Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 8533318)

Speaking of which...

Ontario to legalize tailgate parties; amendment to be introduced in budget
The Canadian Press April 8, 2019

TORONTO — Sports fans in Ontario will soon be able to have a drink and tailgate before a game.

The government will announce in its budget this week that it will legalize the practice often seen in parking lots at sporting events in the United States.

Premier Doug Ford’s executive director of strategic communications tweeted that the change means the government is treating adults like adults.

Tailgating parties will be made possible by amending a regulation that sets out the terms for special occasion liquor permits.

Any parking lot or venue within a reasonable distance from a major sports complex, such as Toronto’s Rogers Centre or Scotiabank Arena, would be able to apply for the permit.

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8535614)

^ I'm surprised that the Raptors rank number one. Seems like it was not that long ago they were in the Jays' and Leafs' shadows to some extent.

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy (Post 8531518)

Sigh. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Als were a financial basket case for much of their existence, most notably in the 80s.

Much was made of the Als resurgence in the late 90s, both on the field and off. That turned out to be a 10 - 15 year reprieve. Right around 2012 - 2014, their attendance and corporate support starting to nosedive. I suspect this is when the losses starting to mount and it continues to this day. The average crowds were announced as 17,000 for the season, but you could tell watching on tv that the actual numbers were 10 - 12,000. Lots of freebies and discounted tickets given to corporate sponsors, football and charitable organizations.

I imagine the cumulative losses the past half-decade are well over $10 million given the charming, yet antiquated stadium, minimal merchandise revenue, and no Grey Cups hosting duties for over a decade. Offhand, I have heard that Wettenhall was carrying a debt on the team close to or at 8 figures. I can see him not covering the annual losses once he came close to exhausting the profits from the "golden years" of the 2000s, so the reported cumulative debt would make sense.

As stated above, I wouldn't be surprised if Wettenhall has demanded that any prospective owners carry his outstanding debt in addition to a fee to acquire the team. Not an enticing prospect for an organization that plays in a fickle market with no real assets and with no prospect of hosting a Grey Cup any time soon.

Unfortunately, I too believe the league will take over the team and incur the outstanding debt. Hopefully, they will find someone who will buy the Als for approx. the going rate of an expansion team - $7 million. Then, it will be a question as to how this will be split between the CFL and the Wettenhalls. I would suspect the Wettenhalls would receive nearly all, if not the entirety of the proceeds, as a thank you from the league for investing in the team and Percival - Molson Stadium for all these years.

I suspect one of the conditions of the sale by the prospective ownership group will be a couple of Grey Cups within a specified time period. The Olympic Stadium roof will be ready replaced in either 2023 or 2024, and the city and province will be eager to make full use of it. A 2024 Grey Cup followed by another in 2027 - 2029 might do the trick.

Originally Posted by khabibulin (Post 8540085)

So where does "the league" get this $7M from? Is the league not just a compilation of private owners and publicly operated teams? Would those 8 groups agree to take on the risk of taking on $1M, or possibly more, each to save the Montreal franchise? Have there not been 4 separate bankruptcies in the last 25 years (twice each in Ottawa and Montreal)? And the league survived those.

Originally Posted by Canadian Press

The Edmonton Eskimos have no immediate plans to change their name.

The CFL franchise has spent the past couple of years speaking with Inuit leaders and conducting research on the impact of the Eskimos name on the Inuit community. And the club plans to do much more before being in a position to determine the final results of its efforts.

Despite a social media report Monday suggesting Edmonton would be changing its name to Empire, Allan Watt, a marketing and communications official with the Eskimos, said there’s nothing imminent regarding a new team monicker.

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8541595)

^ Seems inevitable to me that the Eskimos are going to change their name. Doing it on a gradual basis the way they're doing it in Edmonton is a reasonable way to proceed.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I undertstand Redskins being offensive, or Red Men, but I’m not sure how Eskimos can be deemed offensive, especially with the long history and pride of the franchise and its fan base. I feel it more or less celebrates the people or culture, the same way Fighting Irish.

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 8541625)

I undertstand Redskins being offensive, or Red Men, but I’m not sure how Eskimos can be deemed offensive, especially with the long history and pride of the franchise and its fan base. I feel it more or less celebrates the people or culture, the same way Fighting Irish.

Does that make me racist, in today’s definition of the term?

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8541794)

The odd thing to me is deciding that one name is deemed inappropriate so the name they've supposedly chosen to succeed it is...essentially the embodiment of the people that came to North America and subjugated the local population (the British Empire).

Why not rename the team the Elks? They keep the EE moniker, honour past tradition, and animals can't complain about their likeness being used. :hmmm:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 8541806)

Wouldn't the plural of Elk still be "Elk"?

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

noun, plural elks, (especially collectively) elk for 1, 2

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8541794)

The odd thing to me is deciding that one name is deemed inappropriate so the name they've supposedly chosen to succeed it is...essentially the embodiment of the people that came to North America and subjugated the local population (the British Empire).

Why not rename the team the Elks? They keep the EE moniker, honour past tradition, and animals can't complain about their likeness being used. :hmmm:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8541834)

FWIW, as far as I understand it, the name "Empire" has nothing to do with the British Empire... it is purely self-referential.

Both Empire and Elks are what I'd consider to be good-not-great substitutes for Eskimos. I guess there aren't that many great team names that start with E? If you want to go back to the 90s thing they could be the EDMONTON EDGE, but after that the options drop off fast.

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 8541834)

FWIW, as far as I understand it, the name "Empire" has nothing to do with the British Empire... it is purely self-referential.

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is Edmonton Energy, but that sounds like a Lingerie Football League team name.

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 8541625)

I undertstand Redskins being offensive, or Red Men, but I’m not sure how Eskimos can be deemed offensive, especially with the long history and pride of the franchise and its fan base. I feel it more or less celebrates the people or culture, the same way Fighting Irish.

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8541794)

The name Eskimo in and of itself is viewed as derogatory by some (most?) Inuit and Yupik. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) shifted from using Eskimo to Inuit.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/arti...rs/2014/06/27/

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 8541852)

Oh, of course, but I hope you understand my bemusement in moving away from a name that's inappropriate to a name which can also be viewed as being inappropriate, or at least a bit ironic.
: