CSA Elections May 2023

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

This isn't rocket science and I suspect most people reading these posts do actually grasp this but some people on here see it as their patriotic duty to defend the CSA no matter what.   Suspect it will be the former but sometimes the carefully selected protege goes rogue like with Vladimir Putin where Russin oligarchs were concerned post-Boris Yeltsin.

[Bigandy]

6 hours ago, SF said:

The increase in costs is due to, in effect, the success experiences at the national team level. More games, more travel, etc.. and, very predictably, more requests for pay increases from the players delivering the success. For sure COVID complicated this as well.

In most operations there would be a chance to monetize this success through broadcast revenues, merchandizing revenues, etc.  This would offset the aforementioned costs and, ideally, widen profit margins.

The issue here, is this revenue stream was traded away for a fixed amount of revenue and the cost side was left to increase (I haven't even mentioned the fact that the players were playing without a contract, which is truly incredible and could have gone a considerable way to managing costs...and COVID was irrelevant here).

But, don't take my word for it - just look at the fact that the CSA is cutting programs AFTER enjoying it's greatest run of success in both the mens and womens programs.  Doesn't usually work that way.

I am not taking your word. I am looking at the financial. 

1. You are right that the cost for WCQ is predictable. However, without covid we would generate about 3million per home match in revenue. We lost out on 5 games I believe as we had to play home games in the usa. 5X3million is 15million. Plus we had to pay to rent the fields so another 2.5million in costs? (thats just a guess). Now lets add the 3million the men cost us for striking. That is 20.5 million in lost revenue. We have a 6 million dollar loss. It is very very clear that with the extra 20.5 million in revenue we would have had a profitable year. Now lets add that the feuds between CSA and the national teams have raised admin costs by 2.5million and we are at 23million in lost revenue. Lets also not forget the impact of no registration in canada soccer and the lost revenue because of that. so we are at -23million plus lost revenue in registration. 

EDIT: The 2.5 million in additional admin cost was included due to the westhead tweet. After I reviewed the financials the admin costs were at a normal rate and shouldnt be included.

2. CSA is monetizing the success of Canada. Our sponsorship revenue grew from 1million to 4 million via the CSB deal. We also reduced out cost by 1million because we no longer have to pay to televise games. Thats a 4million dollar swing. Our commercial revenue grew in 2020-2021 from 4million to 18 million. We also are seeing increased registration and ticket sales in general.  

3. Good point on the players playing with no contract. This was an oversight and resulted in the CSA being susceptible to strikes and demands for more of the 10 million bonus. However, this wont be a variable cost for long, and lets be honest, the CSA had a pretty solid idea of how much they would be paying per game. The proposed agreement has been on the table for a long time and I think every expects that the per game fees will be as offered. Its the bonus that is the issue. Its not like the CSA budgeted 0 dollars for fees during the time they played without a contract and all of the sudden the fees come out of no where and the CSA is blindsided. 

Heres the thing, your claim has literally zero financial data to back anything up. At the end of the day, the CSB deal is 4million in revenue plus a reduction of 1 million in costs. Its about 10% of overall revenue, which is not so significant that the CSA would live or die by the CSB deal. 

At best, the CSA would stand to make an extra 1-2 million (based on CSB making 8.2 mill in revenue minus the 4 million payment minus paying tsn 1 million minus at least 1 million to set up a marketing team at CSA)  a year IF there marketing skills are amazing, every year was as strong as a world cup year for sponsorship, we still could host a world cup, no sponsors would reduce their payments as there would be no CPL. 

Clearly a very very arbitrary increase of 1-2million is not the reason the CSA are in a financial crisis.

IF (which i personally dont believe it would increase revenues) youre variable vs fixed concept resulted in 1mil more then we would still only see revenue increase by 3%.  Are you seriously saying the financial crisis at CSA is down to a 3% discrepancy? and isnt more likely influenced by the 23 million+ in covid related issues? 
 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Bigandy

[SF]

35 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Jesus, how many time do you need to be told that the CSA does not have the expertise or the staff to maximize those marketing revenues? When they were in control of those they failed miserably at doing anything with them. It's not like the WNT didn't have success when CSB was not around and what did they do with them?? NADA - NOTHING. The Nike deal and paying to be on TV???

