***** if the team can't cover their mortgage, ***** if they do something to pay the bills.......it's really not that big of a deal. Gotta make as much money as you can, while you can...

***** if the team can't cover their mortgage, ***** if they do something to pay the bills.......it's really not that big of a deal. Gotta make as much money as you can, while you can...

 

I just wish certain things were off limits when it comes to generating revenue.

 

This is more or less the closest thing we have to a physical hall of fame or "wall of honor" or whatever you want to call it. It should be exempt, imo

The ads are bigger than the pictures of the players for god sakes.

It would be way better with just a small sponsored ad.

The way it is, is just grotesque.

It's not supposed to be about the sponsor.

Agreed. So tasteless. Of course, the sponsors will say that without them there are no banners. But to make the sponsors more important than the players, that is just so wrong. 

CJOB is plastered over every inch of that stadium.  Buchko doing some favors for his old buddies.

CJOB is plastered over every inch of that stadium.  Buchko doing some favors for his old buddies.

Or, y'know, Corus spent a metric $hit-ton of money..........but whatever. Your way sounds more underhanded...

Walby might have taken the honour the wrong way. i.e. He would suit up on game days and not let anyone pass through his gate. 

I'm not sure this was a well thought out idea. It certainly was a disservice to a number of outstanding players that were not selected. To try and delineate only 4 individuals was a mistake. Perhaps a better idea might have been to select 4 teams that should have been honoured .

But as always what is done is done and now the organization is left to deal with any negativity that has resulted.

I'm not sure this was a well thought out idea. It certainly was a disservice to a number of outstanding players that were not selected. To try and delineate only 4 individuals was a mistake. Perhaps a better idea might have been to select 4 teams that should have been honoured .

But as always what is done is done and now the organization is left to deal with any negativity that has resulted.

 

I would guess that the negativity is slim to none.

I'm not sure this was a well thought out idea. It certainly was a disservice to a number of outstanding players that were not selected. To try and delineate only 4 individuals was a mistake. Perhaps a better idea might have been to select 4 teams that should have been honoured .

But as always what is done is done and now the organization is left to deal with any negativity that has resulted.

 

Wow.

I'm not sure this was a well thought out idea. It certainly was a disservice to a number of outstanding players that were not selected. To try and delineate only 4 individuals was a mistake. Perhaps a better idea might have been to select 4 teams that should have been honoured .

But as always what is done is done and now the organization is left to deal with any negativity that has resulted.

 

 

like '74 oakland A's we salute you?

Cute but if you think that is appropriate I guess that could have been your vote.

Dr CFL, the Bombers have won 9 Grey Cups... So, that would mean that there'd be 5 teams with players pissed off using your logic. Can't please everyone...

Dr CFL, the Bombers have won 9 Grey Cups...

9 Grey Cups , oh really? I also heard the Beatles really aren't doing a reunion tour. While I appreciate you can't include all the teams, it would seem that honouring teams would be more appropriate and would have been an alternative to being highly selective and isolating other worthy players that may have also been deserving.

You're still being selective. So, what's the point of honouring a team over individuals??? It's the same thing on a different scale. What makes honouring the 1958 team different than honouring the 1959 team, for example? Or the 1961 team over 1962? How about the 1984 team over the 1990  team or vice versa? To me, it's no different. How you can say it is, well I disagree. If you honour the 1935 team for example, people will say that a team from another year would have been a better choice...The discussion would be the same. And on it goes.

Wow, tough crowd. Forgot the 1939 championship... Yes, 10.

If you honour a team it is represents about 55 players , coaching and support staff....etc. it recognizes the contribution of all those that contributed to the success of that particulate year. It is after all a TEAM sport.

If you are happy with the format and the selection , so be it. I was simply proposing an alternative to it that would be less selective and less of a partial popularity contest.

I don't think that alternative was ever considered. Honouring individual players was the correct thing to do. 

So you have no problem that it became a popularity contest and that perhaps more deserving players may not have been selected?

So you have no problem that it became a popularity contest and that perhaps more deserving players may not have been selected?

Holy crap dude, No, I don't have a problem. There won't be any demonstrators pouring gasoline over themselves & setting themselves on fire because of this.There won't be any placard carrying sit ins by enraged fans. The sun will still rise in the East & set in the West. The Ottawa RedBlacks won't suddenly change their name.... In other words, while people disagree over who may have been selected, it's not that big a deal. Not everyone could have been selected. The choices are fine.

So you have no problem that it became a popularity contest and that perhaps more deserving players may not have been selected?

 

Who judges who is the most deserving?

 

You?

Personally, I love to hear doctors talking shop.

So you have no problem that it became a popularity contest and that perhaps more deserving players may not have been selected?

no because the only people who care are a few uptight message board posters with nothing better to do than ***** about things all the time.

So you have no problem that it became a popularity contest and that perhaps more deserving players may not have been selected?

That's just it right there, it was a popularity contest. Fans were asked to pick their favorite players. In his weekly column, Doug Brown stated that a case could certainly be made for more deserving players if you were going by stats, records, championships, etc. But none of that was the criteria for voting. Of course they could've gone with the four favorite anything; teams, eras, logos, mascots (Buzz, Boomer, Capt. Blue and that weird looking Girl-Boomer). If anyone deserved a gate, it was poor Green Drop guy...