CFL Needs to Put a Cap on Its Success

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

For the Canadian Football League to remain viable for years to come, the owners have to come to their senses and realize that long-term prosperity comes from putting a cap on their success.

The CFL hasn’t been this healthy for years, which is a remarkable recovery for a league that just a decade ago arguably was on life support. Solid ownership across the league has transformed shaky franchises into cornerstones for the league. New ownership groups in Hamilton and Ottawa offer hope – and deep pockets – to build for the future. Heck, even in Toronto, despite its terrible venue and fourth-sport status, the Argonauts are starting to draw.

And while the league’s owners may be content to keep riding the gravy train, they have to realize that unless someone’s controlling the direction and keeping the speed regulated, they could end up crashing in the not-too-distant future.

The CFL is plagued by two problems: competitive balance and financial stability. However, the two are inexorably intertwined – or at least the latter directly impacts the former. Right now the number $2.6 million is floated around – but in true CFLian fashion, there’s not even a consensus as to whether that’s a cap, a suggested competitive balance threshold, or just a proposed spending guideline to use as a starting point.

As such, some teams adhere to the $2.6 number religiously, while other franchises find ways around the number by offering personal service contracts, guaranteeing ancillary income through radio or television shows, or finding other perks to inflate the value of a contract without it showing up on the team’s payroll.

In the end, the fans lose. Certain teams are able to spend seemingly at will to stock their rosters, while other clubs have to scrimp and save – and even in an eight-team league there are franchises that right now have no hope of raising the Grey Cup.

A hard cap just makes sense for this league. And that’s why the Board of Governors should leap at the suggestion when and if Commissioner Tom Wright brings it to the table at the league meetings in Phoenix.

By enforcing a hard cap across the clubs, you’re ensuring a level playing field and curbing the inflationary impact that inflated salaries can have on the league’s finances. And, if some form of revenue sharing is not included in the formula, then those teams with the extra finances can leverage that advantage for their most important customers – the fans.

Extra money that would have been diverted into payroll could instead be funneled into stadium improvements, enhancing the fan experience, and more aggressive sales and marketing plans. And for a league that’s driven by gate revenue, a salary cap offers owners the security of a defined expenditure amount around which they can budget accordingly.

And what the existence of a stable cap could mean is the addition of franchises to a league built on a solid foundation. Instead of the haphazard, grab-the-American-money-while-you-can expansion orgy of times past, a hard cap could entice investors from other parts of Canada who are looking to get into the league. The league has long floated the trial balloon of franchises in Quebec City and somewhere in the Atlantic provinces. A cap could make these dreams a reality.

By putting a cap on its current success, the league could open an opportunity for even greater prosperity in the future. Think of the possibilities of a league that stretches ad mare usque ad mare. Imagine the instant rivalry forged between the Montreal Alouettes and a new Quebec City-based franchise. Think of the potential revenue that can be exploited by those football-mad Maritimers who have shown so much support for the university game.

And, for the players, think of the extra guaranteed jobs. A cap may put a ceiling on their immediate earnings, but it could allow for the creation of extra positions – either through new franchises, or more immediately through the addition of another import and non-import roster spot.

Enforcement is always a question, but those that exceed the salary cap could face an immediate loss of a draft pick in the Canadian amateur draft. More than the imports, Canadian players are the lifeblood of any successful franchise due to the existence of the Canadian player ratio – so the threat of losing out on young Canuck talent should be enough to keep even the most adventurous owner in line.

The idea of a hard cap just makes too much sense for the league – let’s just hope the owners don’t drop the ball on this one.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Branded Condoms Rise to the Occasion

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Whether it’s because the city’s “hard up” for cash or looking to create a little “stiff” marketing competition, New York City is looking to release an NYC-branded condom in the next few months – but one would hope not prematurely!

OK, I think I got the phallic jokes out of my system? No, probably not. I’m sure there are more than a few Big Apple references just waiting to be beaten to death.

Of course, turning a cold shower on all the fun, a representative from the city’s Department of Mental Health and Hygiene said in a recent edition of The New York Times that the venture is just a way to better track the success of the city’s free condom distribution program.

But, pun entirely intended (and you might as well expect it from the rest of this column…) why not think big? It’s time for the savvy marketers to rise to the occasion and give birth to a new line of geographically referential condoms.