Outsourcing was the right call. You'd make a better case on criticizing neglecting that side of their business for years instead of relentlessly attacking their decision to outsource when all the evidence points to them making more money than before.

You'd also make a better case at questioning some of the terms of the contract like the length and their inability to get shares of CSB 

All you're doing is displaying your anti CSB bias over and over again - it's exhausting to read

I have no issue with the CSB and no anti CSB bias. They took some risk, invested in Canadian soccer and (it seems) made some money.

Terrific.  Really.  They deserve praise. I really, really mean that and have said so previously.

The issue is the CSA walked into a bad deal.

[Bison44]

6 minutes ago, SF said:

I have no issue with the CSB and no anti CSB bias. They took some risk, invested in Canadian soccer and (it seems) made some money.

Terrific.  Really.  They deserve praise. I really, really mean that and have said so previously.

The issue is the CSA walked into a bad deal.

There was no other deal.  We could have gone on making 1 Mil, and losing a mil getting the games on TV, not had enough money to pay for the last 3-4 years of national team success and had to pay for more staff to try and bring in sponsors etc.  We could have had no mens league (let alone a mens and womens league) and not gotten involved in WC26.  We could have had no Mediapro/onesoccer  etc.  The 10 year deal..of course CSB wanted a long term deal so they wouldnt do the work and then get the rug pulled out, CSA wanted long term deal for stabilty, knowing the cash was coming every year. 

The one sided 10 year re-up is complete nonsense....and there should be some sort of revenue sharing after they hit a threshold of earnings, this are shitty parts of the deal.  And of course CSA has bungled and stumbled through damn near everything, nobody says they have been good managers or leaders.  But this deal had some concrete positive things come out of it and just out of hand dismantling it would be a disaster and even MR CHANGE, Newman backed off that pretty quick.  

[Ottawafan]

4 hours ago, Bigandy said:

It has nothing to do with incompetent or competent. Outsourcing is done by literally every single company ever. 
It is not a deficiency to not have someone like a lawyer, marketing team, accountant team, etc on staff. To suggest its a deficiency to outsource just shows your bias against the CSA. 

Why are you so unfair towards them. They have their flaws but come on man, be fair in your criticism. Stop trying to turn every single decision the CSA makes into some weird justification that they are incompetent.  Criticize them where they actually deserve to be criticized. 

 

I think it has something to do with anyone that has had meaningful interaction with the various levels of soccer in this country knows that many of the people ( not all ) are not in it for the betterment of the game.  They are there to push an agenda and to benefit themselves and a small select few.  When the NT players have distrust towards the those in the CSA, I know where they are coming from and believe them. 

 

[Bigandy]

46 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

I think it has something to do with anyone that has had meaningful interaction with the various levels of soccer in this country knows that many of the people ( not all ) are not in it for the betterment of the game.  They are there to push an agenda and to benefit themselves and a small select few.  When the NT players have distrust towards the those in the CSA, I know where they are coming from and believe them. 

 

If what you are saying is true, then the best way to support the national team players is to be accurate about the shortcomings and also fair in the positives of the CSA. To say the CSA is incompetent for outsourcing their marketing our accounting etc is not at all where we should be upset. Bison makes some great points above about the revenue sharing and unilateral extension being the mistakes of CSA. 

If the CSA fixed those 2 issues, then the national team and all of canadian soccer would benefit. On the other hand, if the CSA has to deal with everything in house, like accounting and marketing, then the national team will have less resources and the outcomes will be worse for everyone. 

I understand you hate the CSA but your support for the players should outweigh your distrust. If your support does take priority, then you can assess the situation fairly instead of trying to tear apart everything the CSA does. 

[Ottawafan]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

If what you are saying is true, then the best way to support the national team players is to be accurate about the shortcomings and also fair in the positives of the CSA. To say the CSA is incompetent for outsourcing their marketing our accounting etc is not at all where we should be upset. Bison makes some great points above about the revenue sharing and unilateral extension being the mistakes of CSA. 

If the CSA fixed those 2 issues, then the national team and all of canadian soccer would benefit. On the other hand, if the CSA has to deal with everything in house, like accounting and marketing, then the national team will have less resources and the outcomes will be worse for everyone. 

