Seems like it’s different than other threads so probably just best to leave it. So far dealing with the schedule (a huge source of forum whining) and negotiation lists.
It’s great to have a commissioner that isn’t afraid of progress and change. Although I’m guessing he’s seen Groundhog Day, his clock radio says 2025.
No mandate to put any teams in the US….i.e…the BOG haven’t approved it.
Was diplomatic on each talked about location. Key words I get are groups not just with money but political connections…i.e….need a stadium in these locations…no change there.
It sounds to me like the changes in the size of the field were done partially to enable expansion. I have a feeling we’ll see some new teams in the future. Who knows when though.
Agree. Maybe people interested in joining the CFL with a team want to wait a bit and see if the changes, particularly with the field length, size as you say, will work out before they invest in the league with a team and stadium. Wouldn’t be surprised. If the fans really hate this and this backfires and they revert back to what it is today, that could kill future expansion or severely hamper the timelines on it. But I don’t think this will happen, I hope not for the future of the league. I think the league needs to move ahead with the shortened field even with the risk of peeving off a number of long-time fans. And even players and coaches who aren’t in favour of it, at least at this time.
But I won’t deny it, it’s a gamble.
I seem to recall that when the Argos joined TFC at BMO they had to do some renovations to accommodate them. If the CFL field was the size then that it will be in 2027, l don’t think those renovations would have been necessary. The Argos could have moved sooner if they chose too. Future expansion will possibly be in step with soccer franchises.
And Canadian football fans need to understand this and appreciate this even if they don’t want to. Soccer is increasingly becoming more influential in this country in so many ways, this is simply another one of those ways. And having an impact on gridiron, is what it is.
I’m looking at this trough the lens of why do they do this and looking for an answer beyond tradition.
In a world of Kelly being undrafted would he have been better off with up to 9 teams bidding for his services? Though some may have wanted a mulligan lol
It’s up to the league of course but the neg list is a joke. It doesn’t prevent anyone for signing everywhere if you can trade the rights away. It might be better if the worst team have a crack at the player first, if the player says no then the rights move on to the next team. Put a maximum limit on negotiation but the minimum time is whenever the player says no.
Agreed. Does any other league have rights to undrafted players?
A few years ago, we had a town all meet with then Argos GM Jim Popp brought it up. Saying pre salary cap days it was done so the rich teams don’t hoard unsigned talent. Of course he’s looking at this with GM’s lens
Now with a cap in place, there’s no need for one anymore. I don’t think PA will care either way since it’s for players who are not part of the union.
Having a cap isn’t helping Edmonton and Ottawa which have been losers for years. If they can figure out how to help these teams first before Saskatchewan and Montreal it’s better for the league. That’s my concern. I do realize it’s hard to figure out a way to do that though.