I'm very upset that you won't be responding to anything I "opinionate", I am going to lose a lot of sleep over that. As for all the things the Esks did, 1000 times worse. Whatever floats your boat, if you can't take criticism of you GM, I guess the typical kneejerk reaction is to attach another.
So just to clarify...it is okay when you attempt a slap by bring up and an unrelated incident where charges were laid, but not when someone else rebuts that with an unrelated incident where charges where laid? Sure...one was an incident where it was caught on the spot, 2 had some definite grey areas...point being I just want to ensure we are all aware of your rules.
Since you and a few other seem to think that they need to tag team me because I have the audacity to suggest that the Riders cheated by going over the Cap, I am going to respond. This topic and my comments were about the reaction by John Hufnagel and I suggested that this was the proper way to respond to such an incident. It is not even remotely comparable to the Eskimo's signing Tillman which by the way occurred after he had served his penalty.
If you have nothing better to do than come on here merely to harass me, it won't work. I am a grown-up and I can choose to simple ignore your infantile, immature and ignorant attempts to annoy me. Now grow up or go away, learn to discuss intelligently or don't discuss at all.
Funny that you seem to think you can take a slap at people and expect nothing back. Funny that you think your comparison is valid but another posters is not.
where was the cap overage even discussed on this thread? since you want to open that door...It would seem your mind is playing games on you or you are deeply hurt that people didn't agree with your unsubstantiated cap stance that you provided nothing to back your comments up with and were unable to define what a soft cap is while others seemed to back up their points. HfxTC had a similar view to yourself, yet we were able to have a discussion and debate on the subject because he provided substance to his stance whether I agreed with it or not...at least it was open discussion and debate as the forums are meant to provide a venue for. Don't have to agree with his stance on the subject to appreciate that he brought something to the table.
The charge is aggravated assault and thus you are correct, but in "connection with" tells me there were more individuals than Anderson, Smith and Eron Riley. My opinion, your opinion as you stated above it really doesn't matter.
It's not your turn but since you insist on suggesting that because someone doesn't agree with your idiotic view of what a soft cap means. You seem to think that because it is a soft cap, you are allowed to go over without penalty. Yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend that the Riders were penalized. You seem to be of the mistaken mindset that because they paid the penalty, they did not break the cap. You simply can't admit that you are wrong. The Riders did go over the cap and no matter what they paid, they still went over. Open discussion is not simply going on whatever topic somebody chooses to post on and attach their views. That is why I am opposed to the soft cap, because people like you and the Riders management think it gives them the right to abuse it.
Not my turn? Is this another rule of yours we should be aware of? That we only rebut something when you say so?
My "idiotic" view of what a cap is...well, I guess every sports writer and definition that I opened online was wrong and you are right....oh wait....you refused to state what a soft cap means.
I thought that you should be allowed to go over a soft cap w/o fine?? Really?? This is news to me! I have never ever even came close to stating something like that.
I thought that because they paid the fine that they had not broken cap?? Really?? Ths also is news to me, and I never said anything ever in that nature...ever!
The only point I ever really made in that thread was that going over a cap in a soft cap was not "cheating" as you kept calling it, because it is well withinn the rules. Defining a soft cap explains that within itself, but you either couldn't or wouldn't do that.
Not attacking - defending. When I said it wasn't you turn I meant that it was one of your tag team partners turn to attack. Guess that went over your head.
Since you don't think anybody but you knows how the salary cap works, let's just go over some of the excuses that you and your cronies have given.
It is like a speeding ticket, you pay the fine and it goes away.
I wish it was like a speeding ticket because they have emerits with speeding tickets and when you continually speed you lose your license, kind of like what should happen when you go over the cap 4 of the last 7 years.
It isn't against the rules cause you pay a fine.
If it wasn't against the rules you would not pay a fine, the problem is the fine isn't big enough and doesn't penalize multiple infractions.
It's okay because the Eskimo's used to it back in the 80's
Shouldn't need to explain the problem with that logic or lack of logic.
My favourite, we only went over by a little bit and we had injuries.
Amazing that the other 7 teams didn't have injuries and only Saskatchewan had injuries 4 of the last 7 years.
Now some facts:
Fact, the Riders went over the cap.
Fact, the Riders have gone over the cap 4 of the last 7 years.
Fact, going over the cap is against the rules, that is why they were fined.
Go ahead and say that I don't understand what the cap is, the fact is, I do understand, I just don't agree with you and I don't agree with the soft cap. Once again as I have said numerous times, the Riders are not to blame, the CFL is by making a rule that encourages teams to break it, due to the lack of teeth in the fine.
If your going to have a cap at all, make sure that the penalties are a deterent, which currently they obviously are not.
