Ozzie_the_parrot Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 4 minutes ago, Bigandy said: ...Don't kid yourself. No one cared when we qualified in 1986 and no one cared when we won 2000 GC... That's a ridiculous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadenge Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 Just now, Obinna said: Like @Bigandy says, on what grounds would a lawsuit be viable? I guess if CSA made a statement blocking players from the CMNT player association then perhaps, but otherwise it doesn't seem possible. I am not calling for this but rather just pondering what the options are for the CSA. It's a road to nowhere fast so I hope the CSA doesn't move forward with it. Sponsors pay for a product. The better the product the higher the sponsorship fee. In this case it's the quality of the National teams and specifically the world class and high profile players on it. Sponsors want winners. Sponsorship deals were done based on the product in place on signing. If that product going forward is materially compromised by actions that are potentially in the control of the CSA then there may be grounds for legal action or at the very least termination of existing deals. At minimum it's safe to say that new sponsors are not going to get onboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obinna Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 Just now, Kadenge said: Sponsors pay for a product. The better the product the higher the sponsorship fee. In this case it's the quality of the National teams and specifically the world class and high profile players on it. Sponsors want winners. Sponsorship deals were done based on the product in place on signing. If that product going forward is materially compromised by actions that are potentially in the control of the CSA then there may be grounds for legal action or at the very least termination of existing deals. At minimum it's safe to say that new sponsors are not going to get onboard. I get that, but if it's a one-time thing it's no different than a B side for GC or a friendly. Like you mentioned, a prolonged situation could be problematic especially if coupled with some kind of statement from the CSA explaining why Davies and co. are not being selected. I guess what I am getting at is that no sponsorship deal is going to include details like x player must play in x number of games, at least I don't think so. Do you (or others) see it that way too? That's what I am interested in here. Either way though, it would not be an attractive environment for new sponsors we agree on that. Kadenge, Shway and johnyb 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadenge Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Obinna said: I get that, but if it's a one-time thing it's no different than a B side for GC or a friendly. Like you mentioned, a prolonged situation could be problematic especially if coupled with some kind of statement from the CSA explaining why Davies and co. are not being selected. I guess what I am getting at is that no sponsorship deal is going to include details like x player must play in x number of games, at least I don't think so. Do you (or others) see it that way too? That's what I am interested in here. Either way though, it would not be an attractive environment for new sponsors we agree on that. Its possible, but even if the agreements were not as specific as player contracts where remuneration may include specific targets etc, on a broad basis and in the spirit under which there were executed, one could submit that the CSA have not met their obligations under the agreements. I mean this is no act of God and well within the scope of the CSA....or am I giving the CSA too much respect . In any case, as a hard core fan I really cant believe that this is all transpiring after we qualified for WC 2022 and are co hosting in 2026 Edited August 21, 2023 by Kadenge Obinna 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 @Kadenge - I am not sure how you could see this as an issue that the CSA would be liable for. If they have a competitive game, call in their A squad, have them (or many of them) decline the call, and they move to the next available and willing players, they have done what they need to do to allow the games to proceed. I am no lawyer, but I think you would be accepting far more liability if you chose to forfeit competitive games by not calling the best available (and willing) team to compete in games. Sponsors may not like that and he big guns choose not to participate, but lawsuits against the CSA? Not unless I have an extremely poor grasp of the law. johnyb, kacbru, red card and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 And for those thinking it would be a ridiculous approach to field a B team (if the A players are unwilling), I am not sure what you expect the CSA to do. That have a responsibility to field teams that compete in international competitions. That is far more important than any perceived obligation to a specific cohort of players. That isn’t me throwing the CMNT under the bus - it is just the reality of running a national association. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely want all the bullshit to get resolved. But there are limits to what can happen given the parameters that are in place right now. You may not like those parameters (ie. The CSB agreement) but it is very much the reality right now. Yet somehow there seems to be a continued idea that one very specific group of players are entitled to compensation that threatens all other elements of the nations programs (plural) - and now there is an idea that games happen with them or. It at all. Sorry, but I don’t think that is how it works. It may be a useful bargaining tactic, but it really only has so much leverage for an association that is increasingly being backed into a corner. At some point it may come out swinging. And if you doubt that, you may not remember how DeVos was as a player. Shway, Ivan, johnyb and 4 others 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 50 minutes ago, Obinna said: Like @Bigandy says, on what grounds would a lawsuit be viable? I guess if CSA made a statement blocking players from the CMNT player association then perhaps, but otherwise it doesn't seem possible. I am not calling for this but rather just pondering what the options are for the CSA. It's a road to nowhere fast so I hope the CSA doesn't move forward with it. Well if sponsors have language in their contracts that certain players must be made available to represent their product, and if those players aren't playing or being made available to them, they could have grounds. The bigger fear is sponsors would stop wanting to be involved with the national teams going forward. Obinna 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 46 minutes ago, Kadenge said: This past GC given it was after a jammed club season with WC, it was always expected that we would field a B/C team just like the USA. But you get into a prolonged period of not fielding you best team and there's going to be very serious repercussions and not just with sponsors, but the fan base and the future of the game in Canada. Do you really think we can field a B/C team at the 2026 WC? . If you think corp sponsorship is not significant the CSB would just tear up their agreement with the CSA. I get what youre saying. Of course there would be a fallout but I was referring to the viability of a lawsuit (which is not viable as sponsorship is not contingent on specific players or performances). We legally could 100% field a B/C team and the CSA would still exist. It would be horrible but its viable. As for corp sponsorship, I am talking about the financials. We make 3-4 mil a year. Lets say we field a C team and every single sponsor walks (won't happen due to contractual commitments, tax write offs, good will/image of companies - some sponsors will always be available) , we would still be entitled to the CSB payments. However, lets say we dont force the contractual payments of the CSB deal. We lose 3-4 million. It sucks, but its not going to bankrupt the organization. If you are talking financially, hypothetically losing less than 10% of revenue (which it may drop but not go down to zero) is not so significant it would be detrimental to the viability of CSA. We used to survive on less than 1m in sponsorships and we could do it again if we had to. I obviously agree that fielding a C team and losing sponsors is bad. I am just speaking about the logistical fall out more accurately than just saying everything is doom and gloom. Jedi Ram, johnyb and Obinna 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 1 minute ago, dyslexic nam said: And for those thinking it would be a ridiculous approach to field a B team (if the A players are unwilling), I am not sure what you expect the CSA to do. That have a responsibility to field teams that compete in international competitions. That is far more important than any perceived obligation to a specific cohort of players. That isn’t me throwing the CMNT under the bus - it is just the reality of running a national association. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely want all the bullshit to get resolved. But there are limits to what can happen given the parameters that are in place right now. You may not like those parameters (ie. The CSB agreement) but it is very much the reality right now. Yet somehow there seems to be a continued idea that one very specific group of players are entitled to compensation that threatens all other elements of the nations programs (plural) - and now there is an idea that games happen with them or. It at all. Sorry, but I don’t think that is how it works. It may be a useful bargaining tactic, but it really only has so much leverage for an association that is increasingly being backed into a corner. At some point it may come out swinging. And if you doubt that, you may not remember how DeVos was as a player. There is a huge diff between the CSA being forced to play the B squad as the top players aren't willing to participate and telling those same top players we don't want you here so we are going to play the backups and their backups. Both sides may think they have the other over a barrel. Reality is the players if they so choose, have the ultimate power. Jedi Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, Ottawafan said: Well if sponsors have language in their contracts that certain players must be made available to represent their product, and if those players aren't playing or being made available to them, they could have grounds. The bigger fear is sponsors would stop wanting to be involved with the national teams going forward. 100% true but I doubt they have any language in the contracts given the huge debate from the CMNT over player images. I believe someone posted on here that only 3 sponsors use player images. Ivan and Obinna 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 Just now, Ottawafan said: There is a huge diff between the CSA being forced to play the B squad as the top players aren't willing to participate and telling those same top players we don't want you here so we are going to play the backups and their backups. Both sides may think they have the other over a barrel. Reality is the players if they so choose, have the ultimate power. Maybe I misread but I never thought anyone was saying that the players would be locked out. If they are willing to come and play then that is great. My scenario is about them not being willing to play. That is a different scenario. The reality is that failing to make the Copa or failing to make later round of Nations league hurts everyone. It hurts the sponsors, the association and the players themselves. Anyone refusing to play (or threatening) needs to consider the full range of impacts. DoyleG, Obinna, Ivan and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 5 minutes ago, Bigandy said: 100% true but I doubt they have any language in the contracts given the huge debate from the CMNT over player images. I believe someone posted on here that only 3 sponsors use player images. Again, this is very dependent on whether or not the players refused to show up, or if the CSA froze them out, but if players refuse to show up, there is no way an agreement would force the CSA to be liable for that. They can’t be held responsible legally for decisions made by players. I suppose it could theoretically be a part of a sponsorship, agreement, but if it was, it would take a level of incompetency that would be pretty astonishing, even for the CSA. Bigandy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said: Maybe I misread but I never thought anyone was saying that the players would be locked out. If they are willing to come and play then that is great. My scenario is about them not being willing to play. That is a different scenario. The reality is that failing to make the Copa or failing to make later round of Nations league hurts everyone. It hurts the sponsors, the association and the players themselves. Anyone refusing to play (or threatening) needs to consider the full range of impacts. I was going off the notion as one poster said here that the CSA should just tell the starters to f off and run the B squad out there. There have been a few suggestions here from posters that the CSA should lock them out which would be incredibly damaging to the game in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ottawafan said: I was going off the notion as one poster said here that the CSA should just tell the starters to f off and run the B squad out there. There have been a few suggestions here from posters that the CSA should lock them out which would be incredibly damaging to the game in our country. Yeah, you and I don’t see eye to eye on some of these issues, but I definitely don’t support a lockout. If the players are willing to play, then they should be fielded every time. My bad if I misinterpreted. Edited August 21, 2023 by dyslexic nam Ottawafan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spitfire Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 Without being funny how many threads have been taken over now by this… Shway, Fullback, Ottawafan and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 13 minutes ago, spitfire said: Without being funny how many threads have been taken over now by this… True, but every part of the NT's are affected by the CSA and their lack of funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadenge Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 34 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said: @Kadenge - I am not sure how you could see this as an issue that the CSA would be liable for. If they have a competitive game, call in their A squad, have them (or many of them) decline the call, and they move to the next available and willing players, they have done what they need to do to allow the games to proceed. I am no lawyer, but I think you would be accepting far more liability if you chose to forfeit competitive games by not calling the best available (and willing) team to compete in games. Sponsors may not like that and he big guns choose not to participate, but lawsuits against the CSA? Not unless I have an extremely poor grasp of the law. I'm certainly not advocating for forfeiture of games and am hopeful that we will have our A squad in October. But it's not as simple as "we called our A players but they declined" so we fielded our B team. Everyone knows there is a dispute btw the CSA and players and its up to the parties involved to resolve it, however if I'm a sponsor, I have paid handsomely to have association with a product of a known quality or up to certain standards. In the simplest of examples: If I bought tickets to