bigg jay

Nah, he's been trying to turn this on the woman from day one.  Has nothing to with Kelly being suspended so I'm not inclined to cut him some slack.  Had he taken more of a wait and see attitude, I might buy the "in shock" excuse but he's been this way since the allegations first came out.

I assume they still have a budget they want to work within so it's not just a matter of being able to take advantage of the promo money loophole.  
We have the highest paid QB & RB as well as the 2nd, 3rd & 4th highest paid receivers with multiple guys already getting promo money so they are using it, just not on a returner.

I mean you're not wrong... their official name is le Club de hockey Canadien so in their case they would be CH due to the language.  
Yeah I can't imagine spending this much time on a sports forum and not having a clue about sports.

Nah, he's been trying to turn this on the woman from day one.  Has nothing to with Kelly being suspended so I'm not inclined to cut him some slack.  Had he taken more of a wait and see attitude, I might buy the "in shock" excuse but he's been this way since the allegations first came out.

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation. 

The way it's laid out in the CBA says: 
For 2024 the "Salary Expenditure Cap" is $5,525,000. Then the "Non-Football Related Services minimum additional amount" is $110,000 for a "Total Salary Expenditure Cap" of $5,635,000.

$110K is the number for this year and is the minimum per year going forward if league revenue doesn't increase (the table in Article 30 lays out the cap through 2028 season). If league revenue does increase, the amount available to players for promotion/outreach would also increase.

To me it reads like 'You have to pay your players exactly $110k on promotion and outreach and you need to be able to prove guys are working for it.'

Nah, he's been trying to turn this on the woman from day one.  Has nothing to with Kelly being suspended so I'm not inclined to cut him some slack.  Had he taken more of a wait and see attitude, I might buy the "in shock" excuse but he's been this way since the allegations first came out.

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation. 

In court? 

In between Battle of the Five Armies and Fellowship. 

Got curious about the Brady thing...this from the CBA (Section 30.03 viii B):

"In 2023, each Club will include in the Salary Expenditure Cap an additional $60,000 in respect of Non-Football Related Services, such as community appearances, outreach, and promotion. Starting in 2024 and continuing for every year of the collective agreement, each Club will include in the Salary Expenditure Cap an additional $110,000 in respect of those Non-Football Related Services. These special amounts will be the mandatory minimum amount for each Club and will be subject to strict audit rules. The Clubs will have sole discretion on which players shall received these payments and the amounts to each player, but in no case should these amounts be less than $60,000 per Club in 2023 or less than $110,000 per Club, per year thereafter. These amounts will be included in a player’s SPC and noted accordingly."

Block, Mute, etc.... it's your best friend.

so just to be clear... your stance on this specific part of the scenario is.... if someone was harassed at work, that person should be to the one to leave and give up on their dreams... with no onus on the organization to create a harassment-free work place.... if that is not what you believe, it doesn't show in your posts.    

I refuse to believe it. 

He-said, she-said (backed up by a detailed independent investigation with witnesses).
You're talking out of your ass man

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation. 

Did I accidently walk into a Chappelle show sketch or something

 
The complaint contains references to events that was witnessed by numerous people. What do you think is contained in the 87 page report that was generated? What everyone was having for breakfast that day? There is no legal hurdle the league has to clear here. By his actions they've determined he's violated their Violence against Women policy and has been disciplined as such.

The CFLPA will have something to say about it, but it probably won't be in regards to the minimum length of it... more to the fact that as it's written it can be interpreted as an indefinite suspension... although there is precedent for such suspensions in sports leagues now thanks to Draymond Green in the NBA.

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation. 

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation. 

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation. 

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation. 

Both sides (at least according to her lawsuit and the Argos statement of defense), say at least some of the incidents happened in front of others.  If the investigation got confirmation of what happened (one way or the other), it's no longer a he said/she said situation.