The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 hours ago, Kadenge said:

... Btw, if the CSA files for bankruptcy all debts and contracts (CSA/CSB) would be  null & void.

Outright voiding the CSB deal would appear to be the main reason to do something as drastic as a bankruptcy and the threat of that means they do actually have some leverage where a renegotiation is concerned, which is good news.

[MtlMario]

Just now, Ivan said:

Excellent overall point, but many on here believe it's all the CSB and CPL's fault.

Ya because before CSB and CPL we were playing friendlies ALL THE TIME.🙃

[Bison44]

Just now, MtlMario said:

I wonder if the players (men and women) now believe that the CSA is broke now that Jason said it.

The bit Devos said about getting the players good compensation vs running all the programs was a wake up.  Here you go, our agreement has made you one of the highest compensated groups of players....iee but we are not playing anymore games this year because of no cash.  And everyone should get a business class flight, but dont worry about it, we cant afford to fly anyone at all.  At some point arent you cutting you nose off to spite your face?  

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, harrycoyster said:

The reason why we could do this and not play in Canada is that Soccer United Marketing, the USSF/MLS affiliated for-profit marketing org, has the ability to leverage American tax law and their psedo-ownership of stadiums to host events that don't lose money.

For the federation, it'll be cheaper to play two games in front of 5k fans in LA than to plan two games in Canada in front of 25k fans. 

I am so confused. The USSF parted ways with SUM, so how can they leverage these tax laws with an organization they have nothing to do with anymore? Also, CSA is a not for profit organizations that does not pay taxes.  I assume the USSF is as well. What tax law are they leveraging? Paying 0% taxes seems to be the best that anyone can expect. Also, the CSA is losing money so even if they were a corporation, they wouldnt have paid taxes this year. 

Of course its cheaper to host a game in your own country where you get all the revenues compared to playing away and paying all the travel costs but not receiving any revenue. Thats why teams pay other teams to travel as a sort of revenue share. 

[Watchmen]

26 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Well talking to the guy who is in charge now, and will be held accountable for what he says and might be able to effect some change is light years better than citing unnamed former CSA board members. 

I suspect Westhead attempted to talk to the people in charge previously. They just didn't want to talk to him. Setting aside some peoples feelings of "it's Westhead", I suspect it was more a case of CSA board members not previously having to be held accountable and simply hoping the story would go away if they ignored it.

[nfitz]

Perhaps CSA shouldn't have given up their sweetheart deal for games at the National Soccer Stadium

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

2 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

I suspect Westhead attempted to talk to the people in charge previously. They just didn't want to talk to him. Setting aside some peoples feelings of "it's Westhead", I suspect it was more a case of CSA board members not previously having to be held accountable and simply hoping the story would go away if they ignored it.

An imminent audit by the federal government and the threat of losing future federal funding if they don't follow advice provided linked to that probably helped focus minds a bit as well.

[Watchmen]

3 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

An imminent audit by the federal government and the threat of losing future federal funding if they don't follow advice provided linked to that probably helped focus minds a bit as well.

Maybe. But I remember when DeVos (and one of the women, though i forget who) was trying to live tweet a CSA AGM, and the board at the time was actively trying to shut him down/throw him out of the meeting. I think he's just more open about everything than a number of previous members, who preferred to operate in anonymity where there decisions couldn't be scrutinized as closely.

[Bison44]

3 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

I suspect Westhead attempted to talk to the people in charge previously. They just didn't want to talk to him. Setting aside some peoples feelings of "it's Westhead", I suspect it was more a case of CSA board members not previously having to be held accountable and simply hoping the story would go away if they ignored it.

Well when its a story about the CSA and its dealings and if you dont get someone from CSA to tell their side of the story and rely on people that havnt been on CSA board for years for the meat of the copy, its a little sus....as my 8 year old says.  Either way, now we know where all this back room bankruptcy talk is coming from (petrillo mentioned it the other day on onesoccer), and more insight into booking friendlies and the economics of camps and friendlies.  And its straight form the horses mouth.  

[Watchmen]

26 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Well when its a story about the CSA and its dealings and if you dont get someone from CSA to tell their side of the story and rely on people that havnt been on CSA board for years for the meat of the copy, its a little sus....as my 8 year old says.

I agree. But it should be sus on the CSA, not on the reporter. And now that we're finding out about it all, it's turning out the reporter was more right than people wanted to believe and you maybe didn't get someone from the CSA on the record because because they were trying to cover up how badly they'd mismanaged everything. 

Edit: In other words: you didn't get anyone from the CSA to "tell their side of the story" because they knew what an absolute mess they'd made and were hoping the reporter would go away/it would be a non-story.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Watchmen

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

19 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Maybe. But I remember when DeVos (and one of the women, though i forget who) was trying to live tweet a CSA AGM, and the board at the time was actively trying to shut him down/throw him out of the meeting...

Probably helps that he is a former player at a genuinely professional level and for the national team and is likely trying to push an agenda linked to that. No disrepect to Nick Bontis's abilities in that regard as he used to make me look foolish when I tried to defend against him at the North London Optimist Club back when dinosaurs roamed the earth but playing for London Portuguese and the Western team isn't quite the same as what Jason Devos did.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[harrycoyster]

37 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I am so confused. The USSF parted ways with SUM, so how can they leverage these tax laws with an organization they have nothing to do with anymore? Also, CSA is a not for profit organizations that does not pay taxes.  I assume the USSF is as well. What tax law are they leveraging? Paying 0% taxes seems to be the best that anyone can expect. Also, the CSA is losing money so even if they were a corporation, they wouldnt have paid taxes this year. 

