Possibility of a strike or lockout?

[KCargosfan]

Thoughts?
The news the league is withholding bonuses isn't going to go over well, nor imo is the commissioner wanting 2 roster spots designated for 2 "global" players.

[paulwoods13]

There is no confirmation that the league wants roster spots designated for global players; if they have asked for this (which is possible) it could be with the intention of backing off on that "demand" later, to trade it for something more important to the league. The bonus issue has been known about for months so whatever anger players had over it likely hasn't suddenly increased.

That said, the sides appear to be playing a bit more hardball than has been the case at similar points in past negots. While I think the most likely scenario is for this to be settled before the season is scheduled to start, it would not surprise me if a work stoppage (IMO much more likely a strike than a lockout) scuppers the start of training camp.

[AngeloV]

My thoughts on the the bonuses: If a player is on an existing deal in which the bonus structure was agreed upon, then the league should not hold those bonuses back. However, the league stated this intention prior to the end of last season, so any player that signed after last season really should not be expecting bonuses before the CBA is reached. IMO, a PR move by the PA, and I have no issue with that.

[KCargosfan]

This is not looking good. One good point made here it that when Montreal is losing money hand over fist and both Toronto and Vancouver are also severely in the red, the players don't have a whole lot of bargaining power.

https://www.tsn.ca/pro-football-labour-has-proven-to-be-one-tough-sport-1.1292713

[KCargosfan]

https://twitter.com/andrewharris33/status/1119073710332231681

[jerrym]

The CFLPA is holding a strike vote on Wednesday.

[argolio]

Slim and none beyond anything short-term.

I cynically predict the o-linemen who run the CFLPA will agree to 6 Canadian starters, at least three of whom must be o-linemen.

[ArgoZ]

Nothing to strike over yet, season isn't even here. PR Bullcrap, doesn't matter what they decide or we hear. Some players can not afford to strike, not receiving their bonuses hurts their abilty even more. Easy for players like Reilly to take a stand, when he's pulling in $400 g's. I see training camp affected, and good on the players to make it that far (hopefully they get something), but season will be a go.

[Ron]

The CFL needs a work stoppage to convince casual fans that they truly are a top level pro league.

[KCargosfan]

Nothing to strike over yet, season isn't even here. PR Bullcrap, doesn't matter what they decide or we hear. Some players can not afford to strike, not receiving their bonuses hurts their abilty even more. Easy for players like Reilly to take a stand, when he's pulling in $400 g's. I see training camp affected, and good on the players to make it that far (hopefully they get something), but season will be a go.

You mean $700K.

This is why I think the CFLPA has failed in not negotiating a maximum player salary. Any increase in the salary cap is going to be taken by the quarterbacks, while some of the guys they are throwing to and handing off to will make less than a 10th of that.

Reilly and BLM both make $700K now. I believe Harris and Collaros are well north of $500K and Nichols is at $455K on a contract negotiated 2 years ago.

[gilthethrill]

You mean $700K.

This is why I think the CFLPA has failed in not negotiating a maximum player salary. Any increase in the salary cap is going to be taken by the quarterbacks, while some of the guys they are throwing to and handing off to will make less than a 10th of that.

Reilly and BLM both make $700K now. I believe Harris and Collaros are well north of $500K and Nichols is at $455K on a contract negotiated 2 years ago.

Well said. Some sort of salary ceiling should have been implemented. All the high end qbs just end up gobbling up any cap increase. The minimum salary does not help bring (or retain) players in the league. That should be obvious.

[paulwoods13]

If there was a maximum salary below $700k, would Bo Levi have re-signed with the Stamps, or tried his luck in the NFL? If we want to attract and retain players, don't we particularly want to retain star players?

Regardless, it's virtually unimaginable that the PA would propose or agree to a maximum salary.

[Argo57]

If there was a maximum salary below $700k, would Bo Levi have re-signed with the Stamps, or tried his luck in the NFL? If we want to attract and retain players, don't we particularly want to retain star players?

Regardless, it's virtually unimaginable that the PA would propose or agree to a maximum salary.

Or make the maximum salary a percentage of the overall cap, if the cap rises then the maximum available salary also increases.

[AngeloV]

Or make the maximum salary a percentage of the overall cap, if the cap rises then the maximum available salary also increases.

That's exactly the way it should be.


