Stampeder charged with 2 counts of assault

[cfleskfan]

Sorry, you are one of the ones that have made the debate a fight, but somehow you question others debating skills. If your definition of a soft cap is different that the CFLS, by all means state what it is. You simply say that being a soft cap means you are allowed to go over, yet you can't explain why if is allowed there are penalties. Penalties mean you have broken the rules, if it were some other term like a tax, I could buy the being allowed part, but it isn't it is a penalty which means 100% that a rule has been broken, just like the record you keep spinning.

You berate me for not providing you with a definition of a soft cap, I won't play your game, I provided you with the definition of the CFL's SMS which is what we are debating. I can't help it if you are too ignorant to understand that by going over the SMS the Riders broke the rules and paid the PENALTY!

[depopulationINC]

@"cfleskfan"

Sorry, you are one of the ones that have made the debate a fight, but somehow you question others debating skills. If your definition of a soft cap is different that the CFLS, by all means state what it is. You simply say that being a soft cap means you are allowed to go over, yet you can't explain why if is allowed there are penalties. Penalties mean you have broken the rules, if it were some other term like a tax, I could buy the being allowed part, but it isn't it is a penalty which means 100% that a rule has been broken, just like the record you keep spinning.

You berate me for not providing you with a definition of a soft cap, I won't play your game, I provided you with the definition of the CFL's SMS which is what we are debating. I can't help it if you are too ignorant to understand that by going over the SMS the Riders broke the rules and paid the PENALTY!

No, you provided a link that highlights the audit and fine structure. That is not a definition.

As for defining soft cap...a soft cap is a league SMS that openly permits teams to go over the cap, but by doing so are obligated to predetermined sanctions / penalties. This is often refereed to as a luxury tax, and in some leagues is used as a method of profit sharing (though I don't believe the CFL uses it as direct profit sharing). Going over the cap in said scenario is perfectly within the rules, thus not "cheating," even if done every year. As I have said, if the league wants to change the rules...so be it...I think it would probably be smart, but as it stands the rules of the soft cap are being followed. People might not like the fact that the club went over the cap, but it is still not cheating.

[brianjo]

@"cfleskfan"

@"depopulationINC"

Hmm...attacking yet again...shocker shocker!

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.

I know this is well off topic. But you are 100% correct. Half of the teams were well under the cap . 3 teams were very close to the cap. ONE team was WELL WELL OVER and not that $20,000 over crap reported. More like $1000,000 and more. Just skirted the rules. Next some Idiot will say prove. Ya I'll waste my time educating you. Its a gentlemens rule. You host Grey Cup, we close our eyes to some over runs. Its a fact having the Grey Cup host is a money maker for sure.
to side line things. And you all know what I'm talking about. So who do you think will go over budget the most this year??

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.

[cfleskfan]

@"depopulationINC"

@"cfleskfan"

Sorry, you are one of the ones that have made the debate a fight, but somehow you question others debating skills. If your definition of a soft cap is different that the CFLS, by all means state what it is. You simply say that being a soft cap means you are allowed to go over, yet you can't explain why if is allowed there are penalties. Penalties mean you have broken the rules, if it were some other term like a tax, I could buy the being allowed part, but it isn't it is a penalty which means 100% that a rule has been broken, just like the record you keep spinning.

You berate me for not providing you with a definition of a soft cap, I won't play your game, I provided you with the definition of the CFL's SMS which is what we are debating. I can't help it if you are too ignorant to understand that by going over the SMS the Riders broke the rules and paid the PENALTY!

No, you provided a link that highlights the audit and fine structure. That is not a definition.

One simple question, if the rules are not broken, why is there a fine or a penalty. By the very definition of penalty it implies explicitly that a rule has been broken. One team broke the rule, one team was penalized.

As for defining soft cap...a soft cap is a league SMS that openly permits teams to go over the cap, but by doing so are obligated to predetermined sanctions / penalties. This is often refereed to as a luxury tax, and in some leagues is used as a method of profit sharing (though I don't believe the CFL uses it as direct profit sharing). Going over the cap in said scenario is perfectly within the rules, thus not "cheating," even if done every year. As I have said, if the league wants to change the rules...so be it...I think it would probably be smart, but as it stands the rules of the soft cap are being followed. People might not like the fact that the club went over the cap, but it is still not cheating.

[depopulationINC]

@"cfleskfan"

@"depopulationINC"

@"cfleskfan"

Sorry, you are one of the ones that have made the debate a fight, but somehow you question others debating skills. If your definition of a soft cap is different that the CFLS, by all means state what it is. You simply say that being a soft cap means you are allowed to go over, yet you can't explain why if is allowed there are penalties. Penalties mean you have broken the rules, if it were some other term like a tax, I could buy the being allowed part, but it isn't it is a penalty which means 100% that a rule has been broken, just like the record you keep spinning.

You berate me for not providing you with a definition of a soft cap, I won't play your game, I provided you with the definition of the CFL's SMS which is what we are debating. I can't help it if you are too ignorant to understand that by going over the SMS the Riders broke the rules and paid the PENALTY!

No, you provided a link that highlights the audit and fine structure. That is not a definition.

One simple question, if the rules are not broken, why is there a fine or a penalty. By the very definition of penalty it implies explicitly that a rule has been broken. One team broke the rule, one team was penalized.

