analyst Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Hooper has been a great player for the WNT and the most highly skilled. But she's 38 years old and Pellerud should be bringing in younger players. Latham is a bull on the field with limited skill. I'm not sorry to see her go. Pellerud has not developed the team - they play too much long ball kick and run soccer. Ian Bridge with the under 20 womens team is just as bad. If the newspaper has accurately reported the content of the EMail exchange with Pellerud then he should either be fired or suspended without pay for pressuring the players to break their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by The Ref try this http://www.charmainehooper.com/news.html Thanks. Interesting comments by Hooper. If what she said happened to be true Pellerud must be fired right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 What a shame on two counts: 1. Two of our best players (Hooper & Nonen) and a third useful player (Latham) are alienated and will not be playing for us. 2. What was a magnanamous donation, unheard of in Canadian soccer history, has deteriorated into something resembling bribery. Those responsible should be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 "Those responsible should be fired." Including those players who failed to show up when called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANC2 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard "Those responsible should be fired." Including those players who failed to show up when called. Richard sometimes you sound like a damage control officer for CSA & Pipe. This is huge and the CSA should take action, but they won't because Pipe only cares about the $$$ from The Whitecaps owner. Pellerud is wrong and does have a conflict as the emails show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard "Those responsible should be fired." Including those players who failed to show up when called. Let's say for a second that Hooper version is true. What's your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 She still has forfeited her place in the national program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ANC2 Richard sometimes you sound like a damage control officer for CSA & Pipe. This is huge and the CSA should take action, but they won't because Pipe only cares about the $$$ from The Whitecaps owner. Pellerud is wrong and does have a conflict as the emails show. Because I refuse to jump on a bandwagon that has, as its very best information, newspaper articles based solely on information leaked by one side of this dispute only, you brand me as an apologist for the CSA. Where is your head? I avoid allowing passion to influence my assessment or preconceived notions or biasses, preferring to keep an open mind and reserving judgement until I know BOTH SIDES of the story. BUT, based on what I have read so far at the very least these three player's careers with the national team are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepatriot Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I'm sorry Richard, but you do seem very pro-CSA.....asking for "Both Sides??" I'm sorry, but The Globe and Mail is not some rag newspaper. It's one of Canada's most respected and they would not legally print something they could not prove to be true before hand as they too would be liable. Those emails DO exist and the fact that Pellerud advised and held $20,000 over the heads of our players is disgusting. Add that to the fact he told Latham to ignore a legally binding contract she had already signed. In any other business this type of leadership would not be tolerated. It seems quite clear and no doubt why the girls have sought legal advice. It appears they have a very damning case they can prove against the CSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 The new coach will invite all players to the team including Sharolta, Charmaine and Christine. This may end up happening sooner than expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard "Those responsible should be fired." Including those players who failed to show up when called. Sounds like they already haved been "fired" or "suspended", no? Richard, I am not completely on their side either. I think, to be eligible for full funding, they should compete as much as the other girls do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Thank you Ivan. I have not declared the CSA blameless in this business, I am just not willing to condemn everything and everybody to do with the CSA out of hand and pronounce the players guiltless without first hearing both sides of the story. Yes, the Globe and Mail is a reputable newspaper but they only got one side of the story and based their article on that. Yes, there may heve been some pressure applied to the players. So what, they are grownups and this is the real world. If the CSA or one or more of its employees is proven to have acted outside the law then they should suffer appropriate consequences. Till then let's stick to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I'll wager one thing, if it were not for the not insubstantial money at stake there would be nowhere near as much fuss being made by these three players over this. This is not about loyalty to the national team program it is about money and sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANC2 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard Thank you Ivan. I have not declared the CSA blameless in this business, I am just not willing to condemn everything and everybody to do with the CSA out of hand and pronounce the players guiltless without first hearing both sides of the story. Yes, the Globe and Mail is a reputable newspaper but they only got one side of the story and based their article on that. Yes, there may heve been some pressure applied to the players. So what, they are grownups and this is the real world. If the CSA or one or more of its employees is proven to have acted outside the law then they should suffer appropriate consequences. Till then let's stick to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I'll wager one thing, if it were not for the not insubstantial money at stake there would be nowhere near as much fuss being made by these three players over this. This is not about loyalty to the national team program it is about money and sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by An Observer To me, Pellerud should be sacked for his email exchange with Latham if it is true. It seems clear that he is putting enormous pressure on one of