I have a friend who actually went through the CBA to find the clause about the non-CAP marketing money
CFL teams have an obligation to spend 110k on Non-Football Related Services. So the "CAP" becomes the CAP + 110k.
In 2024, the CAP is 5, 525, 000 + 110k for a total allowed expenditure of 5, 635, 000.
Teams can spend as much as they want above the 110k. But after that point it does eat into the existing salary cap.
So, is it you must spend at least $110k? Or is $110k a set amount, no less, no more?
That chart sys cap + minimum non football and then a total.
Doesn't make sense, because not every team spends exactly to the cap, and NFR says minimum... you can add two variable numbers and get a specific number.
We need much more clarification on this
I'm going off of memory here, but didn't Streveler get something like this?
Quote from: peg_city on August 14, 2024, 02:58:35 PMI'm going off of memory here, but didn't Streveler get something like this?
Not according to 3DownNation.
These are the numbers they provided for the higher paid players;
Oliveira 50k, Schoen 35k, Demski 20k, Lawson 5k.
Quote from: theaardvark on August 14, 2024, 02:38:50 PMSo, is it you must spend at least $110k? Or is $110k a set amount, no less, no more?
That chart sys cap + minimum non football and then a total.
Doesn't make sense, because not every team spends exactly to the cap, and NFR says minimum... you can add two variable numbers and get a specific number.
We need much more clarification on this
Let me see if I can add some details for you.
NFRS is 110k minimum. Teams must hand out at least that much money per year.
Each team must spend within 600k of the salary cap. Thats the floor.
The two numbers together should not exceed the total expenditure amount, or they'll be subject to the fines.
Let's assume that the $110K is the limit for sake of argument.
That would suggest that any amount above that would be charged against the SMS. So what would the point be of paying more in the 1st place?
Using Rourke as an example, he's due to get $200K marketing money in 2025. That puts $90K charged against the SMS and his real SMS salary at about $600K with another $150K charged to marketing in 2025.
In theory that doesn't leave any additional marketing money for other players that doesn't directly get charged to the SMS.
I suppose separate money for public appearances makes sense for non football duty. So I suppose it makes sense to put in that break down of what a player is paid for football and non football.
I can live with what Jesse posted and how that would break down.
What I don't understand is even for a franchise player, is he really worth $200K towards marketing? That's regardless of how much is charged or not charged to the SMS.
Ultimately a $110K limit ( non SMS ) levels the playing field in that sense, even for team not profitable. It's not an open ended number.
At the end of every season we hear which teams exceeded the cap. It would be interesting to know how many teams are under the cap floor limit. We've never heard of any team being fined for being below the floor.
OTOH, getting the most bang for your buck is the road to success. IE: if a team spends $500K below the limit and finishes 1st and goes to the Grey Cup that would be a success at all levels.
Where as a team that spend $10 below the cap and finishes last would be the direct opposite.
Yeah, I don't understand what the benefit may be in offering more than the 110k in marketing money to a player.
Unless it's one of the tax loop holes or is given out as a lump sum when the contract is signed and not doled out as part of game cheques.
Quote from: Blue In BC on August 14, 2024, 03:54:44 PMAt the end of every season we hear which teams exceeded the cap. It would be interesting to know how many teams are under the cap floor limit. We've never heard of any team being fined for being below the floor.
Every team tries to spend close to cap every year.
If a team was near the cap floor at the end of Novemeber they would just allocate salaries for the following year towards the current SMS.
So, I assume that marketing money is up front, no 6game IR retrieval, no retrieval if player is cut or traded?
And that BC now has less than zero marketing money for the next two years? That any players receiving that this year are SOL for next?
Quote from: Jesse on August 14, 2024, 04:01:13 PMYeah, I don't understand what the benefit may be in offering more than the 110k in marketing money to a player.
Unless it's one of the tax loop holes or is given out as a lump sum when the contract is signed and not doled out as part of game cheques.
If it's paid in advance like a signing bonus to an import, it will create the same tax advantage I suppose. Rourke is a Canadian so no advantage in that sense.
So a team can spend more than $110K for other players but it's a direct charge to SMS cap. That could create some tax friendly advantages to reduce an imports actual total, just as before with singing bonus.
