CFLPA looking into all rookie deals from 2007

[Jim Mullin]

CFLPA looking into all rookie deals from 2007, Cam Wake included
Exclusive to CKNW
Jim Mullin
5/13/2008

CKNW has learned that the CFL Players Association has been conducting an exhaustive interview process with every player that signed as a rookie in the last year.

Some CFL teams may have been contravening the collective bargaining agreement by not offering new players the option of a one year deal plus an option.

The league could be in a whole lot of trouble if every rookie who signed a multi year deal was granted an arbitrator's ruling to free them from their contracts, and become free agents.

It would be contract chaos in the CFL.

This brings us to the situation surrounding the CFL’s most outstanding rookie and defensive player of the year Cam Wake of the BC Lions.

CKNW has also learned that Wake could possibly walk away from his deal if he went to arbitration and won.

However, any move by the Wake camp won't happen until the CFLPA's legal counsel completes its interviews and comes to its own conclusions.

One of Wake's agents, Jon Elnitski says the wheels were set into motion after he had a discussion with the players association.

Elnitski says that wake is still preparing to remain in camp, and is just one of many players from last year questioned in the union investigation.

Out of all the rookies who signed in the CFL last year, Wake has attracted the most attention from NFL teams.

[lucky leo]

If cam wake didnt want to sign a two year deal with an option thats his choice. If he has a agent, his agent should of done his homework. Wake signed a contract and wants out because of NFL interest. Well the Nfl wouldnt be calling if it was not for the lions giving him a starting role. The NFL casts players all the time.. When they develop they come looking for them in the CFL....NFL should pay if they sign our players. Wake should suck it up and try to win a championship... P.S if it was not for the lions he wouldnt of been p[laying football last year but possibly working a 9-5 job.

[ziggy]

I'm lost here, is it a requirement to offer one plus an option to rookies? Can you not offer two and an option?

[Hambone]

I'm lost here, is it a requirement to offer one plus an option to rookies? Can you not offer two and an option?

Teams can offer a 1+1, 2+1, 3+1 or 10+1 if they want. I'd say the issue being raised now is that teams refuse to offer a 1+1. This is likely a newer practice that has come about as a result of the deal with the NFL that opened up things for players to exercise the option year window to go to the NFL. Prior to that the standard 1+1 allowed teams to retain a player's CFL rights for 2 years. If you signed a player who turned out to be a keeper you could get at least 2 years out of him under a 1+1 prior to the NFL agreement. Now with a 1+1 the player can be here this year, gone the next. So teams have insisted on a minimum 2+1 so they can keep that investment for at least 2 years.

I suppose while Lion fans can take a dim view of Cam Wake for this the reality is if it has become a league wide practice to only offer contracts 2+1 or greater then it was only a matter of time before someone challenged this. It wasn't a matter of if someone would, just who would be the one.

[Big Time]

There's a huge difference between practice and policy. The Lions may have a team policy to offer 2+1, but that doesn't mean they are circumventing the rules. The player doesn't have to sign it if he doesn't want to. It's up to the agent to try and sign a 1+1 if that's what his client wants. The problem is that rookies have no negotiating power so they often will take whatever is offered. In many cases, they're probably fine with the 2+1 situation since it gives them some measure of security. The flip side is when you get a case like Wake where he so far exceeds expectations that the 2+1 works against him. Either way, I can't see an arbitrator ruling against the Lions in this one. Unless it's the same arbitrator that ruled in favor of JJ...

[Tighthead]

There may be an issue that all teams have colluded to not offer 1+1s - that would be significant. A team can have a policy, when all teams agree to a policy off the books, it becomes collusion, as was the case with baseball free agency about 20 years ago or so.

[B.C.FAN]

This is a lot of smoke by Wake's agents but I can't see it going anywhere. Even if it goes to an arbitrator, the pace of such decisions is such that it likely wouldn't be settled until after the season anyway.

[No Ka Oi]

Just like Tony Tompkins and Kyries Hybert, who loved the multi-year contracts they signed and the nice signing bonus. Then when they become stars, they want out of their multi-year deals to try the NFL, claiming they were tricked. Tough titty.