Of course its cheaper to host a game in your own country where you get all the revenues compared to playing away and paying all the travel costs but not receiving any revenue. Thats why teams pay other teams to travel as a sort of revenue share. 

USSF parted ways with SUM in terms of the management of the TV deal. SUM still handles US Soccer events.

Not an expert on how the tax stuff works, but it goes something like:

1) SUM makes millions from Mexico, US games and European friendlies.

2) SUM books smaller events like the Caribbean Gold Cup games or a Canada v Oman friendly in stadiums they practically own.

3) SUM claims a huge loss in the smaller event that they can leverage to offset their actual revenues when it comes time to pay taxes.

[SpursFlu]

Does anyone ever wonder why there's no basketball in England?

[Ottawafan]

33 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

I agree. But it should be sus on the CSA, not on the reporter. And now that we're finding out about it all, it's turning out the reporter was more right than people wanted to believe and you maybe didn't get someone from the CSA on the record because because they were trying to cover up how badly they'd mismanaged everything. 

Edit: In other words: you didn't get anyone from the CSA to "tell their side of the story" because they knew what an absolute mess they'd made and were hoping the reporter would go away/it would be a non-story.

CSA apologists will deflect any way they can and blame the reporter or invent biased journalism instead of actually believing their beloved association is a shit show.  

[youllneverwalkalone]

I've seen a lot of crazy ppl come and go here, but I don't think there's ever been a CSA apologist. Although if you remember Kevan Pipe, things can definitely get worse. Much worse.

I believe there are many CSB apologists. I would be one. 

[Ottawafan]

17 minutes ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

I've seen a lot of crazy ppl come and go here, but I don't think there's ever been a CSA apologist. Although if you remember Kevan Pipe, things can definitely get worse. Much worse.

I believe there are many CSB apologists. I would be one. 

Oh there are plenty.  Even when reporters print stories or posters here who have knowledge of the various soccer governing bodies speak from personal experience, the same old CSA pom poms come out.  Maybe now a few more eyes will be open.

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, harrycoyster said:

USSF parted ways with SUM in terms of the management of the TV deal. SUM still handles US Soccer events.

Not an expert on how the tax stuff works, but it goes something like:

1) SUM makes millions from Mexico, US games and European friendlies.

2) SUM books smaller events like the Caribbean Gold Cup games or a Canada v Oman friendly in stadiums they practically own.

3) SUM claims a huge loss in the smaller event that they can leverage to offset their actual revenues when it comes time to pay taxes.

I'm even more confused. For SUM to claim a huge loss, there would actually have to be some losses within the organization. How they allocate the loss is accounting guru stuff but to offset the millions against mexico etc, they would need a huge loss. This huge loss would then reduce taxable income by the loss amount. Where are these losses occuring? I mean, you can claim some tax write offs like all business's do to account for things like depreciation but theres a schedule for these things and wouldnt only be for big or small events. However, SUM booking smaller events is still profitable per event or else they would not rent out the stadium.

Either I am misunderstanding what you are saying or your explanation of how taxes works makes no sense. 

Youre basically saying that "the CSB uses tax breaks to reduce the taxes they pay. Therefore the CMNT can afford friendlies". 

Any tax talk at all is completely irrelevant. If an organization is not profitable, it does not pay taxes. The CSA (never pays taxes as a non profit), is not profitable. No matter how many losses they claim, there is literally zero impact on our ability to hosts games. 

 

[cornerkick]

Are we at the point where a gofundme is needed??  😬

[canuckgbp]

29 minutes ago, cornerkick said:

Are we at the point where a gofundme is needed??  😬

You trust them just not to buy new suits? 
 

sorry 

[kacbru]

5 hours ago, RS said:

How many weirdos on here are going to dismiss this article outright simply because of who wrote it?

Maybe they can read this article instead...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/26/canada-soccer-could-consider-filing-for-bankruptcy-protection-says-devos

[Aird25]

2 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Outright voiding the CSB deal would appear to be the main reason to do something as drastic as a bankruptcy and the threat of that means they do actually have some leverage where a renegotiation is concerned, which is good news.

I'm certainly not a particularly business minded person, but that seems like a very bad step in building trust, enthusiasm about the programs, and overall business relationships. Is there actually a reasonable path that sees a positive effect at all?

[Bigandy]

6 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I'm certainly not a particularly business minded person, but that seems like a very bad step in building trust, enthusiasm about the programs, and overall business relationships. Is there actually a reasonable path that sees a positive effect at all?

I 100% agree. If the main reason is the void the CSB deal then the CSA will declare bankruptcy because they think that 4% of annual revenue (the amount of revenue from the CSB deal) should be closer to 6%. Its absolutely absurd to think that the CSB deal is why we would be considering bankruptcy. 

[kacbru]

7 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I'm certainly not a particularly business minded person, but that seems like a very bad step in building trust, enthusiasm about the programs, and overall business relationships. Is there actually a reasonable path that sees a positive effect at all?

My rudimentary business experience tells me organizations in bankruptcy are often targets to be bought on the cheap.  Maybe Qatar can buy us, they already play in concacaf.

[frmr]

Does anyone remember when Herdman used the media to call out how Canada Soccer isn't providing the proper resources for our senior team to compete with top Concacaf nations and some posters on this board jumped all over him about how he was making pathetic excuses and that things like preparation time don't matter (I'm still amused by that take). Now we have the literal president of Canada Soccer saying he's absolutely right and that the situation is worse than anyone thought. Oh, good times.

[Kadenge]

3 hours ago, Ivan said:

Excellent overall point, but many on here believe it's all the CSB and CPL's fault.

There may be a few that feel that way but I believe the majority are aligned with the message/  discussions that JDV had with CSB as quoted in the article.