Mike Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 I think it does. I believe Lawless may have touched on this recently (wouldn't know, all I can read are news headlines, not paying for WFP) but either way ... it's about time the CFL considered it. Let me present a situation here. 2011 CFL Draft - Winnipeg spends the 1st overall pick on Henoc Muamba, Montreal spends the 22nd overall pick on Philip Blake. Henoc signs a two year contract, Philip Blake ends up signing with an NFL team. Fast forward to 2015 ... both were on the market - one in a free agency scenario, one in a scenario where Montreal held his rights infinitely until they chose otherwise. Why is this? For Winnipeg's investment, they got a year and a half of a player who contributed to their roster. They developed him into a player who was able to go to the NFL and earn a NFL sized paycheque. They actually invested FAR more than Montreal did on Philip Blake and now 5 years later, Montreal is able to reap the benefits of having held onto those rights at a cost of zero to them. There are other examples ... Ben Heenan and Brett Jones will be free market players when they come back to the CFL (if) just the same as Matt O'Donnell was. Will they come back to their original teams? Maybe. Should they be forced to under terms that aren't beneficial to them? No. But I truly believe that Saskatchewan and Calgary should have the right to match any offers made to Heenan and Jones. They invested in the player. They should get a return or at least have the right to receive one if they want it. Here's why it makes sense - it's far more beneficial for teams to currently draft guys who are beyond CFL development at this point and wait on them to return to the CFL (Cory Greenwood, Philip Blake, etc) than it is to draft guys who you essentially have to risk losing after their first contract is spent on the entire time required for them to mature into a contributing player. My suggestion? Your RFA rights are owned by the team that drafted you (or signed you as a UDFA) until your 5th year in the CFL or the end of your second contract (whichever is longer) Is there any reason to NOT do this at this point? blitzmore, Fatty Liver, Floyd and 6 others 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 Totally agree 100 percent. Not much more to add than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 5th year in the CFL, or 5th year as a pro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 A franchise tag would be better I think, only could leave for an NFL gig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbaugh Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 No brainer. I had a drunken, but good conversation with Dave Naylor in Vancouver at the Grey Cup festival in '11 about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 I certainly get what's in it for the teams but the Players association would never go for it because it reduces the value of players coming back from the NFL. Ya, I understand the concept of a matching offer, but CFL teams would mostly just back away rather than up the price of players coming back from the NFL. From a player standpoint... Why tie a guy to a team for 5 years when they have no choice in which team they'd be tied to? The current rules are one of the big reasons that you can't build through the draft like you can in other leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 The NHL ties you to a team for 7 years or until you are 27. However the NHL also has guaranteed contracts. From a bargaining stand point, you would probably have to throw in guaranteed contracts to get that level of free agency, which will never happen. The NFL on the other hand doesn't have guaranteed contracts. Here are their RFA rules: In the National Football League, a restricted free agent (RFA) is one with three accrued seasons (six or more regular season games with a team)[1] of service, who has received a "qualifying" offer (a salary level predetermined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the league and its players, known as a "tender") from his current club. He can negotiate with any club through a certain date. If the restricted free agent accepts an offer sheet from a new club, his old club has "right of first refusal," a five-day period in which it may match the offer and retain him, or choose not to match the offer, in which case it may receive one or more draft picks for the upcoming draft from the player's new club. If an offer sheet is not executed, the player's rights revert to his old club the day after negotiations must end. 5 years would be tough unless you are giving some other concession back to the players. I like the 3 years. Or in reality, I think it should be they are an RFA for their 2nd CFL contract. . CFL doesn't always release contract information. Is a typical rookie contract 2 or 3 years? If it is 3, I guess it doesn't make much of a difference on the 5 years because your second contract would probably cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 It's been needed for years along with making players in junior football draft eligible. There are a handful of teams with a ridiculous advantage simply based on population or having an entire league which is always the best or second best in their backyard. I'd make it 5 CFL seasons for non-imports to be full UFA. In the intervening time, anytime they are a free agent beyond being released by their team they are restricted with their team being able to match any offer and any opposing team having to compensate with draft picks based on the size of the contract. The PA would never agree to any of this though, literally would have to shutdown the league to get this into a CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted September 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 Because I'm slow - help me understand why the PA would not agree to this. The PA has proven in the past that they're fuelled almost exclusively by $$$ and this doesn't really do much damage to someone's earning potential, unless the suggestion is being made that teams would shy away from offer sheets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripper Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 I'd like to see the team that drafted said player to receive compensation for losing him in the form of a draft pick from team that signed him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 Here ya go, this cost me 27 cents MONTREAL — Henoc Muamba has earned his right to free agency. But haven’t