about time to start this thread, and we'll give the first word to Our Man Tait: 
 

 

15 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

If that is the case how were the Argos expected to justify giving Chad Kelly 100k in promo money?

Thats alot to give to one player. How many appearances was he expected to make? 

If it isn’t the case, and there is no cap, he could do one appearance for $10M I guess? 

There needs to be some monetary value placed on it. Otherwise I’m paying Collaros $600k  and having him attend one event. 

Edited May 9, 20241 yr by Geebrr

9 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

If it isn’t the case, and there is no cap, he could do one appearance for $10M I guess? 

There needs to be some monetary value placed on an it. Otherwise I’m paying Collaros $600k  and having him attend one event. 

Yea..there's gotta be some kind of formula you would think.

1 hour ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Thats alot to give to one player. How many appearances was he expected to make? 

In court? 

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Yea..there's gotta be some kind of formula you would think.

If they handed out a way of spending limitlessly on the roster we would have brought back guys like grant and more free agent vets. 

 

1 hour ago, JCon said:

In court? 

Probably give him payments for the abuse program he has to go into now too 

47 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

If they handed out a way of spending limitlessly on the roster we would have brought back guys like grant and more free agent vets. 

 

Probably give him payments for the abuse program he has to go into now too 

If history has taught us anything, it is that Kelly learns from his past indiscretions. (I hope the dripping sarcasm came through..)

Just now, GCn20 said:

If history has taught us anything, it is that Kelly learns from his past indiscretions. (I hope the dripping sarcasm came through..)

it did....and best post of the month hahaaha

41 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

If they handed out a way of spending limitlessly on the roster we would have brought back guys like grant and more free agent vets. 

I thought about that. Maybe the Bombers just wanted to move on from Grant. 

With there being no limits to this promo money they could have easely found extra money for him.

Did the Bombers actually lose any players that they wanted to re-sign? 

They knew they had to start turning over some of the roster. Need to develop the next group of starters. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

I thought about that. Maybe the Bombers just wanted to move on from Grant. 

With there being no limits to this promo money they could have easely found extra money for him.

Did the Bombers actually lose any players that they wanted to re-sign? 

They knew they had to start turning over some of the roster. Need to develop the next group of starters. 

 

 

I really am not sure that Grant was a SMS casualty. I think the Bombers felt that he was in the tub too much.

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

I really am not sure that Grant was a SMS casualty. I think the Bombers felt that he was in the tub too much.

I think it's likely a little of both.

4 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I think it's likely a little of both.

Maybe, but from all accounts the past deals with Grant were pretty team friendly. I can't see him suddenly looking to cash in after the season he had last year.

8 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

I thought about that. Maybe the Bombers just wanted to move on from Grant. 

With there being no limits to this promo money they could have easely found extra money for him.

Did the Bombers actually lose any players that they wanted to re-sign? 

They knew they had to start turning over some of the roster. Need to develop the next group of starters. 

 

 

It’s possible. I gauged my comment on Walter’s saying he couldn’t see a way to fit grant in with the cap but it could be pure injuries or youth. I suspect JJ and yoshi were moved on from for youth. 
 If that was the case with all our FAs, and we had the ability to spend all the moneys I think we would’ve dipped into veteran free agency a good bit still. 
 

3 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I think it's likely a little of both.

I think all those vets were some balance of this. With grant and JJ being the most about injury time, yoshi and houston about performance and cost. 

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

Maybe, but from all accounts the past deals with Grant were pretty team friendly. I can't see him suddenly looking to cash in after the season he had last year.

Certainly true. He tried free agency twice expecting more and settling for less than he wanted here. It was pretty public. I think part of it is just the market for a kr in the cfl right now. No one is paying top dollar to guys like that unless they can translate it to offence or D. 

2 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

It’s possible. I gauged my comment on Walter’s saying he couldn’t see a way to fit grant in with the cap but it could be pure injuries or youth. I suspect JJ and yoshi were moved on from for youth. 
 If that was the case with all our FAs, and we had the ability to spend all the moneys I think we would’ve dipped into veteran free agency a good bit still. 
 

I think all those vets were some balance of this. With grant and JJ being the most about injury time, yoshi and houston about performance and cost. 

I think with JJ it was a bit of both...youth and reliability....I truly think we let Yosh walk soley on declinig play, and we need to be better...many times age with your oline guys is a net positive...not there tho

I looked into who we brought in a bit more...Liking Coleman as a guywho could be one of our fresh faced starters....and not bein a true rookie in the sense also bodes well...

20 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

I thought about that. Maybe the Bombers just wanted to move on from Grant. 

With there being no limits to this promo money they could have easely found extra money for him.

Did the Bombers actually lose any players that they wanted to re-sign? 

They knew they had to start turning over some of the roster. Need to develop the next group of starters. 

 

 

I assume they still have a budget they want to work within so it's not just a matter of being able to take advantage of the promo money loophole.  

We have the highest paid QB & RB as well as the 2nd, 3rd & 4th highest paid receivers with multiple guys already getting promo money so they are using it, just not on a returner.

Losing Bailey is probably going to hurt the most. Just a true heart and soul guy who plays with such a physicality that will be hard to match by any of the new receivers. If we had enough promotion money to get close to what he is worth I'm sure we would have done it. 

42 minutes ago, coach17 said:

Losing Bailey is probably going to hurt the most. Just a true heart and soul guy who plays with such a physicality that will be hard to match by any of the new receivers. If we had enough promotion money to get close to what he is worth I'm sure we would have done it. 

outside of his ability to get hyped. No one will remember he was on the team in 2 years.