I understand you hate the CSA but your support for the players should outweigh your distrust. If your support does take priority, then you can assess the situation fairly instead of trying to tear apart everything the CSA does. 

I never said I hate the CSA. I’ve maintained that I fully understand where the players are coming from when it comes to how they feel about the CSA. 

[Bigandy]

On 5/7/2023 at 10:05 AM, canuckgbp said:

Maybe this needs its own thread…. But Show Me the Money!

 

This is insane!!!   Rick Westhead is stirring up drama for no reason. 

In 2020 our admin and meeting expenses were 3.9 million. In 2021 they dropped to 2.7 and then in 2022 they raised to 3.9 million.... the same as 2020. Whats the big deal about that. Commercial revenues at 16m is insane considering they were 4.6 in 2020.... Again, the narrative is being skewede by westhead. 

[Bigandy]

3 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

I never said I hate the CSA. I’ve maintained that I fully understand where the players are coming from when it comes to how they feel about the CSA. 

I never said you said that you hate the CSA. However, you dont have to verbalize it to show you have an extreme bias against everything the CSA does. 

I would guess that the players would not call CSA incompetent for outsourcing yet you do. Youre not just understanding where the players are coming from, youre taking it to the next level. Add in that you wont acknowledge anything positive about the CSA and its easy to assume you hate the CSA. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 5/6/2023 at 11:01 PM, Meepmeep said:

That’s non responsive 

 

why would the CSB get the largest number of votes?

So we’ve handed them all the sponsorship money AND they get the most number of votes. 15 times more than the players. 1.5 times more than Ontario and Quebec.   Ridiculous.  
 

Also telling that one soccer tries to hide this fact by bundling their 15 votes with mls.  

There is no evidence that the CPL teams or MLS teams will always vote in block. Historically there have been variations in provinces, clubs, from other voting blocks. 

It is also clear that clubs aligned in leagues over the world, including leagues with a strong business identity, vote differently in FA elections, that is a simple fact and easily demonstrable. 

Getting tired of everyone treating voting as simplistic, starting with the incorrect assumption that because you sat on a board you agreed with everyone on it (Crooks being complicit by default with Bontis, lovely attempt at character assassination there, glad they saw through it). Anyone who has sat on a board has voted things they did not agree with because further down the line, there was a battle they wanted to wage and needed to go into it with certain support.

[Ottawafan]

59 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I never said you said that you hate the CSA. 

You sure about that?

[SF]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

This is insane!!!   Rick Westhead is stirring up drama for no reason. 

In 2020 our admin and meeting expenses were 3.9 million. In 2021 they dropped to 2.7 and then in 2022 they raised to 3.9 million.... the same as 2020. Whats the big deal about that. Commercial revenues at 16m is insane considering they were 4.6 in 2020.... Again, the narrative is being skewede by westhead. 

I think his point is they lost a pile of money.

A business that generates $10 billion in revenue, but has $20 billion in expenses is a less attractive business than one that generates $10 million in revenue vs. $5 million in expenses.

The absolute values here are meaningless (which is mostly the case with financial data).

Doesn't mean you can't lose $6.3 million and not recover - you can. Lots of good businesses lose money over some periods.  But, there is definitely a structural revenue/expense mismatch with the CSA right now. They are trying to correct it by cutting programs and increasing player fees, but that is not the way out because it's addressing the symptom, not the disease (and, for what it's worth, it's only alienating important stakeholders).

[Kent]

8 hours ago, Bigandy said:

However, without covid we would generate about 3million per home match in revenue. We lost out on 5 games I believe as we had to play home games in the usa. 5X3million is 15million. Plus we had to pay to rent the fields so another 2.5million in costs? (thats just a guess). Now lets add the 3million the men cost us for striking.

Can someone remind me where the 3 million number came from? If my memory is correct (and it might not be) I feel like someone said the Iran friendly would have made 3 million if it hadn't been cancelled, and I think for that game there were something like 40k tickets sold. I don't know how many tickets were sold for the Panama friendly that ultimately was also cancelled due to the strike, but I'm pretty certain it would have been significantly fewer tickets than the Iran friendly, which would mean the strike cost less than 3 million in revenue (but I don't know what kind of expenses the CSA incurred with these cancelled friendlies).

