CanadaFan123 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, Ottawafan said: Which group are you referring too? The plaintiffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costarg Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 13 hours ago, yomurphy1 said: Yeah, nothing attracts strong people to come work with Canada Soccer like the newfound risk of getting sued for your volunteer role. Good. This should help keep away the people who are just looking for good sounding roles to pad their CV's. 2- People might actually take the role and process seriously. That would be a nice change and I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costarg Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said: Since my basic philosophy is that I prefer winning to not winning, and that you can have losers and idiots running things when you win or lose, don't worry that much about who's running things (criminality aside) as long as you win. You can't win if you can't practice. You can't practice if don't have money. You won't have money with incompetent people at the top. Unnamed Trialist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costarg Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said: The other side of it all is that Bontis, another guy who had serious defects (when he insulted Sinclair to her face in a meeting, he needed to be immediately eliminated), was the guy on whose watch we made Qatar. Also the guy who was president when the Women won gold in Tokyo. This happens sometimes, the club president, the FA, are a mess, useless, but lead you to trophies (Rubiales in Spain for the women, another case). I see what you're saying, I'm also no fan of Bontis, but all this is unrelated. Some companies fail with great CEO's, some companies do great with awful CEO's. Bontis didn't "lead" anyone to anything. Yes he was at the top while this happened around him, but it all happened in spite of him, not thanks to him. The weather is nice today, Trudeau, Legault and Plante must be doing a great job! Cadeau, Ottawafan and Obinna 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, costarg said: A lot of good points here. However, I feel we're being a little naive. Do you feel its ok that the same board members that approved and agreed with the CSB deal remain onboard? Yes, the financials are open to the public, but nothing about the process is open. If that is not addressed the same thing will just keep happening. Everywhere I've worked has had post-mortems when major F-ups happen. We can spin it anyway we want, but this was a major f-up and CSA has been trying to sweep it under the rug ever since. That does not work other places, and we should not accept it. The goal of the lawsuit is to bring this stuff out into the open. Its about accountability and incompetency. They're board members, responsible for making major decisions, not burger flippers who might forget a slice of cheese. Do you really believe Canada needed It's own separate domestic league to also participate in hosting the World Cup? Like MLS doesn't count or factor into that in any way? So the NHL also doesn't count as a domestic hockey league? What exactly are you saying isnt transparent. We have financial records, terms of the CSB deal, the proposed CBA agreement. In regards to the CSB deal signing we have minutes that the preliminary deal was unanimously voted in favour on march 27 2018. This was done after a memorandum of understanding and due diligence took place from march 2017- march 2018. In december 2018 a negotiating committee (with no power to vote) was formed to evaluate some key points of the agreement. On February 7, 2019 the CSB deal was fully approved. These are the minutes that were not submitted initially but then submitted 10 days later. The main issue is that the agreement between CSB and CSA was drafted up by the CSB lawyers. They put down one signature line for CSA and one for CSB and that is how the form was filled. Reed is the only signature on this document. Based on CSA bylaws, Montopoli should have also put down his signature. Further information: stakeholders who have publicly and/or under oath said the signing was done correctly. 1. bontis 2. reed 3. Crooks 4. Berube 5. Heffernan 6. Cochrane stakeholders who have (through westhead) said the signing was done incorrectly but not under oath 1. Fequet Therefore, we have several meeting minutes thatsuggest everything about the CSB deal was handled correctly except one signature missing. This tells me that the board supported this deal and that it was just an oversight of only putting one signature down. Mistakes happen but when all the meeting minutes suggest a united opinion on the CSB deal, I think its more likely that the signature was a mistake and not some grand scheme. I am totally open to hearing about CSA's lack of transparency but thought I would present information because theres a difference between a lack of transparency vs missing research on the topic. Edited February 22 by Bigandy king1010, Aird25, Ivan and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soro17 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 I expect the whole point of this exercise is to get to document discovery and then selectively leak to Westhead stuff they don't like without providing any context. Westhead, being the useful tool that he is, will just lazily publish without a further critical thought. zeelaw, king1010, Bigandy and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 57 minutes ago, costarg said: I see what you're saying, I'm also no fan of Bontis, but all this is unrelated. Some companies fail with great CEO's, some companies do great with awful CEO's. Bontis didn't "lead" anyone to anything. Yes he was at the top while this happened around him, but it all happened in spite of him, not thanks to him. The weather is nice today, Trudeau, Legault and Plante must be doing a great job! Not entirely fair. Ill be the first to admit CSA has major issues but CSA deserves credit for the hiring of herdman and priestman at the minimum. No one is all good or all bad. The mens team didnt qualify in spite of bontis. They qualified with both help and hinderances from Bontis/CSA. Unnamed Trialist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, costarg said: Good. This should help keep away the people who are just looking for good sounding roles to pad their CV's. 2- People might actually take the role and process seriously. That would be a nice change and I'm all for it. Honestly, I think this misses the mark. The damage from this will be significant and lasting IMO. This is an organization that is now very obviously subject to the whims of two player groups who have shown a clear willingness to attack