Women's Team in Turmoil?

[Cheeta]

Couple of parting thoughts/shots..

If Roy Keane could put on an Ireland shirt again after "The Meltdown", I'm not worrying one second about not seeing Charmaine Hooper in Canada red a-gin.

Keeping with Hooper, there's been mention of her mouthing off the program in the past. Her being difficult. Well two things in that regard. A). Has anything she ever said been wrong? Maybe I'm forgetting something but she seems to be batting 1,000% so far. And . The Shop Stewart allways gets the trouble maker label, rightly or wrongly. But every work-place needs one. Absolutely needs one.

Re; Grizzly

As far as hearing both sides of the story, I think there are three issues

1) the W-League playoff game

2) the China game

3) the residency program

Maybe, a-bit, and yes. But I'll add the big one for me is player tampering. And we're not talking about a club team manager here. We're talking about the WNT manager.

When the WNT manager, who has complete authority over who is and who is not on the WNT is telling a WNT player to break her contract in order to join his residency program it can't be framed in any other way than abusive intimidation.

And until it's shown those e-mails are fake and this is all just slanderous lies I'll take people, who've stuck their neck out on this, at their word thank you.

This is a mess. A bloody mess. And yes, I think Trillium is right. There'll be a wee cool off period and then Pellerud will be freed to pursue new opportunities. But how long that time cushion will be who knows?

[Mark Bick]

I think it could be argued that Hooper IS the most influencial canuck soccer icon of the last 10,15 years....and with a touch of delicious irony, it was her actions in '99 that resulted in Pellerud snagging his gig....

Prior to the '99 WWC, numerous players, led by Hooper, complained about the preparations for the tourney. One of Pipe's brilliant responses was that if the women's team didn't qualify for Sydney, other priorities would snag the funding, the women's team would find themselves on the sidelines in 2000. After Canada was eliminated, Hooper let go in the press, stating that the women's program had to have steady, year- by -year funding, befitting their 40% membership in the CSA.

Ofcourse the CSA reacted to Hooper's outburst by cutting her funding....you have to admire their consistency. There was some pressure on the CSA, and by the fall of '99, not only was there funding for the women in 2000, they managed to find the dough to go overseas and hire a couple of hotshots-- Pellerud and his wife!

If those e-mails are true, then Pellerud has to resign. I feel a bit sorry for Kerfoot, a residency program is something that we would have killed for in the past. ... yet you first of all don't put this in place in secrecy --- perhaps you could keep the source of the funding away from the public--- but this should have been out front, in the open (and what does this say about our soccer press...that they didn't hear about it...or went along with the subterfuge?)

I don't buy for a second the argument that Richard and others put forward...that this is life, that you have to move to remain part of the team. The money makes the request easier, but the CSA represents the entire country, and they should have had all the players fly in for a meeting, tell them that in six months they would like to have the players train in Van...is this a problem for anyone...and it doesn't mean their exclusion ( wouldn't $20,000 give flexibility for a player to fly in , hotels and meals, for a few crucial months?)

Secondly, the W-league is vital for development of the Women's game. You can't have Pellerud suggest you break contracts, talk to the Duze about a gig with the Whitecaps...especially while you may be getting subsidized rent for a mansion from the owner ( instead of allowing Pellerud a soft landing, couldn't Kerfoot use his bucks more wisely...like sponsering World Football Pages!) Pellerud and others want to suggest this is business as usual....but it is sleasy and again shows how the CSA is desperate ---will bend over--- for bucks.

Hooper does seem to have a healthy ego, probably getting to the end of her playing career. I can see why Neil, Sinclair want to keep the program going forward, grateful for the funding that will probably let them devote the immediate future to full-time training. Yet....

...this was made possible by Hooper's career--- that initially helped shine a light on the gal's program, and her bravery in '99 (along with a few other pioneers) that kicked the old boys in the gonads, got them to take the women's program seriously. Flaws and all, she's simply the best, and reqardless of her current actions, her teammates should have pulled a quick wobble,perhaps force a resolution. They -We- owe her a great deal.

Finally, Trillium , nice to see you back! You once mentioned -in the old days- that you wrote for Frank magazine. Are you doing - or tempted- to write about Canuck footy?

[Kaylee]

It's great to see some of the thoughtful analysis that is starting to happen on this board (for example from Mark Bick above) and thanks REF for the welcome. BTW, I found this response to the Globe and Mail article that I thought was worth sharing.

_________________________________________________________________

Randy Wachtin from Victoria, Canada writes: Expelleruding Charmaine,

Latham and Nonen from the national team is petty politicing and unjust.

It's a disgrace to women's soccer period.

Charmaine's record of a fiesty, fiery and feerless competitor on the

field has been a key component to our National and Mr. Pelleruds

success.

Many of the national team members and staff earning the extra $$ from

Kerfoot's generosity should take a moment to consider how the road was

paved for them by the shoe-stringing senior members over the past

decade.

I am sure that I am not the first in line in nominating Charmaine

Hooper for an 'Order of Canada' for outstanding achievment and service

to her country. I would hope the 20 players named to the recent Peace

Cup Roster would be in line ahead of me.

[Richard]

Kaylee you're just reinforcing what I believe is a unanimously favourable opinion in this forum at least of Charmaine Hooper's on-field ability and past contribution to the WNT. Nobody is arguing with you on this, least of all me. You are it is obvious, a great cheerleader for Charmaine Hooper but she alone is not responsible for whatever success the WNT has earned. Soccer is a team game and the credit must go to all the players and the coach, much as the latter probably irks you.

[Richard]

"The Shop Stewart allways gets the trouble maker label, rightly or wrongly. But every work-place needs one. Absolutely needs one."

Spoken like a true union man :-)

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

"The Shop Stewart allways gets the trouble maker label, rightly or wrongly. But every work-place needs one. Absolutely needs one."

Spoken like a true union man :-)

[^]

[Mark Bick]

Richard, first of all I would like to compliment you on the effort you put in on the BC Soccerweb --- it's the first place I go when I want to see what's new in Canadian soccer.

To a degree you're right, that Hooper isn't the patron saint of our women's program, did it all by herself. Pipe wasn't the only one that was caught off - guard by the success (attendance) at the Women's WC'99 , held in the States. I think that was partially the incentive for the CSA to get off their backsides and take the gal's game seriously. Yet Hooper's (and a few others) strong criticism ensured that they had to get a move on.

There's also a second aspect of that era...that while the Men's team was/is a priority, realistically the best we could hope for is a qualification every dozen years or so. Thanks to Title 9 in the States, and before universities there searched the globe, canuck gals had a leg up...so to speak, that a true visionary would have seen this as an opportunity to put Canada on the map, be a leader in promoting the women's game, truly serve the 40% of the CSA's membership.

Pipe will argue that he did take it seriously...but without my biggest complaint-- a vigourous press--- leeway lies on both sides.

Richard, you said that the residency program was widely known--- then why wasn't this astonishingly good news reported by you or any member of the press?

A quick note...postings on this board (and others) suggested that the first item of business for Pipe....after profusely thanking Kerfoot...was to put in a mechanism (governance) that would ensure that all parties were protected...it seems like a no-brainer.

[Richard]

I did not say that the residency program was widely know, I said Kerfoot's $1 million sponsorship was public knowledge and generally known about, certainly in this part of the world. Kerfoot however is an intensely private man so there was not a great deal of publicity surrounding it. Certainly his money made the program feasible and having seen the team play twice now in the past month I suggest it has been a great benefit. And thanks for the comments about the website. Sometimes its a challenge to find something new about Canadian soccer every day though - contributions are always welcome :-)

[Richard]

Soccer team wants to put controversy behind them

By JIM MORRIS

BURNABY, B.C. (CP) - Members of the women's national soccer team say they want to put a controversy involving three suspended players behind them.

But, as the team prepared to leave Monday for the inaugural Peace Queen Cup tournament in South Korea, the players were not sure they would welcome their former teammates back.

"They let our team down," said Christine Sinclair, the Burnaby, B.C., native named national team captain to replace veteran Charmaine Hooper.

"They wanted to do what they wanted to do and we've moved on. We don't expect them to be back and we're playing like they're not going to be back. We're going with the team we have."

Her thoughts were echoed by goalkeeper Erin McLeod.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Soccer/2006/10/22/2096516-cp.html

[3DMan]

Not quite sure why this thread is a Hooper-love-in. Regardless of whether Pellerud did some things wrong (and I do not think we've seen the full emails, so who knows what was taken out of context), and regardless of everything Hooper has done for the team in the past, she's acting like a 10-year old. If Hooper serously cared about the team she would have dealt w/ things in private and not tried to win a public relations battle in the media. She also wouldn't have been so childish and missed the China games in protest.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by 3DMan

Not quite sure why this thread is a Hooper-love-in. Regardless of whether Pellerud did some things wrong (and I do not think we've seen the full emails, so who knows what was taken out of context), and regardless of everything Hooper has done for the team in the past, she's acting like a 10-year old. If Hooper serously cared about the team she would have dealt w/ things in private and not tried to win a public relations battle in the media. She also wouldn't have been so childish and missed the China games in protest.

So far the only information made public has been provided to the press by the three players themselves. This is hardly the basis for making any kind of fair assessment of what really transpired.

[3DMan]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

So far the only information made public has been provided to the press by the three players themselves. This is hardly the basis for making any kind of fair assessment of what really transpired.

That was my point... that it should not have been played out in the press. That is the problem. It's childish. Embarrassing, really.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Grizzly, expressing the opinion that these three players' careers with the national team are over is not condemning the players or judging them as the culprits as you put it, it is merely expressing a pragmatic opinion. I have not asserted that they are guilty of any transgression other than acting unwisely, neither have I condemned the CSA or its agents. If you can find a post of mine that genuinely contradicts this please point it out. Until then you might hold back on your self-righteous accusations.

You on the other hand appear more than willing to express far from impartial opinions and make judgements. Beware the pot calling the kettle black.

I think Kaylee did a pretty good job of summarizing some of your extremely partial statements in the following:

quote:Your comments that "the CSA should stick to their guns" that "Charmaine Hooper is "too big for her boots and has brought the other players down with her" that "the players that didn't show up should be fired" that "the behaviour of Hooper and the other two should cost them their future with the national team" shows that you have already made up your mind despite urging everyone to not make judgments without hard facts.

Above and beyond that you answered Loyola's question

quote:Let's say for a second that Hooper version is true. What's your opinion?

with

quote:She still has forfeited her place in the national program.

As several other posters have mentioned it is hard to imagine anyone being more biased than you are and yet you ridiculously claim to be impartial. Once again you are entitled to express your opinions but save us your own erroneous evaluations of their fairness and objectivity. As far as the pot calling the kettle black this not the case because unlike you I am not claiming to be impartial nor is anyone else who has posted in this thread on either side of the debate.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by 3DMan

That was my point... that it should not have been played out in the press. That is the problem. It's childish. Embarrassing, really.

I agree 100% with you, but who was it that went to the press?

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I think Kaylee did a pretty good job of summarizing some of your extremely partial statements in the following:

Above and beyond that you answered Loyola's question

with

As several other posters have mentioned it is hard to imagine anyone being more biased than you are and yet you ridiculously claim to be impartial. Once again you are entitled to express your opinions but save us your own erroneous evaluations of their fairness and objectivity. As far as the pot calling the kettle black this not the case because unlike you I am not claiming to be impartial nor is anyone else who has posted in this thread on either side of the debate.

You and others insist on continuing your 'it's all the fault of the CSA - fire the coach - the three players are innocent of any and all wrongdoing' attitude. If ever there was a prejudiced pre-judging of the outcome of the case that's it.

Whatever! I have made my case, more than once. Let the chips fall where they may.

[terpfan68]

For once I agree with Richard. Let's not rush to judgment. I don't think the team needs the distraction for the upcoming Peace Tournament and Gold Cup.

[john tv]

It seems that these three players refused to play against China and this is the consequence.There are no other reasons and it also seems that the current team also has decided against these players.They indicated that they felt that they were let down.It is to bad that a career like Hooper will have this blemish on it.

[thepatriot]

Richard,

First, I certainly agree with you that the court of law will decide who is at fault. I do take issue though that you keep saying only the players and media have presented one side, that being the players side. The media have given the CSA ample opportunity to at least make a statement. It is certainly fair for them to say "no comment" because that is what their lawyers have advised, but if there was not wrong doing, which seems to be your opinion, why have the CSA not simply cleared the air on the issue. Yes, maybe I could be reading Even's emails wrong, but THEY WERE sent by him and DO NOT reflect well no matter what the intent might be. That is a FACT.

Secondly, you are also correct in saying the CSA has the right to dictate terms of their programs, but their "terms" also have to fall within the law. Are the terms or the actions set out by the CSA with regards to playing for the WNT legal. That seems to be the issue here, or at least what the girls are alleging. The girls in question, based on a track of emails think their rights as players have been violated and it would also "appear" they did not want to fall into legal trouble based on the CSA "terms" of playing on the national team with their club teams. The players ability and whether or not they should be playing any more or how much they may be missed is not an issue.

