Women's Team in Turmoil?

[fan]

Thanks for the clarification "the ref" you have a good eye.

"I doubt very much the sports minister himself will be involved. The SDRCC is and independent body not associated with the government."

Once again Richard redundant information in attempt to make yourself look knowledgeable.

"Gee Billy ya think the Sports minister will be there himself, in person, for real, live, do you Billy?."

Anyway this was inevitable and I am interested to see if Pellerud appears.

[Richard]

It is not unreasonable to assume that the person who wrote, "Good to hear the sports minister is present" expected the sports minister to be present. What do the words "Good to hear the sports minister is present" mean to you Fan or do you really just not have a clue and merely revel in needless personal jibes at people with whom you have disagreements?

[The Ref]

Here is a question. What happens if Pellerud says no to attending this mediation? What then? Will he be subpoena?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

I'm all in favour of a thorough investigation to uncover wrongdoing and exonerate the innocent but FIFA rules mitigate against any government agency having anything to do with it.

You are talking ignorantly, you really do not know what you are saying so stop now before you make a greater fool of yourself. The basic jist of FIFA rules is that you go to FIFA sanctioned institutions or the ones they recognize and are bound to, and that you don't go to ordinary justice. At least not first, and at least not without cause. And if you go first to ordinary justice you could be sanctioned. Which does not include many questions related to labour relations, which indeed can and do go to ordinary justice, as can civil suits. Thus if there are independent hearings under the auspices of some other organization than the CSA and the CSA recognizes them, or allows for, or will accept as consultory, there is absolutely no reason you cannot go to them.

In any case, and here we might agree, this situation is such that there is no reason for an enquiry, it is a typical battle of the sorts you can find in world football, and there is no FIFA or legal question of any importance involved as far as I can see. In the end, I think, it will be resolved the CSA itself much like such cases in other countries: by dialogue, and maybe, in the end, by some changes.

Maybe Pellerud's cycle is good as done anyways and we could benefit from another type of coach.

[Richard]

Thank you for elaborating on my point Jeffery S. I was attempting to keep it brief and simple so as not to be accused by some here of being a know-all.

On your second paragraph I could not agree more and have made my position clear in previous posts. One can't help wondering if there is more to Charmaine Hooper's campaign against Pellerud than simply regaining a playing spot on the WNT which in any case is the coach's prerogative entirely. Whilst the WNT may well benefit from a fresh coaching approach before the final run up to the WWC I am not sure how keen I am to have the CSA vacate another senior coaching slot. They have enough recruiting work on their plate as it is.

[fan]

You would need to express a substantial opinion in order for anyone to have a disagreement with you. Your clarifications and explanations are redundant and common knowledge. There isnt enough time to spoon feed you.Just try just once to express a opinion and someone might care what you have to say.You converse in a manner that suggests naivety and ignorant compliance with no will of your own.

The reason for Charmaines action against the CSA and Pellerud is self evident. The man behaved dishonourably and the CSA supported if not contributed to the action.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Whilst the WNT may well benefit from a fresh coaching approach before the final run up to the WWC I am not sure how keen I am to have the CSA vacate another senior coaching slot. They have enough recruiting work on their plate as it is.

You are not keen to replace a bad coach because it is too much work?

I think you are doing yourself a disservice with your parlance.

[Richard]

Well 'bad coach' is a matter of opinion. Plus Pellerud appears to have the support of his support staff and the majority if not all of the women on the team and there don't appear to have been any rumblings of dissatisfaction with his job performance out of CSA headquarters. Remember the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. There are always those on the sidelines who know better than the coach.

My position is a pragmatic one. The CSA currently has vacancies for a MNT head coach a technical director and an executive director, has the U-20 WC looming in a matter of months, the WWC in September plus men's WC qualifying beginning next year if I remember correctly (it's late at night). On top of that we are led to believe that Colin Linford wishes to begin a public consultation process about the role and function of the CSA - no small undertaking. The organisation has more than enough on its plate without compounding the situation by adding a search for a replacement WNT head coach just 8 months before the team leaves for China unless everybody would be happy with Ian Bridge or Bob Birada taking over the job. Even if some members of the public don't like what they perceive as Pellerud's tactics on the field of play, his team has a good win/loss record, hardly grounds for dismissal.

And 'parlance'? :-)

[fan]

Ian Bridge is a fine replacement and Pellerud's dismissal would not be a problem. No matter who you put in place it would be a step up.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

...The organisation has more than enough on its plate without compounding the situation by adding a search for a replacement WNT head coach just 8 months before the team leaves for China...

Give the CSA a bit more credit. Aren't you one of its more fervent supporters? There is an example where your parlance gets you into trouble!

[Richard]

It seems this board is quite intolerant of any moderate voice of reason.

I begin to tire of the incessant whining and criticism (not of me but everything else) and my interest in participating is waning. I am sure this is why there are so relatively few active participants, people just get tee'd off and leave.

[terpfan68]

All of what I have been reading is opinion. I haven't read much in the way of facts. Let's wait until it all plays out. By the way, what is the timeline for the hearing and the "final" outcome?

[fan]

Sort of like "take your ball and go home" when its not what you want to hear.

[The Ref]

Three days after the CSA and the Players agreed to the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre for Canada handling the mediation contract or binding arbitration, Mr. Pellerud has still to accept to participate.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Three days after the CSA and the Players agreed to the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre for Canada handling the mediation contract or binding arbitration, Mr. Pellerud has still to accept to participate.

What's the rush from Pellerud's point of view? Hooper has already said publicly that she will never return to the national team while Pellerud is the coach and I can't see him ever having her back anyway after the way she has behaved. Plus it seems the current team would prefer they stay away too, for much the same reason. The only people anxious to get this process underway are the three players who have money at stake.

[Guest Ed]

If you are trying to say that the current team is BETTER without Hooper, Latham and Nolten then let me just say tha I don't agree with that opinion. And your last statement is once again a blatant dig at the 3 players, once again belying your claims of impartialitiy. I, for one, (and apparently some others responding in this thread) am 'anxious' to get this process underway. I think the Calgary lawyer is going to have a field day in front of an independent panel. I think by the new year we can add another head coach to our vacancy list.

[Richard]

I have not and am not trying to make any statement about whether the team is better or worse without the 'three players' so you have nothing there with which to disagree - thats a strawman argument on your part if ever there was one because you don't like the fact that I have been critical of some aspects of Hooper's public behaviour.

Most players would be happy and proud to be invited into the national team player pool and included in training camps, especially when they're paid to be there. Of course the coach is going to use whatever means he can to persuade reluctant players to comply or otherwise drop them from the program, that's a coach's prerogative. We have read what Hooper's side of the story is, I await with some interest to hear what the CSA and Pellerud's report on events will be. None of us has a clue what that might be and those who have rushed to judgement have done so on the basis of only Hooper's version of events. Her outspoken, very public antipathy towards Pellerud has been a matter of public record for some time now which certainly won't count in her favour. Neither will her public statement that she will never return to the team while Pellerud is coach. That of course is entirely her choice. This whole thing smacks of a longstanding vendetta on the part of one player against Even Pellerud personally.

The Calgary lawyer may well look to have a field day in front of the panel but I doubt any laws or CSA bylaws have been transgressed or even FIFA or Sport Canada rules or regulations. I am not sure a coach can or should be censured for doing what he is paid to do even if some observers disagree with his coaching style.

[terpfan68]

The only thing that should delay the process is any scheduling problem by the parties involved. If Pellerud has prior commitments then he should be allowed to attend to them. The findings should not involve any firing or dismissals. If they are reinstated and Pellerud can then choose his team (or resign) if he feels that he was not supported, or Pellerud is upheld and they are welcome to tryout the next time a team if formed. I don't see how Pellerud can be forced to place them on the roster (and cut other players) and then play them in the WC. That has always been a coaches prerogative. I would just like to know if anyone thinks this will be "over" by the end of January.

[The Ref]

I think it will be over before the next training camp around mid January I believe. That is assuming Pellerud shows up. If he refuses to face the music here he will do so in Court.

[fan]

Didnt you take your ball and go home Richard?

Whos the coach Richard? What day is it Richard?

More redundant blithering prattle.

"I have not and am not trying to make any statement.." that part I beleive.

If anyone has seen the movie "Manderlay" there is a character in that film who must have been based on Richard. He constantly spouts off on what appears to be relevant information but when asked for a vote yes or no? He cant reply and continues with his officious dribble while everyone walks away leaving him dribbling on.

Does Pellerud have the decency to appear we will find out.

[Richard]

Well if refusing to pass judgement either way in a dispute on the basis of evidence presented by only one party in the dispute is 'redundant blithering prattle', then so be it. Good job Fan is not responsible for our judicial system in Canada... we wouldn't need trials just judges ruling on the basis of one side's evidence as published in the media. Not sure it is me that is spewing forth the redundant blithering prattle here Fan. You surely don't present a very unbiassed or objective view of the situation, not by any means.

[terpfan68]

Although not a supporter of Richard, I find it interesting that he at least posts his name unlike The Ref and fan who do not share with the rest of the forum who they are and allow us to know what their personal biases might be. A basic premise of the British justice system is that a person has a right to face their accuser. Newspapers will not print unsigned letters to the editor for this very reason. It is very easy to hide on the internet.

[Richard]

Thanks. I have never made any attempt to hide my identity in this forum and I most certainly don't expect everybody to hold the same views as I do. But I do appreciate reason, common sense and civility, all of which, all too ofen, are sometimes lacking in this forum.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by terpfan68

Although not a supporter of Richard, I find it interesting that he at least posts his name unlike The Ref and fan who do not share with the rest of the forum who they are and allow us to know what their personal biases might be. A basic premise of the British justice system is that a person has a right to face their accuser. Newspapers will not print unsigned letters to the editor for this very reason. It is very easy to hide on the internet.

Are there specific issues upon which you disagree or is that a blanket statement in that you cannot support me on anything, ever? It reads like the latter.

[Guest Ed]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Well if refusing to pass judgement either way in a dispute on the basis of evidence presented by only one party in the dispute is 'redundant blithering prattle', then so be it. Good job Fan is not responsible for our judicial system in Canada... we wouldn't need trials just judges ruling on the basis of one side's evidence as published in the media. Not sure it is me that is spewing forth the redundant blithering prattle here Fan. You surely don't present a very unbiassed or objective view of the situation, not by any means.

I will not call your posts 'redundant blithering prattle' but they certainly have a high odor of partiality to me. You continue to imply that you have a 'very unbiassed [sic] and objective view of the situation'. I don't pretend to be unbiased, however your views posted here clearly indicate a bias against Ms. Hooper and in support of the other side in this disagreement.

Your pleas of impartiality are belied by such remarks such as:

"This whole thing smacks of a longstanding vendetta on the part of one player against Even Pellerud personally."

Seems to me you have a very personal anti-Hooper agenda.

"The only people anxious to get this process underway are the three players who have money at stake."

Bull****. Again, a very personal bias here.

You continue to post motherhood statements about the great honour of being called up to one's national side and how these women failed to do so.

For at least the 3rd time, let me point out the problem I have with those statements. From the TSN article:

"The women argue they were removed from the fund first, which resulted in them refusing to play the China games, which led to the suspension.

Hooper and Latham say they didn't play in the China games because they received e-mails from the national team manager Les Meszaros saying they would no longer get money from the program financed by Kerfoot. The e-mail came after the players had asked for more details concerning a two-month World Cup training camp to be held in Vancouver. They wanted to know where they would be staying and who would cover expenses. "

That has not been proved or disproved. I'm going with the ladies' version until proven otherwise. I admit my bias. You obviously are taking the opposite tack. That's BIAS. That is not an OBJECTIVE VIEW.

Stop preaching. I don't mind a difference in opinion, but get off the high horse.

And terpfan, this is a supporters' forum. People can use whatever handle they want. Nobody's hiding. I notice you did not sign your name to your post.