying that BC can ignore the CBA. Where's your proof?

This is just one of your problems. You think that something is true even after you're shown, in black and white, in a contract, that it's not. It's kinda sad that you go to personal attacks, cuz you ain't got nothing else, but it's your MO.

I know what an option is & it's specifically defined in the CBA for CFL draft picks. The definition of option that's in the section of the contract that pertains to remuneration for draft picks is the definition of option used for draft picks. If the option wasn't specifically defined in the draft picks remuneration section, then you'd be right, but in this case you're not.

It wouldn't be BC forcing Rourke to play for cheap. It would be the CBA and the CFL.

Do you have a source that teams can ignore the option terms written into the CBA? It's not ambiguous because it's written into the CBA in the draft pick remuneration section.

RIDERFANS as source after taking shots about using twitter as a source? BTW: Twitter was a good enough source for you to agree that you had read that BC had asked the league for an exception for Rourke's contract.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rourke will take his NFL shot. Why wouldn't he? He won't be back in the CFL next year. Why would he come back to a draft pick first contract situation?

Rourke will be a FA if he comes back after next year and will get multiple offers.

Would the CFL exempt Rourke from the CBA first draft contract? I'd hope so, but they didn't do that this year. Maybe because they don't want to open the door for all draft picks to ignore the option year of their contracts and ask for an exemption?

I think that they should add "Except For QB's" in the CBA so Canadian QB's could get paid the same as US QB's. I also think they should be designated as Canadian's no matter if they are backups or starters. The idea that they are sometimes Canadians is dumb IMO.

This is your reply to that exact post.

25 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

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.

To you finally saying the same thing.   Pertinent parts bolded.

6 pages of you arguing nonsense only to finally agree with what everyone has been saying from the start.  Unfucking believable.