JuranBoldenRules

This could end up being better for the Argos in the long run. Avoid a "mistake by the lake." Wonder if they'll be able to play a few cities/municipalities off each other to get some tax money.

The funniest part of that article is when Bourke says "look at the numbers, they don't lie. It's not like we're asking for a crazy amount." Followed by, I've never actually looked at the numbers. Only 4 members of the PA executive have access to the audited financial statements of the private teams, but still, it's kind of a funny way to put it and then contradict yourself in the next quote. The numbers are almost becoming mythical outside of the negotiating table. But as you said, the more the PA speaks, the more ignorant they sound. Their policy of telling players to take any and every opportunity to speak to media and vent on Twitter is really backfiring, you'd think there'd be enough media consultant's itching for a small consulting fee and the CFLPA on their resume that they could take advantage of for some basic media policy advice. Bourke's played in every CFL city multiple times, spent several days in all of them, and he really wonders how the Alouettes would struggle to "do at least fairly well?" They are the second team in a one team city. They play in one of the oldest standing stadiums in North America, which is also damn near inaccessible by any modern mode of transportation. When they were selling out they were selling an amount of tickets that would have put the Bombers on the brink of folding. They also lack control over a bunch of ancillary revenues. The Rolling Stones aren't playing Percival Molson if they come to Montreal. Since Wetenhall sunk a bunch of money into upgrading the stadium a bit and adding some seats, they haven't been selling out. It's pretty simple math. A team selling 22,000 seats isn't going to post strong revenues in a league where 25,000 is the relative breakeven point.

I was hoping for "Boltus fumbled ginger snaps."

Got a bit of a laugh with them listing Watson at 285, if he's more than 260 he's really packed on the pounds fast. Goodrich is a guy with pro potential for sure. Not sure about his eligibility as a territorial exemption because I believe he spent at least one season with the Bisons, and I think part of last season too before he went back to the Rifles. I've watched Goodrich since he was 14, coached teams that have played against him. He's as dominant as a receiver as there's been in Winnipeg at the high school level in a long time, keeping in mind a guy like Demski who came through as a tailback, but has mostly played receiver for the Bisons and likely will in the CFL too.

The FACTs contradict each other. Business models differ, but new stadiums in Hamilton and Ottawa should equal comparable revenue to the new stadium in Winnipeg. Here's a FACT I'm interested in, does the CFLPA at least consult with an economist? Interesting numbers with the community owned teams in terms % of team revenue would go to player salaries. What's the % for Toronto or Montreal? I suppose they can't release that number because it would break the confidentiality they agreed to with financial statements. It would likely be upwards of 50%.

I'm pro-union, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for the CFLPA given how poorly they are handling negotiations, consistently flip-flopping each time the CBA is reopened on how they wish to be compensated based on how they can get the most money the next season (which is totally fair). What I can't stand is the calling out of the league for being greedy and unwilling to partner with the players, when really history suggests the opposite is at least equally true. In the last CBA, the league gave the players more money than they would have got had compensation linked to revenue continued. The CFLPA knew that stadiums were planned in Winnipeg, Hamilton, BC and most likely Saskatchewan last time around. Rather than take a longview, they took the immediate money and ran, giving up compensation linked to revenue. You change something fundamental like how compensation is determined, you can't expect to change it back to suit you best the next time it comes around. You reap what you sow. Unfortunately I believe most CFL players are in the dark (which is not unusual for any labour negotiation) and their executive/legal counsel is severely lacking in expertise, and they don't have the money to bring in someone who can handle this situation properly. They've likely seen the best offer from the CFL, and if this goes on much longer they'll be taken to the woodshed.

This is reminding me a lot of the breakdown of the NHLPA in 2005. Small group of players, along with the PA executive willing to die on the hill of absolutely no salary cap, even if that extended the lockout into a second season, larger group of players eventually freeze out that faction and take over negotiations. The league side also brought in more moderate negotiators. I don't know how accurate Harris' estimates are, but I think they are favouring the right sides in terms of most players and most owners wanting to compromise. Problem is it gets very personal, basically a clash of personalities among the people from both sides at the table, and you're looking at a group of competitive people on both sides.

The players should vote to strike but show up for camp with the strike looming, basically they can walk out at any point without a current CBA. That to me would be the only leverage they could hold over the league at this point. MLBPA and NHLPA have both used this tactic to varying success. Imagine if the players said two weeks before Labour Day that they won't play starting that week if there is no deal...leverage. Even that might not be enough to move the league, but it's something. I'm not sure their leadership is savvy enough to organize something like that.

The players actually asked to remove the revenue sharing in 2010, it was their idea. At least that's the impression I get from Doug Brown and the CFLPA counsel currently and at that time, Ed Molstad. At that point revenue was stagnant and they wanted more real dollars tacked on to the SMS limit. Penton and Toth were giving Doug Brown a pretty good ribbing about it last night. Goes to show how narrow the view of the CFLPA is, and I guess that makes sense since most of them aren't around more than a few years. I also listened to that conversation last night between Toth, Brown and Penton. That's definitely not the impression I got. My understanding was that the PA allowed the owners to go back to a fixed cap because the league was in hard times and that the league would consider a cap tied to revenue in the future if revenues increased. But the hard cap was requested by the owners. I'm sure if the PA requested the removal of revenue sharing last time and now want it back, that the owners would be making a bigger deal about it, during these negotiations. The switch to a fixed cap was sort of the $3,000 bonus and immediate raise of that negotiation. Have some money now, and you have can probably get some more later, but lets just get it done on the league's part. Like now, the players wanted more money, but the revenue sharing agreement wouldn't give that to them. The PA only deals in the here and now, which is difficult when the league is dealing with sustainability. I don't think any pro league has the same dynamic, ones with collective bargaining anyways.

