TBURGESS

I never said Rouke was fully healed or that he wasn't taking a risk. I said that fans don't know more than the doctors who treated him and that it was simply an opinion that he was 'coming back too early' or that the team was forcing him back, which Booch eventually admitted to. If you thought I was arguing that Rourke was fully healed, then no wonder the argument went on for days/weeks/months because we were arguing about completely different things. @Booch Paragraph 9: Rourke remains under contract with the Lions for next season, although the team wants to sign him to a long-term extension. All CFL players are permitted to depart for the NFL via the window that was established in 2019, so he is eligible to pursue opportunities down south regardless of his status north of the border. They wanted to sign Rourke to a long term extension this year too. That doesn't debunk anything. Thanks for the first facts on your side of the argument. Now we need to know how much money Olivera and Hallett got for year 3.

I meant to type poster, not poser. However, if you see yourself as a poser, you are a poser. It's in black and white in the CBA. What more proof do you want? You're the one saying that BC can ignore the CBA. Where's your proof? This is just one of your problems. You think that something is true even after you're shown, in black and white, in a contract, that it's not. It's kinda sad that you go to personal attacks, cuz you ain't got nothing else, but it's your MO. I know what an option is & it's specifically defined in the CBA for CFL draft picks. The definition of option that's in the section of the contract that pertains to remuneration for draft picks is the definition of option used for draft picks. If the option wasn't specifically defined in the draft picks remuneration section, then you'd be right, but in this case you're not. It wouldn't be BC forcing Rourke to play for cheap. It would be the CBA and the CFL. Do you have a source that teams can ignore the option terms written into the CBA? It's not ambiguous because it's written into the CBA in the draft pick remuneration section. RIDERFANS as source after taking shots about using twitter as a source? BTW: Twitter was a good enough source for you to agree that you had read that BC had asked the league for an exception for Rourke's contract. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rourke will take his NFL shot. Why wouldn't he? He won't be back in the CFL next year. Why would he come back to a draft pick first contract situation? Rourke will be a FA if he comes back after next year and will get multiple offers. Would the CFL exempt Rourke from the CBA first draft contract? I'd hope so, but they didn't do that this year. Maybe because they don't want to open the door for all draft picks to ignore the option year of their contracts and ask for an exemption? I think that they should add "Except For QB's" in the CBA so Canadian QB's could get paid the same as US QB's. I also think they should be designated as Canadian's no matter if they are backups or starters. The idea that they are sometimes Canadians is dumb IMO.

This is an argument between what is in the CBA and folks who think that the CBA doesn't apply to the third year. Facts vs conjecture. Salary - Defined in the CBA for draft picks - What's outside the CBA for draft picks, doesn't matter. Option - Defined in the CBA for draft picks - What's outside the CBA for draft picks, doesn't matter. Zero proof for the idea that the 3rd year for draft picks doesn't matter & it's in the CBA that it does matter. Zero proof that the league turned BC done because Rourke wasn't in his option year. Turned them down, yup, because it wasn't his option year, nope. Zero examples of draft players in their 3rd year, since 2019 (That's the CBA we're looking at & I don't know if the clauses were in older CBA's), who got to ignore the 3rd year option in the CBA. One poser did say there were thousands of examples, but couldn't come up with any. Disproving me? 🙄🤣

So you got nothing but trying to obnoxious then.🙄

Bold - Quoted from the CBA. Section 9.02 Length of First Contracts (starting in 2020) (a) National Players All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below If the Lions let Rourke out of his current contract or allow the option to expire, then re-sign him to a new contract that is outside of the salary section, they are in breach of the underlined clause. Option year (3rd Year) Base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary When the option year is defined in the same section as the rest of the rules applying to Draft Picks, then you don't need to look outside Section 9.02 to find another definition. The definition within Section 9.02 is the definition of Option year as it pertains to Draft Picks. Section 36.01 - Effective 2020 and going forward, all players under contract will be eligible for the NFL Option Window, described herein, at the end of each season, regardless of the length of their contract. This proposed clause is subject to agreement from the NFL. It's not BC's option to allow Rourke to test his NFL options. It's in the CBA. In the event that the N.F.L. Club terminates the Player’s N.F.L. Standard Player Contract, and the Player’s C.F.L. Standard Player Contract has not expired, the Player’s C.F.L. Standard Player Contract and any renewal thereof between the Player and the Member Club shall become effective and shall remain in effect until its expiration date, and all benefits in accordance with the said C.F.L. Standard Player Contract and Collective Agreement shall continue to remain in effect Assuming Rourke stays in the NFL for the entire CFL season or if BC lets him out of his contract, he becomes a free agent. A lot of teams would make offers. Questions?