Just think of the tie-ins? In fact, why not tie in prophylactic styles with locations they represent? “No sir, I don’t think the Empire State condom is your thing… perhaps you’d like to see something in our Arkansas line? Little Rock perhaps?” Or for those lacking a little girth, may we suggest something in the Seattle Space Needle line?

Of course, that’s just the lubricated tip. From “I went gambling and got f***ed in Las Vegas” rubbers to “Washington’s Other Monument” condoms, prophylactic marketing may be the way of the future.

And why just stick south of the 49 th? The world is filled with phallic representations in architecture that are just waiting to be exploited. Imagine a tag line for Britain’s Big Ben Brand – “Performance and durability, time and time again.” And one would be remiss in neglecting Paris’ impact on romance without mentioning an Eiffel Tower-inspired French Tickler, “Passion at Night from the City of Lights.” And for our homosexual friends, a slogan of “Put the Gay back in Paree” may work.

Of course, closer to home, we have our own evidence of penis envy – the CN Tower. And like we don’t have a ready-made slogan for that product – just two syllables, “T. Ohhhh!” Head out west and pick up your Rocky Mountain Rubbers or visit la belle province for a little Montreal-inspired work-to-live wear (we will stay far, far away from any Smoked Meat or Steamed Hot Dog references for our Montrealers’ sake).

And, of course, we mustn’t forget the special issue Bloc Quebecois condoms – you know, for the couple who want to separate but is stuck with each other. Now, if there was only some marketing tie-in for our national animal…

There really is no barrier to the creativity that cities can use when developing their own line of prophylactics. And in a world that takes itself far too seriously sometimes, it’s good to be able to laugh at ourselves once in a while.

Sex is the great taboo subject in our society. We’re fascinated by it, participants in it, and – in large part – motivated by it. Yet, we stray away from the topic or treat it with a reverence bordering on fear. When, in fact, sex should be fun. At it’s best it’s a shared experience between two people who care deeply about each other and feel comfortable with each other.

What better way to show how comfortable you feel with your partner than to be able to laugh with each other? To feel so secure, so free, and so content that you’re willing to lose all inhibitions and just share in each other’s love?

New York’s on the right track, especially when you consider the threat that sexually transmitted diseases pose to our society. By breaking down the fear and reservations that we have about discussing sexuality in public through humour, New York City’s Health Unit will successfully engage people into conversations that, in all seriousness, could be about life and death. When people feel secure enough to engage in frank discussions about sexuality, they’ll have a better chance of taking steps towards exhibiting responsible sexual behaviour.

And, as long as no one takes a bite out of the Big Apple, no one should get hurt!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Friend of the Bride or the Groom?

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

There are few spectacles as wondrous as the celebration of the union of two loving partners in the bonds of matrimony. But there are also few things more uncomfortable than getting to the ceremony, being asked, “friend of the bride or the groom?” and not having an answer.

Maybe it’s reflective of an insular society that finds us with fewer true friends and less of a community feeling, but acquaintance invitations appear to be the fashion in modern weddings. In fact, just recently, my wife and I received an invitation to the wedding of a person to whom we’ve only spoken a handful of times.

Generally, I base my acceptance of whether or not I know the bride and groom’s first and last names. When I’ve only got a fuzzy notion of the bride’s first name and couldn’t pick the groom out of a police line-up, I think I’ve got grounds for not attending. But now we’re in that uncomfortable matrimonial nether-region of how to bow out gracefully.

It’s not like we have to worry about doing irreparable damage to a friendship, because exchanging pleasantries with someone who lives in close proximity to you does not a friendship make. Hell, if that was the case, I’d have invited the clerk at the grocery store we frequented, the guy behind the counter at the Lebanese restaurant we often got take out from, and the entire staff at the local Blockbuster Video. But that’s not how we saw our wedding. We chose to celebrate our wedding day with those who were closest to us – the friends and family that we saw every day and those we saw less frequently, but held a close emotional attachment to the both of us.

Our wedding was an intimate affair – which is just a fancy way of saying small. However, we made the choice to pare down the guest list out of respect for those we barely know.

Anyone who’s gone through the process of planning a wedding knows that the creation of the guest list can be one of most stressful aspects of the whole venture. The dreaded spectre of family politics inevitably raises its ugly head. We’ve all played that game – if you invite one aunt, then you have to invite the other. And if you invite those cousins, then we have to factor in spouses and children. A simply 60-gathering can easily increase exponentially three or four times just by climbing the family tree.

