Which organization is better: Stampeders or Roughriders????

…25 is arbitrary…maybe less arbitrary than 11 but it’s still just a number to support an argument…

Because 25 years ago is when Calgary started winning. That is why I pick it. If you want to call that arbitrary fine. But Calgary has been winning that long. That's the point!

yeah, it makes sense to cheer for the local team. I cheer for the Riders because of association....but mainly because this is where we settled. If I lived in Calgary I would likely be cheering for the Stamps...because that is who I can go see play the most. I just found it rather shocking that someone born in Calgary and a lifetime Stamps fan with tickets for over 2 decades dropped his team to commute that far for games. Still poke him about it to this day...he refuses to go back to Stamps games...even if the Riders are there...even if it free LDC tickets...just seems weird to me.

Nowhere did i claim this as proof of anything...it is chat...on a chat board....and was not directed to you...it was directed to someone else who I was not contradicting/opposing/challenging.

You have some serious internal issues you need to work on. Your need to sound angry and fight in every post is concerning. I hope that is only on here and not a translation to something pent up in your day to day life....not being an arse here...it is a true concern

kinda proved exactly what everyone has been saying to you...you are arbitrarily picking a number for no reason other than it fits your POV...there is no other reason. Yet someone else picked a number and you say that is not acceptable. That is some straight up BS.

Pretty much

Like I said...pick a number that means something...ie "cap era" "18 game season" something...not "oh look, this works for my benefit lol

Calgary has been winning consistently for a quarter century. Bottom line. Is that an arbitrary statement? Is that not impressive? Is that not very rare in pro sports?

you will never hear me say otherwise and I have always spoken in high regards to how they run things there.

Thank you. That's all I'm trying to get across.

"which organization is better" is nothing the same as "which team has sustained regular season success" or something similar. Just sayin

With all due respect I disagree. That sustained success IS what defines a great organization

really? finances and support are not a factor? It has to be the Argos then. Not sure how one could argue that under your premise. Bringing in the Argos is the goalpost imma move for now, since apparently we are doing that and setting arbitrary timelines and such.

Fair point. Its important to a point. Obviously a team in financial peril is not a good organization but 1 that has strong backing like the stamps who have won for 25 years certainly is.
People cheer for a team because they win not because they can balance their books!

I would argue there are a pile more fans that cheer for teams not because they win but simply because they are their team. I don't believe the number would be even close. Winning fills the bandwagon nicely though.

The objective of a pro football team is to win. Money flows from fans pocket to owners pockets to players/coaches pockets with that expectation.
The point of existence is to win. The CFL is a poor mans league anyways

Football is a business, not a game...unfortunately. You can be the best actor in the world, but if nobody goes to your movies you won't be working. Winning is a core goal as it helps put butts in seats, but the first and foremost goal is to be profitable/viable for damn near every ownership group.

I doubt this is true for the riders, you have no owners, who are you making a profit for? Viability and profitability aren't the same thing in the CFL.
Look at the owners of CFL teams over the years? Are they buying teams to make money? No they are buying teams because they are fans.
In the CFL a team that can meet the cost of operations and still have a little in the bank is a viable team. Like I say, the CFL is a poor mans league.

The only person that I can think of who went in knowing they would lose money on a team was Braley, and perhaps Bob Young. Nobody else entered the market to lose money, so yes, it is the bottom line. Are the Argos owners striving to get butts in the seats so more can see them win? By what you are saying, yes, they are. Not the reality. They are striving in many different ways to get butts in the seats...social media, grassroots injection, tailgating...winning helps, but the end goal is butts in the seats, aka "profit/viability" I it absolutely a business and they won't hold it forever if it is a sinking ship....even if they win every season. The Argos finished 2nd and won the grey cup in 2012 and their attendance dropped...where was ownership saying "oh well" at that time? Again..it is absolutely business first and you only kid yourself if you think otherwise.

Oh great. Now white stallion, AKA Jeff Stamps, AKA the phsycho on 3 downnation that changes it's name every 2 days and hijacks every comment board there with it's same anti Rider, Pro Calgary crap is officially taking over this board. This place use to be an escape from it's crap but now it's spreading like the plague.


Do you know why teams like the Argos, Lions, Als are surviving right now? It's because of the current TV deal. It pretty much covers the CAP at 5 million per team. Most teams are pretty content with this because it allows them to squeak by regardless of attendance. That's why MLSE bought the Argos, if they wanted big profit they would ever have bought the team! Just like the Wentenhalls would have sold off or folded the Al's by now. No one is looking to get rich. This is a small niche league with 2 franchises being run as non profits (Edm, Sask). No one is getting rich

...guys, can you cut out the quote function? 14 embedded quotes is getting kind of ridiculous...