So if I am right about the source of the 3 million number, we can't assume the 5 neutral site games would have raised 3 million in ticket sales. Suriname, Bermuda, and Haiti would not draw that amount of fans (especially since that was before casuals even knew qualifying had started). I'm not sure which other 2 games are included in the 5 games mentioned, there were a few where capacity was limited (Honduras, El Salvador, and USA) which would reduce revenue we could have made, but not by 3 million.

I'm not trying to refute your overall premise, but I just wanted to confirm if those particular numbers are accurate or if we are making big sweeping assumptions from one stated number. Please correct me if my memory is wrong!

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 hours ago, Kent said:

Can someone remind me where the 3 million number came from? If my memory is correct (and it might not be) I feel like someone said the Iran friendly would have made 3 million if it hadn't been cancelled, and I think for that game there were something like 40k tickets sold. I don't know how many tickets were sold for the Panama friendly that ultimately was also cancelled due to the strike, but I'm pretty certain it would have been significantly fewer tickets than the Iran friendly, which would mean the strike cost less than 3 million in revenue (but I don't know what kind of expenses the CSA incurred with these cancelled friendlies).

So if I am right about the source of the 3 million number, we can't assume the 5 neutral site games would have raised 3 million in ticket sales. Suriname, Bermuda, and Haiti would not draw that amount of fans (especially since that was before casuals even knew qualifying had started). I'm not sure which other 2 games are included in the 5 games mentioned, there were a few where capacity was limited (Honduras, El Salvador, and USA) which would reduce revenue we could have made, but not by 3 million.

I'm not trying to refute your overall premise, but I just wanted to confirm if those particular numbers are accurate or if we are making big sweeping assumptions from one stated number. Please correct me if my memory is wrong!

You're right.

Both Iran and Panama were selling into the upper bowl. Even if you do 40,000x50$ you generate 2 million. You pay a fee to the rival. You rent the stadium. Other costs, so you might come out with a million in hand vs a good rival in a large venue.

None of this is precise. But the CSA, who never even does home friendlies, had WC qualifiers they didn't monetize fully or at all.

[Bigandy]

11 hours ago, Kent said:

Can someone remind me where the 3 million number came from? If my memory is correct (and it might not be) I feel like someone said the Iran friendly would have made 3 million if it hadn't been cancelled, and I think for that game there were something like 40k tickets sold. I don't know how many tickets were sold for the Panama friendly that ultimately was also cancelled due to the strike, but I'm pretty certain it would have been significantly fewer tickets than the Iran friendly, which would mean the strike cost less than 3 million in revenue (but I don't know what kind of expenses the CSA incurred with these cancelled friendlies).

So if I am right about the source of the 3 million number, we can't assume the 5 neutral site games would have raised 3 million in ticket sales. Suriname, Bermuda, and Haiti would not draw that amount of fans (especially since that was before casuals even knew qualifying had started). I'm not sure which other 2 games are included in the 5 games mentioned, there were a few where capacity was limited (Honduras, El Salvador, and USA) which would reduce revenue we could have made, but not by 3 million.

I'm not trying to refute your overall premise, but I just wanted to confirm if those particular numbers are accurate or if we are making big sweeping assumptions from one stated number. Please correct me if my memory is wrong!

Great points. A lot of my numbers are guesswork. UT even furthers the discussion by talking about the profit from each match, while the 3 mil I was referring to is just revenue. UT is talking about ticket sales only but a huge revenue stream is merch and food so I would say that $25 x 40,000 fans = 1,000,000 in revenue. Add in the 2 mill for ticket sales and you reach your 3mil. This is on the higher side of things but still is realistic. 

However, you prompted me to think of being more accurate. Bontis said that revenues dropped by 43% due to covid in 2020, so I went back in the financial statements. 

If you look at 2021 we had 33mil in revenue vs 14mil in 2020. Thats negative 19million. My original estimate was 23 million but then I realized 2.5 million of that was admin costs that didnt change so 21.5 million. now subtract 3 million from the panama strike as that was part of 2022  and my estimate for 2020 would be 18.5 million in lost revenue. 

This means that my guestimate math was within 500k of lost revenue. I wasnt 100% accurate in where the lost revenues came from but its clear that covid has impacted CSA negatively by 18.5 million in revenue. 