In many cases, these are family members that you never, ever see, except for weddings and funerals. A couple of years back, my wife and I were invited to the wedding of a cousin of mine of whom I had not seen for over a decade – back in her early teens. Yet, because of those thin family ties, we were invited. Work obligations forced us to miss the event – and we ended up dodging a bullet as the marriage lasted under a year.

And that’s where those doing the inviting have to take into consideration the investment required of the invitees. Weddings aren’t just an expense for the bride, groom, and their family – it also represents a substantial financial burden for those who choose to attend. Beyond the inflated prices for gifts, attendees must bear the cost of travel and taking time off of work. Those that are close to you will gladly bear that burden to share in your day, but is it really fair to expect that type of investment from those you don’t know? The fact is that family ties loosen and they shouldn’t be used to tighten the noose around our necks and oblige us to attend the ceremonies. And even if you believe that those family ties bind for life, acquaintances should not be held to the same standard.

Of course, as it turns out, not even the word no is free. Apparently some sort of etiquette commandment implies that, even if you don’t attend the wedding you’re obligated to send a gift in gratitude for having been invited. Personally, I think that’s a crock – I’m more than happy to send the barely known couple my fondest wishes for a long and happy life together, but those sentiments don’t need to be accompanied by a fondue set – but my wife is responsible for all things involving social graces in my family, and we’ll end up ponying up some cash for the right to decline.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think weddings should be about the gifts – they’re about sharing a special moment in your life with those who are most important to you. But many people look at wedding gifts as a means to an end – a way for the guests to pay back the expense you’ve incurred through inviting them. So maybe this shotgun approach of inviting distant relatives and casual acquaintances is a way to maximize one’s return while minimizing the risk that they’ll actually show up to the event.

Nor should weddings be a socially paralyzing experience. Just because I work with people doesn’t mean I have to invite them to my wedding. Why should I feel obligated to invite my eighth cousin, six times removed, because we spent a wonderful weekend at the beach together when I was five? Especially when I haven’t seen hind nor hair of that person since.

And if you need to enter into the realm of deductive reasoning when the question “friend of the bride or the groom,” is posed, then it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t be at that wedding – or compelled to attend.

But just make sure you drop off your gift on the way out.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

New Year – 10 Per Cent More Gay

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Jan. 16, 2006 — I went away over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays and came back a changed man. Yes, the numbers 2006 add up to 10 per cent more gay!

Now before you go all a-titter – and for those of you who are sitting there saying, “I always thought he was gay” – I’m still happily married to my wife, and the instructions on my hardware still read insert Tab A into Slot B. No, my transition in to the world of homosexuality has been facilitated by and limited to one word: product.

A revolution in personal grooming from the Neanderthal to the Metrosexual is upon me – and I’ve never felt better.

Like many guys, I’ve never place a priority on myself in terms of grooming. Sure, I’ve styled my hair (with varying degrees of success) and take a shower every day (I even use soap). But the idea of using specific products for various tasks was foreign to me. In fact, I always thought that the forces behind the grooming industry were just these Machiavellian marketing execs laughing as they invented new terms – and with them new products – for our grooming needs.

That was until I tried a few. Now I’m hooked.

Like a senior citizen being dropped on the Information Superhighway, I was flummoxed and lost every time I found myself confronted with concepts like moulding putty and exfoliation crèmes. And just as that senior will run back to the record player to return to the comfort of their Tommy Dorsey 78’s, I returned to the relative security of my cheap gel and bar soap.

But slowly, quietly things started to change. I would make gentle forays into the world of personal betterment. If I ran out of my soap, then I’d reach for my wife’s body wash. And with what was I to apply it with? A loofah of course. It didn’t hurt, so I was able to be more bold with my metrosexual ventures.

Even television conspired to help me through the transition. Shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy showed not only that certain products and procedures could help men look and feel better – but also showed you how to use them. Knowledge was growing and all I needed was the opportunity.

And then came the New Year. Staying at the home of a gay couple, opportunity availed itself to me. A host of products just waiting to be used, exploited, and enjoyed. And, with my wife eagerly encouraging my experimentation, it happened.

First it was a bit of moulding putty in the hair as opposed to cheap gel. With a, “welcome to the 21 st century,” my wife supported my transition from my 1980s comfort zone to the world of technology. Next came an exfoliant and a moisturizer. And the transformation was complete.

Well, almost. You see, I’ve retained enough of that Neanderthal man in me to resist paying the ludicrous prices that companies charge for these products. So I’ve baby-stepped into the world of affordable skin care.

