CFL SMS Cap/ 7 of 8 Teams Under

[South Pender]

While I agree that going over the cap by a reasonable amount could produce the edge you need to succeed, and that a team could do it at little real cost under the current CFL rules, my guess is that David Braley might well frown on doing this--violating the spirit of the salary cap. Let's face it, he's easily wealthy enough to pay any fine that might occur, but he strikes me as a very ethical guy (I guess that impression was strengthened when he resigned from the Senate), and might see this as cheating and not something he's keen to do. If this over-running of the salary cap had been a possibility for the Lions, we might not have lost some of the FAs we really wanted, but lost earlier in the offseason.

[bigmoopie]

I would be happy if an asterisk is added to Grey Cup record if a team exceeded the CAP. This would tarnish the victory and provide further impetus to prevent teams from doing this in the future.

[Hambone]

I am shocked that it was the Riders

Do you remember back when Rider fan used to whine and cry about how every team made more money than poor old them, then, when they were caught going over the cap, they justified by saying "well, everyone else is doing it."

Same old crap.

Despite there never being documented evidence back then Rider fans still choose to create their own unsubstantiated urban myths and use it as some sort of justification for their own current violations. Well....well......you know the Eskimos 35 years ago........they had to be doing it then to win all those Cups.

[Hambone]

So, what is that now, 3 times that they have failed to adhere to the cap soft or otherwise.

This is the 4th time for the Riders. They've now exceeded the SMS Cap 4 times in 7 seasons. That's twice as many violations as the rest of the league combined over those 7 season. Montreal and Winnipeg were the others; Montreal in Year 1 and the Bombers in Year 3. The other 5 teams have been successful in working under the cap each and every season. Myself I thought the Lions might've been slightly over this year what with Elimimian coming back and the late signing of Manny Arceneaux.

Year - Team ---------- Violation - Fine
2007 - Saskatchewan 76552 76552
2007 - Montreal 108285 116570 + loss of 1st rd pick

2008 - Saskatchewan 87147 87147

2009 - Winnipeg 44687 44687

2010 - Saskatchewan 26677 26677

2011 - All under

2012 - All under

2013 - Saskatchewan 17975 17975

In the grand scheme of things the $17975 overage this year is not enough to tip the competitive balance. That doesn't bother me. It's the optics of one team violating the cap 57% of the time while the rest seem to be capable of operating within the cap.

[TheLionKing]

What is it with Sask? Are they too stupid to manage to stay under the cap or just so intent on trying to be winners that they have eschewed the concept of fair play? Shame on them and shame on the league for failing to step in and say enough is enough. I would like to suggest that any team that violates the cap and goes on to win the GC should have the title vacated. An alternative would be for the offending team to pay each other team the amount that they exceeded the cap. Some of the more cash strapped teams would appreciate the funds.

I like this idea

[B.C.FAN]

The way Brendan Taman spins it, it wasn't that the Riders' success on the field stemmed from exceeding the cap. It was the Riders' success on the field that put them over the cap because it forced them to pay more end-of-season bonuses. Whatever. I give him credit for at least acknowledging the importance of trying to stay under the cap.

Some would say the excess money was well-spent - the Roughriders won the Grey Cup, after all - but Saskatchewan general manager Brendan Taman called the news "disappointing."

"The cap is something we really want to follow, obviously, and (with) the amount that we're over, obviously the intent was to make it," Taman said during a media conference at Mosaic Stadium.

"Seventeen grand is not blowing your wad and going all in per se. We're here to make the cap, that's the mandate and that's why it's disappointing."

Leader-Post article with poll

Not surprisingly, according to the Leader-Post poll, Rider fans don't support stiffer penalties for cap violators.

[Sir Purrcival]

When a hard cap is in place then we can reach your ideals, but this is a business and any business that can gain an advantage should be doing it. In fact it is a hard pill to swallow knowing what FA's were out there this off season and the Lions didn't secure, given the extra income for hosting a GC. Butler was worth the extra $18K over the cap, that would have been a wise investment. If you aren't spending to the level of your competition, then don't cry about the results that they are attaining.

While I usually agree with you Rammer, on this occasion, I have to differ. The answer should not lie in the idea that if one team does it, then the rest should be exploiting the same weakness in the structure. That is like saying if one person continues to park illegally because they can afford the fines, then everybody who can afford the fines should be doing it too and hang the rest who might like to but can't afford it.

