I checked in here a couple of times today and expected to see some ranting on Doug's CBA related column this morning, couldn't even find any new action in the CBA thread (mods feel free to join this with that if you feel it should be). Is Doug intentially being an alarmist or is there actually a real chance of job action by the players? Just when I was starting to get excited about the season...

 

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/good-news-blue-may-not-lose-a-single-game-in-2014-250733011.html

Definitely think he was being an alarmist. He was a player, and has friends who are still players. He wants them to get as much as they can from the league in bargaining. I wouldn't be stressing at all about the league losing games this year.

Feel like he took an extreme viewpoint that wasn't necessary.

Doug Brown was a union rep as a player, so he's definitely being an alarmist. 

Let's face it, Doug, being a former player, well, we know where his allegiances will be.

But he does know what the players have been through…and what they've had to swallow..waiting for a period in time when things would be better for the league…as in right now.

Everybody will have to put away the plumage and play nice and share more...with the players this time.

 

Both sides know the importance of this, and the disaster that would follow if we were to lose games this year.

They will get it done because to think what would happen if they don't….

Doug Brown was a union rep as a player, so he's definitely being an alarmist. 

This. It's exactly the kind of position you'd expect from Doug Brown. He was a player rep, he was involved in these dealings before, he's still a player at heart I think so naturally he's on their side. 

 

Trouble is that the CFL would never go through a lock out. It wouldn't survive one and the players quite simply are replaceable except for a handful. If push comes to shove they'll fold faster than superman on laundry day purple monkey dishwasher.

a member of the team that had negotiated on behalf of the league, let it be known to some of us that he thought the CFL had pretty much, "bent the CFLPA over a table," in that deal.

 

 

This is typical rabble rousing stuff that goes on in negotiations such as this ... "they really ripped us a good one in that last deal" sort of talk is so common. The reality is they pretty much are hooped, where are the majority of players going to play, even for the lower wages in this league? Brown sounds bored like he's ready to butcher more colour work on CJOB with Irving this season

If there is a strike, I'll blame the BOGs not the Players. They deserve to be paid & to be  partners. After all, it's the players we watch & not the BOGs. The league needs to pay them their fair share. 

I agree, they deserve better pay, hey don't we all? Problem is they probably won't get significantly much more than they are now, even with the TV revenue increase. There's another team in this league this year and it already seems like they are trying their best to mess things up monetarily Not sure this helps the league stability as a whole. Let's see the team in Ottawa make it through a few seasons and how it goes first ... 

If I were a CFLPA member, I would run fast from a percentage of revenues again for guaranteed increases in the cap and no money held in escrow.  Let the owners overspend and don't tie spending to any economic realities, the pie won't be getting much bigger in the life of this CBA.  I don't see the guaranteed percentage being a good deal for the players, especially if they get a cut similar to the NFLPA and NHLPA.

I checked in here a couple of times today and expected to see some ranting on Doug's CBA related column this morning, couldn't even find any new action in the CBA thread (mods feel free to join this with that if you feel it should be). Is Doug intentially being an alarmist or is there actually a real chance of job action by the players? Just when I was starting to get excited about the season...

 

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/good-news-blue-may-not-lose-a-single-game-in-2014-250733011.html

ow ow ow ow ow....

I agree, they deserve better pay, hey don't we all? Problem is they probably won't get significantly much more than they are now, even with the TV revenue increase. There's another team in this league this year and it already seems like they are trying their best to mess things up monetarily Not sure this helps the league stability as a whole. Let's see the team in Ottawa make it through a few seasons and how it goes first ... 

It's Desjardins. He left a scorched Earth in Hamilton with an expensive contract for Casey Printers. He's now upped the pay significantly for elite qbs in the CFL  in the process with the Burris contract. You have to wonder what Ricky Ray & Travis Lulay who are better qbs than Hank will want in the future. Seven hundred thousand? Eight hundred thou??? Not saying they're not worth it but it's no good if the pay structure for players at one position are out of whack with others. Generally, it'll drive up the salaries for other positions now. 

