GCn20

I like the Cody Fajardo rule they brought in. He's been faking committing then running some more for years and it was a pretty blatant abuse of the rule. I am sure Rider fans will object to that rule change though, they thought it was brilliant every time he did it. I don't mind that rule change. There was not much incentive to keep the no yards after the ball hit the turf.

Agreed. Cosmetic changes at best.

I thought they both agreed to put up 250 million into an arena with cost overruns to be paid by Flames, and then the city kept adding on to the build and the deal fell through. No way in hades i would put up 250-300 million without the equivalent ownership stake. It would be highly unusual for an ownership group to signficantly fund an arena or stadium without requiring ownership.

I thought the deal was 50/50 and fell through over a cost over run? You are suggesting that the Flames would have had no ownership stake in the building but were on the hook for 300 million? No wonder they walked if that was the scenario. If it was City building and owning and Flames getting all revenues then that is equally as bad of a deal.

So how exactly would Tsuu Tina ever recover it's money? It wouldn't. No wonder the City of Calgary bailed....what a horrible deal. They have just ruined the CFL game. Just putting the first overly exaggerated opinion out there. Seriously though, I like the hashmark rule and really the other rules are just changing them for the sake of changing them, they won't do much.

You are suggesting that the reserve would own the stadium and arena and lease it to the Flames and Stamps? Rich or not, that's a heckuva gamble. I could see the Stamps easily taking such a deal, but I'm not so sure the Flames would without a piece of the arena pie and a big say in how it operates....and that's where things get pretty sticky with INAC. A 200 million dollar stadium hosting the Stamps literally has almost zero chance of paying for itself on 9 dates a year, whether it is through leasing, concert venue, and economic spin off in the immediate area. It would make no sense for Tsuu TIna to do a stadium unless a pile of money was coming from the feds, prov, and city....and we all know how that is working out. An arena has a chance to pay itself off, but not many NHL owners are interested in playing in a building they have no stake in.

I agree. Manitoba has had great uptake numbers on the vaccine, and as a whole, I think a progressive attitude towards them except maybe in some of the more rural areas. I am as fearful as anyone about another mass scale outbreak but I see this as a big nothing burger really. It's an outdoor venue with the overwhelming majority being fully vaxxed. I think Manitoba's restrictions were as harsh as anywhere in Canada, and I strongly believe that Public Health would not allow this if it were a high risk move. Should another wave of pandemic hit hard then I believe the Bombers would do what is right.

The deal breaker may lie in the Indian Act. I assume this in TLE land? If so, the Flames organization may be very uncomfortable with provisions contained in the act. Just speaking from experience here, as someone who was on a board trying to get a mining giant to sign a deal with my reserve to open a mine on our territory. At the end of the day they bolted because they were unhappy with a lot of archaic provisions that would not allow them to secure their investment.

Entirely up to you. It is a personal choice and one that only you can make for yourself. However, currently restrictions are lifted so it is important that we all continue to respect everyone else's choices they make based on the advice of public health. Not at all. I think it would be immensely hypocritical to support past restrictions and vaccine advice given by public health and then to not support public health when they feel restrictions should be lifted. My opinion. You are entitled to yours, but make no mistake naivety is not at play. What is wrong with you? A person can have a different opinion than you can they not or are you special? It's this kind of idiocy that only serves to polarize people and entrench the anti vaxxers.

I trust, as I have all along, Dr. Roussin and his team and the proof of vax policies they put in place.

You are the one spouting off that all semi automatic rifles are restricted weapons...WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL....and I didn't say that all semi autos before 1985 are legal or non restricted, I said that a semi auto centrefire rifle with a barrell length of 470mm or more is a non-restricted weapon. That is straight up fact that you continued to double down and triple down that they were restricted. Mod kits for semi auto rifles can be purchased easily to make most guns fully automatic. I did overstate being able to do any gun, but MANY popular long rifles can be turned fully automatic quite easily and pretty much all rifles and shotguns can be turned into a concealed weapon easily. They are erratic and dangerous but I don't think that matters to a criminal with that intent. I disagree that most serious hunters use bolt action, many favor it due to long range accuracy, but many hunters are taught that semi auto is a more ethical choice by many hunter safety instructors. Serious shooters for target practice won't, but many hunters do favor semi auto. I used to guide for goose, bear and deer and the mix was at least 50/50 of what people used. I can tell you with certainty that semi auto shotguns are heavily favored by serious waterfowlers, What % of gun crime constitutes mass shootings?