The players actually asked to remove the revenue sharing in 2010, it was their idea. At least that's the impression I get from Doug Brown and the CFLPA counsel currently and at that time, Ed Molstad. At that point revenue was stagnant and they wanted more real dollars tacked on to the SMS limit. Penton and Toth were giving Doug Brown a pretty good ribbing about it last night. Goes to show how narrow the view of the CFLPA is, and I guess that makes sense since most of them aren't around more than a few years.

The playing field is slated to be 25 feet below grade. Not going to be a lot of wind.

I'm not a fan of the half open, half closed designs. Terrible shadows, no sun on the seating area. Not worth it for the 1-2 games it might rain. Works for British soccer stadiums cause they get rain/cloud cover for 35 games and sun for 4-5 games. But, they had the same pressure we did here with people saying why not a dome? We compromised with the covered seating area, they are calling it "roof ready" just in case someone trips over $250 million to turn it into a dome.

Sadly, the practice roster beer vendors make even less.

Scott Flory, noted lover of the comma, needs a media consultant, to help him craft his message.

Good. I will miss adding to my stack of unused playoff tickets though.

Montreal has to beat out Ottawa and at least tie with the 4th place team in the west to get the last playoff spot. They get 2 extra games against eastern teams instead of western teams. They have a very good defense. All of that gives them a pretty big advantage over Edmonton and Winnipeg IMHO. I don't know if I'd agree with that. I certainly don't know if I'd agree that it would be a big enough difference that a roster player to-be would look at it and say "hey, this team is markedly better than this one" They were the 3rd worst D in the league last year, they need to change their ratio and they lost their middle linebacker. It could definitely go either way. Their D is relying on a lot of relatively old players in key spots too.

Hamilton must really like Aprile, because they have no one else behind Fantuz and Giguere.

The media is a huge part of any labour negotiation, from Superstore cashiers right up to pro athletes. Most unions and large employers have media consultants just for that purpose. It's a matter of whether you want Gary Lawless (or a news reporter in the case of other negotiations) putting out leaks, many times inaccurate or one-sided, or if you want to control the message. On Cohon's part, he's trying to get the message of the money in their pockets to all the players. Having been a part of a bargaining unit and outside that fence as an employee, often employees have no idea what offers are on the table, particularly coming from the employer's side. I'm part of the internet generation, so I have no idea what it was like before so many avenues of instant communication were available, but I imagine it was even more closed. Straight up money is often used to move the bargaining unit off other issues, stuff like benefits and player safety in this case, and strike a quick deal when both sides are bordering on desperation. It's sort of like a car salesman, "come on let's get this deal done, I'll fill the tank!"

It`s weird for Popp to say that cause he`s drafted a pretty significant number of guys who had NFL contracts, along with guys who have NCAA time left. His first two picks in 2010 were signed by the NFL when he picked them.

How much does the cap going up in 2014 matter to the players? Aren't most of them signed for 2014 anyway? I suppose they might get some extra if they sign an extension. I haven't seen any proposal that raises everyone's salary up 5% or something across the board. I'd think the bigger issue is where the cap is heading in 15-16-17-18.

41 inch vertical at his pro day in 2012. That's up there with Phillip Hunt. Good indication of how explosive he is off the snap.

That's like saying he's been more dog crap then cat crap. Both brands are pretty terrible when it comes to quality. Every person I know who's owned a Volkswagen has hated it. I know a couple people still running Volkswagen's from the late 80s-early 90s that are pushing half a million km's, with not much more than regular maintenance and new brakes. I'd assume newer ones aren't as durable, because no cars made this millennium seem to be.

Very good point, after all ... when's the last time that happened? Sheets had 772 carries and receptions in college. 1 in the NFL. Smith had 960 carries and receptions in college. 721 in the NFL. Hopefully Smith can bring something to our team, but he's high mileage and he's been more Chevy than Volkswagen to this point.

If Laurent couldn't get a deal pre-draft, what are the chances of him getting one when teams are fully stocked with draft picks and UDFAs? He's also probably costing himself money in the CFL by holding out, teams are going to have to fit him in with their rosters almost complete along with their projections of where the money will be spent.

The right thing for him probably would have been to at least play one more season of CIS before joining the Bombers, but that would have required sneaking him through waivers. He hadn't played a lot of receiver, was really raw and not developed physically, he needed to play more games, not get 2nd team reps and watch from the sideline with a CFL team for basically 2 seasons. With the new eligibility rules, Etienne wouldn't have been in the draft until 2012, and still would have had one year of CIS eligibility left. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being a 45-50 catch 500 yard ish receiver for his career, disregarding his first two seasons where he didn't leave the sideline even when he was dressed.