I don't believe Wally even offers 1 year deals to rookies. If they don't want to sign for 2 years, there is always, "...you want fries with that?"

[wildthing]

Just like Tony Tompkins and Kyries Hybert, who loved the multi-year contracts they signed and the nice signing bonus. Then when they become stars, they want out of their multi-year deals to try the NFL, claiming they were tricked. Tough titty.

I don't believe Wally even offers 1 year deals to rookies. If they don't want to sign for 2 years, there is always, "...you want fries with that?"

I think that is the issue. The CFLPA obviously sees it as an issue too. It will be interesting to see what happens as this could hurt the league severely if teams are not offering a 1+1 deal. And I think the CFLPA is saying that the 1+1 offer needs to at least be put on the table. If by the collective agreement it needs to be offered, but isn't how can these guys say the negotiation process was fair?

[Rammer]

Just like Tony Tompkins and Kyries Hybert, who loved the multi-year contracts they signed and the nice signing bonus. Then when they become stars, they want out of their multi-year deals to try the NFL, claiming they were tricked. Tough titty.

I don't believe Wally even offers 1 year deals to rookies. If they don't want to sign for 2 years, there is always, "...you want fries with that?"

I think that is the issue. The CFLPA obviously sees it as an issue too. It will be interesting to see what happens as this could hurt the league severely if teams are not offering a 1+1 deal. And I think the CFLPA is saying that the 1+1 offer needs to at least be put on the table. If by the collective agreement it needs to be offered, but isn't how can these guys say the negotiation process was fair?

The one aspect that hasn't been addressed on this issue, is that Wake has an agent that should know or at least investigate the options for his player. Had Wake been representing himself, this may have more of a leg to stand on as I see it. With representation, he can't hide behind the stupidity of his agent IMO.

[Big Time]

The CFLPA can't seriously be taking the position that a 1+1 MUST be offered. That's just ridiculous. It's called a contract negotiation for a reason. Wally says "I'll offer you a 2+1, take it or leave it". Agent says "I want a 1+1". Wally says "See you later". Agent says "We'll take the 2+1 then". It's a free market and if the player doesn't want the deal, he doesn't need to sign it. To say that a 1+1 must be offered is crazy, and I can't imagine the CBA would say anything to that effect. This is a classic case of an agent trying to get his client out of a contract because he wants the big money in the NFL now rather than risking injury and another year in the CFL. Too bad that if it weren't for the CFL, his client wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Suck it up, play out your contract, and then let the chips fall where they may.

[Tighthead]

The CFLPA can't seriously be taking the position that a 1+1 MUST be offered. That's just ridiculous. It's called a contract negotiation for a reason. Wally says "I'll offer you a 2+1, take it or leave it". Agent says "I want a 1+1". Wally says "See you later". Agent says "We'll take the 2+1 then". It's a free market and if the player doesn't want the deal, he doesn't need to sign it. To say that a 1+1 must be offered is crazy, and I can't imagine the CBA would say anything to that effect. This is a classic case of an agent trying to get his client out of a contract because he wants the big money in the NFL now rather than risking injury and another year in the CFL. Too bad that if it weren't for the CFL, his client wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Suck it up, play out your contract, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Why don't we see how it all plays out? There may be a requirement in the CBA that the Lions didn't follow. They can't blame Wake's agent for that. It sounds like it is an issue of interpretation of the CBA, and we should read the agreement before offering an opinion. Wake's camp may have the correct reading, much as Lions fans wouldn't like that.

