TBURGESS

I don't think either Edmonton or Winnipeg are scenic. They are very similar cities.

Ratio should be easy to understand, easy to implement and easy to penalize. Minimum X Canadians, Minimum Y Canadian starters, Maximum Z Imports, No special QB ratio rules.

I guess there's a new job... Snap Counter. They'll need an app that they click on which players are in on each snap and keeps a running snap count for offence, as second one for defence and a running % for each Yankee NI. Actually, there won't be any in game penalty for snap % infractions. If there were, then you'd have to have Canadian's first, Yankee NI's second and keep the Canadian's in 1 additional play each set of downs. Otherwise, their would be a snap % infraction as soon as the Yankee NI plays as many plays or more than the real NI. Example: If you start your Yankee NI's. Play one, they are over 50% of the plays. It's just stupid. Ratio should be simple: Minimum X Canadians, Maximum Y Imports. Minimum Z Canadian starters.

Disagree all you want. History shows you don't mind being wrong. The leagues offer isn't based on how much money they make or don't make any more than the cost of gas is based on how much it costs to get it to your vehicle. Revenue sharing is just a term that doesn't really mean anything other than the players asked for revenue sharing. It's just the number that the league is using to base the players percentage on. It's purposely vague. If I were the CFLPA, I'd ask for real money, instead of so called revenue sharing.

Edmonton lost more than a million bucks. Toronto and Montreal are being supported by the league. My guess is that Winnipeg and Regina made money while the rest lost or barely made any. The CFL isn't going to share the gross revenue that a couple of teams make with the players before they cover the losses of the other teams. Net revenue, even CFL wide, isn't a big number. In fact, it might be a negative number these days. The league has offered to share a specific amount of revenue. That's the number they're willing to share. It's none of the players business how much each team makes or doesn't make.

The teams don't want revenue sharing. The players do. The teams offered to share specific parts of the revenue. The players want them to share all parts of revenue and not to share any of losses. Suddenly we're watching a strike.

Pads sh'mads. Lots of injuries don't care if you're padded or not. Achilles, Knees, torn muscles etc. The players are taking a pretty big risk practising without coverage.

12 padded practices is less than one a week and way less than they used to have. Heck, they had 2 a days in pads back in the day. That's a dumb hill to die on IMO. Revenue sharing? What revenue? The CFL is propping up teams with money from the other clubs. Edmonton lost over a million bucks last year. The players have no business in sharing revenue unless they're willing to share the losses to and we all know they aren't about to do that. I agree with 5 years and setting the expiry date at least 30 days before training camps. I'd like to see it set to the last day in March.

Jame Wild Wild West Bennie The Hit Man Thompson

As long as the Esks/Elks do better than last season... yup.

There are a thousand US players for every Cdn player. Teams are forced to 'overpay' Canadian players, especially the starters. With extra US players the overpay would go down. Therefore it would reduce the amount needed to pay and get better talent. Teams would still spend to the SMS limit, but they'd get better players for their money.

Reducing the number of NI's on each team would increase the talent level and reduce the cost of the CFL. No one would miss the worst 2 NI's on the team. Not many folks would even be able to name them. Replace them with DI's. Finding the 7th starting NI is tough for most teams. Reduce the guaranteed NI starters by 1 and increase the number of US starters by 1. FTW: Globals don't take NI jobs. They are a completely different group. There are a MINIMUM number of Canadians and that number hasn't changed.. yet.

I like the elimination of the Vet American Ratio, but the rest... yikes!

There's a big difference between: Do you vote for 4 downs & Do you vote to explore 4 downs My guess is that it was Question #2.

Yes Swift.

Bob Smith was one of my favourites back in the day.

Shortening the field doesn't make more offence, neither does 15 yard halo rules. It means more points because offences don't have to go as far. That's less offence needed to score the same or more points. The 15 yards on punts will increase the chances of big returns. Exciting times! Hash mark rule should increase scoring by making it easier for the kickers, but I doubt that it creates more offence. For me, it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It won't make any difference to the real problem.

Hansen isn't the worst player on the team. He's on the teams and he's in the D rotation. He's basically an extra DI & should be paid as such.

Global's don't take away from either, they are a group on their own.

I'd say your expectations are too low. I don't know how much the Global initiative has cost the CFL so far, but they surely have a negative ROI at this point. If it's still negative after 5 years of trying, then it's time to wright-off the idea. If the idea is to grow the CFL in other countries, then you need to get enough fans in other countries to make a difference. Friends and family isn't enough. Neither is taking the CFL experience home. If the idea is to have yet another class of players who are getting paid less than any of the other classes of players, then the union should try and stop it for the good of all players.

The fact that you had to tell them means the CFL is failing to get their message to people who may watch. Friends and family watching CFL isn't worth anything to the CFL.

5 Years seems fair. In the meantime, paid less than CFL minimum and off the books seems unfair.

If that's the case then how long do you wait until you get measurable results & how long do you pay them below the CFL minimum? IMO if you're going to keep Global's you should at least pay them the same as the rest of the players. That means minimum for most of them, but allows for paying more for better Global's.

Has this so called new revenue stream produced any measurable results yet? Maybe the idea is to create 2 spots on every team that are paid less than the league minimum, which isn't in the player's interest.

Clements took Brocks team to the GC and won it, something Brock was never able to do. I'd put Clements @ #2 behind Ploen.