This doesnt even factor in increased costs! Of course we have a 6 million dollar loss. How could we not!!! The problem is not CSB or variable vs fixed or having to pay our players. The problem is 100% covid related. 

Now obviously CSA has never been flush with cash but I am just addressing the 6mil loss. 

[Bigandy]

14 hours ago, SF said:

I think his point is they lost a pile of money.

A business that generates $10 billion in revenue, but has $20 billion in expenses is a less attractive business than one that generates $10 million in revenue vs. $5 million in expenses.

The absolute values here are meaningless (which is mostly the case with financial data).

Doesn't mean you can't lose $6.3 million and not recover - you can. Lots of good businesses lose money over some periods.  But, there is definitely a structural revenue/expense mismatch with the CSA right now. They are trying to correct it by cutting programs and increasing player fees, but that is not the way out because it's addressing the symptom, not the disease (and, for what it's worth, it's only alienating important stakeholders).

How can you say the financial values are meaningless? Are your bill payments and wage amounts meaningless? 

What exactly is the disease in your opinion. The financial statements indicate a loss of 18.5million in revenue directly related to Covid. If Covid is the disease, then how do you solve for that if not by trying to reduce costs and increasing revenue via program cuts and player fee increases. (Please do not say that they can just magically generate way more revenue from thin air) 

[SF]

41 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

How can you say the financial values are meaningless? Are your bill payments and wage amounts meaningless? 

What exactly is the disease in your opinion. The financial statements indicate a loss of 18.5million in revenue directly related to Covid. If Covid is the disease, then how do you solve for that if not by trying to reduce costs and increasing revenue via program cuts and player fee increases. (Please do not say that they can just magically generate way more revenue from thin air) 

I didn't say the financial values are meaningless. I said that the absolute values are meaningless.  That is a very material distinction.

The disease is this - the CSA, for reasons I cannot even begin to comprehend, did not agree a CBA with their players in advance of the qualification campaign (which they knew would be complicated by COVID) in the context of having traded away the variable revenue source that would have increased with a successful campaign.

In what should not have been a surprise, the players - after the successful qualification - asked for more money. I believe they asked for 90% of the prize money, which they likely benchmarked vs the USMNT agreement. We don't know the details (yet), but agreeing to this could well have bankrupted the CSA. 

Had the CSA locked down their labour costs in advance of the qualification, knowing their revenue forecasts, they could have avoided many of these issues. I am not saying this is simple - these things can be complicated and the players clearly haven't trusted the CSA for a very long time.  But, complications aside, this should have been an essential undertaking. Anyone with the most basic understanding of game theory and finance would have been able to see the adverse outcome.

All of which is to say, they need to manage the cost side of their business much better and, frankly, be WAY more transparent with their constituents.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

20 hours ago, Ottawafan said:

I think it has something to do with anyone that has had meaningful interaction with the various levels of soccer in this country knows that many of the people ( not all ) are not in it for the betterment of the game.  They are there to push an agenda and to benefit themselves and a small select few.  When the NT players have distrust towards the those in the CSA, I know where they are coming from and believe them.

^^^this, and it's important to understand why influential insiders in soccer associations in the largest provinces did not appreciate what unfolded when MLS effectively took control of the elite youth development pathway after the three MLS academies emerged because it did not benefit themselves and a select few, if you want to understand what has unfolded in Canadian soccer since around 2010 or so. Their vision of how the future of Canadian soccer should be shaped has ridden roughshod over the interests of other key stakeholders because of the undue influence they wield at CSA AGMs and that has brought us to where we are today.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[johnyb]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

Great points. A lot of my numbers are guesswork. UT even furthers the discussion by talking about the profit from each match, while the 3 mil I was referring to is just revenue. UT is talking about ticket sales only but a huge revenue stream is merch and food so I would say that $25 x 40,000 fans = 1,000,000 in revenue. Add in the 2 mill for ticket sales and you reach your 3mil. This is on the higher side of things but still is realistic. 

However, you prompted me to think of being more accurate. Bontis said that revenues dropped by 43% due to covid in 2020, so I went back in the financial statements. 

If you look at 2021 we had 33mil in revenue vs 14mil in 2020. Thats negative 19million. My original estimate was 23 million but then I realized 2.5 million of that was admin costs that didnt change so 21.5 million. now subtract 3 million from the panama strike as that was part of 2022  and my estimate for 2020 would be 18.5 million in lost revenue. 

