the stamps 2 victories were meaningless   ... I  still think they fight with the Riders for the basement

toronto has enough talent to still win without a QB: special teams + decent D

 

6 minutes ago, IC Khari said:

Tell that to the Atlanta Braves and the Chicago Black Hawks ...

Going Elks was a bad business move

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

Hopefully the Lions new owner markets the hell out of Rourke and the Lions attendance soars, if he could increase attendance by 5-10k per game over the next 3 years he'd likely make his investment back.  The bigger trick will be reducing teammates salaries to accommodate Rourke and keep them under the SMS cap.

I am referring more to the sms. But yes, hopefully attendance will improve on the left coast.

 

1 hour ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

*Michael

Row the boat ashore

AND

Elk are noble beasts that have feelings too.

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

This would be a remarkably bad business move.

Nostalgic names of franchises have worked well but that isn’t the only reason, besides pent up demand for a home town sports squad, that resurrected or revival team names have enjoyed some success. Senators, Brewers, Nationals, Browns, Alouettes and a few in our town. Granted, none of these examples are named after a minority group. 

Edited August 14, 20241 yr by Rod Black

On 2024-08-12 at 3:23 PM, Fatty Liver said:

Probably more Maccochia and their scouting dept. than Maas, who's failed to find much success in any other system he's been involved with.

Three names that posters here have mocked for years (you know who they are & you who you are) & in a season & a half they jumped light years as an organization.

2 hours ago, Noeller said:

Fart noises. It's 2024... We don't appropriate cultures for pro sports anymore...

 

 

I don't think the issue is so much that it's appropriating culture and more so that it's a bit of a derogatory term.

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

This would be a remarkably bad business move.

Oh, like the first rebrand to Elks went so well. The team is so broke that after 75 years they have to sell to a private owner. Get woke. Go broke.

9 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Oh, like the first rebrand to Elks went so well. The team is so broke that after 75 years they have to sell to a private owner. Get woke. Go broke.

Changing the name wasn't why they went multiple seasons without winning a game at home, and that was why people stopped going to games.  It stopped being an entertaining product, and Chris Jones didn't help that at all.

You say woke like it's a bad thing... it's a stupid term, but being culturally sensitive and stopping using a derogatory term for the name of your team is the right thing to do, and should have been done years earlier than it was.

Just now, Sard said:

Changing the name wasn't why they went multiple seasons without winning a game at home, and that was why people stopped going to games.  It stopped being an entertaining product, and Chris Jones didn't help that at all.

You say woke like it's a bad thing... it's a stupid term, but being culturally sensitive and stopping using a derogatory term for the name of your team is the right thing to do, and should have been done years earlier than it was.

You talk to a lot of Elks fans & they hated the name change. You can argue it didn't but it clearly did. How could it have not? Most fans felt the name change was pandering to progressives especially when not all Indigenoue groups up north said the name Eskimos bothered them. What if there was a movement in Winnipeg to change the name Blue Bombers because some progressives found it offensive & glorified war as it honours a WW2 American bomber? So, then the team changes our name to the Aeroplanes? There'd be a lot of pissed off fans who'd stop buying tickets. If you have 30,000 season tickets & you lose half that number to fans refusing to buy tickets to home games anymore then it becomes a bad situation. Then also throw in bad management on a bad team which is what happened in Edmonton.

10 minutes ago, Sard said:

Changing the name wasn't why they went multiple seasons without winning a game at home, and that was why people stopped going to games.  It stopped being an entertaining product, and Chris Jones didn't help that at all.

You say woke like it's a bad thing... it's a stupid term, but being culturally sensitive and stopping using a derogatory term for the name of your team is the right thing to do, and should have been done years earlier than it was.

Go woke. Go broke. It is what it is. And it's very accurate. You mess with a beloved iconic sports name & this is what happens. The team forgot about the fans trying to please the others who didn't give a ****.

But I'm not saying anything more about the name change lest this discussion might be considered political which is a no no. 

5 hours ago, Fatty Liver said:

Hopefully the Lions new owner markets the hell out of Rourke and the Lions attendance soars, if he could increase attendance by 5-10k per game over the next 3 years he'd likely make his investment back.  The bigger trick will be reducing teammates salaries to accommodate Rourke and keep them under the SMS cap.

All of our stadiums in the CFL are amazing when full. Everyone one wins, helps the game.........................Btw, Ill take Hatcher or McInnes please

Edmonton was dumb to cave to the woke mob. Should have kept the Eskimo name.

15 hours ago, blue85gold said:

"Rourke’s compensation in those seasons includes $200,000 in marketing money, which does not count against the league’s salary cap. As such, his cap number for 2025 checks in at $549,200 and $609,000 for 2026."

Can someone remind me on how this marketing money works again? Is there a limit to it?