As for defining soft cap...a soft cap is a league SMS that openly permits teams to go over the cap, but by doing so are obligated to predetermined sanctions / penalties. This is often refereed to as a luxury tax, and in some leagues is used as a method of profit sharing (though I don't believe the CFL uses it as direct profit sharing). Going over the cap in said scenario is perfectly within the rules, thus not "cheating," even if done every year. As I have said, if the league wants to change the rules...so be it...I think it would probably be smart, but as it stands the rules of the soft cap are being followed. People might not like the fact that the club went over the cap, but it is still not cheating.

This supports exactly my point...you can not understand what a "soft cap" aka "luxury tax" is. It is there before you...apparently you either did not read it or do not comprehend "openly permits" to a defined scale....in other words, sure, you can spend more if you choose, but it will cost you the fee of X to do so. One team went over the cap, one team paid the luxury tax. Call it a penalty all you want...a penalty is not automatically "cheating," penalties are applied to cheating, mistakes, errors in judgment, etc...not cheating alone....that is the definition you are throwing against the wall and hoping it sticks...but it doesn't...no rule was broken...the rune, as you point out, is that if you go over 4.4 mil in 2013 you pay a tier fee...aka luxury tax. Unless they don't pay it, there was no cheating. You may not like that the cap was broken...fine, I get that...the cap should rules should probably be amended...hey, I have always agreed to that, but right now it is what it is, and the rules of it are being followed

[MrLucky]

@"brianjox"

@"MrLucky"

If only some other teams in this league had the integrity that Calgary is showing. We do not need to tolerate this kind of behavior in our league. Once the legal matters are cleared up then we proceed forward (regardless of percieved innocence or guilt).

Well done Mr Hufnagel! This is the proper way to address a situation like this. Glad to see there is someone ethical and with integrity left in this league.

:cowboy:

Mr Lucky are you for REAL. Most Team officials and coaches are ethical and have integrity in the cfl. This is a slap on the wrist. How do they say " very generic" When the facts come out there could be some major heat on this case.

We may differ on what our definition of "ethical" is ... I believe that the handling of this situation is being done correctly and in alinement with what I see/understand the CFL as representing (sports entertainment, our Canadian heritage and peoples, etc)

I am avoiding pointing out any specifics in what I disagree with, as I have stated my opinions (and that is all it is) in other threads regarding those particular offenses. I do not want to see our league turn out like the "National Fellons League" ... If that is what you want, that is your opinion and I support your right to have it. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

In the past few years, I have lost a measure of respect for certain organizations who seem to have adapted a "win at any cost" attitude, rather than (as I see it) do the responsible thing and bench/suspend a player(s) until their off/on the field conduct or personal legal matters are cleared up.

I will use Chad Johnson as a (relatively) safe example. When the battery charges were placed, he was released by his team and has since "paid his dues" for that error in judgement. For Montreal to give him an opportunity at this time is completely appropriate (IMO), as his personal matters are already cleared up. That being said, I feel there are other reasons (which I have stated elsewhere) why this may backfire against the Als and the CFL as a whole (from a PR stand point).

In the end for me it comes down to the respectability and/or professionalism of the league. Ultimately, I want quality football (anyone who has "followed" my previous posts, knows even when we lose, as long as it was quality football by both teams, I am "happy" for the result) on the field, with players that kids can look up to not only for their talent and ability on field, but also for their ethical and professional maner off the feild as well. I understand that people make mistakes and I don't think they should have to "pay for the rest of their lives" for their mistakes. I do think that they need to responsibly and respectfully go through the process of "making right" for their mistakes and once they have, THEN they can return to some form of "normalicy" (especially if you are a "public" figure). I do not feel the right attitude is ... "we'll look the other way until it's settled in court" or "we'll look the other way until the league decides on disciplinary action" and THEN take public action.

I feel that is unethical. I feel that "silence is consent" - meaning when you fail to act, you are condoning that behavior. Feel free to disagree with me (that is your right).

:cowboy:

P.S. If anyone wants my opinions on the other incidents, feel free to look them up in the appropriate thread. I rarely post here in the offseason, but felt that this situation meritted comment. I am not trying to start a debate/arguement, simply stating my opinion.

[CROOKEDRIDER1971]

Apparently, we are assuming these situations are identical? Not even close. First of all, it is pretty easy to deal with a situation like this in the OFF SEASON. The Butler case is also a no brainer, open and shut, so lets not give too much praise. Not making light of the what happened with the Riders, but they will have there day in court. Tell me, what happens if someone like Cornish is accused of something mid way through the season this year, do you suspend him without hearing the whole story. I doubt it, Cowtown would implode. So maybe start comparing apples to apples, instead of just hating on the Riders. :cowboy:

[MrLucky]

@"CROOKEDRIDER1971"

Tell me, what happens if someone like Cornish is accused of something mid way through the season this year, do you suspend him without hearing the whole story.

Simple answer ... yes you do! I would be upset, but Jon Cornish is not the whole team (despite what some might feel) and deserves no different treatment. If my team were to lose games, in part, because of an ethical choice they made, again, I would be upset, but I would respect it. Again this is my opinion. In my opinion it is unethical to leave a player on the team/field while dealing with the previously stated types of issues (I'm not writing the whole list again).

I did not single out a single incident and will not. The Riders are not the only team to have situations like this in recent years. The fact that you assume I'm talking about them, smacks of guilty conscience (IMO).

I have said my opinion and everyone else can debate this forever. This is my opinion and unless someone can provide more than "your just hating on _____", my opinion won't change.

Ethics = Doing the right thing, not because it is the easy thing or because someone is watching, but because it is the RIGHT thing.

:cowboy: