Jump to content

Women's Team in Turmoil?


Breakwood

Recommended Posts

CAFAN, you should go back a few months in this thread. I have said before that Charmaine Hooper is probably the only woman on the team that earns a good living today from the game. What the hell do you expect the younger (and without established careers) players to say when interviewed? They cannot afford to jeapordize this gift horse provided by the CSA through Mr. Kerfoot (WE PAY YOU TO LIVE AT OUR CSA CAMPUS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 456
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Are any of those recent quotes on the matter? I ask simply because Pellerud has access to the players and almost certainly would have addresssed the issue with the players. If he spun it (not saying he did necessarily did) and the players had not yet heard from any of the three, they very well might feel betrayed. Note also that the intial e-mail to the players contends that Latham and Hooper "failed to commit". Undoubtedly, at least one of the three players involved is friendly with some of the remaining Nats, so more recent quotes would be made with a stronger understanding of both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have read all of the posts on this subject and here are some home truths;

On or about the March of 2006, Mr. Pellerud, had all of the Womens National Team attend at a hotel room and then Mr Pellerud, had them sign a contract. The said contract was between Pellerud as one party to the contract and the individual team member as the other party.

The said contract was pertaining to the Residency Program initiated by Greg Kerfoot under the umbrella of the Whitecaps Foundation. The said contract was signed by the girls presently there from the Womens National Team including but not limited to Charmaine Hooper, Chrisitine Latham and Sharolta Nonen from the Womens National Team.

18 Questions have been asked of Pellerud regarding the contracts, the Residency Program and what rights Pellerud had to contract out on behalf of Greg Kerfoot and the Whitecaps Foundation.

Specifically considering as Pellerud himself is under contract to the CSA, and the National Team members are carded and employed to an extent, and already receiving payments from the CSA

The said players that signed those contracts started receiving payments under the residency program. They also paid employment insurance, and CPP on those payments and were given employee numbers re; the contracts they signed with Pellerud.

Also here are some more truths regarding the statements made by Pellerud that resulted in Hooper being upset over the 4 Ottawa Players being released from the USA International by Pellerud for the W-League playoffs.

There are some very disturbing questions that need to be also answered by Pellerud regarding his involvement in releasing the 4 Ottawa National Team players on more than one occasion from International events so that they could play for the Ottawa Fury.

On the 30 day of July 2006, Pellerud allowed 4 players from the Ottawa Fury to miss the International with the U.S.A. so that they could play for the Fury in the W-League playoffs. Pellerud was quoted in the media as stating that he had made an arrangement with the Ottawa Fury 6 months previous that he would release the Ottawa Fury players if they made the playoffs.

Pellerud also stated (media) that the New Jersey Wildcats had not given Pellerud enough time regarding their request (6 days) to allow Hooper and Leblanc to also play in the W-League playoffs. As Pellerud stated 6 days was not enough notice.

So can Pellerud explain the following;

(A) On July the 13th 2006 Pellerud released the roster for the International against Sweden. On that roster Pellerud named 19 players including 4 players from the Ottawa Fury.

(B) Pellerud then allowed the 4 Ottawa players to miss the International with Sweden on the 18th of July 2006 so that they could play for the Ottawa Fury against the Laval Comets on the 19th Day of July 2006, in a normal W-League game.

© Pellerud then only had 15 players for the Sweden game on the 18 Day of July 2006.

Mr Pellerud has been asked to answer to the following questions.

1. At what time did the Ottowa Fury request permission from you for the 4 Ottawa players to be allowed to miss the Sweden game?

2. The game against the Laval Comets was not a playoff game was it?

3. Did you not have the 4 Ottawa players players named to play on the 13th Day July 2006?

4. If a request was made from the Ottawa Fury, to release their players from the Sweden game. It would have had to have been made, after you released the roster and before the game, is that not right?

5. That is less than 6 days is it not?

6. The Ottawa Fury were not in the playoffs at that time is that correct?

The truth is that on the 16 Day of July it was a 3 horse race for 2 playoff positions in the Northern Division of the W-League. The 3 horses in that race were the Fury, the Lynx and the Laval comets.

Because Pellerud allowed the 4 Ottawa Fury players to miss the Sweden game and play against Laval, (Laval lost 3-0) the Fury made the playoffs and played the Lynx on the 26 day of July in a playoff game.

The winners of the Lynx Fury game would advance to the conference finals in New Jersey on the 29 and 30 July 2006.

On the 26 July 2006, the Fury beat the Lynx 3-2 and the next day Pellerud released his roster for the USA game on the 30th July 2006, minus the 4 Ottawa players.

Pellerud allowed the Ottawa players to play in the playoffs but would not allow Hooper and Leblanc.

More truthful facts to follow.

Minorsoccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who asked the 18 questions of Pellerud and under what obligation is he to answer the questioner, especially as this whole issue is effectively sub judice with threats of legal action having been bandied about?

As for accusations of interfering in the W-League playoffs, that is the responsibility of the USL to investigate and if they're happy that all was above board, so am I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Suspensions Have Been Lifted

VANCOUVER (CP) - The suspensions of three members of the Canadian women's soccer team have ended but there's no guarantee they will play for the national team again.

There is even doubt if the three would be welcomed back by the rest of the players as the national team prepares for this fall's FIFA Women's World Cup in China.

Former captain Charmaine Hooper, defender Sharolta Nonen, and forward Christine Latham were suspended after failing to attend an exhibition series against China in August in a dispute with the Canadian Soccer Association over national team residency camps.

The suspensions ended in November. Hooper and Latham are also eligible to be carded and receive federal funding.

"The suspension is lifted," national team coach Even Pellerud confirmed Friday.

But none of the players were invited to attend a national team training camp, which began Jan. 21 in Vancouver and ends March 8.

"I didn't see that was the right thing to do," said Pellerud. "I needed to honour the girls that stood up for us in the fall and performed well in the Gold Cup and before. There was no reason to not select the same group of players."

The national team used a 4-0 win over Jamaica to secure a berth at the World Cup during November's CONCACAF Gold Cup tournament in California. Canada lost 2-1 in overtime to the U.S. in the Gold Cup final.

Pellerud said the three "would be considered" for future training camps.

Even if the three are invited back, they could receive a cold reception.

"I don't know how the team would react," said captain Christine Sinclair. "It would be interesting.

"I think the team has moved on. We performed very, very well without them. I think originally people were worried if we would be good (without them). We did better. I think it's over."

The three players had threatened a lawsuit over their suspension, but later backed off on that idea.

They maintain they were being punished for not committing soon enough to a residency program funded by Greg Kerfoot, the millionaire owner of the USL's Vancouver Whitecaps.

The players believe the program pressures women to play for the Whitecaps' women's team, a charge the CSA denies.

The three said they planned to take their case to the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, an independent body. A centre spokesman said Friday confidentiality rules prevented him from saying if a complaint had been received.

A spokesman for the CSA also couldn't say if the group had gone to the centre.

Telephone calls and e-mails to Hooper were not immediately returned.

Pellerud said to prepare the national team for the World Cup he has set up eight exhibition games to date, but hopes to play a total of between 12 and 15.

The team will travel to China for a pair of games in May. Pellerud said the series will be an important learning experience for the team.

"My plan is to get the players used to that environment, hopefully to play in big stadiums," he said. "They will get to know the Chinese culture a little bit better and do what they need to do in May instead of September."

An exhibition game against the U.S. has also been confirmed and the team will compete at the Pan-American Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July.

Pellerud is currently talking to "three or four" other opponents.

"You need diversity," Pellerud said. "We for sure want to play good teams."

"I wouldn't mind that some of the games are not against the best teams in the world."

Sinclair, who was named the CSA's women's player of the year for 2006, said it's important the team focus on its preparation and not concentrate on the World Cup.

"The only way to look at it is month by month," she said. "We need to get ready for the next tournament and the Pan-Ams. If right now you focus on the World Cup solely, it will be overwhelming because it's so far away."

Canada finish fourth at the 2003 World Cup, losing to the U.S. in the bronze medal game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

The Suspensions Have Been Lifted

Pellerud said to prepare the national team for the World Cup he has set up eight exhibition games to date, but hopes to play a total of between 12 and 15.

The team will travel to China for a pair of games in May. Pellerud said the series will be an important learning experience for the team.

I think this may be the most revealing part of the article. How many games has the MNT lined up over the same period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

That articule is completely useless. It reads the suspensions have been lifted and in the next line describes the suspensions as having ended. Maybe I'm nit-picking here but there is a huge difference between the two.

David Milgard's sentence was "lifted" in 2000. Charles Manson's sentence will "end" in 2159.

And the suspensions ended/were lifted in November and this is the 1st we're hearing of it? What's up with that?

Re Sinclair's quote; Wrong thing to say whether she feels it or not. Could have just played it all diplomatic like but instead she comes off as a Pellerud toadie. She's got to be smarter than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, what Sinclair was quoted as saying is in fact a refreshingly honest (as opposed to a cautious diplomatic) reflection of the general consensus at camp and that she is NOT simply toadying to the coach because she IS smarter than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, sure. It occured to me....

But I'd have expect something more from a player who (liking it or not) is evolving into one of the long term leaders of the WNT.

She's as much as said to any other player who may feel a-grieved at this time or in the future to "shut up, get in line, or we'll right you off". Nice talk from the team captain.

Whether or not she agrees with the mutiniers is neither here nor there. She's talking to the press and a little more boring diplomacy might have been called for. Especially if by some miracle one of more of them are recalled to the NT at some point (injuries, whatever). I think the enviorment is probably poisoned against them quite enough.

P.S. Still curious about the suspensions. If the indefinate sentence was just reduced to X months which had run it's course or if it was in fact lifted. And if so, by whom exactly? Doubt we'll find out any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by Richard

She hasn't said anything of the sort. Furthermore, all you have to go on is a couple of sentences of quote by a journalist in one article and you're divining her mind!

C'mon Richard, you are the one putting words into Sinclair's mouth here, inventing an opinion you cannot or will not confirm, only in the opposite direction. You do it to support your thesis, which is dishonest enough as it is, as you are misrepresenting her opinion to save your bias.

So you are not in a position to accuse others of reading Sinclair wrongly just because it does not suit you. That is poor sportsmanship and bad logic buddy.

I see it that she is trying to do the right thing and keep the group united and stay focussed, as on no club or team should you be thinking about who is not there (at least until the end of a season or tournament), those who are there are the ones that have to make it happen. Or she is in fact siding with her coach and being a bit partisan, as was suggested. Or a bit of both.

In any case the quote does not favour her, as she is an important player for us but has yet to show herself as a real leader of the team, I think she is a long way from being, in terms of personality, what the three suspended players were for the women. But soon it seems it is a role she should take on and I hope she does it more subtley.

Who is captain of the women right now, has that been established for this group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not ascribing any opinion to Sinclair other than what she has already expressed publicly through the media. What I am objecting to is other people divining other thoughts in the woman's head on the basis of nothing but their own imagination and preconceived biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Cheeta feels that Sinclair should be a little more diplomatic when speaking to the press....Huh! This coming from a Hooper fan

Is it just me or does this seem more than a little ironic.

I find it ironic that a Pellerud fan thinks it ironic that a Hooper fan thinks Sinclair should be more diplomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rant Alert

I will beg everyones forgiveness. What can I say? It's just my childish attempt at keeping this topic going for another 16 pages and a foolish wish for some form of justice to be publicly exercised, whether I agree with the result or not. So what-the-Hell. Why not?

quote:Originally posted by Richard

She hasn't said anything of the sort. Furthermore, all you have to go on is a couple of sentences of quote by a journalist in one article and you're divining her mind!

To the 1st part; No?

And as to the 2nd part; Richard, I'm shocked. Shocked I say. Are you suggesting that something in the media may possible be misquoted, taken out of context or otherwise appear misleading when isolated from the events in question? Well, I have to say my faith in the journalistic arts is hence forth ruined forever, thank-you very much.

I don't know Captain Christine Sinclair at all so I will make no claim to divine her mind. But I will give her credit enough to take her at-her-word.

And I will read her words as a member of that great uneducated mass know as the "Lowest Common Denominator". A mass to which I unashamedly belong. So...

In order to do Captain Sinclair justice and not to take anything out of context I will keep in mind that the central topic of the interview was the ending/lifting of the suspensions of the mutiniers and their potential ability to rejoin the WNT. Captain Sinclair is quoted as saying;

"I don't know how the team would react, it would be interesting.

"I think the team has moved on. We performed very, very well without them. I think originally people were worried if we would be good (without them). We did better. I think it's over."

Since, to date, the Canadian Press hasn't with-tracted this quote or Captain Sinclair publicly offered further clarrification I'll stick to the black and white of it as there is no other reason to do otherwise.

Allow me to quote Fat Bastard; "Analysis"

"I don't know how the team would react, Fair enough. States the odvious. An undeniable truth, no?

But now we move onto the relm of opinion.

"I think the team has moved on. We performed very, very well without them.

I think Captain Sinclair's opinion of the performance of the WNT differs greatly from the opinions of a good many football observers. Including a great many of the LCDs on this site. And it unquestionably alighns her opinion firmly in step with the managers.

It's a very telling statement isn't it? In a mouthfull it says that Captain Sinclair feels the WNT is better off without the mutiniers than with them. Because it's either one or the other, and she's voluteering her opinon. Opinions being what they are, the statement being true or not, the teams Captain</u> has expressed as a matter of public record that the WNT is better off without the mutiniers than with them. This is important because...

We now move on to the dismissive;

"I think originally people were worried if we would be good (without them). We did better. I think it's over".

The questions surrounding the dispute between the mutiniers and Pellerud are summerised in black and white as being only an issue of the quality of the WNT. Their abiltiy to perform and deliver results. Right, wrong and fair are dismissed as irrelavent. And once again Captain Sinclair offers her opinion that the WNT has performed "better" without the muntiniers than with them. She further offers the opinion that she thinks "it's over".

That's pretty black and white to, Richard. And what can we draw from that? As I see it one of two things; Captain Sinclair is of the "opinion" that the mutiniers are in the wrong, have burnt their bridges and can not be welcomed back to the WNT. Or that there's no hope for the mutiniers to ever rejoin the WNT in spite of the legitimacy of their complaints?

Either way pretty damning for the three lasses concearned, and a statement of acceptance of managments line (for a still disputed matter never a absolutely good thing from the teams captain), or at best, an expression of the hopelessness of the mutiniers cause BY THE TEAM'S CAPTAIN.

I don't know what you lot out in Vancouver expect of your captains, and maybe things in Winnipeg are a just little bit behind the times, but we expect our captains to act as mediators between the players, a liason between managment and the players and between the coachs and the players. How can any player approach Captain Sinclair with a complaint now? How is she suppose to put out the little fires before they become blazes?

She's as much as volunteered the opinion that the mutiniers, without trial or cause of recource, are in the wrong and getting all they deserve or are hopelessly beyond help or justice and should be written off.

You can be an on-field leader, but that don't make you a teams captain. The managers maybe, but not the teams.

And there's a bloody big difference.

Not that it'll matter, but just the opinions of one of the Lowest Common Denominators who's tired of typing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Jon Que

Cheeta feels that Sinclair should be a little more diplomatic when speaking to the press....Huh! This coming from a Hooper fan

Is it just me or does this seem more than a little ironic.

:D

As good a 1st post as this site has seen in many a year.

My expectations of managment/authority exceed that of employees? Must be one of those "with authority comes responsabiltity" sort of things I was taught as a cub. Higher expectations from my so-called betters.

I don't mean to seem overly harsh on Christine Sinclair. But I do wish to highlight the fact that if she is to wear the captains armband for the WNT and take on the attention that comes with that honour, there are also far ranging responsabilities and that she has to be aware of and so, it isn't unreasonable to expect that people might not interput her words in quite the way she'd wish. She has to be careful.

She's got to be more a politician, as unnatural as that may feel. I'm sorry, but it's a job requirement. If it's more burden than she's willing to accept there's not hurt in remaining "just" on-field leader.

She can't allow herself to become a pawn in these disputes. She isn't defending the commitment and sacrifice of her current team mates by writting off the contributions of her former team mates no matter how she personaly feels on the current matters. All she's doing is aligning herself with "managment" and she can't remain neutral while doing that.

And she has to be neutral to be approachable by the players.

:(

Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm just barking at the moon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinclair has not in any way written off the earlier contributions of her former teammates, she has merely expressed the not unreasonable opinion that under the circumstances the team has performed better without them. Anybody is free to disagree with her assessment and clearly some here do. What she was quoted as saying is not in any way a betrayal or toadying, just an opinion. Not one person in this forum can guarantee that after what has transpired the team would perform better now and in the coming months with these three players included, especially their ringleader. Indeed, I suggest that on balance their addition to the squad now would be more disruptive and unsettling than constructive. Their time has passed largely as a result of their own doing, they've made their contribution which nobody has denied, time to move on. There is plenty of depth in Canadian women's soccer now with other players who are more than competent, ready and willing to take their places. Nobody is indispensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by Richard

I am not ascribing any opinion to Sinclair other than what she has already expressed publicly through the media. What I am objecting to is other people divining other thoughts in the woman's head on the basis of nothing but their own imagination and preconceived biases.

First, what you wrote:

"Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, what Sinclair was quoted as saying is in fact a refreshingly honest (as opposed to a cautious diplomatic) reflection of the general consensus at camp and that she is NOT simply toadying to the coach because she IS smarter than that?"

Which 100% disproves your protests above. All you are doing is divining thoughts on the basis of nothing but your own imagination and preconceived biases.

Unless you can give us a single piece of data that would substantiate what appears to be blatant hypocrisy and intellectual *****-footing on your part.

Edit: Can't believe they actually censored the word "pus.sy" on this board, that is pathetic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Winnipeg (brilliant) and Barcelona (ah, the Ramblas and the tapas at Ciudad Condal). Nice to know there's sanity out there and not just buffoonery.

People have oft quoted Christine Sinclair as being the on-field leader of the the WNT. So, out of curiosity, I go to the CSA, and check the game capsules. I looked at all the big games the WNT has played since she joined them 6 years ago. Every one of them - World Cup qualifying, Olympic qualifying, Tournament semis and finals (Gold, Algarve, Peace, etc). And what I found really surprised me... it seems amazingly strange. I don't think she's ever scored a goal in one in six years. And as a striker, that kind of rules out leadership by example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, perhaps I should have clarified. I don't count preliminary round 6-0 games against banana republics that we could field 4 or 5 teams and still beat as big games. We played three big games in thsoe tournaments:

2003 WWC

quarter-final 1-0 (China) - Hooper

semi-final 1-2 (Sweden) - Lang

2004 Olympic qualifying (or lack thereof)

semi-final 1-2 (Mexico) - Jamani

The same thing is there in the other tournaments pressure games, and like I said, it took me by surprise too. I have no doubt she'll get over it one day and be a big game scoring monster, but it's been six years now without one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, the ladies in the residency camp surely are conscious of the fact that they are in a precarious situation if they say anything that can be construed as 'hurting the team' and by the team, I mean pretty much everything but the 'team' - i.e., the snug arrangement with the CSA and Pellerud and Kerfoot's extraordinary generosity).

I hardly expect young Sinclair to say anything different. And I can't really blame her.

However, the questions have still not been answered. Letting the suspension run its course is not clearing up the issue that triggered it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

If Hooper's lawyers really believed they had a case you can be sure it would have been before the courts before now.

Not necessarily. Before litigation - which is expensive - most sane and reasonable people exhaust non-judicial mechanisms before taking the step. So taking it to the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre (or whatever its called) before civil litigation would be the logical and reasonable (not to mention affordable) thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...