Jason Bent

[canadiankick97]

He also played against Finland.

[CanadasBest]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

He played for us against Ireland in 03. He was injured for the Soctland match which was held the previous year. My memory on this one is pretty good because I was able to attend that Scotland match back in 02.

I might be wrong but at the Scotland game didn't he re-injure his hamstring from a previous major injury suffered at Plymouth in '02? If so any law-suit would be interesting, regardless of whether or not any waiver form was signed or not.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

He played for us against Ireland in 03. He was injured for the Soctland match which was held the previous year. My memory on this one is pretty good because I was able to attend that Scotland match back in 02.

Geez, it was that long ago, I just mush together all those years.

So was it in the fall of 2002 that he was out of the Plymouth line-up?

In any case, I think that he did have some muscle problems that could not be blamed exclusively on Canada, considering the absurb number of games and no rest they get at lower levels in England, playing over 40 league games plus two cups. And with relatively thin squads and a physical playing style on often soggy fields.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Spiers

And all I want to know is - did we ever get that photo from Rupert??

I asked Rupert about this when he visited Toronto last year, the problem was the Rupert never recieved the photo from the photographer.

In terms of Jason Bent, he was injured for a long while in Plymouth prior to the Canada vs. Scotland game in 2002. He did not play in the Plymouth vs. Wigan game that was held 3 days before (Jason vs. Jason didn't happen, as De Vos was with Wigan that time), a few of us were in Plymouth for that game before meeting up with more Voyageurs in Scotland. Unfortunately he was injured quite frequently for Plymouth with various ailments.

As an aside, De Vos played against Plymouth, flew to Edinburgh to meet with the Canadian team but picked up a slight injury in the prior match that kept him out of the line-up so we played Fenwick instead and he was responsible for two goals against us as we lost 3-1 after taking a 1-0 lead. De Vos spoke with us after the game and mentioned how much of a hassle the players get from their clubs whenever they are called to play for Canada, a talk which I think gave a few of us a better appreciation for the club vs. country conflict & the need to massage it.

[7]

--- UPDATE ---

from www.paulstalteri.com

Due to unforeseen circumstances the piece on Jason Bent has been pulled and will no longer be aired on Sportsnet. Jason Bent will be releasing a statement regarding his career in the near future.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by 7

--- UPDATE ---

from www.paulstalteri.com

Due to unforeseen circumstances the piece on Jason Bent has been pulled and will no longer be aired on Sportsnet. Jason Bent will be releasing a statement regarding his career in the near future.

Hmmm... the plot thickens...

[BrennanFan]

7, can you give us any more info on what the situation is here? Why was the piece pulled?

[Grizzly]

Sounds to me like a settlement was reached in which part of the deal was no bad publicity for the CSA.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

So then, let's go to the next question.

Since this case is being publicized -or was to be- on Paul Stalteri's website, and it is a longstanding conflict between the CSA and the player, we might assume that there is certain sympathy on the part of Paul for a national team mate. I think that would be to his credit, as it also shows he is not just friends or is in synthesis with the fellow "stars", the higher paid top flight players. So all power to him.

But Staleri has seemed to be cool towards the national program for the last year as well, and perhaps has missed the odd game he needn't have.

Has Paul cooled off towards the Canadian national program because of what he felt was incorrect treatment of fellow players? Is he alone in this position amongst national team players?

Finally, just want to thank Gianluca for reminding us that whatever Bent's problem was it was NOT, never could be, the CSA's fault, even though they have, after his apologist message, apparently compensated Bent. Meaning that they do admit he was partially right or at least had a decent legal case they did not want to go any further. I would be interested to know the CSA's way of explaining away unwarranted absenses from other players as having NOTHING to do with the way they are treating national team members. Give it a go, will you Gianluca, since Paul's wife, for pure discretion, won't contradict you.

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Finally, just want to thank Gianluca for reminding us that whatever Bent's problem was it was NOT, never could be, the CSA's fault, even though they have, after his apologist message, apparently compensated Bent. Meaning that they do admit he was partially right or at least had a decent legal case they did not want to go any further. I would be interested to know the CSA's way of explaining away unwarranted absenses from other players as having NOTHING to do with the way they are treating national team members. Give it a go, will you Gianluca, since Paul's wife, for pure discretion, won't contradict you.

Tom Smykowski: It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.

Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.

Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Tom Smykowski: It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.

Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.

Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.

Office Space.....great film!

And I probably couldn't have said it any better. In terms of the conclusions jumped to about me, I don't recall saying anything about the CSA's liability one way or the other, just letting people know he was injured & didn't play against Scotland in 2002 (as had been suggested) because he was in a middle of a lengthy injury at that time, and that it was against against Ireland in 2003 when he apparently pick up an injury. I think he was subbed out late for Bernier, IIRC. Its totally ridiculous for someone to genuinely interpret a simple statement of facts for the purpose of getting the chronology of events straight as "apologizing for the CSA" or suggesting that nothing could possibly be there fault, ever. Its not all bad news though as it is posts like these which help make the accusation that I'm an supposedly an apologist for the CSA look like the load of total, complete and absolute utter nonsense that it is.

So thanks Jeffrey! [8D]

[Grizzly]

I must have been absent during that obviously dark part of the conspiracy in which Gianluca became the spokesperson/lawyer for the CSA. Had I been present I am sure Jeffrey's conspiracy theory would make much more sense. However, I am sure there must be some documentary footage somewhere, maybe KGB surveillance tapes, showing numerous surreptitious meetings between Brother No. 1 (aka Keven Pipe) and agent 911 (aka GL). Certainly there is a tie in with al quaida, the Russian mafia, sex slaves and the smuggling of weapons into Canada and heroin into the US. Obviously code name JB1 (as opposed to the still healthy MNT member JB2) knew too much and had to be made inoperable. It just boggles the mind.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Thanks to Grizzly and Rudi for helping Gian-luca out, since it is a dire task, I know, and since the CSA has not sense of public responsibility to do so, it is great to know some of the fans will be there to chip in. So much appreciated boys.

I am just speculating of course. But this thread did begin with a post by Stalteri's wife about a tv show on Jason Bent. That is seems could have been negative for your beloved CSA. And now, the program is cancelled. Further speculation has brought us a reference to his injuries and an insurance conflict with the CSA; further to that, a reference to the fact that the CSA resolved to not be seen in a poor light, or perhaps because they finally saw the light. Or received pressure from other national team members.

Why did Paul Stalteri feel fit to advertise this case, which apparently did not leave the CSA in a good light at least in one aspect of its contents? And why has the show been cancelled?

If the show was about Jason Bent in general with the injury claim merely a small part, could it not have been shown anyways with the "small" question of the injury and insurance being left out?

Once again the CSA apologists are more concerned with fabricating excuses for the institution than having a minimal critical mindset regarding its practices. What kind of fans are you anyways, when you prefer the soccer association to the player, the bureaucracy to the game?

[Grizzly]

Where you came up with the idea that certain posters here are pro-CSA syncophants is beyond me. I have seen a wide variety of views expressed on this board both legitimate and ridiculous but I can't recall anyone who has posted in favour of the CSA (except for the old posts by Morgan Quarry who was

a CSA employee). If there is one thing we all agree on here it is that the CSA has been very poorly run in the past and is certainly not presently run as well as it should be. The only difference between posters is the extremity to which they go to criticize the CSA. Some people criticize the CSA regardless of what it does and seem to view it as the sole cause of Canada's soccer failings. I agree with GL's stance that the CSA should be criticized when it errs and given credit when it does things right such as winning the U-20 World Cup for Canada and getting the stadium in Toronto built (the problems in this procedure were more the result of the incompetence of other government institutions not the CSA). I personally do think that there should be some change in leadership of this organization, am happy that Sharpe's disappointing presidency is almost over and think that a better run organization will greatly benefit Canadian soccer and the MNT even if the CSA is not the only thing to blame for our failings in this sport.

As far as I can see your whole take on this comes from you irrationally posting some unwarranted, personal insults about Gianluca (as well as claiming he was somehow working or associated with the CSA) and then being too stubborn to apologize for them. Then to justify your stance and avoid apologizing you came up with this crazy theory of GL and now apparently me and several others being tied in with the CSA. As I have said before I like your posts a lot when you concentrate on soccer but I am certainly not interested in reading the conspiracy theory and constant swipes at GL. I am in interested in things like how DeGuzman played today (particularly as you are usually the only poster able to watch these matches) and your opinion of the Sevilla-Zenit tie and Sevilla's chances in the UEFA Cup. Continual anti-GL postings are only bringing your reputation into disrepute on the board and not because we are all best friends with GL but because most of them are quite frankly ridiculous.

As far as the Bent issue goes, I imagine he is a good friend of Stalteri and possibly Craig Forrest and they were helping a mate out who was in difficulty so good on them. If my assumption about a settlement is right then it appears the tactic worked which was the purpose of it in the first place. Sportsnet may now also not be very interested in Bent's story now that the lawsuit angle is gone. I would not venture to speak for Stalteri but being a national team player I am sure he is much more aware of the failings of the CSA than we are. It is true he has not played for the MNT for some time but I think it is too soon to say whether this is due to a bad relationship with the CSA or Yallop or just bad luck/circumstances. If he doesn't appear in the next couple of matches I think we would be right to assume something is wrong.

[Grizzly]

Where you came up with the idea that certain posters here are pro-CSA syncophants is beyond me. I have seen a wide variety of views expressed on this board both legitimate and ridiculous but I can't recall anyone who has posted in favour of the CSA (except for the old posts by Morgan Quarry who was

a CSA employee). If there is one thing we all agree on here it is that the CSA has been very poorly run in the past and is certainly not presently run as well as it should be. The only difference between posters is the extremity to which they go to criticize the CSA. Some people criticize the CSA regardless of what it does and seem to view it as the sole cause of Canada's soccer failings. I agree with GL's stance that the CSA should be criticized when it errs and given credit when it does things right such as winning the U-20 World Cup for Canada and getting the stadium in Toronto built (the problems in this procedure were more the result of the incompetence of other government institutions not the CSA). I personally do think that there should be some change in leadership of this organization, am happy that Sharpe's disappointing presidency is almost over and think that a better run organization will greatly benefit Canadian soccer and the MNT even if the CSA is not the only thing to blame for our failings in this sport.

As far as I can see your whole take on this comes from you irrationally posting some unwarranted, personal insults about Gianluca (as well as claiming he was somehow working or associated with the CSA) and then being too stubborn to apologize for them. Then to justify your stance and avoid apologizing you came up with this crazy theory of GL and now apparently me and several others being tied in with the CSA. As I have said before I like your posts a lot when you concentrate on soccer but I am certainly not interested in reading the conspiracy theory and constant swipes at GL. I am in interested in things like how DeGuzman played today (particularly as you are usually the only poster able to watch these matches) and your opinion of the Sevilla-Zenit tie and Sevilla's chances in the UEFA Cup. Continual anti-GL postings are only bringing your reputation into disrepute on the board and not because we are all best friends with GL but because most of them are quite frankly ridiculous.

As far as the Bent issue goes, I imagine he is a good friend of Stalteri and possibly Craig Forrest and they were helping a mate out who was in difficulty so good on them. If my assumption about a settlement is right then it appears the tactic worked which was the purpose of it in the first place. Sportsnet may now also not be very interested in Bent's story now that the lawsuit angle is gone. I would not venture to speak for Stalteri but being a national team player I am sure he is much more aware of the failings of the CSA than we are. It is true he has not played for the MNT for some time but I think it is too soon to say whether this is due to a bad relationship with the CSA or Yallop or just bad luck/circumstances. If he doesn't appear in the next couple of matches I think we would be right to assume something is wrong.

[RS]

Grizzly explained it thoroughly, but to add to what he said, I find it senseless that you seem to have chosen Gian-Luca as the focal point of your disdain.

I say this not because he's my 'fearless leader', as you asserted so many weeks ago (I've met the man exactly 3 times), but rather out of respect for a long-time board member who brings a sense of reason and sanity to a board that is severely lacking those things.

I thought you were over your irrational little spat with G-L, Jeffrey, as you seemed to have returned to your normal style of posting (pre-Toronto Ultra bashing days). I guess not. C'est la vie.

[Richard]

Just what does all this have to do with Jason Bent?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Where you came up with the idea that certain posters here are pro-CSA syncophants is beyond me. I have seen a wide variety of views expressed on this board both legitimate and ridiculous but I can't recall anyone who has posted in favour of the CSA (except for the old posts by Morgan Quarry who was

a CSA employee). If there is one thing we all agree on here it is that the CSA has been very poorly run in the past and is certainly not presently run as well as it should be. The only difference between posters is the extremity to which they go to criticize the CSA. Some people criticize the CSA regardless of what it does and seem to view it as the sole cause of Canada's soccer failings. I agree with GL's stance that the CSA should be criticized when it errs and given credit when it does things right such as winning the U-20 World Cup for Canada and getting the stadium in Toronto built (the problems in this procedure were more the result of the incompetence of other government institutions not the CSA). I personally do think that there should be some change in leadership of this organization, am happy that Sharpe's disappointing presidency is almost over and think that a better run organization will greatly benefit Canadian soccer and the MNT even if the CSA is not the only thing to blame for our failings in this sport.

As far as I can see your whole take on this comes from you irrationally posting some unwarranted, personal insults about Gianluca (as well as claiming he was somehow working or associated with the CSA) and then being too stubborn to apologize for them. Then to justify your stance and avoid apologizing you came up with this crazy theory of GL and now apparently me and several others being tied in with the CSA. As I have said before I like your posts a lot when you concentrate on soccer but I am certainly not interested in reading the conspiracy theory and constant swipes at GL. I am in interested in things like how DeGuzman played today (particularly as you are usually the only poster able to watch these matches) and your opinion of the Sevilla-Zenit tie and Sevilla's chances in the UEFA Cup. Continual anti-GL postings are only bringing your reputation into disrepute on the board and not because we are all best friends with GL but because most of them are quite frankly ridiculous.

As far as the Bent issue goes, I imagine he is a good friend of Stalteri and possibly Craig Forrest and they were helping a mate out who was in difficulty so good on them. If my assumption about a settlement is right then it appears the tactic worked which was the purpose of it in the first place. Sportsnet may now also not be very interested in Bent's story now that the lawsuit angle is gone. I would not venture to speak for Stalteri but being a national team player I am sure he is much more aware of the failings of the CSA than we are. It is true he has not played for the MNT for some time but I think it is too soon to say whether this is due to a bad relationship with the CSA or Yallop or just bad luck/circumstances. If he doesn't appear in the next couple of matches I think we would be right to assume something is wrong.

Grizzly, I have reread your post a bit more relaxedly and retire my previous comments, so I edit this post and give you the benefit of the doubt.

It just picks my ass when the immediate knee-jerk reaction is always to give the institutional answer, as if the institutional were incapable of defending itself, which has always been Gian-luca's posture. If the CSA is so competent in getting the World Youth Cup or arranging the stadium in Toronto -though we just discovered that maybe the OSA also had a role, and that perhaps it has been silenced by the folks at the national association- then it is perfectly competent defending its bureaucratic and promotional interests. Which is why they would reach an out of court agreement with a former player instead of having the case in the news in a delicate moment for the association's project.

It is, after all, a fan board, but when the fans are even bigger apologists than the players, who have their own interests to shut up their real feelings and swallow a ton of crap -as happens in clubs too, so a national team is not too much different- then something rather perverse is happening.

Remember, in any case, that Stalteri is not the only player to come along who seems to be pleased to represent Canada but does not seem to be willing to pander gratuitously to those running the program. We have a lot of them, the list is constant in fact. I think our record in this regard is even worse than most nations, even taking into account our exceptional situation. If the players don't lower themselves so shamelessly, if they can be professionals without being cowardly and lacking in solidarity for their teammates, why do the fans have to sub in for them and be the cowards when we should be the hardest critics of our association and the biggest supporters of our players?

[Grizzly]

The CSA may be capable of defending their own interests but since Morgan Quarry stopped posting no one from the organization has posted here. I personally don't agree that GL is their spokesman on this board but I would not have a problem with someone who was a CSA booster posting here because it would at least give a different viewpoint. It probably is not good policy for a national sports organization to post on fan boards anyway other than possibly passing on important information. I think I am actually a fairly big critic of the CSA but it is also necessary to look at things fairly and objectively and I think this is what GL has tried to do. Obviously you do not share this opinion.

In regards to Bent, GL merely posted that Bent did not play in the Scotland game as someone claimed (which is a fact) and that he was often injured with Plymouth even before the NI game. I don't see how this is apologizing for the CSA. I remember Bent actually having constant injury problems throughout his career. If so the CSA is right to question whether his injury did indeed result from the MNT game because whether or not it is paid by insurance at some point the CSA is going to lose money from this that could otherwise go into national team programs. They should not have to pay just because they are the big bad CSA. Certainly none of us have the knowledge of the case to comment on whether Bent's claim was justified or not. I do hope that if he did indeed suffer a career ending injury that he was suitably recompensed.

As far as your tiff with GL, I think myself and many other posters would appreciate it if you ended it. I don't mean that you can't disagree with his opinions on certain subjects but stick to the subject at hand, state your view and stop the insults and apologist comments. If your opinion is that the CSA should compensate Bent then state that instead of an invective about GL and others defending the CSA's position. People can have different opinions and still get along reasonably. I have met GL twice and he is a nice guy with whom I agree with some of his opinions and disagree with others. It is not like he is my best friend or even the poster here I most agree with. In the end I would hope that most of the posters including you and GL if we happen to meet at a match could cheer our team on in unison and then drink a few beers together instead of arguing because we have been bitching at each other on a fan site for a couple of years.

[An Observer]

From my memory on Bent, he was injured (I can't remember whether with the MNT or Plymouth) and during this period, Plymouth changed managers. When he was fit to play, he decided to have surgery (which he could have had in the off season) so that the would be fit in time for Canada WCQ that summer but which effectively finished his season at Plymouth. The new manager was not very pleased so released him at the end of 2003/2004 season.

Other sides were interested but I think he had work permit issues (as stated in this article from May 2004)

http://archive.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/2004/5/12/52701.html

One interesting thing about Bent's story is that yesterday on the front page of the Guardian sports section there was a story about the G-14 (ie. Real Madrid, Barca, Man U, etc.) breaking away and forming their own league. One of the sticky points they raise our internationals and injuries. The G-14 is currently supporting a Charleroi Belgian Court case where they are suing Fifa as a Burkino Faso international returned from national team duty with an ankle injury and the club received no compensation. I would not be surprised that assuming this thread is correct and there was a settlement of some kind that Fifa had a role in it. Its quite unlikely that Fifa would want any legal precedent against one of its affiliate members for compensation for injuries whilst sustained on national team duty.

Moreover, if the G-14 gets its way (which is likely in part), then national teams may not be able to extract waivers from players in the future for injuries and may have to insure them thereselves.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1733706,00.html

[Guest Dave]

quote:Originally posted by An Observer

Moreover, if the G-14 gets its way (which is likely in part), then national teams may not be able to extract waivers from players in the future for injuries and may have to insure them thereselves.

If this happens, then I assume it would mean that insurance costs would be prorated according to the player's salary and/or market value. Given the poor financial situation of the CSA (and their apparent lack of motivation when it comes to MNT results), I could see them deciding against calling higher-priced players like Radz, Stalteri and JDG for purely financial reasons... since they may be unwilling to pay the insurance cost for a higher priced player.

[Luis_Rancagua]

What's the bottom line here. Is Bent expected to return to professional soccer anytime soon????????

[Richard]

I don't think we'll be seeing Bent playing professional soccer again.

This case may have some influence on the Bent business...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/4822450.stm

[Guest Jeffery S.]

I personally am against seeing a system that would favour even more so the wealthier nations or those who decide to dedicate more budget to their national soccer teams over other things, as that would make finances and budgeting even more of a factor in success. And could lead some nations to pass on key players to save money, which would be detrimental to their results.

So I defend FIFA if they feel they are trying to be egalitarian and not favour the bigger and stronger nations.

But what does not make sense is that a player who is under contract with a club who pays him, sometimes quite well, could be lost to his employer for an injury in a tournament or game sanctioned by FIFA, without any mechanism at all for compensation. And that this could affect future work possibilities.

This is especially serious when a national team plays a player against the wishes of the club doctors, he comes down injured or fails to heal, then is sent back to the club who has to redress the errors of the national team doctors and technical staff. I think this happened with Forlan this year, Uruguay played him when injured and not only did they lose him, but Villareal did as well (if not him, another player from that nation, maybe Regueiro?).

In such cases, I would say, there should be some sort of independent FIFA sanctioned entity or system whereby in case of a conflict the case could be looked at and a player could be exempted from playing even when the national team wanted to do so. The idea of a general fund established by FIFA is also a better idea than compensation by individual nations, as it is FIFA that sanctions the tournaments and even friendlies, defends the rules and "integrity" of the game along with the International Board, and thus should be responsible for putting in place mechanisms that protect it and its players from such abuse.

Especially when FIFA seems to support the idea that a nation can suspend a player for not showing up to a call-up, even refusing him the right to play for his club. Thus the player, even when knowing he is injured or not healed and cannot play, is effectively coerced into showing up and even playing by FIFA regulations themselves.

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Especially when FIFA seems to support the idea that a nation can suspend a player for not showing up to a call-up, even refusing him the right to play for his club. Thus the player, even when knowing he is injured or not healed and cannot play, is effectively coerced into showing up and even playing by FIFA regulations themselves.

I think this is more of a big stick used to threaten clubs with (through the players, true) and it's intent is to keep the clubs honest and the leverage they can put on their players to a minimum when it comes to NT duties. Quite sure this is an articule exercised very rarely and never without the players (direct or indirect) permission. Which to me at least, is about the only way you can make it reasonable. Hard to argue a player who's hurting shouldn't be rested. From NT and club duties.

Clubs are going to win this lawsuit. And at 1 vote per federation, FIFA will be carrying the bill for all sanctioned events. You can count on that. And I don't see anything wrong with that either. In fact I completely agree with the majority here that this would seem the way it should have been all along and should be in the future.

This is all about money. At tens of thousands of pounds per week, if not more, in player salaries why should the clubs carry the insurance responsabilities for internationals? As it is every time the ACN comes around it effects clubs decisions regarding African players. At least remove the financial burden part from the clubs.

FIFA has lots of money. I'm quite sure they could trim 1% of their fat, useless, bloated bureacracy and cover the insurance costs no problem.

And if that doesn't do it maybe Blatter can start the ball rolling with a solution for fixture congestion by reducing the number of international dates. That should keep costs down.