CFL Issue: Compensation for coaching moves -- Moratorium

[BC 1988]

Extra picks? Seems to me that punishes innocent teams, by taking players off the board that should be available to them. If there is going to be punishment, it seems to me the offending team should merit that. 20 lashes for Jones. Would he be grinning as he took them? LOL

Just IMO ...

Yes, I imagine Jones (tough SOB he is) would be grinning.
Orridge's moratorium seems absurd
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/cfl/c ... -1.3368815
and fining Hervey for bringing the league into "disrepute" is even more absurd.
There is no way Hervey would have let Jones plunder EDM's coaching staff if making under the table deals wasn't commonplace.

[TheLionKing]

Maas should sent Jones a thank you note for taking his assistants with him. Saved Maas the dirty job of firing them so he can hire his own assistants.

[aklawitter]

Moratorium? Requiring league approval? Who is running the teams, the teams or the league? Bush league, mickey mouse... Orridge has done nothing to inspire confidence.

[Hambone]

Moratorium? Requiring league approval? Who is running the teams, the teams or the league? Bush league, mickey mouse... Orridge has done nothing to inspire confidence.

That's been the problem. The inmates have been running the asylum for far too long. There's been a bit of an escalating anarchy happening this offseason with coaching moves. If the Thorpe resignation really was intended to pave the way for him to go to Edmonton despite no request for permission to talk to him by EE the optics of that would make the CFL look far more bush and Mickey Mouse than Orridge calling for a moratorium. Personally I applaud Orridge for making this move. He had no other option but to rein the mavericks in. As Lawless pointed out in an article today if the league turns a blind eye when in the offseason a coach resigns with 2 years left on his contract only to immediately resurface with another team in an identical role what's next? How long before one team raids a coach from another in midseason? If the CFL wants to let clubs get away with it in the offseason they basically are making it open season on coach raiding 365 days per year, contract or no contract.

Clearly the teams have deviated from the spirit of existing league rules:

First there was Reynolds talking about following the "protocol" of contacting potential coaching candidates to see if they are interested THEN asking teams permission to talk to them. To me that seems to be blatant tampering. The cart is in front of the horse.

Second there was Hervey's statement that tampering happens all the time. He was fined. Even if there is truth to the message the fine had to be given. If not the CFL would be publicly admitting they condone tampering.

Third we have the Thorpe thing. Had that been allowed to unfold as rumoured and not be contested by the CFL it would be a sign that the league has no backbone and that its constitution and bylaws are absolutely meaningless.

I applaud the moratorium but with the caveat that it will mean very little if the CFL and BOG don't come up with clear guidelines and protocols for movement of under-contract coaches. Such guidelines should also contain clearly defined penalties and/or consequences for teams that fail to follow them. I think the league does need to support the concept of coaches being able to move to other situations while under contract but need to have a mechanism in place that puts structure into how it can happen.

[B.C.FAN]

Moratorium? Requiring league approval? Who is running the teams, the teams or the league? Bush league, mickey mouse... Orridge has done nothing to inspire confidence.

That's been the problem. The inmates have been running the asylum for far too long. There's been a bit of an escalating anarchy happening this offseason with coaching moves. If the Thorpe resignation really was intended to pave the way for him to go to Edmonton despite no request for permission to talk to him by EE the optics of that would make the CFL look far more bush and Mickey Mouse than Orridge calling for a moratorium. Personally I applaud Orridge for making this move. He had no other option but to rein the mavericks in. As Lawless pointed out in an article today if the league turns a blind eye when in the offseason a coach resigns with 2 years left on his contract only to immediately resurface with another team in an identical role what's next? How long before one team raids a coach from another in midseason? If the CFL wants to let clubs get away with it in the offseason they basically are making it open season on coach raiding 365 days per year, contract or no contract.

Clearly the teams have deviated from the spirit of existing league rules:

First there was Reynolds talking about following the "protocol" of contacting potential coaching candidates to see if they are interested THEN asking teams permission to talk to them. To me that seems to be blatant tampering. The cart is in front of the horse.

Second there was Hervey's statement that tampering happens all the time. He was fined. Even if there is truth to the message the fine had to be given. If not the CFL would be publicly admitting they condone tampering.

Third we have the Thorpe thing. Had that been allowed to unfold as rumoured and not be contested by the CFL it would be a sign that the league has no backbone and that its constitution and bylaws are absolutely meaningless.

I applaud the moratorium but with the caveat that it will mean very little if the CFL and BOG don't come up with clear guidelines and protocols for movement of under-contract coaches. Such guidelines should also contain clearly defined penalties and/or consequences for teams that fail to follow them. I think the league does need to support the concept of coaches being able to move to other situations while under contract but need to have a mechanism in place that puts structure into how it can happen.