No problem.
Quote from: gobombersgo on August 14, 2024, 04:13:24 PMEvery team tries to spend close to cap every year.
If a team was near the cap floor at the end of Novemeber they would just allocate salaries for the following year towards the current SMS.
Sure but that's a circular problem just carried over to the next season. At least if there is a large amount not spent in a given season.
Good job Tyler
Quote from: theaardvark on August 14, 2024, 04:37:40 PMSo, I assume that marketing money is up front, no 6game IR retrieval, no retrieval if player is cut or traded?
And that BC now has less than zero marketing money for the next two years? That any players receiving that this year are SOL for next?
It's a minimum amount. They can choose to spend as much as they want under this category. If players already have it as part of their contract for next year, they are still getting it, I imagine.
Quote from: Jesse on August 14, 2024, 07:43:01 PMIt's a minimum amount. They can choose to spend as much as they want under this category. If players already have it as part of their contract for next year, they are still getting it, I imagine.
I wonder what going to happen to Chad Kelly's 100k in marketing money for this season.
It sounds like another one of thosr things that the league put on to get the last cra passed without a real thought as to how it would be utilized, much like the nationalized america rule
Quote from: Pete on August 14, 2024, 07:54:27 PMIt sounds like another one of thosr things that the league put on to get the last cra passed without a real thought as to how it would be utilized, much like the nationalized america rule
Pretty sure this was a CFLPA demand to make sure guys were getting paid for off field appearances.
Ok, so if this is the case, Farhan was incorrect when he said the 200k that Rourke is receiving each year for marketing doesn't count against the cap?
If the blue bomber forum paid marketing money, it should go to Zipp.
Quote from: peg_city on August 14, 2024, 08:37:33 PMIf the blue bomber forum paid marketing money, it should go to Zipp.
I am here cause I love the Bombers and the fan interaction.
(Spare change....spare change..??)Not to start anything with other cfl forums but this one is one of the best!!
All I've seen is 110K minimum. I haven't seen any maximum yet. Therefore, I'd assume that the 200K Rourke is getting doesn't take anything away from BC's SMS or from other players on BC.
If that's a correct interpretation, then it's a huge hole in the SMS scheme.
Quote from: Jesse on August 14, 2024, 04:01:13 PMYeah, I don't understand what the benefit may be in offering more than the 110k in marketing money to a player.
Unless it's one of the tax loop holes or is given out as a lump sum when the contract is signed and not doled out as part of game cheques.
My only guess is that players may like it because it gives assurances that they'll be able to get their "brand" out there in that teams would do the leg work to get them opportunities and then pay them for it.
Perhaps also it is a way for players to receive some income in the off season as some of the marketing activities would probably fall outside the season, which may be important to some. I'm guessing, but reasonably certain it would get paid at the conclusion of the marketing "activity".
Talking to sources, the consensus seems to be that Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and B.C. spend the most marketing money.
Marketing money is unlimited and doesn't count against the salary cap. It's been that way since 2023.#Argos (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Argos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Ticats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ticats?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Bombers (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bombers?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #BCLions (https://twitter.com/hashtag/BCLions?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #CFL (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CFL?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI (https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI)
— John Hodge (@JohnDHodge) August 14, 2024 (https://twitter.com/JohnDHodge/status/1823751357213384715?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Quote from: TBURGESS on August 14, 2024, 10:30:53 PMTalking to sources, the consensus seems to be that Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and B.C. spend the most marketing money.
Marketing money is unlimited and doesn't count against the salary cap. It's been that way since 2023.#Argos (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Argos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Ticats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ticats?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Bombers (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bombers?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #BCLions (https://twitter.com/hashtag/BCLions?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #CFL (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CFL?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI (https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI)
— John Hodge (@JohnDHodge) August 14, 2024 (https://twitter.com/JohnDHodge/status/1823751357213384715?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Hahahahahaha the Riders are poor!
Quote from: gobombersgo on August 14, 2024, 07:51:11 PMI wonder what going to happen to Chad Kelly's 100k in marketing money for this season.
It might be prudent to direct it towards miscellaneous lawyer fees.