his players to break a contract and play in Vancouver. Frankly, that is out of order. Kerfoot is seemingly being a good samaritan and funding the program and unaware of that. Possibly the Whitecaps as well. Agreed...though would add that I thought Pellerud should be sacked prior to this anyway, just for the awful style of play (and ultimately, un-successful) the women's team adopts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANC2 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ANC2 Apology for that. Yes its about money on both ends and that is exactly the argument. Pellerud would not have cared one way or the other where they played had it not been for the money and it source. Clearly in the past he cared little where the players played. Anyone who cannot see that, is simply blind to the fact. Then to hold it over the players as stated in the email in theory shows his allegiance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Quote from the Toronto Star today: "A title search revealed that the house where Pellerud lives is worth more than $6.5 million, but Pellerud wouldn't say how much rent he pays." I wonder how much a house like this rents for in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by The Ref Quote from the Toronto Star today: "A title search revealed that the house where Pellerud lives is worth more than $6.5 million, but Pellerud wouldn't say how much rent he pays." I wonder how much a house like this rents for in Vancouver. With all due respect Ref, this has very little to do with the important issue involving our WNT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ANC2 Apology for that. Yes its about money on both ends and that is exactly the argument. Pellerud would not have cared one way or the other where they played had it not been for the money and it source. Clearly in the past he cared little where the players played. Anyone who cannot see that, is simply blind to the fact. Then to hold it over the players as stated in the email in theory shows his allegiance Until Kerfoot became involved the CSA was not able to run the kind of residential camps it has done this year either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 quote:Originally posted by The Ref Quote from the Toronto Star today: "A title search revealed that the house where Pellerud lives is worth more than $6.5 million, but Pellerud wouldn't say how much rent he pays." I wonder how much a house like this rents for in Vancouver. Nor should he have to. So what anyway, many corporations provide housing allowances to their senior executives as part of their remuneration package. I was before I retired. If Pellerud is being charged a subsidised rent then it is nothing more than another form of sponsorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Oops, I thought the CSA was the employer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by The Ref Oops, I thought the CSA was the employer. So? This is still a form of sponsorship and you surely don't believe this wasn't done without CSA knowledge if it is indeed true? Anyway, this is yet another instance of people drawing prejudicial conclusions from rumour and surmise not facts. Does anybody know how much rent Kerfoot is actually charging Pellerud or do we just have the oh so subjective 'low rent' statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Everything I say in this email should be read with a big caveat (ie. IF the allegations alleged by the 3 players against the CSA are true). Assuming that, it is a real shame as the likely scenario is Kerfoot pulling the funding for the women's program including letting Pellerud stay in a $6.5m house (seemingly not rented at market rates). Pellerud is not coming out of this (up this point) looking good. Its the old the cover up is worse than the original allegatiions. First, he denies in print ever "strongly suggesting" players move to Vancouver. The next day, emails appear that demonstrate the exact opposite. He is strongly pressuring one player to break their contract and play for the whitecaps. Second, when confronted with the claim about staying in Kerfoot's house, he states he pays rent for it (which by implication suggests no favours have been directed towards him by Kerfoot). It now emerges that the house is worth $6.5m (assuming true). It seems highly unlikely that he is paying market rates on the rent for house of that magnitude (if he pulls in that kinda of salary to pay that rent, there's something wrong and if he is that independently weatlhy, he would not be living in Kerfoot's house). He has to go for brining the CSA in to disrepute, unless he can clear his name and quickly. If he isn't relieved of his duties, than Pipe must go. No serious organisation would allow Pellerud to stay (whether or not he is an excellent coach). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepatriot Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard So? This is still a form of sponsorship and you surely don't believe this wasn't done without CSA knowledge if it is indeed true? Anyway, this is yet another instance of people drawing prejudicial conclusions from rumour and surmise not facts. Does anybody know how much rent Kerfoot is actually charging Pellerud or do we just have the oh so subjective 'low rent' statement? It's a plain and simple conflict of interest Richard. Kerfoot giving Pellerud a nice posh spot in Vancouver for dirt cheap and in return, the Whitecaps get the best Canadian players in the country. Of course, none of this "on the record" but it does not take a genius to make that conclusion. Also, if you read the Mallett article, I'm pretty sure there is a quote or two from Pellerud stating his opinion, but after reading the emails it's obvious he's backed himself into a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvin mellobell Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by The Ref Quote from the Toronto Star today: "A title search revealed that the house where Pellerud lives is worth more than $6.5 million, but Pellerud wouldn't say how much rent he pays." I wonder how much a house like this rents for in Vancouver. Rent is whatever the owner chooses, but the actual benefit would reflect market value. The monthly mortgage payment on a $6.5m house at 25 years and 5.25% would be $38,734.68PI. But mortgages in this case could be up to 50 years which would bring it down to about $30,672.14PI. One would expect rent to cover financing costs (which might be lower) plus taxes (which should be significant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.