This means that my guestimate math was within 500k of lost revenue. I wasnt 100% accurate in where the lost revenues came from but its clear that covid has impacted CSA negatively by 18.5 million in revenue. 

This doesnt even factor in increased costs! Of course we have a 6 million dollar loss. How could we not!!! The problem is not CSB or variable vs fixed or having to pay our players. The problem is 100% covid related. 

Now obviously CSA has never been flush with cash but I am just addressing the 6mil loss. 

I would think whatever money they were generating from the broadcast and advertisements in the stadium would have disappeared as well. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't doubt they received a bill for production costs. 

[Bison44]

28 minutes ago, SF said:

The disease is this - the CSA, for reasons I cannot even begin to comprehend, did not agree a CBA with their players in advance of the qualification campaign (which they knew would be complicated by COVID) in the context of having traded away the variable revenue source that would have increased with a successful campaign.

You should listen to some of the podcasts with older CMNT vets like Hume, Forrest or Brennan.  This was very common and many times the terms of the payments were not decided on until the last minute and it came close to players balking because nothing was decided on.  Even towards the end of qualification etc, it wasnt finalized.  That doesnt mean it has to stay bush league forever, the program and the CSA governence/leadership should be getting better hand in hand with better on field results. But these are growing pains, the money is bigger now, plus women want a piece of the mens money and everything has to be negotiated out in the public with the media hoping for some sort of juicy Hockey canada scandal to latch onto.  

[Bigandy]

44 minutes ago, SF said:

I didn't say the financial values are meaningless. I said that the absolute values are meaningless.  That is a very material distinction.

The disease is this - the CSA, for reasons I cannot even begin to comprehend, did not agree a CBA with their players in advance of the qualification campaign (which they knew would be complicated by COVID) in the context of having traded away the variable revenue source that would have increased with a successful campaign.

In what should not have been a surprise, the players - after the successful qualification - asked for more money. I believe they asked for 90% of the prize money, which they likely benchmarked vs the USMNT agreement. We don't know the details (yet), but agreeing to this could well have bankrupted the CSA. 

Had the CSA locked down their labour costs in advance of the qualification, knowing their revenue forecasts, they could have avoided many of these issues. I am not saying this is simple - these things can be complicated and the players clearly haven't trusted the CSA for a very long time.  But, complications aside, this should have been an essential undertaking. Anyone with the most basic understanding of game theory and finance would have been able to see the adverse outcome.

All of which is to say, they need to manage the cost side of their business much better and, frankly, be WAY more transparent with their constituents.

Theres alot of mistakes within your assumptions. 

1. The CBA was not signed, yet that doesnt mean that CSA didnt set aside a budget for the players fees. The CSA would have a pretty good idea of how much to set aside so regardless of a CBA being signed, the budget was probably very close to what the actual costs will be. You dont know how much your utilities will cost for your home but you have a pretty good idea and will have the appropriate funds set aside. CSA also did this. 
2. A variable revenue source of sponsorship brings in 1million and costs 1 million as all the financial statements prior to CSB deal. A fixed revenue source brings in 4 million and reduces costs by 1 million. Which deal would you sign? In addition, only 10-15% of CSA revenues are fixed. 
3. Most expenses for CSA are NOT the per game fees for the players. If you are looking at why costs are so high then you need to look at the WCQ campaign costs. Not the player fees. Which costs are not controlled well and can you please provide some numbers of what the cost is and what the costs should be? 
4. What transparency are you asking for? You and I both have access to their financial statements. Just because you havent read them, doenst mean CSA is not transparent with them. 
5. The bonus agreement will not be the reason CSA goes bankrupt. The CSA offered 6million and the players want 9million. Thats a 3 million dollar swing. The CSA does not incur a cost of 3 million dollars though. It just does not receive that 3 million. A 1 time bonus outside of normal operating costs and revenues is not substantial enough to be the difference between bankruptcy and thriving. 

your entire post is based on emotion rather than financial data. I would love to discuss your points if you can use any numbers to back up your claims. Otherwise, you are strictly guessing and making incorrect assumptions. 