Quote from: TBURGESS on August 14, 2024, 10:30:53 PMTalking to sources, the consensus seems to be that Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and B.C. spend the most marketing money.
Marketing money is unlimited and doesn't count against the salary cap. It's been that way since 2023.
This directly contradicts what was posted at the beginning of this thread - do we know the actual truth of the matter?
Quote from: Pete on August 14, 2024, 07:54:27 PMIt sounds like another one of thosr things that the league put on to get the last cra passed without a real thought as to how it would be utilized, much like the nationalized america rule
It's difficult to make a group of wealthy team owner's abide by any spending restraints when they're busy measuring their sticks, obviously the majority wanted an exemption on the salary cap restraints in order to vote this initiative through. Soon to be heard whining from the richest of them all in Toronto.
Quote from: Jesse on August 14, 2024, 07:43:01 PMIt's a minimum amount. They can choose to spend as much as they want under this category. If players already have it as part of their contract for next year, they are still getting it, I imagine.
They can spend what they want. But, (1) does it count against the cap after a certain point, and (2) will the extra spending incur fines if they go over the cap?
I'm not saying that it isn't in the league's best interest to have Rourke back - it 100% is worth it. However, they have to maintain the credibility of the cap to some degree.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on August 14, 2024, 10:33:05 PMHahahahahaha the Riders are poor!
I am not sure why the Bombers were highlighted. Brady is getting a fair bit but only 4 players are listed for receiving the marketing money.
I had a look at the salaries of the Bombers and Riders that were published on 3Down:
Bombers: Oliveira 50k, Schoen 35k, Demski 20k, Lawson 5k.
Riders: Harris 15k, Fine 10k, Ouellette 15k, Bane 10k, Schaffer-Baker 7.5k, Hardrick 15k, Ferland 3k, Lanier 7.5k, Thurman 5k, Milligan 2k.
Without adding up all the numbers it did look like the Argos were spending a fair amount.
Quote from: gobombersgo on August 14, 2024, 11:11:19 PMI am not sure why the Bombers were highlighted. Brady is getting a fair bit but only 4 players are listed for receiving the marketing money.
I had a look at the salaries of the Bombers and Riders that were published on 3Down:
Bombers: Oliveira 50k, Schoen 35k, Demski 20k, Lawson 5k.
Riders: Harris 15k, Fine 10k, Ouellette 15k, Bane 10k, Schaffer-Baker 7.5k, Hardrick 15k, Ferland 3k, Lanier 7.5k, Thurman 5k, Milligan 2k.
Without adding up all the numbers it did look like the Argos were spending a fair amount.
It figures that the markets that are struggling need to spend that money. Argos fans are few and far between. The clubs that draw well, like the Bombers, don't need to market the game as much. Judging by the empty seats in Regina you'd think the Riders would be spending gobs of it!
This was Derek Taylor's take:
As I read the CBA, teams have to spend a *minimum* of $110,000 per year on "Non-Football Related Services". That $110K counts under the Total Salary Expenditure Cap (this season it's $5.635 million. Up to $5.76 million next season). The thought that it doesn't count against the cap is mostly correct.
I don't see anything in the CBA that mentions a maximum for "Non-Football Related Services". What I've heard is that the CFL wants teams to "just be cool" about it (ie. don't go nuts and spend a zillion dollars there).
It's got to be a tricky spot for owners collectively. If one decides to spendspendspend I can't imagine the rest could do much to stop him. And if I was the players union I would want a MAJOR concession to put a specified limit on that money.
To be honest it makes very little sense. I'm all for spending unlimited on marketing but if the "marketing dollars" are going into individual players pockets then it should included in the cap, capped outright independently, or included in the salary cap at a percentage of total spend. So 30% of "marketing dollars up to a certain threshold and then 75% after that or something of that sort) count against the cap. You can market the game (and all teams do) without paying big sums of money to players.
The great next QB that comes along is just going to want what Rourke got including the marketing money so actual salary expenditures will just go up year on year.
Also what the hell is Hamilton spending their marketing money on?! haha.
Quote from: TBURGESS on August 14, 2024, 10:30:53 PMTalking to sources, the consensus seems to be that Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and B.C. spend the most marketing money.
Marketing money is unlimited and doesn't count against the salary cap. It's been that way since 2023.#Argos (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Argos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Ticats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ticats?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Bombers (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bombers?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #BCLions (https://twitter.com/hashtag/BCLions?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #CFL (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CFL?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI (https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI)
— John Hodge (@JohnDHodge) August 14, 2024 (https://twitter.com/JohnDHodge/status/1823751357213384715?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Maybe more will come out now that people are asking about it, but I'm personally not trusting John Hodge as a source over what I can read in the CBA itself.
Quote from: Jesse on August 15, 2024, 12:43:18 AMMaybe more will come out now that people are asking about it, but I'm personally not trusting John Hodge as a source over what I can read in the CBA itself.
I am not doubting you but where does the CBA say that it counts? What is the exact wording?
this feels like another thing that was added to the cba without really thinking it thru in order to get it passed (similar to the nationalized american clause. If you give gms an opportunity to abuse it they will (in any sport) Now to get it changed its likely the cfl would have to give up something to the players.
Quote from: Pete on August 15, 2024, 01:42:00 AMthis feels like another thing that was added to the cba without really thinking it thru in order to get it passed (similar to the nationalized american clause. If you give gms an opportunity to abuse it they will (in any sport) Now to get it changed its likely the cfl would have to give up something to the players.
They can increase the playoff money for the players. The payouts havent changed since 2012.
I wonder if "marketing money" is not paid directly to the player, but to his "marketing company". And whether there are tax benefits, write offs, that might ensue with that papertrail.
Quote from: TBURGESS on August 14, 2024, 10:30:53 PMTalking to sources, the consensus seems to be that Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and B.C. spend the most marketing money.
Marketing money is unlimited and doesn't count against the salary cap. It's been that way since 2023.#Argos (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Argos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Ticats (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ticats?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #Bombers (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bombers?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #BCLions (https://twitter.com/hashtag/BCLions?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) | #CFL (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CFL?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI (https://t.co/jKquB3dDQI)
— John Hodge (@JohnDHodge) August 14, 2024 (https://twitter.com/JohnDHodge/status/1823751357213384715?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Quote from: gobombersgo on August 14, 2024, 11:19:02 PMThis was Derek Taylor's take:
As I read the CBA, teams have to spend a *minimum* of $110,000 per year on "Non-Football Related Services". That $110K counts under the Total Salary Expenditure Cap (this season it's $5.635 million. Up to $5.76 million next season). The thought that it doesn't count against the cap is mostly correct.
I don't see anything in the CBA that mentions a maximum for "Non-Football Related Services". What I've heard is that the CFL wants teams to "just be cool" about it (ie. don't go nuts and spend a zillion dollars there).
It's got to be a tricky spot for owners collectively. If one decides to spendspendspend I can't imagine the rest could do much to stop him. And if I was the players union I would want a MAJOR concession to put a specified limit on that money.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on August 15, 2024, 12:53:21 AMI am not doubting you but where does the CBA say that it counts? What is the exact wording?
Check out the table to from CBA that Jesse posted at the beginning.
It shows the normal player salary cap, plus the 110K minimum, equals the "total salary expenditure cap"
If you could spend over at above 110k AND spend right to the regular cap, then there simply is no cap.
So it's that "total salary expenditure cap" column that essentially proves that spending to the full normal cap + 110k in player marketing is a 'hard' number.
As for spending more than 110k, well, you can, but that will eat into your player ops spending.
Quote from: blue_or_die on August 15, 2024, 07:30:04 PMCheck out the table to from CBA that Jesse posted at the beginning.
It shows the normal player salary cap, plus the 110K minimum, equals the "total salary expenditure cap"
If you could spend over at above 110k AND spend right to the regular cap, then there simply is no cap.
So it's that "total salary expenditure cap" column that essentially proves that spending to the full normal cap + 110k in player marketing is a 'hard' number.
As for spending more than 110k, well, you can, but that will eat into your player ops spending.
Since a salary floor exists as well (600k below the cap), I've determined that the maximum marketing money must be 710k. Anything more than that and you're spending too little on player salary.