Taylor Swift and when I get to the concert I'm told that Phonzie will be performing a tribute to Whitney Houston instead, I'm not going to be a happy camper...with all due respect to Phonzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shway Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Ottawafan said: I was going off the notion as one poster said here that the CSA should just tell the starters to f off and run the B squad out there. There have been a few suggestions here from posters that the CSA should lock them out which would be incredibly damaging to the game in our country. That poster he was referring to was me @dyslexic nam....but I didn't say any of that... 15 hours ago, Shway said: Does anyone remember when the NFL brought in the replacement referees... Maybe the CSA will have to call in a complete different squad for these games...you know the guys who aren't worried about how much more money they could get. Create a new brotherhood.? Themed the "never had shit" squad with guys like MacNaughton, Zator, Bustos, Waterman? Because this feud/dispute seems never ending with zero solution in sight. No one has suggested a "locking out the players" (if so prove me wrong).....everyone is asking what happens in the future with no resolution in sight. But you will try to twist people's words to fit whatever narrative you're pumping in the capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted August 21, 2023 Share Posted August 21, 2023 6 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: That's a ridiculous statement. Its not a ridiculous statement with context. Of course people cared(myself included) but did it elevate soccer in canada in the same way we've seen canada grow in the past 5 years? No. Thats why my point is that growing the game is a multifaceted approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted August 22, 2023 Share Posted August 22, 2023 8 hours ago, spitfire said: Without being funny how many threads have been taken over now by this… My head is spinning. Everything in moderation, especially this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shway Posted August 22, 2023 Share Posted August 22, 2023 17 minutes ago, JamboAl said: My head is spinning. Everything in moderation, especially this forum. Okay... To generalize this thread. Since we don't have an upcoming September window, who would be in your 23 today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted August 22, 2023 Share Posted August 22, 2023 9 minutes ago, Shway said: Okay... To generalize this thread. Since we don't have an upcoming September window, who would be in your 23 today! Mathieu Choiniere! Shway, Corazon, dyslexic nam and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted August 22, 2023 Share Posted August 22, 2023 17 hours ago, Shway said: That poster he was referring to was me @dyslexic nam....but I didn't say any of that... No one has suggested a "locking out the players" (if so prove me wrong).....everyone is asking what happens in the future with no resolution in sight. But you will try to twist people's words to fit whatever narrative you're pumping in the capital. Walk it back homie. Walk it back. Shway 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shway Posted August 22, 2023 Share Posted August 22, 2023 18 minutes ago, Ottawafan said: Walk it back homie. Walk it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shway Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 Here's my squad of 23, if we had friendlies scheduled in the next few weeks. GK: Borjan, St. Clair, Sirios CB: Miller, Cornelius, McGraw, MacNaughton, Kennedy MF: Choiniere, Kone, Estaquio, Osorio, Bombito WB: Laryea, Adekugbe, Buchanan, Davies, Corbeanu, Nelson FW: David, Larin, Ugbo, Brym _____ ------------------------Borjan-------------------------- -------------McGraw----Cornelius----Miller------------ Buchanan-------Eustaquio-----Kone----------Davies-- ------------------------Choiniere------------------------ -----------------David----------Larin-------------------- ________ Everyone except Borjan is under the age of 27, and tbh I was tempted to not put St. Clair as the starter. I think the goal should be to qualify for Copa America, and use that squad to build for 26 (with no more Hoilett, Vitoria, Borjan - with the ultimate respect) Side note, I think going forward we will see a lot of roster turnover for positions 16-23 (outside of the elite core 7-8 guys) because we have sooooo many guys playing at the same level and getting adequate club minutes or have recently appeared in the CMNT. It could and should be based on form. Like look at this list of the guys below that are not listed above: Johnston, Vitoria, Cavallini, Hoilett, Fraser, Millar, Loturi, Piette, Kaye, Ahmed, Shaffelburg, Waterman, ZBG, Raposo, JM-R, Franklin, Zator, JR-R, Vilsaint, Bair, Heibert, Priso, Balidsimo, Saliba, Franklin, Edwards, Froese and Colyn. This is why I wouldn't be mad if JH leaves. He's set a good foundation and mentality to build off of while allowing the potential of seeing fresh new faces, and new ideas from a new coach who holds no affinity to certain players (that is if it isn't from within). Obinna, WestHamCanadianinOxford, Corazon and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now