I agree, Hambone. There is a time-honoured tradition of CFL teams allowing coaches to interview and accept promotions with other teams, without compensation to the team losing the coach. I don't want to lose that fundamental principle of openness and acceptance. The events of this offseason have been outside the norm and have threatened that fundamental process.

[BC 1988]

Moratorium? Requiring league approval? Who is running the teams, the teams or the league? Bush league, mickey mouse... Orridge has done nothing to inspire confidence.

That's been the problem. The inmates have been running the asylum for far too long. There's been a bit of an escalating anarchy happening this offseason with coaching moves. If the Thorpe resignation really was intended to pave the way for him to go to Edmonton despite no request for permission to talk to him by EE the optics of that would make the CFL look far more bush and Mickey Mouse than Orridge calling for a moratorium. Personally I applaud Orridge for making this move. He had no other option but to rein the mavericks in. As Lawless pointed out in an article today if the league turns a blind eye when in the offseason a coach resigns with 2 years left on his contract only to immediately resurface with another team in an identical role what's next? How long before one team raids a coach from another in midseason? If the CFL wants to let clubs get away with it in the offseason they basically are making it open season on coach raiding 365 days per year, contract or no contract.

Clearly the teams have deviated from the spirit of existing league rules:

First there was Reynolds talking about following the "protocol" of contacting potential coaching candidates to see if they are interested THEN asking teams permission to talk to them. To me that seems to be blatant tampering. The cart is in front of the horse.

Second there was Hervey's statement that tampering happens all the time. He was fined. Even if there is truth to the message the fine had to be given. If not the CFL would be publicly admitting they condone tampering.

Third we have the Thorpe thing. Had that been allowed to unfold as rumoured and not be contested by the CFL it would be a sign that the league has no backbone and that its constitution and bylaws are absolutely meaningless.

I applaud the moratorium but with the caveat that it will mean very little if the CFL and BOG don't come up with clear guidelines and protocols for movement of under-contract coaches. Such guidelines should also contain clearly defined penalties and/or consequences for teams that fail to follow them. I think the league does need to support the concept of coaches being able to move to other situations while under contract but need to have a mechanism in place that puts structure into how it can happen.

I agree, Hambone. There is a time-honoured tradition of CFL teams allowing coaches to interview and accept promotions with other teams, without compensation to the team losing the coach. I don't want to lose that fundamental principle of openness and acceptance. The events of this offseason have been outside the norm and have threatened that fundamental process.

All well and good that the new sheriff in town wants to lay down the law. The only problem with this picture is the glad-handing Orridge did during the GC congratulating Jones and Hervey, while it was all over the media during GC Week that Jones was going to SSK. The announcement was a surprise to no one (except Orridge?)
I agree the CFL should have a process of deals being subject to League approval (if they don't already), but the informal negotiations that have always gone on is a fact of life. There has always been recycling of the limited pool of coaches with experience in the Canadian game-- it's a necessity. I don't have a problem with compensation (or maybe 20 lashes ) paid by the team that benefits.

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.cfl.ca/2015/12/17/136035/

Thorpe will need permission before leaving Montreal

CFL.ca Staff

TORONTO — It looks as though defensive coordinator Noel Thorpe will remain in Montreal for the time being. The Canadian Football League released a statement Thursday after an investigation was done by the League and Commissioner Jeffrey L. Orridge.

Earlier in the week, there was talk that Thorpe was to resign from his post in Montreal and potentially join the Edmonton Eskimos’ coaching staff.

“Commissioner Jeffrey L. Orridge has done a thorough and complete investigation of the facts surrounding the Noel Thorpe matter and has determined that Thorpe’s purported resignation from his contract with the Montreal Alouettes on Tuesday December 15, 2015 in order to secure a coaching position with the Edmonton Eskimos was invalid based on the terms of his contract with Montreal and the existing by-laws of the CFL,” the CFL said in a statement Thursday.

“Thorpe is currently still under contract to Montreal and is not free to resign from his existing contract to accept employment from Edmonton, or any other CFL Club, unless written permission is received from Montreal in advance and subject to the current protocol of advance approval from the League office.

“Commissioner Orridge has also determined that Edmonton did not violate the existing CFL by-laws and will not be subject to any discipline in this matter.”

[WestCoastJoe]

Thorpe move under review.

Invalid resignation. (Same with Steinauer? But he was ultimately granted permission by the TiCats to negotiate with Edmonton.)

Thorpe under contract with Montreal. Yes. Written permission from team needed. Current protocol --> advance approval from league office. (This is messy.)

Edmonton did not violate existing CFL by-laws. (I would like to see those, but do not have the interest to look it up at this point.)

...........

Regina raids the Eskimos. Hervey allows it, without complaint.