Sports and sportsmanship is more than just about business. It defines what we value as a community. If being a sports franchise means winning at all costs, even at the expense of the credibility of the league and the game, then that franchise is is hurting the very thing that they purportedly care about. I can honestly say that if the Lions had violated the cap as much as the Riders have already, I would no longer be buying any tickets to watch them play. Winning isn't everything. It may be the destination but the journey is as important. If you can't make that journey in the spirit of fairness and integrity, then really you have no business playing the game.

The league needs to change the penalties and fans everywhere need to articulate to the league that if we are going to have a system that is supposed to level the playing ground for all, then it really needs to make it work. The current system doesn't seem to be doing that.

Where we do agree is that the league is the one that needs to make a change. It would be nice if the Riders could manage their $ the way that the rest seem to be able to. If they did, then we wouldn't be discussing this more than likely but at the end of the day, they aren't and that is providing a sense of manifest unfairness in the system. A disparity that the league could and should be doing more about.

I'll leave off at that so as not to sound even more preachy.

[Rammer]

When a hard cap is in place then we can reach your ideals, but this is a business and any business that can gain an advantage should be doing it. In fact it is a hard pill to swallow knowing what FA's were out there this off season and the Lions didn't secure, given the extra income for hosting a GC. Butler was worth the extra $18K over the cap, that would have been a wise investment. If you aren't spending to the level of your competition, then don't cry about the results that they are attaining.

While I usually agree with you Rammer, on this occasion, I have to differ. The answer should not lie in the idea that if one team does it, then the rest should be exploiting the same weakness in the structure. That is like saying if one person continues to park illegally because they can afford the fines, then everybody who can afford the fines should be doing it too and hang the rest who might like to but can't afford it.

Sports and sportsmanship is more than just about business. It defines what we value as a community. If being a sports franchise means winning at all costs, even at the expense of the credibility of the league and the game, then that franchise is is hurting the very thing that they purportedly care about. I can honestly say that if the Lions had violated the cap as much as the Riders have already, I would no longer be buying any tickets to watch them play. Winning isn't everything. It may be the destination but the journey is as important. If you can't make that journey in the spirit of fairness and integrity, then really you have no business playing the game.

The league needs to change the penalties and fans everywhere need to articulate to the league that if we are going to have a system that is supposed to level the playing ground for all, then it really needs to make it work. The current system doesn't seem to be doing that.

Where we do agree is that the league is the one that needs to make a change. It would be nice if the Riders could manage their $ the way that the rest seem to be able to. If they did, then we wouldn't be discussing this more than likely but at the end of the day, they aren't and that is providing a sense of manifest unfairness in the system. A disparity that the league could and should be doing more about.

I'll leave off at that so as not to sound even more preachy.

The parking analogy doesn't really apply, as I am not trying to compete with the guy that parks illegally, whereas the Lions are in direct competition with the Riders. While you look at the infraction being just that, it really is just their way of doing business under the guidelines present. I don't think that the word fine should be used as it is more of a tax than a fine.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see it equal among the entire league, but the way it is written currently every team should take a look at the cost benefits of going over the SMS. Since it is called salary management system, emphasize on the management aspect, the Riders are merely managing their salaries within the guideline of the SMS. If you ask me, make it a hard cap, the teams are well aware of how to stay within a hard cap amount now, when they first drew it up, it was probably more of a concern about a team getting burnt by it.

[Shi Zi Mi]

Rather than a parking analogy, I see it as a highway speed limit analogy......the powers that be set the speed limit at 100km/hr......but they don't ticket you unless you're doing 20km/hr over that.....so a high percentage of drivers go 10-15km/hr over because they can get away with it........it's still breaking the law, but not penalized. The Riders are one of these drivers while the rest of the league chooses to only go the posted speed limit.

IMHO, it's the habitual offending that is the most galling.....and the simple solution is to apply the rules on the first offense, but then the team is on a 3 year probation.....if they offend again within the 3 years (even by $1) they automatically lose their 1st RD draft pick......again within that next 3 years, they automatically lose 1st and 2nd Rd draft picks....and so on and so forth.

[Hambone]

IMHO, it's the habitual offending that is the most galling.....and the simple solution is to apply the rules on the first offense, but then the team is on a 3 year probation.....if they offend again within the 3 years (even by $1) they automatically lose their 1st RD draft pick......again within that next 3 years, they automatically lose 1st and 2nd Rd draft picks....and so on and so forth.

