Ambrosiie, CFL Issues Statement Regarding Player Contracts...

[argos1873]

https://www.cfl.ca/2018/02/01/ambros...yer-contracts/

[dmont]

https://www.cfl.ca/2018/02/01/ambros...yer-contracts/

'At a boy, Randy!

[gilthethrill]

What a concept....requiring players to honor contracts.

[ArgoGabe22]

But I thought the Argos we’re inhumane and had shady business practices...

[argos1873]

But I thought the Argos we’re inhumane and had shady business practices...

In today's world, abiding by contracts and rules is considered shady, don't you know? Preventing someone from playing in the NFL after they've signed a contract to play in another league, is a "crime against humanity". This is the new normal.

[jerrym]

The Commissioner's statement that a team "faces a heavy fine" because it "announced they had released a player halfway through his first CFL contract so he can pursue NFL opportunities. This refers obviously to Micah Awe, who was released by the Lions. Good to see the league upholding its rules.
However, is Awe still able to go to the NFL?
Can other teams make side deals in the future and claim they are releasing a player because they were not happy with his play, or they are going add more veteran players in order to go all out for a championships, or the player doesn't fit the direction they want to take the offence or defence or a new coach/GM wants to clear out parts of the previous management/coach's player personnel?
In other words how well can the league enforce this rule if teams do not state they are releasing a player to pursue NFL opportunities as happened with Awe?

[argos1873]

The Commissioner's statement that a team "faces a heavy fine" because it "announced they had released a player halfway through his first CFL contract so he can pursue NFL opportunities. This refers obviously to Micah Awe, who was released by the Lions. Good to see the league upholding its rules.
However, is Awe still able to go to the NFL?
Can other teams make side deals in the future and claim they are releasing a player because they were not happy with his play, or they are going add more veteran players in order to go all out for a championships, or the player doesn't fit the direction they want to take the offence or defence or a new coach/GM wants to clear out parts of the previous management/coach's player personnel?
In other words how well can the league enforce this rule if teams do not state they are releasing a player to pursue NFL opportunities as happened with Awe?

Pretty sure Awe is still able to go to try the NFL. They can only fine the team. I think under the current rules yes the team can still cut side deals, but the league can at its will, under reasonable suspicion fine the team if they feel there was a side deal cut. Currently its the commish saying this, I guess we need to see how much teeth it has. Don't forget, the commissioner is not the boss of the governors. He works for them. If they don't like his direction, he changes or gets the can. So if all the majority of teams are on board with what his direction is, then it the tiger will have teeth.

[Shatto]

Ambrosie made it very clear 6 days ago that he would not support "side deals". He couldn't have been clearer when he said "I don't want a league of side deals" Hervey, went ahead anyway, which was really throwing down the gauntlet, directly opposing the commissioner. Ambrosie reacted in the only way he could; if he wished to be viewed as a strong commissioner. He acted decisively, stating that the offending club would face a heavy fine.

His stand has effectively supported the decision of the Argos not to release the two players. IMO, the vast majority of the governors will realize that the league needs the strong leadership of an effective commissioner and will support Ambrosie on this issue.

[rdavies]

Hervey, went ahead anyway, which was really throwing down the gauntlet, directly opposing the commissioner.

What the hell is this guy's problem, he pulled shenanigans with the league before and now he's testing the waters with Randy Bobandy. Eddie or more likely Braley, is gonna find out there's a new sheriff in town.

[AngeloV]

The Commissioner's statement that a team "faces a heavy fine" because it "announced they had released a player halfway through his first CFL contract so he can pursue NFL opportunities. This refers obviously to Micah Awe, who was released by the Lions. Good to see the league upholding its rules.
However, is Awe still able to go to the NFL?
Can other teams make side deals in the future and claim they are releasing a player because they were not happy with his play, or they are going add more veteran players in order to go all out for a championships, or the player doesn't fit the direction they want to take the offence or defence or a new coach/GM wants to clear out parts of the previous management/coach's player personnel?
In other words how well can the league enforce this rule if teams do not state they are releasing a player to pursue NFL opportunities as happened with Awe?

I don't see how the league can levy a fine. Players in their entry level contracts get cut all the time. I see a loophole there whereas a team can always publicly say that they have decided to go in a different direction and "X" player isn't a fit in that direction. I think the league just needs to drop the MANDATORY 2 years on entry level contracts. Maybe even just tweek it where a player can leave after 1 year, but the team that had him under contract continues to hold his playing rights.

[jerrym]

I don't see how the league can levy a fine. Players in their entry level contracts get cut all the time. I see a loophole there whereas a team can always publicly say that they have decided to go in a different direction and "X" player isn't a fit in that direction. I think the league just needs to drop the MANDATORY 2 years on entry level contracts. Maybe even just tweek it where a player can leave after 1 year, but the team that had him under contract continues to hold his playing rights.

I wonder if this is a holding position until the rules are reviewed and possibly changed to either having a signing window again and/or what you suggest since I suspect there will cases of cuts that are on the borderline of questionable in the future.

[ArgoRavi]

I wonder if this is a holding position until the rules are reviewed and possibly changed to either having a signing window again and/or what you suggest since I suspect there will cases of cuts that are on the borderline of questionable in the future.

I think that you are correct on this, Jerry. Remember that a new CBA will be negotiated in a year as well and this issue will have to be part of those negotiations.