the Winnipeg Blue Bombers also earned the opportunity to match any offer he receives? Not in today’s CFL, but it’s certainly something GMs across the league are talking about right now. The last CBA negotiation focused around the owners getting the salary cap number they wanted. But lost were a number of roster issues GMs wanted fixed. Chief among them was length of contracts for Canadian rookies and the ability of teams to have more control for a longer period of time over players they draft and develop. This isn’t a Winnipeg issue. It’s a league-wide scenario. Teams that spend money and resources on drafting and developing a Canadian-born player want the opportunity to benefit from their investment. The Bombers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Muamba in salary, as well as the cost connected with keeping him on the roster as a not ready for prime-time rookie and sophomore. In his third season he became a full-time starter and achieved all-star status. Then poof — he was gone to the NFL. Now his NFL opportunities have at least temporarily dried up, the Bombers are just another team in a line of many trying to sign him. Those are the rules, and it’s no fault of Muamba’s. Football careers are short and he’s right to try and leverage the situation for the best deal he can. Muamba is in a position to cash in. Good for him. But the CFL needs to look at its free-agency system as well as its entry-level contract length. Both need to be tweaked. Muamba, for example, should be a restricted free agent. He should be free to shop his abilities and generate the best offer possible. But the Bombers should have the right to match. The NFL locks up its drafted rookies for four years, with teams having a fifth-year option on first-rounders. In the CFL, players taken in the draft can sign a one-year-and-option contract. It’s not long enough. "It’s ridiculous. In no other pro sports league can a rookie become a free agent so quickly. Canadian rookies aren’t ready to play when they get drafted and most aren’t developed by the time they become free agents," said one CFL executive, who preferred to remain anonymous. "Longer deals also allow the kids to become more entrenched in the community they play in. It makes it less about geography when they get to free agency. If he plays four to five years somewhere, it gives him time to set up roots..." Canadian talent is at an all-time high as the grassroots game is thriving in this country. More year-round facilities are giving kids the opportunity to train longer and to get better earlier. There was a time when the best players in Canada had a limited career path — play at a Canadian university and then the CFL. Not now, as more and more Canadians find their way onto NCAA rosters first before making their way to the NFL. Canadian talent is key to success in the CFL. Teams need a better opportunity to retain these players. Longer first contracts and a two-tiered free agency system would go a long way to helping teams keep their Canadian cores together. It’s great Canadian football is producing the Henoc Muambas and Ben Heenans at a higher rate than we’ve seen before. Seeing them in the NFL is a source of pride for football fans in this country. The CFL, however, has to look after its own teams, and right now it’s too easy for players developed into pro players to up and leave. Great for the player, bad for the league. gary.lawless@freepress.mb.ca Twitter: @garylawless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 The PA would inherently argue against it. But they arent super powerful and really would just need to feel like they were getting a concession back in return. Raise the cap or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted September 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 Ok so yeah I agree with all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripper Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 The PA would inherently argue against it. But they arent super powerful and really would just need to feel like they were getting a concession back in return. Raise the cap or something. I think a raise to rookie salaries would have to be in order also if the contracts are going to be longer. We'll starve these guys at the league minimum if we make them play at that level for 4-5 years or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 The PA wants the players to be able to try the NFL as early as possible. How they would even think of accepting longer entry level contracts is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBBFanWest Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 I don't know if the league needs longer contracts. a 2 year minimum for rookies would work if the team maintained their rights for a minimum of five years, or as has been said, has the right to match for the first five years. That way, they can go a chase the dream and if it doesn't work out, they're back where they belong, so to speak. It really isn't something that should concern the PA at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 But its not a longer contract. Its just rights holding. Sure, go to the NFL. Exhaust your options. But WE drafted you. WE invested in you. WE developed you. So if you come back, WE get dibs. And generally that second contract coming back, whether its 2 or 3 years, you'll be a free agent at the end anyway. I dont see this keeping salaries down. How many times does a Muamba come along that generates a bidding war and even then, its 2-3 teams, not 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxon Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 It's been needed for years along with making players in junior football draft eligible. There are a handful of teams with a ridiculous advantage simply based on population or having an entire league which is always the best or second best in their backyard. I'd make it 5 CFL seasons for non-imports to be full UFA. In the intervening time, anytime they are a free agent beyond being released by their team they are restricted with their team being able to match any offer and any opposing team having to compensate with draft picks based on the size of the contract. The PA would never agree to any of this though, literally would have to shutdown the league to get this into a CBA. By far the best CJFL teams are on the Prairies. It's not even close, PFC teams have won 15 of the last 30 national championships, and the last 7 straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 It's been needed for years along with making players in junior football draft eligible. There are a handful of teams with a ridiculous advantage simply based on population or having an entire league which is always the best or second best in their backyard. I'd make it 5 CFL seasons for non-imports to be full UFA. In the intervening time, anytime they are a free agent beyond being released by their team they are restricted with their team being able to match any offer and any opposing team having to compensate with draft picks based on the size of the contract. The PA would never agree to any of this though, literally would have to shutdown the league to get this into a CBA. By far the best CJFL teams are on the Prairies. It's not even close, PFC teams have won 15 of the last 30 national championships, and the last 7 straight. They've won 5 straight, and other than the Hilltops on a yearly basis none of the PFC teams would be competitive in the BCFC. It's a different world, very little competition from CIS, much more to offer their players and they have credibility with recruits. They are competing with the CIS for recruits. The Rifles sure as hell aren't. The Colts are spending some money and trying to follow the model of the BCFC teams, we'll see how that works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted September 23, 2015 Report Share Posted September 23, 2015 Because I'm slow - help me understand why the PA would not agree to this. The PA has proven in the past that they're fuelled almost exclusively by $$$ and this doesn't really do much damage to someone's earning potential, unless the suggestion is being made that teams would shy away from offer sheets. The PA is going to fight anything that restricts player movement tooth and nail, particularly the NI players who run the union. The concession made by the league to get the last CBA done was to kill the option year. Restricted free agency would fly in the complete opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted September 24, 2015 Report Share Posted September 24, 2015 Here ya go, this cost me 27 cents .... Twitter: @garylawless you are a true Canadian hero, my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted September 24, 2015 Report Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's been needed for years along with making players in junior football draft eligible. There are a handful of teams with a ridiculous advantage simply based on population or having an entire league which is always the best or second best in their backyard. I'd make it 5 CFL seasons for non-imports to be full UFA. In the intervening time, anytime they are a free agent beyond being released by their team they are restricted with their team being able to match any offer and any opposing team having to compensate with draft picks based on the size of the contract. The PA would never agree to any of this though, literally would have to shutdown the league to get this into a CBA. By far the best CJFL teams are on the Prairies. It's not even close, PFC teams have won 15 of the last 30 national championships, and the last 7 straight. They've won 5 straight, and other than the Hilltops on a yearly basis none of the PFC teams would be competitive in the BCFC. It's a different world, very little competition from CIS, much more to offer their players and they have credibility with recruits. They are competing with the CIS for recruits. The Rifles sure as hell aren't. The Colts are spending some money and trying to follow the model of the BCFC teams, we'll see how that works out. The issue is sheer quantity (like you mentioned above)... the Lions have 6 territorial exemption teams in BC (assuming the Lions have rights to all of them)... Calgary has the Colts and Winnipeg has the Rifles.... even if the Rifles and Colts were by far the best teams... there's still a much greater chance to pluck some decent players when you have 6 teams to choose from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted September 24, 2015 Report Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's been needed for years along with making players in junior football draft eligible. There are a handful of teams with a ridiculous advantage simply based on population or having an entire league which is always the best or second best in their backyard. I'd make it 5 CFL seasons for non-imports to be full UFA. In the intervening time, anytime they are a free agent beyond being released by their team they are restricted with their team being able to match any offer and any opposing team having to compensate with draft picks based on the size of the contract. The PA would never agree to any of this though, literally would have to shutdown the league to get this into a CBA. By far the best CJFL teams are on the Prairies. It's not even close, PFC teams have won 15 of the last 30 national championships, and the last 7 straight. They've won 5 straight, and other than the Hilltops on a yearly basis none of the PFC teams would be competitive in the BCFC. It's a different world, very little competition from CIS, much more to offer their players and they have credibility with recruits. They are competing with the CIS for recruits. The Rifles sure as hell aren't. The Colts are spending some money and trying to follow the model of the BCFC teams, we'll see how that works out. The issue is sheer quantity (like you mentioned above)... the Lions have 6 territorial exemption teams in BC (assuming the Lions have rights to all of them)... Calgary has the Colts and Winnipeg has the Rifles.... even if the Rifles and Colts were by far the best teams... there's still a much greater chance to pluck some decent players when you have 6 teams to choose from... And players from all over Western Canada. The PFC teams have few guys from out of their city or province. The Rifles can barely field a competitive team most years because the best players from Manitoba playing junior rarely stay. bearpants 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted September 24, 2015 Report Share Posted September 24, 2015 I'd like to see RFA but yeah, the CFLPA would balk. However, I'd like to see it as CFL teams have invested thousands in developing their players & when their contracts expire they can leave. I always disliked that. As far as rookies being team's property for 5 years or until the second contract expires especially if they try the NFL I like that idea. As said, gives us a chance to match any offers other teams make for a guy like Muamba. 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