Ambrosias tenure of commish is rifled with issues
he pushes for a global initiative which ends up being almost exclusively kickers that get any playing time.
Introduces a nationalized american rule which requires so much calculation as to become meaningless (and if it was to reward NI that have been with the league for a period of time that didn't happen)
We try to implement better stats and that gets messed up for a long period of time
Now this marketing bonus which no one seems to definitively know how it works
And that doesnt even get into the Kelly or Lemon things
Quote from: Pete on August 15, 2024, 08:07:25 PMAmbrosias tenure of commish is rifled with issues
he pushes for a global initiative which ends up being almost exclusively kickers that get any playing time.
Introduces a nationalized american rule which requires so much calculation as to become meaningless (and if it was to reward NI that have been with the league for a period of time that didn't happen)
We try to implement better stats and that gets messed up for a long period of time
Now this marketing bonus which no one seems to definitively know how it works
And that doesnt even get into the Kelly or Lemon things
The Global initiative is his baby, but other than that I'm not sure any of that has anything to do with Ambrosie.
Quote from: Jesse on August 15, 2024, 07:34:59 PMSince a salary floor exists as well (600k below the cap), I've determined that the maximum marketing money must be 710k. Anything more than that and you're spending too little on player salary.
That's true, but doesn't change the player salary/player marketing duality tradeoff at play
Quote from: Jesse on August 15, 2024, 08:26:56 PMThe Global initiative is his baby, but other than that I'm not sure any of that has anything to do with Ambrosie.
hes the commish. all happened under his watch.
Quote from: Pete on August 15, 2024, 08:53:39 PMhes the commish. all happened under his watch.
Sure, but things like the marketing bonus were negotiated for by the Players Union.
The fact that we don't know how it works seems to be a core value of the league to keep things as secret as possible and far predates Ambrosie's tenure. The commish doesn't have any power. They're just the mouth piece for the owners.
It would be ironic if BC was considered a "have not" team for $$ redistribution whilst doling out $200k non-SMS bonuses to favored players...
I told you guys to not believe any of the teams that are crying "poor". There's tons of money available in the CFL via the mega-rich owners. Get rid of this confusing and lame "marketing cheat fees" and just up the SMS by 0.5 to 1.0 million$. At least then there's transparency.
Quote from: peg_city on August 14, 2024, 02:58:35 PMI'm going off of memory here, but didn't Streveler get something like this?
What comes to my mind is Bighill's guaranteed side gigs, which were much talked about when he joined here ages ago.
And who can forget BLM's numerous off-field perks, and (IIRC) his wife got cush gibs too.
Teams have been cheating the cap for ages. The odd thing with Rourke is BC is spelling it out! Why not have the decency to just hide it away like every other team! Sheesh.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on August 14, 2024, 11:35:56 PMAlso what the hell is Hamilton spending their marketing money on?! haha.
Ticats are heavily integrated with that city. They do a ton of promo stuff. We joke, but they are probably the 2nd best fan base (WPG as #1). They show up and are loud every game even when their team sucks for years (like now). They have as much passion as we do. Maybe more; though in a more rough & rowdy way.
I made some good HAM friends at the GC, and they were great, knowledgeable fans. Though I do hear they are rough on you if you show up there for a game vs them... but that's ok, just wear your thick skin.
It's the SSK fans that turned out to be poser fairweather fans. They claimed to be #1 fans but just 2 years of sucking and their barn is half empty. OTT and BC fans will be giving them a run for their money soon.
"Bighill's side gigs"?
Bighill managed to find a company willing to fill in his year, allowing him to work when not playing, with the eventual intention to have him there full time whe he retires.
Any player/team is welcome to field these kinds of offers/opportunities.
Quote from: theaardvark on August 16, 2024, 01:53:54 PM"Bighill's side gigs"?
Bighill managed to find a company willing to fill in his year, allowing him to work when not playing, with the eventual intention to have him there full time whe he retires.
Any player/team is welcome to field these kinds of offers/opportunities.
Okay, but not really. You make it sound like he printed resumes and went applying door to door which is not at all what happened.