Must be tough to negotiate and agree on issues in the CBA by the CFLPA. When half of your membership have way more value to the league than the other half who are easily replaceable. I don't a case like that in an other sport were the difference is as great as it is in the CFL as with the imports and non-imports.

obvious slant from Brown trying to whip up support for his former union brothers. can't blame him for it. also can't fault his viewpoint. when it comes down to it, i doubt you'd find many fans who wouldn't support an increase (maybe even a sizeable one) in the SMS.

 

and 17to85's attempt at strike-make-go-longer was completely unnecessary. 

I laughed at Brown's article.  True, CFL players should be able to roll the new TV deal into a better deal for them, but CFL owners don't exactly make bucketloads of cash either.  

 

Supply and demand is all you need to know... the new TV deal needs to improve the owners' profitability at least as much as it needs to improve the players.  If the players think that they need to right some past wrongs, and be sticky on it, they'll learn pretty quick that there's plenty of supply down south that would love to play football for a living.

I laughed at Brown's article.  True, CFL players should be able to roll the new TV deal into a better deal for them, but CFL owners don't exactly make bucketloads of cash either.  

 

Supply and demand is all you need to know... the new TV deal needs to improve the owners' profitability at least as much as it needs to improve the players.  If the players think that they need to right some past wrongs, and be sticky on it, they'll learn pretty quick that there's plenty of supply down south that would love to play football for a living.

 

No kidding. I had a good laugh-out-loud at this too.

 

CFL owners basically compete to see if they can lose less money this year. Not one got into the CFL biz to get rich or even stay rich -- its all about the prestige and fun of owning a team. 

 

But Doug loves to hear himself talk, so I certainly wasn't surprised. 

After finally reading this, I have come to the conclusion that I really hope the players do hold out for everything they want. It's time to bring some balance to the equation, because the owners have way too much power, as it stands now. Sure the CFL owners don't make money, but virtually all pro sports teams lose money. Nobody buys one to make money...you buy one because of the "prestige" factor of being able to say you own a pro sports team, and usually it's a tax write off for them. So it's not like it's just CFL owners in this situation. I hope the CFL players get a massive raise out of this.

The players will be getting an increase, there is no doubt in that.   They are really just talking about how much of an increase.

 

Professional sports negotiations are really quite different than most others in that they don't negotiate a specific salary, only parameters.  In most operations, the specifics are negotiated.  A factory worker gets $xx.xx per hour, a warehouse worker gets $xx.xx per hour, a truck driver gets $xx.xx  etc.   The equivalent would be for the union to say a qb gets this, a RB gets that, etc.    Instead they talk about caps, minimums, and basic terms, but the players and their agents still work out the individual deals.

 

From a global perspective, the business is quite different, and it is different for each team.  Most businesses have to cover their capital costs.   In the CFL, some do, some "sort of" do, others not so much.   The Bombers have to pay off the stadium, which is a huge expense.  The interest alone is more than the salary cap.  The players can't expect that the majority of the TV revenue will be flowing to them when there are lots of bills to be paid.     At the same time, the players deserve a reasonable increase.

 

In the end, I believe that Brown was posturing to support his history and his friends.   It's hard to imagine the CFLPA going on strike when they know that the overall business is stable, but not wildly profitable....especially when they will get an increase over last year.

After finally reading this, I have come to the conclusion that I really hope the players do hold out for everything they want. It's time to bring some balance to the equation, because the owners have way too much power, as it stands now. Sure the CFL owners don't make money, but virtually all pro sports teams lose money. Nobody buys one to make money...you buy one because of the "prestige" factor of being able to say you own a pro sports team, and usually it's a tax write off for them. So it's not like it's just CFL owners in this situation. I hope the CFL players get a massive raise out of this.

 

I'm just scratching my head at this... there's "prestige" in owning a CFL team?  If so, why are the Bombers and Riders "community-owned," given that both teams have been among the most profitable in the CFL over the past 5 years?  Because they're not a tax-writeoff?  I get that Braley owns the Argos as a tax writeoff to help the league... but there are plenty of deep pockets in Toronto that could take this prestigious tax writeoff off his hands if demand were there.  But nobody wanted the Argos 5 years ago.  The TV deal wasn't great, the gate sucked, and merchandise sales were laughable. 

