Report: Wake wants out of his contract

[QB Club 63]

I don't see how the CFLPA looking into a CBA-related situation directly translates into "Wake wants out" in anyone's mind other than that of a media type (sorry to use a stereotype, Jim) looking for a juicy headline to bring in an audience. Reminds me how a non-existent issue can be elevated to "startling revelation" status, kind of like the stink Dallas raised last year over the flaps on Roberto Luongo's pads.

Playing connect-the-dots where dots don't exist is not good journalism, just rumour-mongering.

[Lions4ever]

No player, other than Lui Passaglia, is irreplaceable.

There! Fixed!

[Rammer]

I remember some fans on Lionbackers overrated Wilson

Overrated Wilson?.......the guy is now playing in the NFL.......so how exactly did we overrate him?

No player is irreplaceable.

I think what is implied is that Wake took Wilson's position to another level in the Lions scheme, although we fans were finally seeing Wilson's abilities rising with playing time. Also the NFL and CFL are completely different animals, I can list a few super star NFL players, who looked rather ordinary when they came in their prime to the CFL.

[ziggy]

The agent has nothing to do with the fact that the Lions are obligated to observe the terms of the CBA. The Lions should also be familiar with the CBA so as to not circumvent it through inadvertance.

You are also not considering the fact that the agent may have been silent to the malfeasance as it is now in his clients interest to bring it up moreso than it was at the bargaining table.

I absolutely agree with the second part of your post, which I think is partially confirmed by his agent being quoted as saying he went to the players association with the complaint. I find that to be the unsavoury part of this whole thing, either he just discovered this clause, which calls his competence into question, or he only plays by the rules when it suits him. I don't agree that only the club bears resposibility for offering 1+1, no one held a gun to anyones head, the agent thought he was getting a good deal last year, but now realizes it was a mistake and wants to wiggle out. It will be interesting to find out who negotiated what. But CW certsainly needs a new agent in my opinion if for nothing else but the bad press this one has garnered for him.

[Tighthead]

The agent has nothing to do with the fact that the Lions are obligated to observe the terms of the CBA. The Lions should also be familiar with the CBA so as to not circumvent it through inadvertance.

You are also not considering the fact that the agent may have been silent to the malfeasance as it is now in his clients interest to bring it up moreso than it was at the bargaining table.

I absolutely agree with the second part of your post, which I think is partially confirmed by his agent being quoted as saying he went to the players association with the complaint. I find that to be the unsavoury part of this whole thing, either he just discovered this clause, which calls his competence into question, or he only plays by the rules when it suits him. I don't agree that only the club bears resposibility for offering 1+1, no one held a gun to anyones head, the agent thought he was getting a good deal last year, but now realizes it was a mistake and wants to wiggle out. It will be interesting to find out who negotiated what. But CW certsainly needs a new agent in my opinion if for nothing else but the bad press this one has garnered for him.

How can you possible say that the club has no responsibility to follow the CBA? Where does the CBA state that a player or agent is responsible for the Club's adherence? Do they not have to play by the rules. If Wake leaves, it is entirely the Club's fault. If the club never offered a 1+1 despite being obligated, who negotiated what is irrelevant. This all turns on one issue.

How is it unsavoury for an agent to not call them on their conduct, but the conduct itself you have no issue with? Your positioning is highly selective. Again, would you be okay with your employer, bank, etc to just ignore any binding agreements in order to negotiate a hard bargain with you?

Wake's agent may get him to the NFL this year and you think he should be fired?

Did anyone hold a gun to the Lions' or BoG head when the CBA was agreed to? Or is that somehow different?

[Lions4ever]

I think you are absolutely correct TH. If the agreement requires that a CFL team must offer a rookie player at least a 1+1 contract and it does not, then I think it (the CFL team) is in breach. I do not know what, if anything , is the remedy for such a breach under the agreement. It might be that the breach, if proven, would result in the contract being declared void.

[Big Time]

Or it might be a fine or something significantly less than a voiding of the agreement. It seems like everyone is assuming the worst here when, if a violation of the CBA has been made, it could simply be a slap on the wrist with a promise not to do it again.

[ziggy]

I absolutely agree with the second part of your post, which I think is partially confirmed by his agent being quoted as saying he went to the players association with the complaint. I find that to be the unsavoury part of this whole thing, either he just discovered this clause, which calls his competence into question, or he only plays by the rules when it suits him. I don't agree that only the club bears resposibility for offering 1+1, no one held a gun to anyones head, the agent thought he was getting a good deal last year, but now realizes it was a mistake and wants to wiggle out. It will be interesting to find out who negotiated what. But CW certsainly needs a new agent in my opinion if for nothing else but the bad press this one has garnered for him.

How can you possible say that the club has no responsibility to follow the CBA? Where does the CBA state that a player or agent is responsible for the Club's adherence? Do they not have to play by the rules. If Wake leaves, it is entirely the Club's fault. If the club never offered a 1+1 despite being obligated, who negotiated what is irrelevant. This all turns on one issue.

How is it unsavoury for an agent to not call them on their conduct, but the conduct itself you have no issue with? Your positioning is highly selective. Again, would you be okay with your employer, bank, etc to just ignore any binding agreements in order to negotiate a hard bargain with you?

Wake's agent may get him to the NFL this year and you think he should be fired?

Did anyone hold a gun to the Lions' or BoG head when the CBA was agreed to? Or is that somehow different?

