Cheaters....

 

 

 

The Saskatchewan Roughriders were the only CFL team to exceed the salary cap during the 2013 season.

The CFL announced the results of its auditing process on Wednesday. The Roughriders were over the $4.4-million cap by $17,975, resulting in a fine of $17,975.
 

 

 

http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/football/roughriders-football/Roughriders+facing+fine+after/9767020/story.html

Pocket change.  Every team should be doing it.

^^ agreed

Drew Edwards‏@scratchingpost14 mins

This is the fourth time in seven years that the #Riders have exceeded the #CFL salary cap. Also over in 07, 08, and 2010. #CFL

 

But this may be more of a worry to Rider fans:

 

Darrin Bauming‏@DarrinBauming36 mins

There were recent reports that the Riders had some of last year's salary deferred to this year. They still went over the cap.

 

So they may only have peanuts to pay this year. And you know the old saying "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys."

Same thing Taman did for us in 2007. Big difference is it worked this time.

Isnt that what whatshisname does, defer, defer, defer and then get out of dodge before the chicken's come home to roost?

What's $18k between friends?  I'm sure Bombers would all be happy to pitch in that coin if it meant the same outcome.

Proposed new salary cap…$4,417,975

After all the bitching and moaning that rider fans did about Edmonton spending their way to cups surely over on Riderfans they're up in arms about their tainted victory right? 

Only has happened six times and four of them have been the Riders. One for Montreal and one for Winnipeg. This was also the first time it has happened since 2010.

 

Since one team is clearly the trending violator, perhaps the league should look in to doubling fines for the second violation and then removing draft picks for the third and subsequent violations. Of course you would have to start with a fresh slate for all teams and count this as the Riders first violation.

 

Until or if penalties ever change, teams should look to spend whatever they want as long as they aren't forfeiting picks.

At least their Grey Cup victories are getting less tainted as they go along ... last time in 2007 they were over by about. $63,000. ...

Only has happened six times and four of them have been the Riders. One for Montreal and one for Winnipeg. This was also the first time it has happened since 2010.

 

Since one team is clearly the trending violator, perhaps the league should look in to doubling fines for the second violation and then removing draft picks for the third and subsequent violations. Of course you would have to start with a fresh slate for all teams and count this as the Riders first violation.

 

Until or if penalties ever change, teams should look to spend whatever they want as long as they aren't forfeiting picks.

 

I have to agree. While it is a pretty small amount, what's the point of having a cap if you're not going to enforce it with penalties strong enough to keep teams under it?

Only has happened six times and four of them have been the Riders. One for Montreal and one for Winnipeg. This was also the first time it has happened since 2010.

 

Since one team is clearly the trending violator, perhaps the league should look in to doubling fines for the second violation and then removing draft picks for the third and subsequent violations. Of course you would have to start with a fresh slate for all teams and count this as the Riders first violation.

 

Until or if penalties ever change, teams should look to spend whatever they want as long as they aren't forfeiting picks.

 

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings". 

 

Only has happened six times and four of them have been the Riders. One for Montreal and one for Winnipeg. This was also the first time it has happened since 2010.

 

Since one team is clearly the trending violator, perhaps the league should look in to doubling fines for the second violation and then removing draft picks for the third and subsequent violations. Of course you would have to start with a fresh slate for all teams and count this as the Riders first violation.

 

Until or if penalties ever change, teams should look to spend whatever they want as long as they aren't forfeiting picks.

 

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings". 

 

 

Fair. Forgiveness clause could allow a team's history to be cleared after a certain number of years.

 

Other ideas for penalties (A hard cap may have to be introduced on some):

 

- Instead of a team fine, the team loses that amount (or a set amount) towards the next season's cap. This may be a bit more harsh for a league that had a cap of $4.4 million for the previous season however.

 

- Penalty escalators are reduced to reflect player salaries. I think it can be argued that if a team is in excess of a standard contract, spending in excess then may become an advantage. As it stands now, a team doesn't lose a pick until you spend about a starter's worth of salary. $1 to $50,000 (dollar-for-dollar), $50,001 to $100,000 ($2 per dollar + first round pick), $100,001+ ($3 per dollar + first and second picks)

 

- If a team spends in excess, they get dropped to the end of each round in the draft + fines.

 

At the end of the day, this is the first conversation we have had about a team spending over the limit in three years, and it was fairly minimal, so I don't think anything may even have to be done unless it becomes a more prominent issue.

Who cares?  I'd expect everyone around here would be happy if we 'overspent' by 18K and won the Grey Cup, especially at home.

 

 

Only has happened six times and four of them have been the Riders. One for Montreal and one for Winnipeg. This was also the first time it has happened since 2010.

 

Since one team is clearly the trending violator, perhaps the league should look in to doubling fines for the second violation and then removing draft picks for the third and subsequent violations. Of course you would have to start with a fresh slate for all teams and count this as the Riders first violation.

 

Until or if penalties ever change, teams should look to spend whatever they want as long as they aren't forfeiting picks.

 

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings". 

 

 

Fair. Forgiveness clause could allow a team's history to be cleared after a certain number of years.

 

Other ideas for penalties (A hard cap may have to be introduced on some):

 

- Instead of a team fine, the team loses that amount (or a set amount) towards the next season's cap. This may be a bit more harsh for a league that had a cap of $4.4 million for the previous season however.

 

- Penalty escalators are reduced to reflect player salaries. I think it can be argued that if a team is in excess of a standard contract, spending in excess then may become an advantage. As it stands now, a team doesn't lose a pick until you spend about a starter's worth of salary. $1 to $50,000 (dollar-for-dollar), $50,001 to $100,000 ($2 per dollar + first round pick), $100,001+ ($3 per dollar + first and second picks)

 

- If a team spends in excess, they get dropped to the end of each round in the draft + fines.

 

At the end of the day, this is the first conversation we have had about a team spending over the limit in three years, and it was fairly minimal, so I don't think anything may even have to be done unless it becomes a more prominent issue.

 

 

I like the idea of movement down in the draft order. Maybe you make it a minimum of 4 or 5 spots in the first round. or 1 spot/$10k over.

Who cares?  I'd expect everyone around here would be happy if we 'overspent' by 18K and won the Grey Cup, especially at home.

 

I'm not sure it's a "who cares?" exactly, but I agree with you to some extent.  I am sure the Riders didn't even bat an eyelash when they signed that cheque.  

It's a soft cap similar to MLB. The Yankees go way over every year and no one really cares. Not sure why it's such a big deal in the CFL.

It's a soft cap similar to MLB. The Yankees go way over every year and no one really cares. Not sure why it's such a big deal in the CFL.

Only because of how much the rider fans screamed bloody murder when they were poor about the big bad teams over spending the cap. 

 

It's a soft cap similar to MLB. The Yankees go way over every year and no one really cares. Not sure why it's such a big deal in the CFL.

Only because of how much the rider fans screamed bloody murder when they were poor about the big bad teams over spending the cap. 

 

Dont know whats funnier the irony being lost on Rider fans who cried for decades about being out spent by others or the fact they were boasting about going over cap and begging other teams fans to take the issue on only to be greeted with yawns and shrugs.

Have to be the most insecure "flagship franchise" fans in sports.

 

Free tip Rider Fans : Real self confidence means you care about what others think.

 

 

 

Only has happened six times and four of them have been the Riders. One for Montreal and one for Winnipeg. This was also the first time it has happened since 2010.

 

Since one team is clearly the trending violator, perhaps the league should look in to doubling fines for the second violation and then removing draft picks for the third and subsequent violations. Of course you would have to start with a fresh slate for all teams and count this as the Riders first violation.

 

Until or if penalties ever change, teams should look to spend whatever they want as long as they aren't forfeiting picks.

 

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings". 

 

 

Fair. Forgiveness clause could allow a team's history to be cleared after a certain number of years.

 

Other ideas for penalties (A hard cap may have to be introduced on some):

 

- Instead of a team fine, the team loses that amount (or a set amount) towards the next season's cap. This may be a bit more harsh for a league that had a cap of $4.4 million for the previous season however.

 

- Penalty escalators are reduced to reflect player salaries. I think it can be argued that if a team is in excess of a standard contract, spending in excess then may become an advantage. As it stands now, a team doesn't lose a pick until you spend about a starter's worth of salary. $1 to $50,000 (dollar-for-dollar), $50,001 to $100,000 ($2 per dollar + first round pick), $100,001+ ($3 per dollar + first and second picks)

 

- If a team spends in excess, they get dropped to the end of each round in the draft + fines.

 

At the end of the day, this is the first conversation we have had about a team spending over the limit in three years, and it was fairly minimal, so I don't think anything may even have to be done unless it becomes a more prominent issue.

 

 

I like the idea of movement down in the draft order. Maybe you make it a minimum of 4 or 5 spots in the first round. or 1 spot/$10k over.

 

 

That would unfairly benefit other teams. Move down 1 spot, 1 team moves up a spot, every other team stays the same.

Proposed new salary cap…$4,417,975

If that is true, what a joke. No wonder the players are pissed off. As far as the Riders go, that's just pocket change.... And yeah, if the Riders do it then we should too.  The deferred salary thing? Good, I hope they're in cap hell now...

Proposed new salary cap…$4,417,975

If that is true, what a joke. No wonder the players are pissed off. As far as the Riders go, that's just pocket change.... And yeah, if the Riders do it then we should too. The deferred salary thing? Good, I hope they're in cap hell now...

It's clearly a joke. And did you not notice how many key players the Riders lost to free agency because of the deferred salaries?

I wonder how much of this years salary is deferred to next year?  If they keep this pace up then in 2-3 years they won't be able to afford a team

 

 

 

 

Only has happened six times and four of them have been the Riders. One for Montreal and one for Winnipeg. This was also the first time it has happened since 2010.

 

Since one team is clearly the trending violator, perhaps the league should look in to doubling fines for the second violation and then removing draft picks for the third and subsequent violations. Of course you would have to start with a fresh slate for all teams and count this as the Riders first violation.

 

Until or if penalties ever change, teams should look to spend whatever they want as long as they aren't forfeiting picks.

 

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings". 

 

 

Fair. Forgiveness clause could allow a team's history to be cleared after a certain number of years.

 

Other ideas for penalties (A hard cap may have to be introduced on some):

 

- Instead of a team fine, the team loses that amount (or a set amount) towards the next season's cap. This may be a bit more harsh for a league that had a cap of $4.4 million for the previous season however.

 

- Penalty escalators are reduced to reflect player salaries. I think it can be argued that if a team is in excess of a standard contract, spending in excess then may become an advantage. As it stands now, a team doesn't lose a pick until you spend about a starter's worth of salary. $1 to $50,000 (dollar-for-dollar), $50,001 to $100,000 ($2 per dollar + first round pick), $100,001+ ($3 per dollar + first and second picks)

 

- If a team spends in excess, they get dropped to the end of each round in the draft + fines.

 

At the end of the day, this is the first conversation we have had about a team spending over the limit in three years, and it was fairly minimal, so I don't think anything may even have to be done unless it becomes a more prominent issue.

 

 

I like the idea of movement down in the draft order. Maybe you make it a minimum of 4 or 5 spots in the first round. or 1 spot/$10k over.

 

 

That would unfairly benefit other teams. Move down 1 spot, 1 team moves up a spot, every other team stays the same.

 

 

Good point on that.  I guess I didn't quite think that through.

I think the assumption that over spending the cap by 18k had a significant effect on them winning the cap is a bit of a stretch. A little perspective might be the Yankees annual attempt to spend and win the World Series.