If there was a maximum salary below $700k, would Bo Levi have re-signed with the Stamps, or tried his luck in the NFL? If we want to attract and retain players, don't we particularly want to retain star players?

Regardless, it's virtually unimaginable that the PA would propose or agree to a maximum salary.

The more I think about it, the less I believe BLM wanted anything to do with paying dues in the NFL. He likely would have signed for the minimum salary, and who knows if he ever would have had the opportunity to start. I think he would have been back with Calgary even if 500K was the top salary in the league. My perception of him is he would rather take a little less money to actually play.

[Ron]

The max salary would actually work as it worked well in the past. There was a time 20 years ago'ish that everyone thought the max for a QB was $150K a year. All the top guys got their $150K and were all happy. Then it came out that it wasn't a rule ... but a suggestion. Cue the larger QB contracts from that day forward.

But until the real status was leaked ... no QB's complained.

I'm also not a believer in making sure a QB gets paid too much just for the fear that one QB every 5 years might get a sniff from the NFL. If that's the mindset we may as well go back to the personal services contracts and the heck with the health of the league.

[paulwoods13]

I don't believe there was ever a time when everyone thought there was a maximum salary. If anyone can cite evidence of that being the case, I'd like to see it.

[KCargosfan]

From what I have read, BLM was not offered enough guaranteed money by the NFL, that’s why he didn’t take the chance. He essentially would have gone to a camp and risked missing half a season of CFL paychecks with no guarantee of any significant money.

[Neely2005]

Hopefully they get this sorted out soon, training camps are just around the corner.

[KCargosfan]

This just keeps getting better. The league is really coming off as huge pricks.

https://3downnation.com/2019/04/30/league-says-players-arent-in-legal-strike-position-threaten-suspensions/



(https://3downnation.com/2019/04/30/league-says-players-arent-in-legal-strike-position-threaten-suspensions/)

[SkalbaniasGhost]

This just keeps getting better. The league is really coming off as huge pricks.

(https://3downnation.com/2019/04/30/league-says-players-arent-in-legal-strike-position-threaten-suspensions/)

You'll get used to it KC.

[argotom]

I am 100% for the players.
I hope they stick to their guns as they have been taking it on the chin for the last many CBA talks.
In fact, threatening a walkout and actually doing it may be necessary to get leverage.

[jerrym]

I agree. The owners and commissioner seem to have gone particularly well beyond their usual tough negotiation stance to extreme hardball this time.

[Ron]

I agree. The owners and commissioner seem to have gone particularly well beyond their usual tough negotiation stance to extreme hardball this time.

They know that player greed is the greatest threat to the CFL's long term survival.

[ArgoZ]

I agree. The owners and commissioner seem to have gone particularly well beyond their usual tough negotiation stance to extreme hardball this time.

Unfounded. We really have no idea what's going on. We've only heard the negative from the PA, which can be all bullcrap when you think about it. As someone who has been involved in Union collective agreements, one side can't have it all, there is always give and take. You want something bad, then you have to give up something. I would say the biggest difference is the newly strong stance of the PA, not the owners. If you were an owner, why give in when the PA has buckled every single time? The players will give in soon, hopefully they will get a little more than deserved. The players, who the overwhelming majorly make under $100g's, can't go weeks without pay by striking.

[KCargosfan]

The fact we haven't heard much news about this is encouraging that something is going to get done, imo.

But the CFLPA received some bad news with the following:

https://3downnation.com/2019/05/07/eskimos-post-2-8m-profit-for-the-2018-season/

Edmonton led the league in attendance and hosted the Grey Cup but only made $3 million. With the red ink flowing in BC, Montreal and Toronto, the players are not in a great position (sorry to beat a dead horse).

[Wobbler]

Sounds like the perfect time to add a money-losing 10th franchise and increase expenses league-wide.

[Antwon]

At this point I don't expect training camps to open on schedule. Maybe the teams in ON and AB have players show up as they are legally obligated. And the other teams legally strike. This would put the owners in a bind. Teams with players would be at an advantage from day one while the other teams sit, wait and fall behind. Embarrassing for the league.

[Mightygoose]

If the players do decide to strike outside of ON and AB have to give advanced notice IIRC. Believe it's 72 hours prior so they would call it if they're not happy with the progress by the end of Wednesday's talks.

