TrueBlue

I've thought throughout the process that moving up the minimum to $50,000 would be a good start. Increase it by 7.5% every year. That is around $65,000 after five years. I think that is fair. Cap should be $4,600,000 and rise by $250,000 each year. On a five year deal: Cap/Minimum 2014: $4,600,000 / $50,000 2015: $4,850,000 / $53,750 2016: $5,100,000 / $57,500 2017: $5,350,000 / $61,250 2018: $5,600,000 / $65,000 Is league minimum salary that big of an issue though? How many players on a team would you say make the minimum on average?

Which lot did you park in most often?

Typical of a high-powered body to play a tight negotiating game at this stage. The CFLPA asks for a mile, and they league gives them an inch. The league wants to have the best of both worlds, but there are more than a few ways to work this out. The league can offer a split of revenue in any percentage, and I am sure the PA will at least listen to it. The fact that there is nothing even on the table that is tied to some sort of residual of revenue shows the stance of the league right now. This is your biggest issue right now amongst the other things. If they can work a tiered structure for salary increases, maybe the PA will listen to a longer term contract this time around.

Just curious on everyone's opinion on the parking passes. I had one last season, but did not purchase one this season based on the fact that for $20/game we were practically parking on Pembina anyways, it wasn't really worth it. Not to mention the lineups to get out of some of the lots were a bit nauseating. It probably is better for those who can come earlier, and have the ability to park at one of the closer lots, but for us, we are normally there 5-10 minutes before kickoff and all they had left were the farthest lots. We'll find other alternatives this season, and will look forward to getting some extra exercise.

There's got to be a silver lining disguised in there somewhere.

Let's move on from Etienne already. The subject has been beaten to death.

Wonder how that happened?

Appreciate an active and lively debate, but I have to say this is all just rhetoric blabber. At the end of the day, everyone's stance will continue to be the same. Granted this all makes good conversation, but I have advice for anyone here if they ever want to sit down with me and try to convince me of something: Don't waste your breath. We all choose to follow and believe what our minds have convinced us is right for us. People will live their lives, some in happiness, some in paranoia. Some will live to 90, others to 55. All the reports and studies and research in the world can lead you to believe anything if you choose to accept it. People can form educated debates on either side of anything and argue for years on why something is bad or something is good. Just choose what side you’re on, and then let others make their own decisions based on what’s relevant to them. It’s a crapshoot anyway you look at it. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t until the day you die.

2007 East SF was a gooder. http://www.cfl.ca/video/index?sub_channel=1723

Yes, but how has his driving been?

Not organic or dairy, but a good laugh about the other trendy diet these days. http://m.1043myfm.com/onair/valentine-in-the-morning-45207/watch-kimmel-asks-glutenfree-people-if-12322177

Agree that red pants would have probably been a better option. Then you've at least attempted to stand out among the prominent black uniforms of Hamilton, and Calgary,

Anyone looking for the posts about organic food can head over to the General Discussion Forum to continue the lively debate.

This isn't a serious comment is it? It is if you think it is.

Exactly. It would be a little naive to think they would say anything much else than that.

I wouldn't be downgrading a player's worth based on non-starter status. Many players contribute on special teams, and get meaningful backup reps and are counted on when needed to. That's something too. The word "starter" is overrated.

Which is exactly why other sports haven't taken on this idea.

As an official, I'd be a little adverse to being put in front of the mics to have to defend my actions during a game. There is a time to scrutinize what calls are made, but it shouldn't be then, and it shouldn't have to be in front of anyone in the media. Explanations for things can be made public in other ways from the proper people.

If they want Smith, they'd be silly to not do that deal. But then again if it's Smith they want, then we'd be silly to even offer that deal.

Sounds like he can...just not very well.

Are you sure they accept heads that big??

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings". Fair. Forgiveness clause could allow a team's history to be cleared after a certain number of years. Other ideas for penalties (A hard cap may have to be introduced on some): - Instead of a team fine, the team loses that amount (or a set amount) towards the next season's cap. This may be a bit more harsh for a league that had a cap of $4.4 million for the previous season however. - Penalty escalators are reduced to reflect player salaries. I think it can be argued that if a team is in excess of a standard contract, spending in excess then may become an advantage. As it stands now, a team doesn't lose a pick until you spend about a starter's worth of salary. $1 to $50,000 (dollar-for-dollar), $50,001 to $100,000 ($2 per dollar + first round pick), $100,001+ ($3 per dollar + first and second picks) - If a team spends in excess, they get dropped to the end of each round in the draft + fines. At the end of the day, this is the first conversation we have had about a team spending over the limit in three years, and it was fairly minimal, so I don't think anything may even have to be done unless it becomes a more prominent issue. I like the idea of movement down in the draft order. Maybe you make it a minimum of 4 or 5 spots in the first round. or 1 spot/$10k over. That would unfairly benefit other teams. Move down 1 spot, 1 team moves up a spot, every other team stays the same. Good point on that. I guess I didn't quite think that through.

I'm not sure it's a "who cares?" exactly, but I agree with you to some extent. I am sure the Riders didn't even bat an eyelash when they signed that cheque.

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings". Fair. Forgiveness clause could allow a team's history to be cleared after a certain number of years. Other ideas for penalties (A hard cap may have to be introduced on some): - Instead of a team fine, the team loses that amount (or a set amount) towards the next season's cap. This may be a bit more harsh for a league that had a cap of $4.4 million for the previous season however. - Penalty escalators are reduced to reflect player salaries. I think it can be argued that if a team is in excess of a standard contract, spending in excess then may become an advantage. As it stands now, a team doesn't lose a pick until you spend about a starter's worth of salary. $1 to $50,000 (dollar-for-dollar), $50,001 to $100,000 ($2 per dollar + first round pick), $100,001+ ($3 per dollar + first and second picks) - If a team spends in excess, they get dropped to the end of each round in the draft + fines. At the end of the day, this is the first conversation we have had about a team spending over the limit in three years, and it was fairly minimal, so I don't think anything may even have to be done unless it becomes a more prominent issue. I like the idea of movement down in the draft order. Maybe you make it a minimum of 4 or 5 spots in the first round. or 1 spot/$10k over.

The only issue I have with this exact idea would be the previous regimes that cost their successors (in Winnipeg's case a rookie) their first and/or second "warnings".