You & others are ignoring: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary. Option years aren't special when it comes to contract offers. You can offer a new contract to any player, who isn't a Canadian Draft Pick On Their First Contract, at any time, not just on an Option year. @KshyGuy Do you think that the option year paragraph you quote over-rides the Option paragraph in the CBA that is specific to Canadian draft picks on their first contract? I don't. If it did, then there would be no reason to put the option paragraph in the CBA for Draft Picks as it would have no meaning to anyone. It's there to give teams a salary certainty for draft picks for the first 3 years. @Bigblue204 Cutting Rourke and offering a new contract or 'Gentleman's agreement' as a way around the CBA. Maybe, but what stopped them from doing it this year? The CFL did. They still have final say. I remember the first part, even if my only source was twitter. Source for the option year part? Cuz, as you know, that's not what it says in the CBA.

How can you read: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary & not understand that is the only option for a pay raise? It doesn't say or ignore this. It doesn't say or a completely new contract that's greater than 10%. It doesn't say unless it's a QB. It doesn't say unless they have NFL tryouts. It doesn't say unless they are obviously worth more. It doesn't say you can do anything else, because it is the option, not one of the options. If Rourke comes back next year, the CFL will have to exempt him from the CBA to give him the money he deserves. Twitter mid-year.

Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary - That's the option. It's in black and white in the CBA. How is this hard for anyone to understand. No one can point to anything in the CBA that says otherwise, because it doesn't exist. If the Lions could offer Rourke more this year, they would have. In fact, they asked the league for an out of the CBA to pay Rourke more. Folks are pointing to the word option without reading what the options actually are even after I bolded it. A Canadian Draft Pick's option year in their first contract is not to exceed 10% of the 2nd year base salary.

Option year doesn't mean 'Can ignore the CBA' or 'Allowed to offer a new contract that's more money then the salary grid'. It doesn't even mean 'can offer a new contract' because teams can offer a new contract to every player except a Canadian Draft Pick on their first contract at any time, no matter if it's an option year or not. They can even offer a new contract during the season. Option simply means that the team can tell the player to play out the option year at the agreed upon contract & the players option is to play or sit for the year. We can end this disagreement right now. Just show me in the CBA where they say that teams can offer Canadian Draft Picks on their first contract a new contract in the 3rd year that exceeds the CBA.

It's like trying to correct anti-vaxers. Show them the information in black and white and they say 'I don't believe it' & 'What If' & 'You don't know for sure' & 'You're beating a dead horse'. You can't use facts to convince people who 'don't agree' with the facts. FTR: the CBA says what the options are for 3rd year draft picks & a NEW contract that supersedes the CBA rules for 3rd year draft picks ain't one of them. Folks who hoped that Rourke got hurt again so they could TOLDYASO me are now hoping that Rourke comes back to the CFL next year and gets a new big contract so they can TOLDYASO me. 🙄 I doubt that Rourke comes back to the CFL next year, but if he does & he gets more than the $80k-ish that the CBA states, it will be because the CFL gives BC an out from the CBA. I think that would be fair for everyone involved & I think the next CBA should be modified to allow for draft picks to make what they are worth to the teams who draft them.

Read the CBA. It says that there is an option in the 3rd year for draft picks and says what that option is. The options caps the draft picks salary. It doesn't allow BC to pay him what he deserves. He gets around 80K if he stays in the CFL. He gets $280K USD on the NFL PR. Debunked doesn't mean 'I don't think it means what it says in black and white' in the CBA. I'm not arguing. I'm explaining why you're wrong.