[Ottawafan]

30 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

You should listen to some of the podcasts with older CMNT vets like Hume, Forrest or Brennan.  This was very common and many times the terms of the payments were not decided on until the last minute and it came close to players balking because nothing was decided on.  Even towards the end of qualification etc, it wasnt finalized.  That doesnt mean it has to stay bush league forever, the program and the CSA governence/leadership should be getting better hand in hand with better on field results. But these are growing pains, the money is bigger now, plus women want a piece of the mens money and everything has to be negotiated out in the public with the media hoping for some sort of juicy Hockey canada scandal to latch onto.  

Good points.  And I mentioned before, with the level being raised ( on the field, getting the the WC, players playing on a bigger stage internationally/domestic leagues, revenues and sponsorships increasing ) the cost to retain your players has gone up.  CSA needed to be aware of that and act accordingly.

[Bigandy]

39 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

Good points.  And I mentioned before, with the level being raised ( on the field, getting the the WC, players playing on a bigger stage internationally/domestic leagues, revenues and sponsorships increasing ) the cost to retain your players has gone up.  CSA needed to be aware of that and act accordingly.

I just did some quick research and it seems like the USA pay 10k per game per player. Our CBA is 10k if you include the win bonus and dont factor in USD to CAD. 

England apparently pays 2000 pounds per game which is substantially less than the USA. 
https://topsoccerblog.com/how-much-football-players-paid-international-matches/
https://www.rookieroad.com/fifa-world-cup/how-much-do-players-get-paid-the-world-2630981/

I wonder how accurate these sources are but it seems to suggest that top top teams don't have to pay much as all their players are multimillionaires but a program like CMNT or USMNT may have to increase pay as success grows.  

[Unnamed Trialist]

3 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Great points. A lot of my numbers are guesswork. UT even furthers the discussion by talking about the profit from each match, while the 3 mil I was referring to is just revenue. UT is talking about ticket sales only but a huge revenue stream is merch and food so I would say that $25 x 40,000 fans = 1,000,000 in revenue. Add in the 2 mill for ticket sales and you reach your 3mil. This is on the higher side of things but still is realistic. 

However, you prompted me to think of being more accurate. Bontis said that revenues dropped by 43% due to covid in 2020, so I went back in the financial statements. 

If you look at 2021 we had 33mil in revenue vs 14mil in 2020. Thats negative 19million. My original estimate was 23 million but then I realized 2.5 million of that was admin costs that didnt change so 21.5 million. now subtract 3 million from the panama strike as that was part of 2022  and my estimate for 2020 would be 18.5 million in lost revenue. 

This means that my guestimate math was within 500k of lost revenue. I wasnt 100% accurate in where the lost revenues came from but its clear that covid has impacted CSA negatively by 18.5 million in revenue. 

This doesnt even factor in increased costs! Of course we have a 6 million dollar loss. How could we not!!! The problem is not CSB or variable vs fixed or having to pay our players. The problem is 100% covid related. 

Now obviously CSA has never been flush with cash but I am just addressing the 6mil loss. 

We don't have the data, but BC Place is rented, there is no deal with the CSA as with BMO. And the concessions revenues go to BC Place; I suppose the merchandising sold at the match would be split in some way, but BC Place is the retail venue and the CSA have the merch and the rights.

Regardless, take friendlies and qualifier revenue--all of which remains fully as CSA revenue streams and are not touched by CSB--and add registration fees from the provinces, and in any non-Covid period you'd be talking about millions more in hand each year.

[Bigandy]

14 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

We don't have the data, but BC Place is rented, there is no deal with the CSA as with BMO. And the concessions revenues go to BC Place; I suppose the merchandising sold at the match would be split in some way, but BC Place is the retail venue and the CSA have the merch and the rights.

Regardless, take friendlies and qualifier revenue--all of which remains fully as CSA revenue streams and are not touched by CSB--and add registration fees from the provinces, and in any non-Covid period you'd be talking about millions more in hand each year.

I have no idea how true this is but I once talked to a vendor at a random sports games and part of their profits went to the team even though they were an independent company who rented space at the stadium. I would imagine that CSA would want some concession revenues if they are paying to rent the stadium, or on the flip side, maybe they get a cheaper rental rate? Any knowledge of this? 

Those millions without covid sure would go a long way to offset a 6million dollar loss eh.