Even if training camps are delayed, I can't see this dragging out to jeopardize any games, even the pre season. It's billionaire (or multi-millionaire) owners vs. thousandaire players. Can't draw blood from a stone and it should end quickly.

[ArgoFan1]

In every other league I usually am opposed to the players, but I really think the CFL players need to be paid more. It is a bit embarrassing for the league when you hear the amounts that players are getting. I understand the economics and the ticket sales, but the league should try harder to get a ton more money from TSN or other broadcasters to give more to the players. That is where all the other leagues make their money. It is also like a vicious circle, since there are so many people that don't follow the CFL only because of the low salaries, since they automatically think the players are that much more inferior. I really hope there is no cancellation of any games this season, but that they can negotiate a better TV deal for next season and beyond. That is their only hope.

[paulwoods13]

I understand the economics and the ticket sales, but the league should try harder to get a ton more money from TSN or other broadcasters to give more to the players. That is where all the other leagues make their money. It is also like a vicious circle, since there are so many people that don't follow the CFL only because of the low salaries, since they automatically think the players are that much more inferior. I really hope there is no cancellation of any games this season, but that they can negotiate a better TV deal for next season and beyond. That is their only hope.

Do you not think that the league has tried to maximize TV revenue in the past? Do you think they have left TV money on the table? I can't imagine why they would have done so. The last TV contract was significantly larger than the ones before it, and there is no hard evidence that any other network was willing to outbid Bell. CBC has largely abandoned pro sports rights ownership, Global never really cared about it, and Sportsnet/Rogers already has sole ownership of two huge properties (Jays and NHL) and arguably had a vested interest in seeing the CFL not succeed. (That vested interest may have changed now that Rogers is a part-owner of the Argos.) I'm sure the CFL has every intention of negotiating greater rights fees in the next TV contract, but the current one doesn't expire until the end of the 2021 season. There is no way the owners boost player pay now based on a hope for greater revenues three years from now.

[SkalbaniasGhost]

Do you not think that the league has tried to maximize TV revenue in the past? Do you think they have left TV money on the table? I can't imagine why they would have done so.
The CFL did leave TV money on the table by extending with Bell/TSN till 2021.The league would have negotiated a greater rights fee starting this year.

[paulwoods13]

With whom?

[argos1873]

With whom?

Sorry, I can't remember with who SkalbaniasGhost is referring to, but I do remember reading that the CFL chose to stay with TSN for less money because of the value of the partnership or something along those lines. Not saying my memory is correct, but if we went back to 2014(?) and read the threads about it here, maybe we could find out. Speaking of that, I remember as well that there was some worry of the season being cancelled/delayed during the last contract talks. Does anyone remember how late the contract dispute was settled?

[matthew]

Shouldn’t this valuable thread be in cfl room?

[argotom]

The CFL did leave TV money on the table by extending with Bell/TSN till 2021.The league would have negotiated a greater rights fee starting this year.


Absolutely, the league left money on the table and took more than a home town discount to stay with TSN.
In fact, it came out after how both Global(Shaw) and CBC were willing to bid but the league did not come back.
It is negotiations 101 to bring all to the table, have them bid against each other which ultimately increases the value of your product.
In this case, we do not know the exact amount of the losses when multiplying the multi year contract factor.

[paulwoods13]

Exactly how much were CBC and Shaw/Global prepared to bid?

[argotom]

Exactly how much were CBC and Shaw/Global prepared to bid?
I recall the reports stating how each were willing to bid more than was agreed upon by TSN and the league.

[R.J]

I recall the reports stating how each were willing to bid more than was agreed upon by TSN and the league.
The CBC/Global potential bid was $20 million back in 2007.

Also just an FYI AT, but Global was owned by Canwest (Aspers) at the time, Shaw bought the Broadcasting arm of Canwest in late 2010.

[AngeloV]

I wonder if TSN (and CBC of course) would ever contemplate using CBC for CFL playoffs similar to the way Rogers uses CBC to carry their HNIC and playoff games. I believe Rogers foots all the production costs, and takes in all the add revenue and in exchange, they promote CBC programming during the broadcast.

They can simulcast the games on TSN and CBC that way to bring in what likely would be a bigger viewing audience. I'm no expert, but I don't think their would be any risk for either party here.

[paulwoods13]

CBC and Global may or may not have been willing to bid $20M in 2007, but I believe the suggestion was made that the league left money on the table by extending the current $40M contract a few years ago. Was there someone prepared to pay more than $40M per year when that happened? If not, no money was left on the table.

[argolio]

I think "money left on the table" narrative is a load of crap.

[OV Argo]

I think "money left on the table" narrative is a load of crap.

Yeah; so you think the CFL is a super sharp and progressive thinking sports league that has done everything right to promote itself and get maximum exposure and attract new fans? The BOGs = sports & football geniuses ?

[paulwoods13]

Yeah; so you think the CFL is a super sharp and progressive thinking sports league that has done everything right to promote itself and get maximum exposure and attract new fans? The BOGs = sports & football geniuses ?

Perhaps for once, rather than take the usual shot at the "geniuses" you disagree with by rote, you could consider actually responding to the question. Was there or was there not someone prepared to pay more than Bell for TV rights when the deal was extended? If not, the money on the table argument is a load of hogwash. If so, please enlighten us as to who was waving around that wallet.

[Argo57]

Perhaps for once, rather than take the usual shot at the "geniuses" you disagree with by rote, you could consider actually responding to the question. Was there or was there not someone prepared to pay more than Bell for TV rights when the deal was extended? If not, the money on the table argument is a load of hogwash. If so, please enlighten us as to who was waving around that wallet.

Truth be told no one really knows, I highly doubt a league that needs every dollar of revenue would “leave money on the table”.

[argolio]

Yeah; so you think the CFL is a super sharp and progressive thinking sports league that has done everything right to promote itself and get maximum exposure and attract new fans? The BOGs = sports & football geniuses ?The CFL has done a lot wrong, but they've done more to keep Canadian football alive than anyone else. I can see every game on TV. Meanwhile, the CIAU/CIS/U-Sports has spent the last 50 years basically destroying the exposure of amateur football.

[OV Argo]

[QUOTE=Argo57;140077]Truth be told no one really knows, I highly doubt a league that needs every dollar of revenue would “leave money on the table”.[/QUOTE


Yep - no one really knows; believe if you wish though, that the geniuses running this league continue to make all the right decisions.

[Argo57]

[QUOTE=Argo57;140077]Truth be told no one really knows, I highly doubt a league that needs every dollar of revenue would “leave money on the table”.[/QUOTE


Yep - no one really knows; believe if you wish though, that the geniuses running this league continue to make all the right decisions.

As I said nobody really knows.

[paulwoods13]

[QUOTE=Argo57;140077]Truth be told no one really knows, I highly doubt a league that needs every dollar of revenue would “leave money on the table”.[/QUOTE


Yep - no one really knows; believe if you wish though, that the geniuses running this league continue to make all the right decisions.

Ok, so the answer is No. Not a surprise.

[Mightygoose]

Shortly after Bell and Tannanbaum bought the Argos, the TSN contract was extended by another 3 years. No value was ever mention. From my understanding what happened was a condition of the sale was for Bell to extend for another 3 years at the same rate.

The potential increase from those last 3 years weather Bell or something else, I think is where the leaving money on the table came from.

[paulwoods13]

Potential increase does not translate to real dollars. Again I ask, who was prepared to bid more than $40M per season and was prevented from doing so?

[Mightygoose]

Potential increase does not translate to real dollars. Again I ask, who was prepared to bid more than $40M per season and was prevented from doing so?

It's potential because Bell got to pay a 2014 value that applies in 2019 through 2021. Now this is based on the assumption that the increase was based on the condition of buying the Argos.

Who was prepared to pay more (including Bell) is irrelevant because the rights 2019 through 2021 was not available to be bid on

[AngeloV]

It's potential because Bell got to pay a 2014 value that applies in 2019 through 2021. Now this is based on the assumption that the increase was based on the condition of buying the Argos.

Who was prepared to pay more (including Bell) is irrelevant because the rights 2019 through 2021 was not available to be bid on

We all must also consider the fact that without the 2 year extension, the Argos may never have been sold, and may in fact not have a place to play. They would have been out of the dome by now, and who knows if Braley or anyone else would have been able to get the team into BMO? The possibility of the Argos no longer existing should be noted here.

[paulwoods13]

It's potential because Bell got to pay a 2014 value that applies in 2019 through 2021. Now this is based on the assumption that the increase was based on the condition of buying the Argos.