No you stop it. 🤣

Rourke will make more on the PR in the NFL than coming back to the CFL next year.

BC won't be in SMS hell next year, because they can't pay Rourke more than the CBA rules for draft picks say they can. (It's in the rules in black and white, not up for yet another stupid argument.) Rourke will likely be in the NFL for at least the first half of the season anyway. None of VAJ, BLM or Faj-jj will be expensive starting QB's. They'll likely have a cheap 3rd stringer, so they won't be adding more than a couple of 100K to their QB spot. Bringing in a couple of draft picks instead of more expensive backups & dropping Lucky will take care of it.

Rourke looked bad in the first quarter all by himself. The rest of the game it was more the Bomber's D making him look bad & his receivers letting him down. 300 yards passing isn't bad, especially for a young QB starting his first playoff game in hostile territory. One of his 2 picks was a hail merry that we quite frankly should have just knocked down. He threw and ran for more yards than Collaros.

Rourke had a horrible first quarter. He had open guys and couldn't hit them. Some of the throws weren't even close. Missed the first 5 IIRC, that's 3 two and outs to start the game. Put BC in a bind right away. The Lions D took the roll out away from Collaros. That took away the one on ones that we've been so successful at all season & forced Collaros to run up the middle, where he eventually got hurt. Both teams got TD's from their special teams & both teams dropped a couple of picks. Only one team could run the ball. Brady O and the OL won the game for us.

Cold isn't really an advantage or disadvantage for the Bombers. Most players have played in the cold by the time they get to the pros. Everyone will have to play in the same conditions tomorrow. A slippery field is an advantage for the offence, because they know where they're going and the defence has to react. The last BC game shows what happens when one team is playing for next week and the other team is playing to send a message. I wouldn't put too much value on that game or the Rourke-less game. The game that shows the most is the first game we played against them, which made us the only team who beat BC with Rourke at QB. I expect us to try and take Rourke out early. That means pressure and leaving the DB's to cover man. For BC to beat our pressure, they'll need to throw quick, go to screen and draw, or use the 'Milt go deep' that Khari did and throw to a deep receiver. I expect to see them do all three things at different times to try to relieve the pressure. The last time we played them Rourke was short on two deep balls, where their receiver was behind our deep DB. Completing the deep balls is there only real hope of winning IMO. On D, I expect to see a lot of run blitzes on first down. They need to make us one dimensional to give themselves a chance and that means taking away the run, cuz they ain't going to be able to take the pass away unless they take Collaros outta the game & I don't see that happening. I'm hoping for a great game with the right team winning (Yah, I mean the Bombers).

I used to love playing in the cold. The bumps and bruises didn't hurt as much once they got frozen and the crappy fields brought everyone down to my level.

Looking at those numbers, BC would be better off focusing their passing attack on the 10-20 yard range instead of the -5 to 0 yard range.

My guess... Khari to Ottawa and Much-choka stays on in Montreal.

In Lucky's case, it's what happens when your foot gets stuck in the ground and a defender hits your leg. Coulda happened to anyone.

The west dominated the league this year, they should dominate the most outstanding awards too. I'm surprised that MOS got the MOC . I expected Campbell who took his team from missing the playoffs to second best in the league in one year, despite losing his starting phenom QB mid-season to get the nod. I guess the first 15 win season trumps the huge leap in the standings.

Counter counter point... IIRC it's the only time in the CFL that giving a non-winning coach a 3rd year has worked. PLAP thinks loser HC's should get more years, cuz that's exactly where he is right now.

You: I used to almost be someone, so you musta had to deal with someone who felt the same and are angry about it. Me: I used to be someone in my field, I don't go on about it online, cuz it no longer matters. You: Not understanding that both statements about Rourke are the same thing, then calling me out on my intellect. Me: That should be really embarrassing for you. You: Everyone believes me, we should take a poll. Me: So what? That doesn't turn your opinion into a fact, You: Personal slurs. Me: Yawn You: Finally admitting that you are giving opinions not facts. Me: Priceless!