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

Maybe, but from all accounts the past deals with Grant were pretty team friendly. I can't see him suddenly looking to cash in after the season he had last year.

it might not be  "cashing in" per say...just getting market value or what you think is market value. Having taken cuts to make it work in the past could be a reason for him not doing it this time..."Hey listen, I've helped out multiple times in the past now, I'm not doing it this time." type of thing. 

All speculation of course.

6 hours ago, GCn20 said:

So it does count against the SMS then from what I interpret above. If so, holy crap there is a lot of media getting this wrong. Or is it an extra 110k over the SMS spending but subject to extra audit?

The way it's laid out in the CBA says: 
For 2024 the "Salary Expenditure Cap" is $5,525,000. Then the "Non-Football Related Services minimum additional amount" is $110,000 for a "Total Salary Expenditure Cap" of $5,635,000.

$110K is the number for this year and is the minimum per year going forward if league revenue doesn't increase (the table in Article 30 lays out the cap through 2028 season). If league revenue does increase, the amount available to players for promotion/outreach would also increase.

To me it reads like 'You have to pay your players exactly $110k on promotion and outreach and you need to be able to prove guys are working for it.'

5 hours ago, WinnipegGordo said:

If that is the case how were the Argos expected to justify giving Chad Kelly 100k in promo money?

Thats alot to give to one player. How many appearances was he expected to make? 

I would expect he'd attend every ladies night in the TO area

37 minutes ago, DTonOB said:

The way it's laid out in the CBA says: 
For 2024 the "Salary Expenditure Cap" is $5,525,000. Then the "Non-Football Related Services minimum additional amount" is $110,000 for a "Total Salary Expenditure Cap" of $5,635,000.

$110K is the number for this year and is the minimum per year going forward if league revenue doesn't increase (the table in Article 30 lays out the cap through 2028 season). If league revenue does increase, the amount available to players for promotion/outreach would also increase.

To me it reads like 'You have to pay your players exactly $110k on promotion and outreach and you need to be able to prove guys are working for it.'

Thanks.

The only reason it's confusing at all is the use of the word, "Minimum". Makes it seem like there is no maximum. 

7 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Thanks.

The only reason it's confusing at all is the use of the word, "Minimum". Makes it seem like there is no maximum. 

Minimum definitely sounds like the floor to me. 
 

 

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Maybe, but from all accounts the past deals with Grant were pretty team friendly. I can't see him suddenly looking to cash in after the season he had last year.

According to 3DN's list of top paid returners Grant earned $110-$115k last season, missing all but 8 games he wouldn't have cost the team much SMS.

Looking at the top paid players by position, we've got the most expensive QB & RB as well as 3 of the top 4 most expensive receivers. I doubt that leaves much room for a vet returner. 

25 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

According to 3DN's list of top paid returners Grant earned $110-$115k last season, missing all but 8 games he wouldn't have cost the team much SMS.

Impossible to simplify it that much

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

According to 3DN's list of top paid returners Grant earned $110-$115k last season, missing all but 8 games he wouldn't have cost the team much SMS.

Committed money in free agency is worth more than at the end of the year. You still have the ability to bring in higher quality guys. This last year we didn’t get any late season additions. It’s not all equal. Also grant came back and wasn’t remotely the same till the very end. 

19 hours ago, Booch said:

I think with JJ it was a bit of both...youth and reliability....I truly think we let Yosh walk soley on declinig play, and we need to be better...many times age with your oline guys is a net positive...not there tho

I looked into who we brought in a bit more...Liking Coleman as a guywho could be one of our fresh faced starters....and not bein a true rookie in the sense also bodes well...

Hardrick really had a poor 2nd half of the season. Noticeably worn out. He was his usual great self for a while, but I don't think he's got a full season in him anymore and he was asking way too much to be a rotational guy.

17 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Looking at the top paid players by position, we've got the most expensive QB & RB as well as 3 of the top 4 most expensive receivers. I doubt that leaves much room for a vet returner. 

Most expensive sure, but not necessarily SMS wise. We already know a significant portion of BO's contract does not count on the cap....hard to say what the other guys are getting in promo.

19 hours ago, coach17 said:

Losing Bailey is probably going to hurt the most. Just a true heart and soul guy who plays with such a physicality that will be hard to match by any of the new receivers. If we had enough promotion money to get close to what he is worth I'm sure we would have done it. 

Bailey was in the 5th receiver spot. As good as he was at it, it's not a position we are going to blow our brains out paying him what he's really worth. Honestly, Bailey's loss will be felt more in the locker room than on the field.

16 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Committed money in free agency is worth more than at the end of the year. You still have the ability to bring in higher quality guys. This last year we didn’t get any late season additions. It’s not all equal. Also grant came back and wasn’t remotely the same till the very end. 

He did nothing in the playoffs either.

18 hours ago, Geebrr said:

Minimum definitely sounds like the floor to me. 
 

 

Yea....I am unclear why there would be a need for any use of the term otherwise. It would just be set in stone. Each team must designate X amount of dollars over the SMS floor.

18 hours ago, DTonOB said:

The way it's laid out in the CBA says: 
For 2024 the "Salary Expenditure Cap" is $5,525,000. Then the "Non-Football Related Services minimum additional amount" is $110,000 for a "Total Salary Expenditure Cap" of $5,635,000.

$110K is the number for this year and is the minimum per year going forward if league revenue doesn't increase (the table in Article 30 lays out the cap through 2028 season). If league revenue does increase, the amount available to players for promotion/outreach would also increase.

To me it reads like 'You have to pay your players exactly $110k on promotion and outreach and you need to be able to prove guys are working for it.'

Ok thanks, that makes way more sense than being able to go nuts with SMS skirting. The use of the term "minimum" in this case is not meant to be used as anything more than to denote that it could be more based on revenues in the future not to mean there is unlimited spending.

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by GCn20