Canadian Soccer Business (CSB)

[Gian-Luca]

2 minutes ago, Olympique_de_Marseille said:

As far as I understand it's the player's association, so not just the women.

The article suggests it's just the women's association:

"The Canadian Soccer Players' Association (CSPA), the union representing players on the women's senior national team"

 

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, narduch said:

How optimistic of you

True, though the people outside this forum will stop caring and the CSA can get back to business as usual (ie still failing to do their jobs, but doing so with no one paying attention or any accountability).

[Wippersuna]

The CSA is dumb and the players might be even dumber.

[kacbru]

Agreed - I can't see how they can win this lawsuit.  But I also think that is not the intention - rather the lawsuit is designed to crack the cone of silence from the CSA over this whole matter.

“To date, despite a request from the Players' Association for information, Canada Soccer has failed to confirm definitively which of the proposed defendants was in fact responsible for approving the CSB agreement, and whether any of the proposed defendants voted against approval of the CSB agreement," the lawsuit says.

The women from the outset have been asking for information and transparency over the process.  The CSA has kept quiet hoping this would all go away.

[Ivan]

So let me get this straight.  They are suing the CSA Board for not getting enough money to properly run all programs, so they want 40 mil for themselves from them?  

Unbelievable. 

[Ivan]

Nm

Edited February 22 by Ivan
Double post

[Cowtown Kyle]

From what I’m reading, and it’s very early on with limited information…

I’m guessing the players are suing board members for breach of duty as directors or officers of their organization. The article doesn’t mention CSA as a defendant but I would assume CSA would get named as well.

Generally higher value home insurance has liability that covers personal injury, which typically in Canada provides protection for actions of board members of non profits. Additionally directors and officers insurance can be purchased to indemnify an organization against actions of its directors. This coverage can also be purchased by directors to indemnify themselves.

My guess? They’re hoping that they either get a settlement somewhere in the low-to-mid range and that there are insurance policies in place (both individual liability and d&o policies) to pay out.

Really tough to gauge this all based off the initial article. I think we can all agree we’re fed up of hearing about this and it’d be nice if the players and organization could eventually get on the same page here.

[Watchmen]

29 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

I think their argument, from what I can tell from that article, will rest more that the CSB didn't pay them enough for what they think the CSA teams are worth or that the value of the deal didn't increase over time - but the fact that, for example, the CSA was paying TSN to show matches and it took Covid happening to give the men's team the break they needed to qualify for the World Cup (because the format changed for the better for us, that is an objective fact) will hurt their chances big-time, along with everything else I mentioned. The argument that they should have known that Canada was going to easily qualify for the 2022 World Cup for the first time in 36 years is just pure revisionist history when the old format that existed at the time they made the CSB deal is taken into account.

I've no idea how they intend to prove that the CSB is rolling in the cash hand-over-fist thanks to the CPL or MediaPro not paying them, and I also don't know if their lawsuit is dependent upon Lukas McNaughton having a crap year in 2024, but at this stage, who knows.

 

 

I'll say from the start I don't think the women can win this.

Having said that, I think their best angles of attack are "did the board follow procedure?" (It's been alleged by at least one former board member they did not, and we know the records from the critical vote are conveniently missing) and that the CSB deal hasn't done enough to help them (ie the CSA sold rights to their games to a company that has focused almost exclusively on the men’s side of things).

[prairiecanuck]

47 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Not for the first time, I think these women are insane.

"The lawsuit alleges board members breached their fiduciary duty to Canada Soccer when they approved the CSB media and sponsorship deal in 2018 and seeks to hold them personally liable for damage caused to Canada Soccer.

“Each of the 2018 Canada Soccer directors owed Canada Soccer a fiduciary duty... to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of Canada Soccer,” the statement of claim says. “Instead of considering the best interests of Canada Soccer in approving the CSB Agreement, however, they focused on the best interests of CSB, a private, for-profit company.”"

Basically they have to prove that the existence of the CPL, getting the 2026 World Cup and any other investment made by or derived from the CSB is not in the best interests of Canadian soccer, and that this was effectively deliberately done to hurt Canadian soccer in order to make the likes of Josh Simpson & Rob Friend multi-gazillionaires.

Good luck in proving that...

This is the most ridiculous lawsuit I've ever seen.  They haven't just named paid positions.  There are 15 board members named, which would include volunteer board members.  The financials are publicly available.  You can look the last 20 years.  I just clicked through the years.  The broadcasting rights were squat.  The deal in 2018 increased the guaranteed amount coming from the broadcast of the games.  It can be argued that the creation of a domestic league was critical to securing the world cup bid that allowed Canada to be a host nation.

The smoking gun would be if the CSB bribed board members for them to secure the deal.  Did that happen?  No.  Were they negligent because they didn't foresee a teenager in Davies playing for Vancouver turning into a world class player.  They didn't foresee David turning into a world class striker.  They didn't realize a college player in Buchanan would play for one of the top clubs in Europe.  How about the lack of foresight of seeing a player yet to commit to Canada turning into one the top midfielders in our programs history and now playing with FC Porto.  

The deal was too long.  It lacked some foresight.  Negligence suggest that the board members didn't believe they were acting in the associations best interests and the decisions made were so obviously wrong.  You know how I know neither of those statements are true.  The players didn't make a single complaint when the deal was signed. 

What do they hope to get out of this lawsuit?  They aren't going to get any money from the people they've named.  The association is going to incur legal costs.  This is wasteful and is tormenting board members and costing money.  Who in their right mind would ever join the board after the players have brought this lawsuit on.  I'm incredibly disappointed in the players.  You can have questions.  You can lobby to try and get out of the deal.  There should be some opportunities legally to pursue this, but to sue the board members like they are doing.  Shameful. 

Edited February 22 by prairiecanuck

[SpursFlu]

I'm waiting for Whitehead to update his readers on the CSB Mediapro dispute. I wonder when he'll clarify that situation?

[prairiecanuck]

1 minute ago, SpursFlu said:

I'm waiting for Whitehead to update his readers on the CSB Mediapro dispute. I wonder when he'll clarify that situation?

I can't stand Whitehead.  Why doesn't he disclose the money TSN paid the Canada soccer in 2017?  It wouldn't help the narrative. 

[InglewoodJack]

48 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said:

Not for the first time, I think these women are insane.

"The lawsuit alleges board members breached their fiduciary duty to Canada Soccer when they approved the CSB media and sponsorship deal in 2018 and seeks to hold them personally liable for damage caused to Canada Soccer.

“Each of the 2018 Canada Soccer directors owed Canada Soccer a fiduciary duty... to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of Canada Soccer,” the statement of claim says. “Instead of considering the best interests of Canada Soccer in approving the CSB Agreement, however, they focused on the best interests of CSB, a private, for-profit company.”"

Basically they have to prove that the existence of the CPL, getting the 2026 World Cup and any other investment made by or derived from the CSB is not in the best interests of Canadian soccer, and that this was effectively deliberately done to hurt Canadian soccer in order to make the likes of Josh Simpson & Rob Friend multi-gazillionaires.

Good luck in proving that...

Are CPL club valuations public? With how insane MLS club valuations are, if they can argue that all these CPL clubs are worth $100M (on paper) or something, I wonder if they can argue that the CPL is nothing more than a scheme to give franchisees a sound investment rather than creating a competitive soccer league that has yet to place a club in the country’s second largest province, among other areas.

[Gian-Luca]

10 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

I'll say from the start I don't think the women can win this.

Having said that, I think their best angles of attack are "did the board follow procedure?" (It's been alleged by at least one former board member they did not, and we know the records from the critical vote are conveniently missing) and that the CSB deal hasn't done enough to help them (ie the CSA sold rights to their games to a company that has focused almost exclusively on the men’s side of things).

I agree with you, that's probably the best avenue they can take.

But if the article is correct/accurate, their main argument is essentially that the CSA acted in bad faith in getting the CPL going, getting the 2026 World Cup, getting a broadcaster who will actually pay the CSA to show the games instead of the other way round, etc. etc.

I'm inclined to agree as well with the other poster who suggested that this isn't about them trying to win, but trying to force the CSA to change the deal or be more transparent, or some other ulterior motive. These kinds of lawsuits have been known to be filed - the union's lawyer won't mind at all since they will get more money out of all of this just by the additional work they get to charge for, as I highly doubt this lawsuit is being taken on a contingency fee basis

Edited February 22 by Gian-Luca

[SpursFlu]

The ransom has been set at 40 million. Do as we say or Whitehead will write another negative headline that will live on forever 

Edited February 22 by SpursFlu

[prairiecanuck]

6 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Are CPL club valuations public? With how insane MLS club valuations are, if they can argue that all these CPL clubs are worth $100M (on paper) or something, I wonder if they can argue that the CPL is nothing more than a scheme to give franchisees a sound investment rather than creating a competitive soccer league that has yet to place a club in the country’s second largest province, among other areas.