He got a job at a high end financial services company, who had (and still has) senior leadership on the Bombers board, with no real prior financial services experience and outside of the scope of his college education (Kinesiology). No doubt he's a smart guy who put in the work to launch that career after he got in the door but it's exceptionally hard to conclude that the Bombers didn't play a big role in assisting that opportunity which they've then taken advantage of by paying him less than what he'd make on the open market afterwards.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on August 16, 2024, 02:38:24 PMOkay, but not really. You make it sound like he printed resumes and went applying door to door which is not at all what happened.
He got a job at a high end financial services company, who had (and still has) senior leadership on the Bombers board, with no real prior financial services experience and outside of the scope of his college education (Kinesiology). No doubt he's a smart guy who put in the work to launch that career after he got in the door but it's exceptionally hard to conclude that the Bombers didn't play a big role in assisting that opportunity which they've then taken advantage of by paying him less than what he'd make on the open market afterwards.
Absolutely. The Bombrrs found him an opportunity.No knock against Bighill, who did all the necessary work before and after; but it was part of the contract negotiation for a (at the time) top of the league defensive player.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 16, 2024, 06:37:27 AMTicats are heavily integrated with that city. They do a ton of promo stuff. We joke, but they are probably the 2nd best fan base (WPG as #1). They show up and are loud every game even when their team sucks for years (like now). They have as much passion as we do. Maybe more; though in a more rough & rowdy way.
I made some good HAM friends at the GC, and they were great, knowledgeable fans. Though I do hear they are rough on you if you show up there for a game vs them... but that's ok, just wear your thick skin.
It's the SSK fans that turned out to be poser fairweather fans. They claimed to be #1 fans but just 2 years of sucking and their barn is half empty. OTT and BC fans will be giving them a run for their money soon.
100% agree. I've been to Bomber games in every CFL city except Calgary, and Hamilton had the best stadium vibe. The fans were passionate and knowledgeable.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on August 16, 2024, 06:32:46 AMWhat comes to my mind is Bighill's guaranteed side gigs, which were much talked about when he joined here ages ago.
And who can forget BLM's numerous off-field perks, and (IIRC) his wife got cush gibs too.
Teams have been cheating the cap for ages. The odd thing with Rourke is BC is spelling it out! Why not have the decency to just hide it away like every other team! Sheesh.
These examples are different than the marketing thing though.
The marketing money is money they team spends on the player for specific team-organized events, while the examples you listed are "opportunities" that are presented to a player that can be tied to the team in some way, shape or form.
Not saying it's completely fine (although it can be argued it is), just clarifying the difference.
FWIW, I would be in favour if it was at all practical to simply ensure there's transparency and the specific affiliation to the team for these "opportunities" is disclosed and vetted to ensure it meets some Ts & Cs.
For example, I think Weston Dressler getting free ice cream for life in Regina for coming back to the Riders after the NFL is more acceptable than whatever the heck BLM was getting under-the-table money for in Calgary. Note how I didn't use the Bighill situation as an example ;D
Quote from: pdirks67 on August 16, 2024, 04:50:23 PM100% agree. I've been to Bomber games in every CFL city except Calgary, and Hamilton had the best stadium vibe. The fans were passionate and knowledgeable.
Calgary has had a GREAT VIBE since the latter 90's until the last 4-5 years or so when COVID started. Now seems to have gone downhill a bit, but the view from almost any seat in old McMahon stadium is good to even great! The old barn is aging though, but still fun when I went to the Bombers game earlier this season.
Quote from: ichabod_crane on August 17, 2024, 07:32:16 AMCalgary has had a GREAT VIBE since the latter 90's until the last 4-5 years or so when COVID started. Now seems to have gone downhill a bit, but the view from almost any seat in old McMahon stadium is good to even great! The old barn is aging though, but still fun when I went to the Bombers game earlier this season.
Yup, I love going to WPG games in CGY McMahon. I've been to 3 now. Every CGY fan I've ever been seated near (or met in hotels) has been awesome. I even like the ancient stadium, except for those toilet lines, yikes. Makes the old Wpg Arena seem like luxury. Just watch out, those "Carny" type workers will try to rip you off on price (maybe just for the fans wearing blue though).