Eternal optimist

Alright then, lets' remove even more factors. The NHS tables provide the wages by work category and can be split by gender: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GK=0&GRP=0&PID=106738&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=98&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF= Using your example, if you look at dentists, the average male dentist, working full-time, not on maternity leave, earned $133,062 back in 2011. The average female dentist, also working full-time, not on maternity leave, earned $81,962. Note that dental hygienists have their own cohort, which even there males earn higher wages ($67,885 vs $55,816).

Average earnings by gender, per Statistics Canada: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110014301

Of course there is a gender pay gap - the difficulty lies not in establishing and acknowledging its' existence... but in implementing proper economic policy to help close the gap.

Guys... lets start Professional Organized New Zany International League and pitch it to Dundon see if he'll invest. We'll call it the PONZI League for short, I'm sure Dundon has another $250 million kicking around....

The cracks in this league from inadequate talent are starting to show like a late night infomercial for a totally useless product that's been on the air for just a liiiiitle too long...

I like how in the Riders' signing announcement proclaims he's a former Grey Cup champ. Yeah, from 2017 as a bench warmer playing in only five games...talk about grasping at straws.

I understand your stance - but a business has to maintain some level of self-control, over-expansion can be just as dangerous as lack of brand recognition in markets. I would argue the US expansion diluted the CFL brand detrimentally, and pushed it further into the realm of "bush league" by American viewership..

I'd like to present the court with Exhibit A: CFL's 1993 USA expansion.

The Argos and Lions this FA:

Yeah, he's been fantastic for the organization both on and off the field, as for free agency... I wonder how the recent flashy QB signings will affect the available cash remaining for other players...

This sounds like an obscure new rule requirement from the AAF.

I don't know about that, I think we were 0-0 this time last February as well...

...are we 2019 Grey Cup champions due to FA yet?

If that was me I'd go with neither .... Jennings is a turnover machine and I doubt Ray would consider playing again without some serious coin. Try and find a diamond in the rough I guess?

Highly recommended perusing of RiderFans,com to be had tonight gentlemen.

With all this talk about WR... I'm just saying Chris Williams is a pending FA too

Lmao Watford starts as QB by default.

Yeah I'll concede Nichols gets a longer leash than warranted for sure... still stands though I can't see our head office chasing after either of BLM or MR. That's not to say they shouldn't, just that I don't think they will...

Absolutely I agree having BLM or MR and Matt Nichols on payroll just wouldn't fiscally make sense... I think at the same time though, just kicking Nichols to the curb after what he's put into the organization kind of sends the wrong message to other players. I know football is a business, but that seems pretty harsh, you do stuff like that too much and players start to notice and won't want to come here. I think the point is moot anyways - I'd be very surprised if we make a push for either player, Bomber brass seems pretty content with Nichols as 1A and Streveler as 1B. All that said though - I agree it'd be great to see either of them come here, but I just don't see it happening. Especially considering there are other teams willing to throw way more cash their way, and in all likelihood, BLM makes an NFL PR.

Wouldn't that cause a huge rift in the locker room between BLM/MR and all the other guys that have grown with Nichols? Also, good luck convincing Nichols to be a backup to one of his two biggest playoff rivals over the past few years...

Okay... I understand the logic, trying to keep player safety in mind, whilst also allowing exciting finishes... wouldn't an easier stipulation just be to prevent a team that has the lead from attempting an onside conversion? Handcuffing teams to only being down by 17+ points seems...well, pointless, won't the game be out of reach at that point? Also... What happens if they fail on the "onside kick" play? Does the other team get the ball at the 28 if they don't convert?

My only gripe is the commissioner doesn't seem concerned with getting a new CBA signed.... this announcement is like painting your car when it needs a new transmission... sure, it looks nicer, but it still doesn't work.