Watchmen Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 When people at work on Monday ask me what I did this weekend, I'm just going to say "Nothing". narduch, dyslexic nam, Kent and 3 others 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narduch Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 Just now, Watchmen said: When people at work on Monday ask me what I did this weekend, I'm just going to say "Nothing". I'm following this and 2 different scandals in Ontario too (Toronto mayor and the Premier's corruption). I'm really getting nothing done. gator 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 52 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said: I hope the lawsuit threat Neil Davidson is reporting is either untrue or just empty rhetoric as that would be a pretty stupid move by the CSA, from which no possible good that I can see would result. Sure would be - stupid in the extreme. But, the CSA seems to be a clown college, so might well be in play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmen Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 1 hour ago, Shway said: It wasn't an issue when they did it to the Fury. Yes they (Canadian MLS teams) had more years/tenure, but it wasn't about that. If you believe a lawsuit could ensue, then there could've been one for the Fury ala Cosmos v USL... In that instance, the CSA didn't benefit from it. You're proposal was literally "give us more money and we'll force the MLS teams to join you". That's a much different scenario. RS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally McCoist Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 2 hours ago, DoyleG said: So, being cucked by the CSA is worse than you and your family getting sodomized by MLSE? Personally, I don't go to many TFC games. And when I do, I snatch them up for cheap off desperate sellers 5 minutes before kickoff. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obinna Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) 42 minutes ago, VinceA said: If we are moving forward in the spirit of equity turning down offers to only fund the women's team is the right call, no? Edit: On second thought, couldn't the CSA have accepted that money and then adjusted their internal budget accordingly so that both teams are properly funded? Am I oversimplyfing or missing something? Edited February 12, 2023 by Obinna johnyb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meepmeep Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 48 minutes ago, VinceA said: I don’t understand the shock here. Isn’t that the whole basis of the CSB deal? Sponsorship $$ goes to the CSB not to the men’s or women’s programs. So no you can’t have control over where your sponsorship fees go to. I guess the interesting tidbit is that sponsors are asking if they can circumvent the terms of the CSB deal….like a donor asking to have targeted giving rather than getting their $$ dumped in a general fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meepmeep Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 48 minutes ago, VinceA said: I don’t understand the shock here. Isn’t that the whole basis of the CSB deal? Sponsorship $$ goes to the CSB not to the men’s or women’s programs. So no you can’t have control over where your sponsorship fees go to. I guess the interesting tidbit is that sponsors are asking if they can circumvent the terms of the CSB deal….like a donor asking to have targeted giving rather than getting their $$ dumped in a general fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meepmeep Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 48 minutes ago, VinceA said: I don’t understand the shock here. Isn’t that the whole basis of the CSB deal? Sponsorship $$ goes to the CSB not to the men’s or women’s programs. So no you can’t have control over where your sponsorship fees go to. I guess the interesting tidbit is that sponsors are asking if they can circumvent the terms of the CSB deal….like a donor asking to have targeted giving rather than getting their $$ dumped in a general fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meepmeep Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 48 minutes ago, VinceA said: I don’t understand the shock here. Isn’t that the whole basis of the CSB deal? Sponsorship $$ goes to the CSB not to the men’s or women’s programs. So no you can’t have control over where your sponsorship fees go to. I guess the interesting tidbit is that sponsors are asking if they can circumvent the terms of the CSB deal….like a donor asking to have targeted giving rather than getting their $$ dumped in a general fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 12 minutes ago, Obinna said: If we are moving forward in the spirit of equity turning down offers to only fund the women's team is the right call, no? Edit: On second thought, couldn't the CSA have accepted that money and then adjusted their internal budget accordingly so that both teams are properly funded? Am I oversimplyfing or missing something? Those companies would have had stips that the money go directly to the women’s team and that they wanted transparency on how the money was spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 11 minutes ago, Obinna said: If we are moving forward in the spirit of equity turning down offers to only fund the women's team is the right call, no? Edit: On second thought, couldn't the CSA have accepted that money and then adjusted their internal budget accordingly so that both teams are properly funded? Am I oversimplyfing or missing something? I have a hard time believing her what her tweet says (or intends to say, since what it actually says is obviously untrue) without some actual evidence or details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmen Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said: I have a hard time believing her what her tweet says (or intends to say, since what it actually says is obviously untrue) without some actual evidence or details I'm sure there's more nuisance to it behind the scenes, but I also don't think it's a stretch to say that companies approached the CSA about sponsoring the women's program only to find out that they'd have to pay CSB and CSB would determine where the money went/how it was spent. Which wouldn't make it insurmountable, but might be a level of bureaucracy companies didn't want to deal with. Sal333, Stryker911 and Mattd97 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unnamed Trialist Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said: I hope the lawsuit threat Neil Davidson is reporting is either untrue or just empty rhetoric as that would be a pretty stupid move by the CSA, from which no possible good that I can see would result. Agreed. There is a more fundamental football question: what are the obligations of athletes called to represent a nation? And what are the specific norms regarding being called up for a national soccer team, both FIFA norms and national? The idea these players have that they are the national teams, that they own their spots on it, that they are untouchable, goes against everything we know about sports. No one is untouchable, anyone can be replaced. Representing your country has to be an honour, and it comes with responsibility. Accepting a call-up then threatening not to play is, as I see it, disloyal. The team must play. Negotiations must be done differently and not by threatening a strike. I think the strike in Vancouver last summer was an unprecedented move, extremely rare in world football, and