Mark H.

Each obligation assumed by one party must find a corresponding promise by the other party. I just think that if they have the right to cut a player while he's under contract, he should also have the right to ask for his release. Which is the way some other teams have been doing it.

Given the way he played last year, one can see why teams would be interested and why he believes he has a shot.

A contract can favour one party over the other, but one party cannot 'hold all the cards' so to speak. https://npc.gvsd.ca/web/rschroeder/2013 - Canadian Law PowerPoints/PPT 15 - Elements of a Contract.pdf Page 9: Consideration

We're all aware off and can name several players / situations with whom that precedence has already been set. I teach some contract Law in grade 12. There is definitely wording in Canadian law about the contract needing to be satisfactory for both parties. But there are very few CFL players who could afford a civil law suit, and those who could don't really stand to gain anything from it - so there goes that threat.

Nor I - but I would prefer them alive.

Depends on the contract - usually a portion of their contracts are guaranteed With mostly the players at the top of the salary heap sitting at the negotiating table for both leagues, that is very unlikely to change In the CFL, guaranteed money for lower rung players means less money for National ratio busters & QBs It's a nasty business, which is why I side with the players, especially the ones making the minimum or sitting on the practice roster

You're dead wrong.

That's not unique to Wilder & Butler - which player came to play in the CFL for any other reason?

What for? Most teams don't do it. All they need to do is let him go and scout for another running back How well do they think he's going to perform for them now?

The pot called the kettle black and threw in some righteous indignation for good measure.

As with any of the good teams: 1. Goaltending 1 a) Reliable D who move the puck up ice effectively

Sorry, but I'm with Wilder on this one. On his side the contract is legally binding, on the team's side it's a piece of toilet paper that can be flushed any time, if they no longer want / need his services. Other CFL players have been released so they could take a shot at the NFL, which does create a precedence, which by the way can become law if it happens often enough. Just ask yourselves which scenario is more common: giving players the opportunity for an NFL shot, or forcing them to abide by a contract that the other side can thrash at any time. As for the NFL not being allowed to speak to Wilder while he's under contract, methinks the CFL would need to get their own house in order before they tackle that issue. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen before free agency in the CFL - it's obvious that it does. This does not look good, and it is not a good way to encourage talented players to come to the CFL.

A.K.A give them a majority and let do what they want. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You may want to look at how he played when they weren’t starting a fake MLB - a lot of what happened this year was not on Loffler.

Yep, that’s my Colony

If they go with 3 Canadians on the OL, which it looks like they will, they won't necessarily need a Canadian starting at LB

Buff knows a guy, who knows a guy...

There are guys out here who would make sure he actually catches fish - but methinks Miller has things sorted

It was indeed -superb

Yes, but all such conversations (including re Westerman) boiled down to 'it has to work for the team and for the player.' So - make of that what you will

Don't hold your oxygen...

Doesn’t a funding bill require 60% support?

That should work as long as Poop & Nevis are never on the field at the same time

Yes? Who's the Canadian DT that rotates with him - taking the majority of the reps?

I always said he had good receivers and threw a lot of balls up for grabs, that’s still true of him. It’s also been true of Mike Reilly this past season. That doesn’t make either of them a bad QB as a whole.