the organization and its directors in an extremely public (and now litigious) fashion. No one in their right mind will want to be part of that organization in the coming years. Want proof? Look at the recent resignations. These are people who love the sport, wanted to make positive change, and are not the subject of the lawsuit - and yet they are abandoning ship. Anyone underplaying the impact of a $40M (!) lawsuit against Board Directors when it comes to the future ability to recruit Board members (and even administrators) is being naive. MtlMario, Cadeau, Aird25 and 9 others 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 9 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said: Honestly, I think this misses the mark. The damage from this will be significant and lasting IMO. This is an organization that is now very obviously subject to the whims of two player groups who have shown a clear willingness to attack the organization and its directors in an extremely public (and now litigious) fashion. No one in their right mind will want to be part of that organization in the coming years. Want proof? Look at the recent resignations. These are people who love the sport, wanted to make positive change, and are not the subject of the lawsuit - and yet they are abandoning ship. Anyone underplaying the impact of a $40M (!) lawsuit against Board Directors when it comes to the future ability to recruit Board members (and even administrators) is being naive. I suspect at minimum their D&O insurance will be going up both in amount covered and cost to the org. It’s standard practice for a company to take out such insurance on behalf of their Directors. If the CSA didn’t, I think you will be seeing the Directors themselves suing the CSA for their negligence. Kadenge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 9 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said: Honestly, I think this misses the mark. The damage from this will be significant and lasting IMO. This is an organization that is now very obviously subject to the whims of two player groups who have shown a clear willingness to attack the organization and its directors in an extremely public (and now litigious) fashion. No one in their right mind will want to be part of that organization in the coming years. Want proof? Look at the recent resignations. These are people who love the sport, wanted to make positive change, and are not the subject of the lawsuit - and yet they are abandoning ship. Anyone underplaying the impact of a $40M (!) lawsuit against Board Directors when it comes to the future ability to recruit Board members (and even administrators) is being naive. I know what you're saying, but I think it's a tough call: continue with the current structure (and literally everyone here has blamed the CSA for a significant number of problems over the last few decades) or hope that the players finally having more of a spotlight/voicd and shining a light on the sheer incompetence of the CSA over the last few decades finally improves things. But to get to the improvement, it was likely always going to get worse first. I hope that's the situation we're in now. That the organization is hitting rock bottom enough that it's going to eventually make things untenable for the bad people who remain. And that the good people who do care eventually return. But it's definitely a hard path to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmen Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 I think I speak for all of us when I say I can't wait for the bespoke suits to be entered as evidence. Unnamed Trialist, kacbru, Obinna and 2 others 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 4 minutes ago, Watchmen said: I think I speak for all of us when I say I can't wait for the bespoke suits to be entered as evidence. *Insert half-laugh, half-cry emoji* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shermanator Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) I was chatting with someone involved with the WNT a few months ago and they stated that the WNT sees what the US WNT got in their CBA and want the same thing. It's not that the standards aren't improving over past years, it's that the WNT's expectations have risen sharply. And without realizing that there's no fucking money in the game in this country and that in order for them to get what they want, they have to kill off another part of the program. For example the U-17 WNT qualifiers a few weeks ago that needed Greg Kerfoot to fund the trip. The sad thing is that all this is doing is making me rethink my support of the WNT, and on the day of the first W Gold Cup too. You want to burn everything down? Go ahead, but don't be surprised if it doesn't grow back. Edited February 22 by shermanator dyslexic nam, nfitz, king1010 and 13 others 15 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 51 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said: Honestly, I think this misses the mark. The damage from this will be significant and lasting IMO. This is an organization that is now very obviously subject to the whims of two player groups who have shown a clear willingness to attack the organization and its directors in an extremely public (and now litigious) fashion. No one in their right mind will want to be part of that organization in the coming years. Want proof? Look at the recent resignations. These are people who love the sport, wanted to make positive change, and are not the subject of the lawsuit - and yet they are abandoning ship. Anyone underplaying the impact of a $40M (!) lawsuit against Board Directors when it comes to the future ability to recruit Board members (and even administrators) is being naive. Novel concept, but had the CSA been honest, upfront and open about the deal they struck, perhaps we wouldn't be here. SF, jdcyantsis and nfitz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 11 minutes ago, shermanator said: I was chatting with someone involved with the WNT a few months ago and they states that the WNT sees what the US WNT got in their CBA and want the same thing. It's not that the standards aren't improving over past years, it's that the WNT's expectations have risen sharply. And without realizing that there's no fucking money in the game in this country and that in order for them to get what they want, they have to kill off another part of the program. For example the U-17 WNT qualifiers a few weeks ago that needed Greg Kerfoot to fund the trip. The sad thing is that all this is doing is making me rethink my support of the WNT, and on the day of the first W Gold Cup too. You want to burn everything down? Go ahead, but don't be surprised if it doesn't grow back. Again you are really only talking about a few thinly skinned fans who post here Vast majority of fans and fair weathered fans will support the NT's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 8 minutes ago, shermanator said: The sad thing is that all this is doing is making me rethink my support of the WNT, and on the day of the first W Gold Cup too. You want to burn everything down? Go ahead, but don't be surprised if it doesn't grow back. I won't go into detail here as I don't want to fuel the fire, but I have definitely crossed the threshold of having little interest in supporting the WNT as an entity. I will still inevitably tune in to their games and cheer them on when it comes to the on-field performance, but I cannot back the sort of "salt the earth" campaign they are undertaking. And if the women's league gains traction from these sorts of events, I would not support it. RichV, Ivan, Bigandy and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obinna Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 7 minutes ago, shermanator said: I was chatting with someone involved with the WNT a few months ago and they states that the WNT sees what the US WNT got in their CBA and want the same thing. It's not that the standards aren't improving over past years, it's that the WNT's expectations have risen sharply. And without realizing that there's no fucking money in the game in this country and that in order for them to get what they want, they have to kill off another part of the program. For example the U-17 WNT qualifiers a few weeks ago that needed Greg Kerfoot to fund the trip. The sad thing is that all this is doing is making me rethink my support of the WNT, and on the day of the first W Gold Cup too. You want to burn everything down? Go ahead, but don't be surprised if it doesn't grow back. Did you get any sense of whether the women could see the negative consequences of going down this road? One would think they'd give pause to this effort if only they could see the damage it may cause. What could be blinding them from seeing it, I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 minute ago, Ottawafan said: Novel concept, but had the CSA been honest, upfront and open about the deal they struck, perhaps we wouldn't be here. What is the specific information regarding the deal you want from the CSA? Perhaps one of us on the board can provide this information? narduch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 minutes ago, Ottawafan said: Novel concept, but had the CSA been honest, upfront and open about the deal they struck, perhaps we wouldn't be here. So true. Ottawafan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 minutes ago, Ottawafan said: Novel concept, but had the CSA been honest, upfront and open about the deal they struck, perhaps we wouldn't be here. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, which was about the impact this will have on the ability of the CSA to have a functional Board and administrative structure in the years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 minutes ago, Bigandy said: What is the specific information regarding the deal you want from the CSA? Perhaps one of us on the board can provide this information? Not me, the players. Then we can put this behind us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said: That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, which was about the impact this will have on the ability of the CSA to have a functional Board and administrative structure in the years to come. You didn't just say this? Again, the players haven't been given access to information they have inquired about. 1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said: This is an organization that is now very obviously subject to the whims of two player groups who have shown a clear willingness to attack the organization and its directors in an extremely public (and now litigious) fashion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyslexic nam Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Just now, Ottawafan said: You didn't just say this? Again, the players haven't been given access to information they have inquired about. I was referencing the fact that you unsurprisingly reduced my point (which was very obviously about the impact of this development on the ability to attract Board member and administrators) to the players' motivation. I wasn't passing judgement on their merit - just commenting that it will have a lasting impact. narduch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie_the_parrot Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) Think people need to try to look at this from the vantage point of the CWNT. Women's soccer was treated as an afterthought when the CSB deal was signed because Colin Linford's mentality still very much held sway even if officeholders were smart enough to never be overt about it again after what happened to him. A domestic men's D1 pro league that could displace MLS in a Canadian context was the obsession of many influential people inside the CSA bubble, so the interests of women's soccer were sacrificed at that altar and CSA revenue driven by both national programs was deliberately siphoned off to prop up CanPL for up to twenty years. Why would the CWNT want that to be the status quo out to 2037? Of course, they want to tear it down and start afresh in a more equitable manner. Edited February 22 by Ozzie_the_parrot SF 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpursFlu Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: Think people need to try to look at this from the vantage point of the CWNT. Women's soccer was treated as an afterthought when the CSB deal was signed because Colin Linford's mentality still very much held sway even if officeholders were smart enough to never be overt about it again after what happened to him. A domestic men's D1 pro league was the obsession of many influential people inside the CSA bubble, so the interests of women's soccer were sacrificed at that altar. Why would they want that to be the status quo out to 2037? Of course, they want to tear it down and start afresh in a more equitable manner. Really? Because for the past 100 years I kinda feel like soccer has been treaty as an afterthought. In the past 20 years men's soccer has been treaty as an afterthought behind the women. We made the World Cup qualified 1st in our region, and men's soccer was still treated like trash in this country. Now the rest of the world is actually playing women's soccer, and they're crying the blues. Instead of being real about it, they want to burn the house down and feast on the carniage Edited February 22 by SpursFlu Cadeau 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