It’s a difficult transition for many men to make, but it really shouldn’t be. After all, when technology brings us the next gadget, don’t we run out and get it? While we’re playing our PlayStation 2s aren’t we secretly wondering what the next generation console will be like? Look at the crowds for the Xbox 360 when it was released. Why do we not get as excited when technology advances our grooming products?

So while we’re comfortably on the cutting edge of certain aspects of our lives, other parts live in the dark recesses of our consciousness. Damn it, we used gel in high school, it’s still good today, right? Well, yes and no. Many of us also used mousse in the 80s and few of us are willing to relive that Flock of Seagulls feathered do again.

No, styles, products, and attitudes change. The rugged Marlborough Man transitioned into the singing Irish Spring guy, who has now followed the evolutionary path all the way to metrosexuality. These days, rugged must be seasoned with a healthy dose of refinement.

I’m slowly buying into the idea. I still draw the line at eyebrow tweezing, but that’s less about aesthetics and more about pain. I’m 10 per cent more gay and it feels great! And best of all, my wife likes it – and that’s a reward in itself.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Private Care Can Cure Public Woes

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Not to slaughter any sacred Canadian cows here, but perhaps it’s time to take a good, hard look at Private Health Care in this country. And there’s a good chance we’ll find that, rather than being a disease that threatens to kill off our socialized medical system, it may actually end up being part of the system’s cure.

Wow, did that ever feel good. I mean, as a good, solid Canadian, I think I was born with the same ingrained notion that our socialized health care system was the be all and end all. As dedicated Canucks, we’re subconsciously sworn to protect the system against all corporate comers. Verily, with Tommy Douglas’ visage emblazoned on our shields and with a rallying cry of “Medicare” we traditionally go charging into the fray against the oncoming tide of private interests.

Yet, while we all have our hand at the hilt, ready for battle, we have been known to take the occasional furlough into the enemy’s territory. Whether it’s someone taking a trip south of the 49 th for a replacement hip or cancer treatment, or perhaps we’ve gone to a private clinic to take a pre-natal test to determine the health of our unborn child. We happily fork over our hard-earned cash for the privilege of doing so.

Heck, even the leader of Canada’s left-leaners, Jack Layton, has availed himself of the services of a private clinic for a hernia operation. But instead of being vilified, he should be lauded by those who need the private system the most. Because when Jack headed off to the private clinic, he took himself off the waiting list and bumped everyone else up one spot.

So maybe one guy spent one less day waiting to have the agony of a hernia relieved. Maybe the trickle down effect meant that someone else got to have an operation on a Friday afternoon instead of enduring yet another weekend with that torturous bulge.

And, considering the vehement hand-wringing about wait times in our country, it’s time to lay down our swords and negotiate a truce – for the good of all.

As it stands now, hospitals are working under a system where there are funding caps for various procedures. When the quota has been met, the operating rooms are shut down, or the beds are closed, or specialists are transitioned into a lesser role because the funding and facility is not there to support their ability to perform their chosen job.

In the end, the lines get longer while the facilities remain dark, until the next quota period starts up. These underused facilities represent an underutilized resource and a lost opportunity to earn welcome ancillary funds.

The only danger private health care poses to our system is if it runs outside of the existing health care system. If it is controlled and facilities are provided and administered through the hospital, then some of the funds that are earned from the charges for private procedures can be diverted back into the public system. Not only will those who choose to pay for their services be taking themselves out of the queue for the public system, the funds their procedures generate will be able to improve the quality and level of service available to those using the public system exclusively.

This does not create a two-tier system when it comes to access. In this country, when you go to a hospital you receive the required care, regardless of whether or not you have the means to pay for anything. However, for elective procedures, or those that require advance scheduling, people who choose to elect for private services are, in fact, only paying for quicker access to the services. This does not mean that people relying on the public system will ever be denied access to a procedure – it just means they’ll have to wait their turn.

We live in a system where doctors have to restrict patients to a specified time frame, or to only one issue per billable visit. Our medical system needs an infusion of cash to help it heal. However, few of us are willing to pay more in taxes. So where does that money come from?

The private system, if administered by our existing health care providers, offers an opportunity to pump money into the public system. As long as the priority is placed on public access and the administrators can balance that mandate with the potential provided by the private care opportunity, we can reap a benefit for all. Our social medical system is sick, but if we remain steadfast in our opposition to anything even with the hint of privatization, then we have only ourselves to blame when the patient dies.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved