Moosehead Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 changes are made at the top of Canadian Soccer including the replacement of Kevan Pipe and reorganization of the structure and Board of the CSA. I am very nationalistic Canadian, but I am not sure I would play for Canada and the CSA. It would not be a about money but not wanting to play for an organization where the passion wasn't there. An organization without drive and passion but just a very political and bureaucratic organization that would not do the utmost to try and promote my career and advancement to the world cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I get the spirit of what you are suggesting, but I doubt this is an effective way to affect change. What sort of real leverage do our players have, anyways? No, they are better off talking to the likes of Neil Davidson, making their concerns heard in the wider media. Though even this won't do much, to be honest. You know, I'd still play for Canada under this regime, not because I think they are doing a good job, but because if I could help my country improve and achieve good results, I'd be honoured to do so. I'd still want change, but I know well enough that it is not the CSA's job to "promote my career." But I get the gist of what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Moosehead changes are made at the top of Canadian Soccer including the replacement of Kevan Pipe and reorganization of the structure and Board of the CSA. I am very nationalistic Canadian, but I am not sure I would play for Canada and the CSA. It would not be a about money but not wanting to play for an organization where the passion wasn't there. An organization without drive and passion but just a very political and bureaucratic organization that would not do the utmost to try and promote my career and advancement to the world cup. I actually wouldn't have problem with this if it brought some beneficial change. Afterall it worked when Charmain Hooper tried and look at where they are now. Plus, it is the players who are impacted moreso that anyone else by the policies and decisions of the CSA. if they felt that some positive could could out of this, then more power to them. The downside of course would depend on whats in it for us fans. If the change brings about better results then great. But if they just strike for more money, then it would be no different than the NHL player vs Owners conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Isn't it always the way in this day in age for people to place the blame (ie., responsibility) of failure on somebody's elses shoulder. It is easy for the players to blame the 'upper structure' of the CSA for failure in WCQ, and while doing so deflecting the responsibility from their own play during qualification. It is easy to blame the CSA for lack of funding which prevented friedlies, training camps etc, now that qualifying is over but during qualifiying the cry from some players was not enough 'first class travel'. What is the priority of the players with the National Team - travelling in style or having some money to play a friendly? To the same extent, I am sure the players have not considered forfeiting their own 'appearance fees' to play for Canada, in exchange for better preparation. The players obviously are aware of the slim piece of the funding pie, but are not willing to make any personal sacrifices for the betterment of the game in this country. I have read this forum with great interest for a number of years, but have never felt compelled to post until this article was published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juaninho Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 suds I suppose some take the CSA to task too severely and fail to neglect the players' role in the equation. Sure, players could forfeit appearance fees, but when you consider the pool from which our starting 11 comes from, I doubt that they would as some play in the A-League. Take the last match as an example, though a slight exception, but still makes the point that a chunk of the players don't make heavy coin to justify such generosity. If the players made Beckhamesque money, sure waiving the appearance fees would be nice and perhaps expected, but i don't think that some of the A-Leaguers who played for Canada are exactly 'rolling in cash'. Do you think an unsigned Peeters should fork over his appearance fee? Um, NO. And with regards to the lack of first class seating for players, well the 'need' for such amenities is debatable either way. The CSA's responsibility is to provide the coach the best resources to obtain the desired objective - to Win! Any measure that may curtail or hurt that possibilty minimizes the chance of obtaining the desired outcome, which is, yes, to win. Ask yourself this question suds? Do you think the very little amount of preparation pre world-cup, ie the lack of friendlies, helps or hurts the chances for qualification? It most definitely hurts their chances. Do you think Yallop wanted less friendlies? No. So to say that the CSA is not to blame, or deserves less blame is well, somewhat foolish. I really, really don't think that a 20 year burden of futility should rest on the players' shoulders. Do you? If you do, you'd have to construct some form of argument saying that we have had a continuous core of players that all played with each other for 20 years. Not even Portugal's 'Golden Generation' were saddled with each other for that long. Having a roster that is so fluid as ours is requires prep time. I just don't think the CSA came up with the prep-time goods. Look, I am not some sort of bash-at-all-costs CSA knocker. I do think/hope/pray that the CSA is moving in a better direction, and i am mainly justifying this on the birth of a cohesive technical program AND the fact that some of our young players show promise. But the debate about whom to blame isn't strictly CSA vs. Players, it is a three headed hydra of CSA/Coach/Players. You let Yallop get off too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilfrid Laurier Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I highly doubt the players will go on strike, but perhaps we as supporters should hold a protest/demonstration at CSA headquarters, complete with signs, chants, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by suds Isn't it always the way in this day in age for people to place the blame (ie., responsibility) of failure on somebody's elses shoulder. It is easy for the players to blame the 'upper structure' of the CSA for failure in WCQ, and while doing so deflecting the responsibility from their own play during qualification. It is easy to blame the CSA for lack of funding which prevented friedlies, training camps etc, now that qualifying is over but during qualifiying the cry from some players was not enough 'first class travel'. What is the priority of the players with the National Team - travelling in style or having some money to play a friendly? To the same extent, I am sure the players have not considered forfeiting their own 'appearance fees' to play for Canada, in exchange for better preparation. The players obviously are aware of the slim piece of the funding pie, but are not willing to make any personal sacrifices for the betterment of the game in this country. I have read this forum with great interest for a number of years, but have never felt compelled to post until this article was published. I think you are now placing the blame on the players shoulders. The players were complaining about travel not because they wanted to travel in style but because they didn't want to show up on the pitch in less than perfect form. The CSA if it was truely interested in qualifying for the world cup, and claiming the 6 million qualifying price, should have been aware of the problem of jet lag and lack of sleep could have on the performance of the players. Maybe the players should haven taken a pay cut to get the funding to go the world cup, but on the same token so should the administration reduced their pay in order for Canada to qualifying for the World Cup. I don't see why they should have less desire to get to the world cup than from the players. Maybe that is what sets Canada apart from other countries. The leaders in sport are bureaucrats that don't have a passion for the sport they represent and see themselves as somehow superior to the players that they represent. They could have also considered to sell the CSA house which could have gone a long way to properly funding the World Cup campaign and in exhange moved their offices into leased premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Not only should the players go on strike, but we as fans should also boycott any CSA event until the current administration is overhauled. Fcuk'em, I've had enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Paddy Not only should the players go on strike, but we as fans should also boycott any CSA event until the current administration is overhauled. Fcuk'em, I've had enough. That's the spirit but when is their next event??? I don't see any games planned here in Canada for a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I do not wish to come off as a CSA supportor, nor a player 'hater' but some sort of balance is required when examining the issues related to Canada's performance. I agree that more friendlies equals better performance (as evidenced by the improved play over the WCQ) and I agree more games are required in order to get better results. There is no question about that. However, friendlies cost money .... which is a resource the CSA does not seem to have (I beleive the CSA mandate is not just the Men's National Team) an abundance of. Why they lack those resources is open to debate and lies squarely on a combination of leadership, corporate support, and exposure ... but I digress. In regards to the forfeiture of player fees ... lets work on the assumption that each player is paid $2500 an appearnce for Canada (which of course does not include any expenses incurred while on National Team duty - transporation, food, accomodation). Let's say on average 8 players selected are 'professionals' that is to say making a solid living on football income. If those 8 players forfeited their appearance fees for Canada it would have saved the National Team Budget $160, 000 dollars over the 8 games in World Cup Qualifying which is easily enough money to play in at least 2 friendlies prior to qualification. I am not suggesting that players should forfeit the fee, as they have earned the right to play for Canada and be compensated for it, however to continually demand an increase in that fee (as done by both the Men and Women) from one side of your mouth while complaining about the money in the budget available for preparation seems a little hyprocritical. Finally, I am not blaming solely the players for the failure to advance to the World Cup .. and I agree it is a combination of all three (CSA/Players/Coaching) however I do think that the players have gotten off to easy in the post qualification dissection of the qualification process - inability to hold 1-0 leads in the dying moments - horrendous back passes - lack of discipline on the pitch which led to unneccessary suspension etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 why not mention management taking a pay cut or management's salary or job be on the online for world cup qualifying? Why always the players? As the players state there job are continually on the line for their clubs and if they don't perform day in day out there out of a job. The same does not apply to the management and directors of the CSA. The players just want, I think, for the CSA to be run like a professional organization with the goal of getting Canada to the World Cup. My criticism of the CSA and the leadership is not the result of this one World Cup Qualifying campaign but as a result of decades of underperformance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Maybe the players should haven taken a pay cut to get the funding to go the world cup, but on the same token so should the administration reduced their pay in order for Canada to qualifying for the World Cup. Moosehead - do you know how much the administration of the CSA makes annually? How much sacrafice should the administration make (in supporting there families)in order for Canada to qualify for the World Cup ... I hope that comment is just a knee jerk reaction and you are not suggesting that the Accountant or Office Manager take a pay cut in order that Canada qualifies for the World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosehead Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 quote:Originally posted by suds Maybe the players should haven taken a pay cut to get the funding to go the world cup, but on the same token so should the administration reduced their pay in order for Canada to qualifying for the World Cup. Moosehead - do you know how much the administration of the CSA makes annually? How much sacrafice should the administration make (in supporting there families)in order for Canada to qualify for the World Cup ... I hope that comment is just a knee jerk reaction and you are not suggesting that the Accountant or Office Manager take a pay cut in order that Canada qualifies for the World Cup. Why not? The accountant or head of the CSA could be making 100,000 a year, why wouldn't they take a pay cut to get us to the world cup. I am sure their salaries would go up substantially if Canada made it to the world cup. I am not saying anyone should do anything, your the one with the knee jerk reaction saying the players should not want appearance fees so there is more funding for the world cup campaign. I am just saying if it applies to the players it should apply to management as well. I am just saying the attitude that its only about the players whereas the attitude should be the whole team should want to get to the world cup and not separate the players from the administration like their jobs are fixed in stone so why would they make any sacrifices. The president down to the secretary should want us to get to the world cup. Your attitude is that only the players want to go to the world cup and the CSA are just working as bureaucrats trying to facilitate this and therein lies the problem institutionalized mediority and lack of passion for a plan for Canadian soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 The problem is that there seem to be no transparency with the CSA. I don't know how much Kevin Pipe makes, Andy Sharpe, or Dr. Gupta. I don't how much coaches make, vs. administrators. It's like a secret society, yet the grassroots pay their dues and get government grants as well as some sponsorships. There's revenue, but expenses? P&L? Why ask De Vos or Sandro Grande to give up his paycheck when the problem is elsewhere? I'm for having the players, the public ,and the media to advocate for a review or an audit to fix our soccer problems. A strike may not work, but more involvement by the players may be beneficial. There is also a wild card: government contributions to the 2007 U20 tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 My last comment on the topic. If the CSA's (and its employees) sole purpose was the qualify for the World Cup every four years, than salary should be tied to that process. However, the CSA has a much bigger mandate than the Men's World Cup team .. and therefore the secretary (who has nothing to do with the operation of the World Cup team) should not have to sacarfice his/her salary because the Mens' World Cup Team did not qualify for the World Cup. Futher, I did not suggest that they forfeit their appearance fees, I simply suggested an alternative form of revenue generation for those players who are complaining about how little money their team receives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 The funding issues is as much symbolic as it is a real monetary issue isn't it? At least for the players I'd think. When as a player you're denied the tools (real or imagined) you need to perform to your peak ability, in a role where you're clearly in need of your best performances, by an employer who's looking to save 1/5th of a percentage point of the annual budget dosen't that tell you something? Something about the way in which your targets are being viewed by your higher ups? It dose to me. And apparently it dose to a few of the players. You'll never get as many warm up matchs as you want. Not with the players being spread to the four winds and with individual careers to maintain. I think everyone understands that and can at least find an excuse for the lack of friendlys. But when you nickle and dime the players on issues where the benefits are so plainly odvious the signal sent to the soilders in the trenchs by the CSA generals is very loud and very clear. I don't think it's just the monetary commitment the CSA showed that's the issue, although most complaints can be related to it one way or another. I think eveyone will agree it's just the lightning rod because it's so black and white and can be defined and documented on paper. The CSA singing Swangard's praises and then Yallop aping the party line. Well, that was just too much to bare I think for a lot of fellows especially after all the "I know what you've been through" talk from Yallop leading up to WCQ. Had the CSA wanted a match in Eastern or Central Canada, it would have happened with or without a local sponsor. They'd have made it happen. Instead the CSA went with the cheapest option it had available. No disrespect to Swangard of Vancouver. They stood in when no one else did. And good on them. But there shouldn't have been any WCQ group matchs in the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Agree with most of what you say Cheeta but there was no problem holding the third home game against Costa Rica in the west as the players had already flown to Honduras for the previous game. The other two games with the majority of players flying in from Europe should have been in the east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC supporter Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Lest it be believed there is some kind of "consensus" that has emerged here regarding the ill-advised nature of holding World Cup qualifying matches in the West, let me just say I consider it BS. To me, it's just one more in a long litany of excuses for the national side's lack of success, and a crap one at that. I fully support the players and respect the sacrifices many make in playing for Canada, but they'll lose some of my empathy if playing out West becomes a focus for their discontent. It's a big country; get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Ask Ante Jazic how he feels about the subject. Matches should be held out west, but only when the team is already in the hemisphere, as Grizzly suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 "The other two games with the majority of players flying in from Europe should have been in the east." Ideally the Far East, as close to Europe as you can get, and it don't get no closer than St. John's, Nfld. who already have a 15,000 seat stadium and fook all else to do. Our boys would be guaranteed the best hospitality in the country (a nip of Screech cures most things, including jetlag)and the numbers of away fans are virtually nil. The climate would be a major adjustment to our friends in Central America, but compared to northern England, it's not muich different at all really, and it's only four time zones away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 "The other two games with the majority of players flying in from Europe should have been in the east." Ideally the Far East, as close to Europe as you can get, and it don't get no closer than St. John's, Nfld. who already have a 15,000 seat stadium and fook all else to do. Our boys would be guaranteed the best hospitality in the country (a nip of Screech cures most things, including jetlag)and the numbers of away fans are virtually nil. The climate would be a major adjustment to our friends in Central America, but compared to northern England, it's not muich different at all really, and it's only four time zones away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottoddy7 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 all true except we don't have a 15000 seat stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottoddy7 Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 all true except we don't have a 15000 seat stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 DOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Don't sweat that. If they can add 6,000 temp. seats to WSC to host a WCQ, play 2 matchs out of Richardson and host a couple more out of Swangard with seating at 6 thousandish the precident has been set. All you need are decent change rooms, some portable bleachers and a bit of grass. Recall somehow it cost the City of W $100K to rent and set up the bleachers at WSC, but that was 5 years ago. Like I wrote, if the CSA really wanted an eastern match to happen, it could have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.