[Hambone]

The CFLPA can't seriously be taking the position that a 1+1 MUST be offered. That's just ridiculous. It's called a contract negotiation for a reason. Wally says "I'll offer you a 2+1, take it or leave it". Agent says "I want a 1+1". Wally says "See you later". Agent says "We'll take the 2+1 then". It's a free market and if the player doesn't want the deal, he doesn't need to sign it. To say that a 1+1 must be offered is crazy, and I can't imagine the CBA would say anything to that effect. This is a classic case of an agent trying to get his client out of a contract because he wants the big money in the NFL now rather than risking injury and another year in the CFL. Too bad that if it weren't for the CFL, his client wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Suck it up, play out your contract, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Why don't we see how it all plays out? There may be a requirement in the CBA that the Lions didn't follow. They can't blame Wake's agent for that. It sounds like it is an issue of interpretation of the CBA, and we should read the agreement before offering an opinion. Wake's camp may have the correct reading, much as Lions fans wouldn't like that.

From the CFL CBA:

Article 28: NEGOTIATION OF INDIVIDUAL PLAYER CONTRACTS

Item 3: All Member Clubs shall be obligated to offer each Player or the Player's representative in the negotiation process a one (1) year C.F.L. Standard Player Contract. The Member Clubs may provide the Player with alternatives in addition to an offer of a one year C.F.L . Standard Player Contract in the form of an offer which would obligate the Player for more than one year.

[Sir Purrcival]

The CFLPA can't seriously be taking the position that a 1+1 MUST be offered. That's just ridiculous. It's called a contract negotiation for a reason. Wally says "I'll offer you a 2+1, take it or leave it". Agent says "I want a 1+1". Wally says "See you later". Agent says "We'll take the 2+1 then". It's a free market and if the player doesn't want the deal, he doesn't need to sign it. To say that a 1+1 must be offered is crazy, and I can't imagine the CBA would say anything to that effect. This is a classic case of an agent trying to get his client out of a contract because he wants the big money in the NFL now rather than risking injury and another year in the CFL. Too bad that if it weren't for the CFL, his client wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Suck it up, play out your contract, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Why don't we see how it all plays out? There may be a requirement in the CBA that the Lions didn't follow. They can't blame Wake's agent for that. It sounds like it is an issue of interpretation of the CBA, and we should read the agreement before offering an opinion. Wake's camp may have the correct reading, much as Lions fans wouldn't like that.

From the CFL CBA:

Article 28: NEGOTIATION OF INDIVIDUAL PLAYER CONTRACTS

Item 3: All Member Clubs shall be obligated to offer each Player or the Player's representative in the negotiation process a one (1) year C.F.L. Standard Player Contract. The Member Clubs may provide the Player with alternatives in addition to an offer of a one year C.F.L . Standard Player Contract in the form of an offer which would obligate the Player for more than one year.

Whoops, this does not bode well. Who negotiated this little tidbit? That seems pretty cut and dried. If it is as simple as it seems, then I guess the question becomes "Is it sufficient to invalidate the contract or does it simply mean some kind of sanctions against the Lions". The time to have protested the lack of this kind offer seems to me would have been at the time of negotiation, not a year after the fact. It saddens me a little that this is going in this direction and it severely limits a teams ability to realize any benefits of time and money invested in a player. If they do really well in their rookie year, then bang they are gone to the NFL and thanks for the break! See ya. I guess I can see the other side but this could really hurt the league if it comes to pass that Mr. Wake can get out of his contract. I don't know how many others are in this boat, probably not that many but still, the chance of losing your talent so soon after it has proved itself is very discomfiting.

I wonder how this might affect any new talent that teams are in the process of signing or have recently signed?

[B.C.FAN]

From the CFL CBA:

Article 28: NEGOTIATION OF INDIVIDUAL PLAYER CONTRACTS

Item 3: All Member Clubs shall be obligated to offer each Player or the Player's representative in the negotiation process a one (1) year C.F.L. Standard Player Contract. The Member Clubs may provide the Player with alternatives in addition to an offer of a one year C.F.L . Standard Player Contract in the form of an offer which would obligate the Player for more than one year.

It seems clear that the intent of that section is that players must be offered a minimum 1+1 contract, and not a 10-day or one-year-with-no-option contract or other short-term variations found in other leagues. The Ricky Williams example comes to mind. The league wanted to ensure that other players didn't get out of their option years. I'm sure that's how the league will argue it, not that teams can be forced to sign a player to a one-year deal instead of a longer term.