Who was prepared to pay more (including Bell) is irrelevant because the rights 2019 through 2021 was not available to be bid on

By suggesting that money was left on the table, the matter of who would have paid that money is completely relevant. It seems that some have accepted as "fact" the notion that if only the CFL hadn't capitulated to tsn's (and/or MLSE's) demands, some other network(s) would have paid more. Which completely ignores that there is zero evidence anyone was prepared to bid (much less outbid TSN) back then, CBC is largely out of pro sports coverage, Global was never in it, and Rogers at that time had a vested interest in seeing the CFL suffer, and little available airtime for football. Urban legends can be fun, but I'd prefer to deal in matters that have either evidence or reasonable plausibility.

[argotom]

By suggesting that money was left on the table, the matter of who would have paid that money is completely relevant. It seems that some have accepted as "fact" the notion that if only the CFL hadn't capitulated to tsn's (and/or MLSE's) demands, some other network(s) would have paid more. Which completely ignores that there is zero evidence anyone was prepared to bid (much less outbid TSN) back then, CBC is largely out of pro sports coverage, Global was never in it, and Rogers at that time had a vested interest in seeing the CFL suffer, and little available airtime for football. Urban legends can be fun, but I'd prefer to deal in matters that have either evidence or reasonable plausibility.

First of all, we are not insiders and have no direct knowledge about the extension of the current contract.
But, based on prior history where it actually came out after how Global and CBC were not even asked to make an offer, one has to wonder about the latest?
Especially and this is clearly evident, the contract does not call (and never has) for CTV to be involved in the playoffs or the GC.
Comparing to other leagues leagues like NFL, NBA, MLS, Golf, March Madness; all or most of which cannot touch the viewing audience of the CFL.
That my friend is a glaring error of omission or negligence by the then commissioner and the BOG's.

[SkalbaniasGhost]

<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'}p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; min-height: 14.0px}</style><style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'}</style>
The CFL did leave TV money on the table by extending with Bell/TSN till 2021.The league would have negotiated a greater rights fee starting this year.

<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'}p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; min-height: 14.0px}</style>

Shortly after Bell and Tannanbaum bought the Argos, the TSN contract was extended by another 3 years. No value was ever mention. From my understanding what happened was a condition of the sale was for Bell to extend for another 3 years at the same rate.


The potential increase from those last 3 years weather Bell or something else, I think is where the leaving money on the table came from.

You summed it up rather nicely Mightygoose.



]It's potential because Bell got to pay a 2014 value that applies in 2019 through 2021[/B]. Now this is based on the assumption that the increase was based on the condition of buying the Argos.


Who was prepared to pay more (including Bell) is irrelevant because the rights 2019 through 2021 was not available to be bid on

The TSN extension demonstrated the league did not want to maximize their profit potential.This allows the BOG to use this as negotiating leverage against the CFLPA.
It also serves the purpose of aligning with TSN's NFL media contract negotiations(Monday Night Football- 2021 and NFL package -2022).This only shortchanges the league and players in the end.


<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'}</style>

Which completely ignores that there is zero evidence anyone was prepared to bid (much less outbid TSN) back then, .
The league would have been able to negotiate with multiple bidders(Youtube, Amazon, DAZN, Endeavor, MediaPro, Rogers, TSN) if they had let the contract expire in 2018.

[R.J]

We'll never really know if the League "left money on the table", because with the 2013 signing (2014-2018 contract) and then the extension (2019-2021 contract), the League never spoke to any other company due to TSN's negotiating exclusivity window. The extension is thought to be a part of the Argos sale, which I find disappointing if I'm being honest.

Why the League accepted TSN's offer within the window (and with a full season to go before expiry), thus ensuring no bidding war/seeing what market value would be, is beyond me.

Que the apologists...

[paulwoods13]

Has anyone considered that opening it up to a "bidding war" might have given Bell leverage to reduce what it was willing to pay? If no other serious bidders emerged (which was entirely possible, if not probable), why would Bell offer the same amount (or more) as before? But yeah, the CFL clearly left money on the table, and apparently did so in order to be able to screw the players in bargaining three years later.

[Mightygoose]

Has anyone considered that opening it up to a "bidding war" might have given Bell leverage to reduce what it was willing to pay? If no other serious bidders emerged (which was entirely possible, if not probable), why would Bell offer the same amount (or more) as before? But yeah, the CFL clearly left money on the table, and apparently did so in order to be able to screw the players in bargaining three years later.