a terrible mistake from the players and Herdman. That is not done, it is ethically abhorrent. In some countries, quite a few in fact, if you do that, the Federation will say you cannot be called up. You will lose the right to represent your country. In some, the law says that if you refuse a call-up you can be sanctioned as a player, you are obliged to go to a call-up as a national of that country. If you don't want to go (I know of a few cases, related to Catalans not wanting to represent Spain), you arrange your absence previously, you never get called up and then refuse. In other nations, if a coach supported the players, refusing to field a team and siding with them, that coach would be fired. A coach must field a team. If they can't, then they could be replaced. IMO the CSA would have been justified in removing Herdman for that. What Herdman did, allowing them not to train, letting them go out partying (verified in reports), hiding the fact they were not going to play until the very day and just hours before, when thousands had bought tickets and some paid large sums to travel to see them with entire families, could have been met with a harsher response. The other thing: the strike did not work. They did not get a deal. In fact there is still no fully articulated bonus deal for Qatar, from what we have heard, and payments to cover possible family-friends travel are pending. It did not work, it failed. If the women sit out at She Believes, the consequences will be similar: it won't work, it'll have the opposite effect. Both the men and women are very poorly advised, legally, as I see it. And have poor internal leadership. narduch, DoyleG, gator and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obinna Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 12 minutes ago, Ottawafan said: Those companies would have had stips that the money go directly to the women’s team and that they wanted transparency on how the money was spent. So I guess the CSA was right to refuse in that case, at least if they wanted to stay true to the pay equity aims. However, if they were being pragmatic, they could put aside the "equity" effort for what would amount to massive windfall for the women's program (assuming any of this is true, of course). That would open them up to criticism though, rightly so I would say. ray 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 I’m fine with a company saying they want their money directed towards the women’s program. Even if it meant nothing was earmarked for the men’s teams. Not like men’s teams haven’t had their fair share over the years in sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal333 Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 2 hours ago, Gian-Luca said: I hope the lawsuit threat Neil Davidson is reporting is either untrue or just empty rhetoric as that would be a pretty stupid move by the CSA, from which no possible good that I can see would result. And of course the CSA is known for not making stupid moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Ally McCoist said: Personally, I don't go to many TFC games. And when I do, I snatch them up for cheap off desperate sellers 5 minutes before kickoff. Try again. Ah. The "You suck me, five dolla." type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmen Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 28 minutes ago, Obinna said: So I guess the CSA was right to refuse in that case, at least if they wanted to stay true to the pay equity aims. I think you're confusing what "pay equity" means here. Unless I'm confused, I think it just means that the men and women are getting equal pay for appearance fees. A company funding the program doesn't directly pay the women more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmen Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 35 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said: The idea these players have that they are the national teams, that they own their spots on it, that they are untouchable, goes against everything we know about sports. No one is untouchable, anyone can be replaced. Well, no. If Alphonso Davies shows up for a home CMNT game, it moves more tickets than if he doesn't. Countries arranging friendlies with Argentina will put in clauses that Messi must play X number of minutes. These types of deals are not uncommon at all in club or international football. 39 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said: I think the strike in Vancouver last summer was an unprecedented move, extremely rare in world football, and a terrible mistake from the players and Herdman. That is not done, it is ethically abhorrent. In some countries, quite a few in fact, if you do that, the Federation will say you cannot be called up. You will lose the right to represent your country. Yes, players in world football never go on strike. https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/italian-players-union-threatens-serie-a-strike-1.968361 https://www.reuters.com/article/soccer-argentina-idUSL4N1G957Q https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/14596439 Although sometimes they try and a judge prevents them https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/03/us-womens-soccer-team-not-permitted-strike-rio-olympics Sal333 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aird25 Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Watchmen said: I'm sure there's more nuisance to it behind the scenes, but I also don't think it's a stretch to say that companies approached the CSA about sponsoring the women's program only to find out that they'd have to pay CSB and CSB would determine where the money went/how it was spent. Which wouldn't make it insurmountable, but might be a level of bureaucracy companies didn't want to deal with. I don’t get that reasoning. Why is anyone involved with Canadian soccer turning away money? Especially if they control where it’s directed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 Because it sets a precedent allowing other sponsors and donors to work around the CSA/CSB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obinna Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 54 minutes ago, Ottawafan said: I’m fine with a company saying they want their money directed towards the women’s program. Even if it meant nothing was earmarked for the men’s teams. Not like men’s teams haven’t had their fair share over the years in sports. Fair enough, but for years the men's program has been under priortized compared to the women's program, so no I don't believe the Canadian men's soccer program has gotten it's fair share in that regard. Also, if private companies want to donate strictly women, why not donate to a woman's professional league? I am all for that. We desperately need a woman's pro league and if all this money is reportedly on the table to grow the woman's game that would be a great place for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmen Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 17 minutes ago, Aird25 said: I don’t get that reasoning. Why is anyone involved with Canadian soccer turning away money? Especially if they control where it’s directed As I said, I think it's more nuanced. I suspect the CSA and CSB didn't turn it away, rather that their actions/control turned the companies away. But with out more details, it's just idle speculation on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 Not sure if its true... for what it's worth johnyb 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