Edmonton wants to talk to Steinauer. At first denied. Later allowed by the TiCats.

Edmonton talks to Maas. At first Ottawa demands compensation. Maas signs with Edmonton.

Edmonton wants to talk to Thorpe about Assistant HC position. Denied. Moratorium in place.
............

It seems there are multiple streams in motion. Very complex.

This fan is not overly concerned about it. Best to get it all down in the league rules.

Coaches have to move, have to seek promotion. These guys deserve the right to improve their lot.

I have no love for the Evil Empire. But if compensation is granted in some cases, Hervey deserves to participate in that, even though he waived the privilege initially.

Just IMO ...

[WestCoastJoe]

Noel Thorpe. The kind of DC this fan prefers. All out attack at times. Mixes it up.

[WestCoastJoe]

Madani getting excited. LOL ...

[WestCoastJoe]

Madani ...

[TheLionKing]

It used to be that players were the only ones moving to other teams in the off season. Now it's the assistant coaches. How times have changed........with the exception of BC

[Sir Purrcival]

There are two issues at stake here.

1. the ability of teams to keep staff that they have hired.
2. the ability of individuals to advance in their careers.

There really does need to be a process in place to handle these kinds of issues and I do think that it has truly gotten past the point of what has largely seemed to have been a gentleman's arrangement.

The league really should be involved in any any attempts to discuss hiring another team's personnel. An official notification that they intend to talk to the other team.

Any conversation should start with the GM or whoever is running the team that employs the desired individual. No quiet background conversations with agents or other persons to determine interest first.
Evidence of any such conversations to automatically disqualify the deal.

There can be no creation of new positions that somehow allow you to sidestep the promotion only aspects of these matters. (eg. No assistant head coach crap in which the OC of team A becomes the defacto OC of team B). That is just trying to fiddle the rules and should be slapped down.

The current contract holder should not have a basis for denying offers for true promotions. For example, QB coach being offered the OC position.

There should be a schedule of compensation for teams that have coaches with more than 1 year remaining on the existing contract. Money, draft picks etc. Schedule should look at what the position is going to be. More compensation for hiring a head coach than an OC as an example.

I hate it when individuals start to push the limits of what has been a pretty reasonable system over the years. It reminds me a lot of the Troy Davis, Jason Maas deal where the league was forced to adopt new rules because two teams decided to stretch things to a point where it was compromising the integrity of the game. Nor should any team have to deal with replacing their entire coaching staff because they let one individual get a chance at a promotion. What is going on in Edmonton is pretty unfair IMO and it is guys like Jones who play by his own sets of rules that screw it for everyone. The rules have been getting bent more and more in the last few years and it is time to read the riot act and simply say, if you can't be open and above board and have some integrity, they we as a league are going to impose conditions on you. Violations will be harsh. Maybe that will send the message.

[DanoT]

There are two issues at stake here.

1. the ability of teams to keep staff that they have hired.
2. the ability of individuals to advance in their careers.

There really does need to be a process in place to handle these kinds of issues and I do think that it has truly gotten past the point of what has largely seemed to have been a gentleman's arrangement.

The league really should be involved in any any attempts to discuss hiring another team's personnel. An official notification that they intend to talk to the other team.

Any conversation should start with the GM or whoever is running the team that employs the desired individual. No quiet background conversations with agents or other persons to determine interest first.
Evidence of any such conversations to automatically disqualify the deal.

There can be no creation of new positions that somehow allow you to sidestep the promotion only aspects of these matters. (eg. No assistant head coach crap in which the OC of team A becomes the defacto OC of team B). That is just trying to fiddle the rules and should be slapped down.

The current contract holder should not have a basis for denying offers for true promotions. For example, QB coach being offered the OC position.

There should be a schedule of compensation for teams that have coaches with more than 1 year remaining on the existing contract. Money, draft picks etc. Schedule should look at what the position is going to be. More compensation for hiring a head coach than an OC as an example.

I hate it when individuals start to push the limits of what has been a pretty reasonable system over the years. It reminds me a lot of the Troy Davis, Jason Maas deal where the league was forced to adopt new rules because two teams decided to stretch things to a point where it was compromising the integrity of the game. Nor should any team have to deal with replacing their entire coaching staff because they let one individual get a chance at a promotion. What is going on in Edmonton is pretty unfair IMO and it is guys like Jones who play by his own sets of rules that screw it for everyone. The rules have been getting bent more and more in the last few years and it is time to read the riot act and simply say, if you can't be open and above board and have some integrity, they we as a league are going to impose conditions on you. Violations will be harsh. Maybe that will send the message.

Great post Sir P. I think you should offer consulting services to the CFL.

[TheLionKing]

Eskimos cleared of tampering

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/video/cfl-clears- ... ing~772421