Also, considering the time the right we're approaching renewal in 2013 to 2014, Bell triples what they were paying the league prior. How would opening up a bidding war cause them to pay less?

Considering rights fees we're sky rocketing accross the board back then, I would think the Power that be would know the landscape. If they knew no one else would have bid 2019 through 2021, why would Bell put them selves in a position to overpay? Especially on the heels of buying (with Tannanbaum) a money losing assest? They could have waited things out no?

But I do agree it has nothing to do with gaining leverage on the players. I'm certain the league would love a larger pie to fight over with the PA.

[popo]

A potential measure of increase in television contract revenue would be the publically available Edmonton/Winnipeg financial statements. Both contain a line for "CFL disbursements".
Though other revenue sharing will come into play in that and vary by year, presumably TV revenue would be among the biggest drivers and a big change in contract value would be evident. Looking at the numbers, the last big spike was in 2014 where the report specifically cited a new TV deal with TSN:


<colgroup><col width="130" style="width: 98pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4754;"> <col width="135" style="width: 101pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4937;"> <col width="93" style="width: 70pt;" span="5"> <tbody>

2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013


CFL distributions
4,385.4
4,199.2
4,270.6
4,204.9
4,344.8
2,139.0


YOY $ Change
186.2
-71.4
65.7
-140.0
2,205.8




YOY % Change
4.4%
-1.7%
1.6%
-3.2%
103.1%



</tbody>

[AngeloV]

possible good news regarding the talks. Matthew Scianitti tweeting that the two sides have had some long talks going late into the night.

https://twitter.com/TSNScianitti/status/1128309715161817096


More good news?

https://3downnation.com/2019/05/14/cflpa-advises-players-prepare-to-report-for-cfl-training-camps/

[R.J]

TBH, I was hoping for a bit of a lockout or strike, but not surprisingly the players will most likely give in before missing any games.

[KCargosfan]

TBH, I was hoping for a bit of a lockout or strike, but not surprisingly the players will most likely give in before missing any games.

With league disbursements being unchanged since 2014 and Montreal, BC and Toronto all losing money, what leg do the players have to stand on?

I want the players to make more money as well, but there's only so much juice you can squeeze from an orange.

[AngeloV]

With league disbursements being unchanged since 2014 and Montreal, BC and Toronto all losing money, what leg do the players have to stand on?

I want the players to make more money as well, but there's only so much juice you can squeeze from an orange.

As I have said before, they need to stop paying QB's so much and spread the wealth among the rest of the league. Individual player salaries should be capped at a maximum of 10% of the team cap.

[Argo57]

As I have said before, they need to stop paying QB's so much and spread the wealth among the rest of the league. Individual player salaries should be capped at a maximum of 10% of the team cap.

Agreed, as the salary cap increases so does the max allowed salary.
Simple but sensible solution.

[paulwoods13]

Now that the CBA negots have been settled (pending ratification, which should be just a formality), we can get on with the really important news: let's see the new uniforms!

[Antwon]

With regards to the tentative agreement. Dave Naylor has a good article on some of the details.
But this line got my attention.

” That’s a definite win for the owners, but in a league where most revenue streams are flat and six of nine teams last season operated in the red, what were the players expecting ”

Six teams lost money? Does this mean only Wpg, Sask, and Edm made money? Aside from the obvious trouble spots, Cgy, Ham and Ott lost money.
So with new stadiums and good crowds Ott and Ham still lose money…if that’s true it’s truly a bad sign for the league!

[KCargosfan]

With regards to the tentative agreement. Dave Naylor has a good article on some of the details.
But this line got my attention.

” That’s a definite win for the owners, but in a league where most revenue streams are flat and six of nine teams last season operated in the red, what were the players expecting ”

Six teams lost money? Does this mean only Wpg, Sask, and Edm made money? Aside from the obvious trouble spots, Cgy, Ham and Ott lost money.
So with new stadiums and good crowds Ott and Ham still lose money…if that’s true it’s truly a bad sign for the league!

Drew Edwards sounded as if he wasn't completely convinced Hamilton lost money.

Regardless, the big concern with that statement is that both Calgary and Ottawa lost money in years they hosted conference finals. That is not good at all. How much $ would they have lost if they hadn't hosted? They should have gotten over $1 million in ticket sales from that game alone.

[argolio]

Some of those losses could just be paper losses. We'll never really know.