Must've been reading my mind Lloyd. I don't mind the penalty scales as they are but do think there is need to discourage teams from using that first $100K like it was some form of overdraft protection. I was advocating similar except instead of involving the draft pick simply increase the fines. Go over a second time in 3 years and the monetary penalty doublrs. Do it again in the next 3 years and it triples and so on. Keep your nose clean for 3 years and probabation is lifted and you start again with a clean slate. Under that instead of paying $76552, $87147, $26677 & $17975 for their transgressions the Riders would've paid $76552, $174294, $80031 & $71900. Next time if in the next 3 years it would be 5X.

[South Pender]

IMHO, it's the habitual offending that is the most galling.....and the simple solution is to apply the rules on the first offense, but then the team is on a 3 year probation.....if they offend again within the 3 years (even by $1) they automatically lose their 1st RD draft pick......again within that next 3 years, they automatically lose 1st and 2nd Rd draft picks....and so on and so forth.

Must've been reading my mind Lloyd. I don't mind the penalty scales as they are but do think there is need to discourage teams from using that first $100K like it was some form of overdraft protection. I was advocating similar except instead of involving the draft pick simply increase the fines. Go over a second time in 3 years and the monetary penalty doublrs. Do it again in the next 3 years and it triples and so on. Keep your nose clean for 3 years and probabation is lifted and you start again with a clean slate. Under that instead of paying $76552, $87147, $26677 & $17975 for their transgressions the Riders would've paid $76552, $174294, $80031 & $71900. Next time if in the next 3 years it would be 5X.

It does make sense to escalate the fine, but I think loss of draft picks is a better deterrent to habitual overspending if the league really wants to keep everyone under the cap. Would it be too draconian to say: first time over the cap, loss of first-round pick; two years over the cap in a row: loss of draft picks in Rounds 1 and 2, etc.? On the other hand, is it possible that one can have every intention of staying within the cap and yet go over the cap because of events through the season like unforeseen injuries requiring bringing in new players, unforeseen bonuses at the end, etc.?

[Shi Zi Mi]

On the other hand, is it possible that one can have every intention of staying within the cap and yet go over the cap because of events through the season like unforeseen injuries requiring bringing in new players, unforeseen bonuses at the end, etc.?

And that's the reason why I advocate status quo for the first offense......*poop* happens.....but a team must be better prepared and not let it happen again.

I also agree that draft picks are the better method for punishment.....losing draft picks hurts all teams somewhat equally.....but rich teams can handle monetary fines far easier than poor teams.

[pennw]

On the other hand, is it possible that one can have every intention of staying within the cap and yet go over the cap because of events through the season like unforeseen injuries requiring bringing in new players, unforeseen bonuses at the end, etc.?

And that's the reason why I advocate status quo for the first offense......*poop* happens.....but a team must be better prepared and not let it happen again.

I also agree that draft picks are the better method for punishment.....losing draft picks hurts all teams somewhat equally.....but rich teams can handle monetary fines far easier than poor teams.

I fully agree that draft picks are the way to go for repeat offenders . The repeat offending indicates that the Riders(and their fanbase) are either not getting it or don't care.

[Hambone]

On the other hand, is it possible that one can have every intention of staying within the cap and yet go over the cap because of events through the season like unforeseen injuries requiring bringing in new players, unforeseen bonuses at the end, etc.?

And that's the reason why I advocate status quo for the first offense......*poop* happens.....but a team must be better prepared and not let it happen again.

I also agree that draft picks are the better method for punishment.....losing draft picks hurts all teams somewhat equally.....but rich teams can handle monetary fines far easier than poor teams.

I fully agree that draft picks are the way to go for repeat offenders . The repeat offending indicates that the Riders(and their fanbase) are either not getting it or don't care.

If they'd been out of the playoffs for a few years and playing to 8000 empty seats and another team was over & hoisting the Cup you can bet the vitriole would be intense. Right now they don't care. They know the coffers are full especially after hosting a wildly successful Grey Cup. Their fan base considers the first $100K to now be a buffer, a luxury tax if you will, not a penalty. They think going over by $99,999.99 is wise use of money if the Cup comes with it. Too bad the Lions defence didn't make the one or two plays needed in the 4th quarter of the WSF or they'd be paying a penalty to not even make the WDF.

[David]

Too bad the Lions defence didn't make the one or two plays needed in the 4th quarter of the WSF or they'd be paying a penalty to not even make the WDF.

This fact gets lost in some of the off-season doom-and-gloom on this board. The Leos outplayed the Riders and were their toughest opponent in the playoffs. So despite the loss of some veterans in the off-season, I remain optimistic about this season (with some obvious tweaks of course).


DH