Franchise fees were 3 mil.  Team financials will show teams losing money.  Good luck arguing the franchises are worth 100 mil...lol 

[CanSoccfan11]

They will have an awfully hard time proving any of these allegations in this suit.  Also I highly doubt the individuals being sued are worth anywhere near what they are seeking in damages.   

This seems like a lot of pain for very little potential reward.  I hope they like the high lawyer fees they will be paying for the next number of years.

[SpursFlu]

When are these gold geezers going to move on and give the next generation an opportunity to shine?

Why not move on and get on with the next chapter of their lives? We have a new generation trying to make a name for themselves in a major tournament and they're constantly being overshadowed by the old guard crying about more money

It leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth and undermines the next generations opportunities 

Edited February 22 by SpursFlu

[CanSoccfan11]

Gotta wonder why anyone would volunteer for one of those board spots.  Don't like the deal you signed, individually you get sued.

[SF]

I haven't read the actual statement of claim, but I think the basis of the argument here will be that the directors failed in their roles as fiduciaries. This is a well established concept in Canadian law and one every director (paid or volunteer) should be aware of (that the directors owe their duty to the organization they serve).

It is no stretch to argue that the CSA directors failed in this sense - i.e. that they did not act in the best interests of Canadian soccer, the CSA and all of its constituents. How they arrive at $40mm and whether they can prove it, I am not sure.

But their central argument (if my assumption is correct) isn't crazy,

[prairiecanuck]

9 minutes ago, SF said:

I haven't read the actual statement of claim, but I think the basis of the argument here will be that the directors failed in their roles as fiduciaries. This is a well established concept in Canadian law and one every director (paid or volunteer) should be aware of (that the directors owe their duty to the organization they serve).

It is no stretch to argue that the CSA directors failed in this sense - i.e. that they did not act in the best interests of Canadian soccer, the CSA and all of its constituents. How they arrive at $40mm and whether they can prove it, I am not sure.

But their central argument (if my assumption is correct) isn't crazy,

Their argument is crazy.  All the defendants have to do is show how much money was paid for broadcast rights from 2000 to 2018 and after the judge is done laughing, he's going to say.  What the H e double hockey sticks are we doing here, and why are you wasting my time. 

Edited February 22 by prairiecanuck

[Shway]

40M lawsuit....

Sounds like they are trying to get money to fund their infamous league🤣

[narduch]

21 minutes ago, SF said:

I haven't read the actual statement of claim, but I think the basis of the argument here will be that the directors failed in their roles as fiduciaries. This is a well established concept in Canadian law and one every director (paid or volunteer) should be aware of (that the directors owe their duty to the organization they serve).

It is no stretch to argue that the CSA directors failed in this sense - i.e. that they did not act in the best interests of Canadian soccer, the CSA and all of its constituents. How they arrive at $40mm and whether they can prove it, I am not sure.

But their central argument (if my assumption is correct) isn't crazy,

Going to be awfully hard to prove this unless they have a smoking gun.

CSA used to pay IMG $1 million per year for similar services. The CSB deal trippled that. Plus they no longer had to pay the broadcasters to show their games.

Edited February 22 by narduch

[Shway]

Whoever the defendants are, they should counter sue for defamation of character. 

The women are taking the piss out of this now. 

[CanSoccfan11]

4 minutes ago, SF said:

I haven't read the actual statement of claim, but I think the basis of the argument here will be that the directors failed in their roles as fiduciaries. This is a well established concept in Canadian law and one every director (paid or volunteer) should be aware of (that the directors owe their duty to the organization they serve).

It is no stretch to argue that the CSA directors failed in this sense - i.e. that they did not act in the best interests of Canadian soccer, the CSA and all of its constituents. How they arrive at $40mm and whether they can prove it, I am not sure.

But their central argument (if my assumption is correct) isn't crazy,

Sure but it's hard argue they didn't have Canada soccer's best interest at heart by signing a deal that brought in guaranteed money when prior to that none existed. The deal they did sign paved the way to a domestic pro league that helped secure a World Cup which will bring in cash and increase exposure in the country.

I can't believe the players actually think bringing in guaranteed millions while offloading the administration costs isn't in the best interest of the organization.  As mentioned this was an org that had to pay other organizations to broadcast its product not that long ago.  

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said:

The article suggests it's just the women's association:

"The Canadian Soccer Players' Association (CSPA), the union representing players on the women's senior national team"

 

Ok; I read through it too quickly, my bad!