Long gun semi autos, whether rimfire or centrefire, with a barrel length over 470mm and non-foldable stock are non-restricted firearms in Canada. Just got off the phone with the RCMP to verify. This covers the overwhelming majority of semi autos out there., Please provide a link proving otherwise if you want to continue debating this. https://cubetoronto.com/canada/what-semi-autos-are-still-legal-in-canada/ A link that confirms what the RCMP told me. If they tried to restrict or prohibit semi auto long rifles they would have to be prepared for criminalizing a huge number of law abiding hunters. Nearly everyone I know who hunts owns one. https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/firearms/non-restricted-rifles?cat=719 Above is a listing for non-restricted semi-autos for sale right now if they weren't already sold out.

Maybe...but does that really matter in the vast majority of gun crime?

You are talking out your ass. Semi automatic hunting rifles are completely legal in Canada to own and to use. Restricted, yes, but only technically. If they have a barrel length shorter than 470mm, or are on the cockamamie list Trudeau put out they are restricted. If they are a long rifle they are non restricted. It takes very little extra effort to purchase a restricted firearm. Also, at no point did I designate rim-fire or centrefire in my posts. A 22 LR semi-auto is a hunting rifle, that being said I own two centrefire semi-auto hunting rifles and will continue to do so.

All guns are people killing guns. Need to change the narrative that an automatic weapon is more dangerous than a bolt action. Completely untrue.

I own 5 hunting rifles/shotguns...all semi automatic. Not sure why you think there are no semi auto hunting rifles? Literally tons of them. The only non semi-autos are bolt actions and the very rare lever or pump actions. No offense, but you are sounding like someone who doesn't know much about guns. Shotguns sold today are literally almost all semi auto, nobody wants pump action or double barrell anymore and yes modifying them makes them illegal...duh...the criminals aren't really worried about that are they?

Stats are great unless they reveal you are a paper tiger like DTs stats did to the RIders. After that the Rider fans didn't like them so much. Could be worse...they could have hired Mullinder.

I could make any rifle manufactured before 1985 that is semi auto fully automatic in literally five minutes with a file. Anyone can...google it and you will see. Any other rifle can be done as well but is a bit trickier.

His legs are like tree trunks.

It is very odd indeed. Not allowing Globals to get a better salary after their initial contract seems like this was more a way to reduce a salary in the league than it was about finding and expanding a global market.

I, for one, am glad we may not have to play against him. Dude is a beast.

The thing is whenever anyone talks about banning handguns and assault rifles is that with a hacksaw and 5 minutes I can turn any hunting rifle into a concealed and fully automatic firearm, and any shotgun into a concealed and extremely deadly weapon so unless you are talking about a full firearm ban you are simply making life about 5 minutes more inconvenient for criminals who wish to arm themselves. So ban handguns and assault rifles but it really isn't going to make much of a difference other than a false sense of security. There is no magic bullet to solving gun crime without taking the guns away from law abiding hunters/recreational shooters as well....and the criminals will just find another way to arm themselves on the black market. In this regard, I agree with your sentiments about it being a waste of time. A noble one...but a waste of time nonetheless unless you want to take ALL guns away and that is a surefire way to be sitting in opposition.

While I don't wish for injuries to other teams, I won't feel sorry for them when they do occur. I do feel sorry for the players for sure no matter what team they play for, but not the team unless it's the Bombers. A division rival got weaker today and I am OK with that. I hate it when it is the result of injury but quite often that is the case, although incompetence could be used to describe BC since Wally left town as well. Yea...love the Stove, and hope he recovers fully.

I would hope this is addressed in the next CBA.

Feel bad for Stove...but not bad for the Lions. Looks like whether we had re-signed him or not we may have been having the conversation about how to replace him.