First off you may want to re read my post, I said " I don't think only the club bears responsibility" which is different than your " bears no responsibility. Secondly as an adult I would expect to take my lumps if I was knownly signing an illegal agreement and not wait to see if it was advantageous to me prior to deciding to blow the whistle. If the bank was to offer me a loan at an illegaly high interest rate, I'd go to another bank, wouldn't you! If Wakes agent brought forward his concern when the signing took place it would be different, but he didn't so to my mind he was ok with it last year, what changed. He may get Wake to the NFL so if you believe the end justifies the means I guess it all works out. You're not by any chance his agent are you!

[Tighthead]

If the CBA obligates the club to offer a 1+1 and they don't, it is their sole responsibility. They cannot delegate any portion of such an obligation, especially to an adverse party.

What if it was the only bank offering you and you signed? Would you take your lumps or exercise your legal rights to void the deal?

The acts, ommissions or silence of an agent cannot allow the Lions to act contrary to the CBA. Parties cannot agree to exclude the provisions of a governing agreement unless the agreement specifically provides that they may. If they failed in their obligations, the contract is ultra vires and likely voidable.

[Shi Zi Mi]

I remember some fans on Lionbackers overrated Wilson

Overrated Wilson?.......the guy is now playing in the NFL.......so how exactly did we overrate him?

No player is irreplaceable.

I think what is implied is that Wake took Wilson's position to another level in the Lions scheme, although we fans were finally seeing Wilson's abilities rising with playing time. Also the NFL and CFL are completely different animals, I can list a few super star NFL players, who looked rather ordinary when they came in their prime to the CFL.

Cameron Wake is a phenom, of that, there is no doubt and the Lions were lucky to get him after Chris Wilson left......but that doesn't mean that Wilson was overrated.......I just don't get the correlation.

Thousands of players are churned out by the football factories in the US every year.......yet the Redskins decided to take an overrated Chris Wilson? ........sorry, that makes no sense to me.

[Tighthead]

I think Wilson was so-so, at best, against the run, and he doesn't have to worry about that in his new job.

[ziggy]

If the CBA obligates the club to offer a 1+1 and they don't, it is their sole responsibility. They cannot delegate any portion of such an obligation, especially to an adverse party.

What if it was the only bank offering you and you signed? Would you take your lumps or exercise your legal rights to void the deal?

The acts, ommissions or silence of an agent cannot allow the Lions to act contrary to the CBA. Parties cannot agree to exclude the provisions of a governing agreement unless the agreement specifically provides that they may. If they failed in their obligations, the contract is ultra vires and likely voidable.

I'm missing something, there was the bank of Calgary, Edmonton, Sask, Winn, TO, Montreal etc., sufficient leverage for a competent negotiator. And frankly if I was foolish enough to take a bad deal , yes I would take my lumps and look for a better one next time. Anyone with a mortgage has lived through this.That being said this is a pretty weird situation, do we know he wasn't offered x over one year or y over two? Life is a gamble sometimes you win sometimes you loose, but you can't call for a redeal every time things don't work out for you. I find this whole thing somewhat perplexing, perhaps the rule should say rookies can only be signed to a 1+1 , would that work for you?

[Tighthead]

What is your evidence that Calgary et al offered him a contract? If he was on BC's neg list. could he go there?

If you had a mortgage that was in violation of statutory or common law principles, and was costing you money, you would live with it on principle? Nobody is that stubborn or foolish, and to assert that you would act in such a manner erodes your credibility.

I have a mortgage, and I have never lived through one that was in contravention of the law. I guess that makes me unique, because according to you everyone has signed a voidable mortgage and put up with it. Why did you not void your mortgage and what was the problem with it? Certainly you aren't comparing a bad deal to a voidable deal - you must see the distinction.

[ziggy]

What is your evidence that Calgary et al offered him a contract? If he was on BC's neg list. could he go there?

If you had a mortgage that was in violation of statutory or common law principles, and was costing you money, you would live with it on principle? Nobody is that stubborn or foolish, and to assert that you would act in such a manner erodes your credibility.

I have a mortgage, and I have never lived through one that was in contravention of the law. I guess that makes me unique, because according to you everyone has signed a voidable mortgage and put up with it. Why did you not void your mortgage and what was the problem with it? Certainly you aren't comparing a bad deal to a voidable deal - you must see the distinction.

I didn't say Calgary offered him a contract now did I? I did say ,using your bank analogy ,there were other options. If all he was offered was a contract in contravention to the CBA I am sure the option would be for the league to step in either force the team to comply or allow him to negotiate elsewhere. Prevously you accused me of saying the club "bears no responsibility" which was also a misquote. I also never said I would sign an illegal mortgage or would live with one In fact I said if a bank offered me a bad deal I would go elsewhere, once again your erroneous interpretation. I am glad the mortgage you signed is legal and I don't think you're unique at least in that regard.Too bad you never had a chance to advise CW and his agent about contracts. Frankly I think you are so blinded by your assumption of the team taking advantage of CW that nothing will change your mind. Therefore I think we can agree to disagree before this gets personal.

[DanoT]

At this point we don't know what Wally offered to CW. We do know that it is Lions policy to sign rookies to 2+1, so If I'm Wally I would have offered CW what I thought he was worth and would be happy with on a 2+1 as well as offering a 1+1 for way, way below market value just to satisfy league rules.

If the above is true, and given CW's phenom year, and NFL interest, then perhaps the argument is being made by CW's agent that the 1+1 offer was so low as to not be an offer at all. At the time of the signing CW was probly happy with 2 years and until the CLFPA stirred things up combined with NFL interest there was no point in renegotiating or trying to void a contract.

Just speculation.