My "cronies" ahh...sounds like you are pretty upset multiple people didn't agree with you and actually brought forth an argument for their stance...I personally don't agree with much from the arguments you have elected to highlight, but at least it is bringing substance forward. And I am talking about this thread, but apparently it applies to others since you somehow associated them to this one.
Those facts...what about them? Haven't really seen anyone dispute that so I don't see what the point of highlighting them was.
Should there be more teeth in the cap...perhaps...but the rules of the cap were 100% followed, so how was their cheating as you have stated?
You say you understand what a soft cap system is...so by all means, define it and how the Riders cheated as you say they have.
Please note the word penalties. From Websters Dictionary:
: punishment for breaking a rule or law
: a punishment or disadvantage given to a team or player for breaking a rule in a game
Seems pretty clear to me.
Once again, I apologize to those who were under the understanding that this was about the assault.
I commented to praise John Hufnagel for the way he handled the situation in Calgary and yes to question the lack of action be the Riders in a similar situation. In my opinion Hufnagel did the right thing.
lol...that is not a definition of a soft cap. That highlights the audit and fine structure. Thanks for proving my point...you can't define what a soft cap is.
Sorry to all that cfleskfan for some reason wanted to bring up another thread from the past and say that people are apparently picking on him because of it...Guess we should just let him say whatever he wants and ignore it (because clearly we are not allowed to retort in his opinion).
back to topic...
I think that what Huff did was great...like I said, i only hope that the organization offers some help with potential counselling he might need to better himself and build towards his future. I do however see that this was a lot different than the bar fight issue referred to as well as ET's instance.
This instance the person attacked a bystander. I agree that creating some separation was the right move, but fully hope he deals with it and is given another shot. It does however seem like a pretty open and shut case.
The rider fight the players were threatened inside the bar and the person left and got their friends and waited outside the bar. The players should have left sooner and avoided the entire situation, but clearly there is some defense in this one. There was definitely a fight, but who instigated it...well that is arguable from people I have heard from that were there. There is no doubt that these guys got in a fight and really hurt someone, but every person has the legal right to defend themselves, and there is clearly an argument that this could have been the case. I can’t blame an organization for awaiting results of a court appearance one like this, and would fully expect that if there should be a conviction that the club separate themselves as well.
ET was in a situation where the girl did not want to press charges, the mother did not want to press charges, but the father was in a crown position that he felt obligated to report it. ET was hoping things would go away (as was the family), but when it was time to go to court pled guilty because he didn’t want the family dredged through it all. Personally I thought it was a classy move on his behalf to do that, and it was great that the Esks organization could look past it. The Riders also did the right thing by letting him go, and the right thing by not doing so until he pled guilty because there was clearly some gray area on this regrettable situation.
From this perspective, as I tend to think a reasonable amount of people see these 3 matters, there is little in common with the Butler instance compared to the other 2, which have some similarity.
I guess the CFL's own definition of the SMS is too much for you to understand. Obviously you can't admit when you are wrong. I have no problem with people debating my opinion, what I have a problem is with people who when they can't admit they were wrong they resort to trying to intimidate or insult. I can play that game as well, fortunately I do debate, not like a few others who simply follow people around the forum and insult.
I do apologize for the likes of DePop and others who have dragged what used to be a reasonably constructive form into the gutter. This is why there are many of valued contributors who have left this forum. I have tried to adhere to the motto Ilegitimi Non Carborundum (look it up DePop, not that it would help, since you can't read the SMS rules I posted verbatum) and not let these guys take over the site but I think somewhere along the way, people need to let the jerks run the asylum and call it a day.
Hufnagel suspended Butler who's accused of assault pre-trial and Taman played your thugs who are accused of aggravated assault and your trying to justify that its different. Yes Aggravated assault is worse.
Its nothing personal. All of them should have been suspended. Its very possible that the guy they beat to a pulp at the bar was a POS and the Cabbie was a racist prik. We have all been insulted in our lives and we don't go Jason Statham on people.
I commented on the single post, he still brings more to the table than you on most posts and is generally capable and interested in maintaining debate.
You can't define what a soft cap is...You have proven that a couple of times. Again, the link that you provided does not define what a soft cap is, it highlights the audit and fine structure...every league has a different audit and fine structure if there is a cap in place no matter what type of cap it is and thus will have a similar highlight, but that doesn't make them all the same...you keep saying you know what a soft cap is but you can not define it. You either do not understand what a soft cap is or you won't define it because it goes against your stance. If you knew how to define it and it supported your point of view you would have stated it. Instead you like to take the stance of "I am right and you are wrong because I say so." I support my stances when someone opens debate on my posts...you get pissed off whenever someone attempts to debate your view...and that is backed up purely by the fact that you drew the cap overage into this thread and seem to think there was a conspiracy against you from that when it is simply that someone attempted debating that your comparison was not the same...your response...attack them over it: