Lionbackers.com

Hi,
Watched No. 12's heroics in the Calgary win prompts me to offer an idea whose time has come - the need for the CFL rules to allow a "designated franchise player" whose salary could be outside of the cap - which would allow teams a better chance to hold on to ticket-selling assets like Nathan Rourke - who has one season remaining on his contract.
Of course this wouldn't guarantee keeping players like Rourke - but it would allow Doman a better chance of keeping this BC-born talent in orange. Regardless, i don't see a downside for allowing teams to spend to retain talent as the league strives to remain relevant. Come on Ambrosie, let's get this done.

While I agree in principle, it does potentially create an inequity between teams with deep pockets and motivated owners and teams that maybe operate under public administration or with owners that maybe don't care that much (cough, Toronto, cough). It would setup the same situation that we have seen in times past where "special players" got even more special with personal services contracts or other benefits that allowed some teams to poach players from other teams (Doug Flutie to Calgary comes to mind) while not messing with the cap. I'm not saying that perhaps they shouldn't look at something that helps keep the best of the talent that this league has to offer in the league but I suspect it would come with some warts so some serious consideration of how that might look and what it might result in is probably in order.
If I recall, Rykman in Cgy was one of those owners who tried to "buy" a championship and although I doubt the Stamps were the main reason for his eventual downfall, it seems like some owners need some protection from their own worst tendencies (Gliebermans, Pezzim are examples). As I understand it, the next owner was the one that turned the Calgary franchise around fiscally after Rykman placed them in receivership . Having an open vault for a franchise player could lead to instability of a franchise if the ownership over extends and doesn't get the expected results.

Back in Flutie's era they had a marquee player category. Of course the was no such thing as a cap then, merely a "guideline". One of the downsides was that while there were some legit marquee players like Flutie a lot of teams overpaid for players who were less than marquee if for anything just to tell their markets they too had a marquee player.

It created a situation whereby teams who absolutely could not afford a marquee player still went ahead and paid for one because of fear of the message not doing so would send to their fan base.

Hambone wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:51 pm

Back in Flutie's era they had a marquee player category. Of course the was no such thing as a cap then, merely a "guideline". One of the downsides was that while there were some legit marquee players like Flutie a lot of teams overpaid for players who were less than marquee if for anything just to tell their markets they too had a marquee player.

It created a situation whereby teams who absolutely could not afford a marquee player still went ahead and paid for one because of fear of the message not doing so would send to their fan base.

The best example and likely mistake was Raghib "Rocket" Ismail who signed for $18.2 million over four years. While he had a decent first year and was runner-up for rookie of the year and won 1991 GC MVP, he was very undisciplined in his second year and was released after 2 of his 4 signed seasons under the marquee player exemption.

At least Doug Flutie fulfilled his signed contract years without complaining and proved himself as a marquee player by winning six Most Outstanding Player awards.

Well, the Lions let Flutie go over a small contract difference and that was amazingly short sided - and yes, the Rocket proved a bust - not the first or last big NFL name that found the going tough up here - but I still think that we should not punish smart owners who may be willing to spend on a QB or another top player for the good of the team and their fan base. Good discussion.

Walt67 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:36 am

Well, the Lions let Flutie go over a small contract difference and that was amazingly short sided - and yes, the Rocket proved a bust - not the first or last big NFL name that found the going tough up here - but I still think that we should not punish smart owners who may be willing to spend on a QB or another top player for the good of the team and their fan base. Good discussion.

If I remember correctly, it was a large personal services contract from the Stamps owner that got Flutie to move from B.C. to Calgary. Then the Stamps owner reneged on the deal and never did pay Flutie $ that was due.

I prefer the current rigid salary cap system.

DanoT wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:00 pm

If I remember correctly, it was a large personal services contract from the Stamps owner that got Flutie to move from B.C. to Calgary. Then the Stamps owner reneged on the deal and never did pay Flutie $ that was due.

I prefer the current rigid salary cap system.

You can’t have league stability and responsible financial management without rigid controls. Contracts signed outside the SMS are not equitable or sustainable.

Walt67 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:49 am

Hi,
Watched No. 12's heroics in the Calgary win prompts me to offer an idea whose time has come - the need for the CFL rules to allow a "designated franchise player" whose salary could be outside of the cap - which would allow teams a better chance to hold on to ticket-selling assets like Nathan Rourke - who has one season remaining on his contract.

The 1990s called, because they couldn't text, and would like their bad ideas back.