Bomber_fanaddict Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 This doesn't sound good... @55YardLineCFL: New post: #CFLPA says they’re not prepared to play under previous CBA, which could lead to lost games: http://t.co/uV9odUguVh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road griller Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 2015 Grey Cup may be the next one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Pretty funny statement by the PA... The league would have locked them out anyway and put the squeeze on them. Now the league doesn't have to worry about any litigation issues over a lockout. Nice work PA you have the league exactly where they want to be in this process, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Pretty funny statement by the PA... The league would have locked them out anyway and put the squeeze on them. Now the league doesn't have to worry about any litigation issues over a lockout. Nice work PA you have the league exactly where they want to be in this process, Flory's statement reeked of "rookie move." This is not going to end well for the PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Where's Donald Fehr when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road griller Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Rookie move? Depends what they wanted, if the players strike they could be looked upon as the bad guys and right now they are riding high in the eyes of the public. Higher than I can remember as far as athletes go. They get locked out the owners take a huge hit in the court of public opinion. Maybe they are forcing the owners hand? Deal or lock us out......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 it's probably nothing more than setting a time line. I seem to recall that last time during negotiations they played under the terms of the old one before hammering out a new deal. This move basically just says to the league no chance of that this time better get serious about a deal before the season starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 The players can hold out and sacrifice there $725 a week camp cheques for a couple of weeks but when the threat of missing game cheques looms it's suck it up and get a deal done. The lockout of players during camp doesn't really cost the Clubs much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Surprisingly even David Braley feels that the players should get a piece of the pie. I get that the league doesn't want to spend like drunkin' sailors, but the players have seen barely any increases for the better part of 2 decades, I think it's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Any updates on collective bargaining? I've heard nothing in a few weeks...no news good news? Training camps start in a little over a month... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Even though I belong to a union I generally come down on the side of management. My experiences have always been poor. There was a time when unions really served their purpose. Now I really think unions create dissection and discourse as a means to justify their existence. The last few meetings I attended it was a lot of "brother" this and "sister" that. A lot of management bashing (and by that I mean bashing front line managers not the people sitting at the table) and a plea to put all out efforts behind getting the NDP re elected. In sports it should be easy. In the cfl, revenues have increased. Therefor the players are due for a raise. But let's not get crazy. Make offers, split the difference and go to work. The power always lays with the owners as the NHLPA kept proving. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Last I heard, both sides are trying to keep their talks quiet..and that's probably a good thing. There is time to get this settled and as long as there is nothing outlandish, it will get done. And, let's keep the politics of it out of the equation, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 @garrettbillan1: @PentonKirk any updates on CBA negotiations? I've heard nothing in the past few weeks. No news = good news? Are the 2 sides talking? @PentonKirk: @garrettbillan1 Not talking. They're meeting in early May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 "Last week in Calgary, the CFL and the CFLPA met to begin discussions on a new CBA. Both sides are being careful not to leak any information as to how the meetings went. It's safe to say that both sides believe that the players should be making more money, but how they get there and how much more money is going to make these negotiations challenging for both sides." "For example, the players making more money isn't as simple as the owners writing a bigger check, and allowing the teams GMs to spend that money where they please…... "The term revenue sharing has come up and apparently is going to be an issue that is on top of the agenda…….. "All of which makes all of these negotiations clear as mud, but the bottom line is both sides know the players should get paid more, and it is safe to say, that in the end, that will happen" - Glen Suitor, TSN April 16 http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/glen_suitor/?id=449538 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 revenue sharing... just an excuse for Toronto and Hamilton to never get their own **** together and leech off the strong teams some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 revenue sharing... just an excuse for Toronto and Hamilton to never get their own **** together and leech off the strong teams some more. Revenue sharing between teams seems like an even trade off for making players play under a cap system. Neither one is fair to the strongest members on each respective side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebusrankin Posted April 21, 2014 Report Share Posted April 21, 2014 Revenue sharing is just another form of welfare for the Ontario teams. Screw that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 If I were Saskatchewan, Edmonton or Winnipeg I wouldn't guarantee any of the private teams a dime unless they agreed to open up their books to the scrutiny of the other teams. If Wetenhall, as an example, decides to spend twice as much on football operations than what his revenues dictate, that shouldn't be offset on the back of the franchises that actually have to manage their money. blitzmore, rebusrankin, 17to85 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 If I were Saskatchewan, Edmonton or Winnipeg I wouldn't guarantee any of the private teams a dime unless they agreed to open up their books to the scrutiny of the other teams. If Wetenhall, as an example, decides to spend twice as much on football operations than what his revenues dictate, that shouldn't be offset on the back of the franchises that actually have to manage their money. That's a fair point. Transperancy would be a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Revenue sharing is tied into league revenue not necessarily individual team revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 Revenue sharing is tied into league revenue not necessarily individual team revenue. The league already shares that revenue with it's member clubs, revenue sharing refers to the have teams sharing revenue with the have not teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 If I were Saskatchewan, Edmonton or Winnipeg I wouldn't guarantee any of the private teams a dime unless they agreed to open up their books to the scrutiny of the other teams. If Wetenhall, as an example, decides to spend twice as much on football operations than what his revenues dictate, that shouldn't be offset on the back of the franchises that actually have to manage their money. If this did indeed came into consideration, would the private owners accept a proposed model of revenue sharing that was weighted based on a profit/loss ratio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 If I were Saskatchewan, Edmonton or Winnipeg I wouldn't guarantee any of the private teams a dime unless they agreed to open up their books to the scrutiny of the other teams. If Wetenhall, as an example, decides to spend twice as much on football operations than what his revenues dictate, that shouldn't be offset on the back of the franchises that actually have to manage their money. If this did indeed came into consideration, would the private owners accept a proposed model of revenue sharing that was weighted based on a profit/loss ratio? It would have to be a hard cap where **** like what Montreal does is counted against the cap, but the CFL doesn't want to do that because they like their rich moneybags owners giving players incentives to play there. In many ways it's not a professional enough league to get into revenue sharing as a base model for operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 In Doug Brown's article today in the Free Press, he describes the deal breaker possibilities in the CFL-CFLPA as: "one where they can "tie a salary cap to a percentage of revenue like every other major professional sport in North America." Further: Revenue sharing is something the players gave up in the last CBA, when the league insisted it was in the poor house. Now all the league has to do to avoid an escalating labour dispute is reinstate it and negotiate a fair percentage with the players. It seems simple and easy enough, but it appears the CFLPA is preparing for the worst, as this last mass communication with the membership ended with a request for permanent addresses so that they may "... if necessary, conduct a vote to strike by way of secret ballot." The league may be waiting for the players to blink in this staring contest, but it appears this is one issue they will not concede. What the CFL faces is totally unlike anything the other sports leagues face and cannot be so easily slotted in past league vs player negotiations. This is truly a Canadian conundrum. Private and Public and import and non-import. The issue is complex but the solution has to be simple or they'll have no league to worry about. Feed the player's wallets, and track the owner's spendings, is that so very hard to do? View the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now