 

There is a total team limit. His cap hit is lower because of it, but it's 200k each year they still have to come up with each year because they have robbed Peter to pay Paul.

15 hours ago, Booch said:

i think he just used up their whol allotment...theres so much u can use ....spread out how you want...I thought I saw a 200K number somewhere....could be wrong...but I bet he ate it all up

There is a team limit and he just used up all or almost all of it.

17 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

There is a total team limit. His cap hit is lower because of it, but it's 200k each year they still have to come up with each year because they have robbed Peter to pay Paul.

There is a team limit and he just used up all or almost all of it.

I believe it's 200K per season / team so you're right in that they've used all of it.

This also means that anyone else who was getting that little extra taste this year won't be getting it in subsequent years (at least on the books).

27 minutes ago, voodoochylde said:

I believe it's 200K per season / team so you're right in that they've used all of it.

This also means that anyone else who was getting that little extra taste this year won't be getting it in subsequent years (at least on the books).

That's what I had thought too...we think we have an albatross around our neckon one deal....they have a big fat one....question now will be...can they afford to protect him?.....afford to give him a receiver group like he had?....or afford to put a defence on the field to not have to put up 35+ points a game in order to win....that will be the interesting part of all this

I'm not talking about whether the name change would be popular or not. Re-branding is extremely expensive. The Elks are seemingly not in a position to be spending money on yet another re-brand. Re-branding right now would be dumb and just throwing money at a problem.

So I assume the Bombers take advantage of this 200,000 break from Collaros's salary hit?

2 minutes ago, forrester said:

So I assume the Bombers take advantage of this 200,000 break from Collaros's salary hit?

Believe they used a good portion of it on Oliveira's deal.

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I'm not talking about whether the name change would be popular or not. Re-branding is extremely expensive. The Elks are seemingly not in a position to be spending money on yet another re-brand. Re-branding right now would be dumb and just throwing money at a problem.

Put a quality product on the field and the name isn't a problem.  The fans haven't had much to cheer about since the cancelled season in 2020 - only 3 home wins (including a record setting 22 game home losing streak) and they've finished last or tied for last each year.  Doesn't matter if it's the Elks or Eskimoes when the team is a tire fire.  That's the issue the new owner should be concerned about.

I spent a while looking for a source for the 200K marketing money limit, but couldn't find any. Does anyone else have a source?

Changing the name back is a terrible idea and its offensive. Similarly I bet people would get offended if a team did this:

For the record, its from the tv show Brockmire.

Just now, rebusrankin said:

Changing the name back is a terrible idea and its offensive. Similarly I bet people would get offended if a team did this:

For the record, its from the tv show Brockmire.

Brockmire's funny. 

30 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

Put a quality product on the field and the name isn't a problem.  The fans haven't had much to cheer about since the cancelled season in 2020 - only 3 home wins (including a record setting 22 game home losing streak) and they've finished last or tied for last each year.  Doesn't matter if it's the Elks or Eskimoes when the team is a tire fire.  That's the issue the new owner should be concerned about.

100%. Add to that the constant complaints from fans about any kind of quality game/pre-game/post game experience etc and this is what happens. The team needs to take notes from Wade and engage fans outside of the stadium, add entertainment to draw fans to games early and most importantly put a winning product together.

Changing the team name and spending all of that money does exactly none of that. But it will create bad press and more drama that takes away from putting attention on what's actually happening on thebfield

Honestly, what we've done here in terms of cultivating support, making it easy to come to a game (cost wise) and creating a great fan experience should be a blue print for all teams to follow.  

We started off TERRIBLY this season but still pulled in over 30K for our last home game?  That's so impressive knowing how fickle (and frugal) Winnipeggers are.

2 hours ago, White Out said:

Edmonton was dumb to cave to the woke mob. Should have kept the Eskimo name.

16 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

100%. Add to that the constant complaints from fans about any kind of quality game/pre-game/post game experience etc and this is what happens. The team needs to take notes from Wade and engage fans outside of the stadium, add entertainment to draw fans to games early and most importantly put a winning product together.

Changing the team name and spending all of that money does exactly none of that. But it will create bad press and more drama that takes away from putting attention on what's actually happening on thebfield

Before they adopt the bombers blueprint they should follow bc's example.

1 have an owner passionate about making cfl football relevant

2 Hire a successful coach 

3 get out into the community and surrounding areas and market

4 Bring in some special events to get the potential fan attention and attract younger fans.

5. They have the qbs to build a good team around, offensively their talent is very good. Defensively they need to redistribute some money to dline and linebackers ( Ironic that Jones a supposed defensive guru caused this ie trading Ceresna for Gittens jr, overpaying multiple recievers etc.)

 

Edited August 14, 20241 yr by Pete