 

Now there's a better TV deal.  The Argos (and Ticats as well) are more viable.  Probably still losing money, but more viable.  Ticats have a new stadium coming and better fan support.  There's rumblings Braley may have found a buyer for the Argos.  I have a hard time believing that whoever is buying them is doing so as a tax writeoff, because the Argos are surely more expensive now with the new TV deal in place.  Even if it's MLSE trying to utilize their facility more and offset the gobs they make on the Leafs. 

 

CFL players should get a proportional raise, don't get me wrong... the new TV deal doesn't happen without demand for CFL games on TV, and that doesn't happen without players.  But in a league where profitability is low, and some owners are losing money, I just don't buy any argument that the players are underpaid.  They're paid what they need to be, and given the franchises' finances, certainly not underpaid.

The players won't have to worry about a strike, the league will lock them out. Brown fails to say that because he was a NIP he never really had to worry about his next cheque. In contrast the IMPS know the supply of players in the CFL far exceeds the demand. On top of his hefty salary Brown always had the luxury of a significant off season roster bonus to carry him through his "lean" time between the end and the start of the season. Those roster bonuses are an increasing rarity and reserved only for the elite players. The rich stay rich and the rest scramble for the start of camp. Brown needs to take the silver spoon out of whatever orrifice it's in and would benefit from sometime on the poorer side of the tracks before he starts painting the picket signs for his past brethren.

There is a lot of comparing going on between the CFL and the NHL or NBA, and how the last contract negotiations went in those cases.  I’m refraining from basing an opinion from those scenarios because you’re talking about apples and oranges here.  The CFL is a far cry from being in the same ballpark as these leagues, and the players can’t expect the same kind of agreements and figures to be in negotiation now or in 10 years from now.

 

The last CFL work stoppage was 40 years ago, and it was brief.  The tables are entirely different this time around, but the tactics still haven’t changed much.  

 

Bottom line is no-one gets a dime of that new TV deal if there are no games played.   

obvious slant from Brown trying to whip up support for his former union brothers. can't blame him for it. also can't fault his viewpoint. when it comes down to it, i doubt you'd find many fans who wouldn't support an increase (maybe even a sizeable one) in the SMS.

 

and 17to85's attempt at strike-make-go-longer was completely unnecessary. 

Cohon says player's union doesnt have the won-tons to go through with it.

 

obvious slant from Brown trying to whip up support for his former union brothers. can't blame him for it. also can't fault his viewpoint. when it comes down to it, i doubt you'd find many fans who wouldn't support an increase (maybe even a sizeable one) in the SMS.

 

and 17to85's attempt at strike-make-go-longer was completely unnecessary. 

Cohon says player's union doesnt have the won-tons to go through with it.

 

 

He does? Do tell..

 

And I believe the word you're looking for is….Cohonees.

obvious slant from Brown trying to whip up support for his former union brothers. can't blame him for it. also can't fault his viewpoint. when it comes down to it, i doubt you'd find many fans who wouldn't support an increase (maybe even a sizeable one) in the SMS.

 

and 17to85's attempt at strike-make-go-longer was completely unnecessary.

Cohon says player's union doesnt have the won-tons to go through with it.

 

He does? Do tell..

 

And I believe the word you're looking for is….Cohonees.

And I believe the word you're looking for is ... Cojones. It's a Spanish word meaning testicles.

Wontons are Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin) dumplings that look like testicles when boiled.

So technically he could have used either word. So his original analogy is correct.

 

 

 

obvious slant from Brown trying to whip up support for his former union brothers. can't blame him for it. also can't fault his viewpoint. when it comes down to it, i doubt you'd find many fans who wouldn't support an increase (maybe even a sizeable one) in the SMS.

 

and 17to85's attempt at strike-make-go-longer was completely unnecessary.

Cohon says player's union doesnt have the won-tons to go through with it.

 

He does? Do tell..

 

And I believe the word you're looking for is….Cohonees.

And I believe the word you're looking for is ... Cojones. It's a Spanish word meaning testicles.

Wontons are Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin) dumplings that look like testicles when boiled.

So technically he could have used either word. So his original analogy is correct.

 

 

But that would mean Mark would have to change his name from Cohon to Cojon.