Third, I've known Even for quite some time and do respect the man from my dealings with him. That's all I can base my opinion on. I can at least take off the blinders and open my mind up to admit that this "may" have happened and if it did, it certainly needs to be addressed and rules have to be put in place to protect the players. If they (the girls) are on a mission to try and have Even dismissed they certainly have to accept any punishment or suspension they may face.

It is clear though, that you do not want to open your mind to at least admit that something like this "could" happen. That is unfortunate.

[3DMan]

quote:Originally posted by thepatriot

First, I certainly agree with you that the court of law will decide who is at fault. I do take issue though that you keep saying only the players and media have presented one side, that being the players side. The media have given the CSA ample opportunity to at least make a statement. It is certainly fair for them to say "no comment" because that is what their lawyers have advised, but if there was not wrong doing, which seems to be your opinion, why have the CSA not simply cleared the air on the issue. Yes, maybe I could be reading Even's emails wrong, but THEY WERE sent by him and DO NOT reflect well no matter what the intent might be. That is a FACT.

??????????????

That is FACT?????? How do you know that? Were you CC'ed on the emails? Though it is LIKELY Pellerud sent that text, changing text of an email is hardly a difficult thing. Regradless of that, I am sure the press put the worst statements from the emails in the articles, left out text leading up to those paragraphs/sentences/phrases, and took things out of context as much as possible to make the story as fantastic as possible.

Beyond that, email is notorious for the receiver not understanding the tone of the sender. He could have been saying right b/f the text we saw that it is really unfortunate but this is the only solution he can think of.

Regardless, leaking the emails to the press is destructive to the team and clearly shows selfishness. And if their lawyer advised it then one might guess he does not think they have a legal case so winning public opinion is their best bet. The CSA, on the other hand, might not be perfect but at least is not trying to draw this out in the press and in so doing put the team through turmoil.

[thepatriot]

quote:Originally posted by 3DMan

Well if you want to play that game, it is quite easy. Yes, maybe I do have a copy of the emails in question. Secondly I highly doubt the girls in question would "change" emails for their convience. It is quite easy to track those emails through servers and see how they were actually sent. You too are very guilty of assuming the press has somehow manipulated the story. Can you prove this? Probably not. Also, if what I do for a living suddenly came to a earth shattering stop and going through proper channels to get my job back did not work, I would do whatever is in my power to clear my name. That appears to be the case with the girls. Embarassment to the CSA is not the issue, unless you would rather sweep the whole issue under the carpet.

[The Ref]

There is lots of talk that the disclosure on this matter has all come from one side, that being the 3 players. It is the victim who file charges and initiate law suits, not the defendant. So don't expect the CSA or the Coach to start talking if they are the named defendants.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by thepatriot

Richard,

First, I certainly agree with you that the court of law will decide who is at fault. I do take issue though that you keep saying only the players and media have presented one side, that being the players side. The media have given the CSA ample opportunity to at least make a statement. It is certainly fair for them to say "no comment" because that is what their lawyers have advised, but if there was not wrong doing, which seems to be your opinion, why have the CSA not simply cleared the air on the issue. Yes, maybe I could be reading Even's emails wrong, but THEY WERE sent by him and DO NOT reflect well no matter what the intent might be. That is a FACT.

Secondly, you are also correct in saying the CSA has the right to dictate terms of their programs, but their "terms" also have to fall within the law. Are the terms or the actions set out by the CSA with regards to playing for the WNT legal. That seems to be the issue here, or at least what the girls are alleging. The girls in question, based on a track of emails think their rights as players have been violated and it would also "appear" they did not want to fall into legal trouble based on the CSA "terms" of playing on the national team with their club teams. The players ability and whether or not they should be playing any more or how much they may be missed is not an issue.

Third, I've known Even for quite some time and do respect the man from my dealings with him. That's all I can base my opinion on. I can at least take off the blinders and open my mind up to admit that this "may" have happened and if it did, it certainly needs to be addressed and rules have to be put in place to protect the players. If they (the girls) are on a mission to try and have Even dismissed they certainly have to accept any punishment or suspension they may face.

It is clear though, that you do not want to open your mind to at least admit that something like this "could" happen. That is unfortunate.

It is perfectly reasonable and quite correct for an organisation like the CSA to refrain from any public comment on a sub judice lawsuit such as this. The complainants may well find that going public has hurt their case.

I do not have blinkers on - far from it - I have not jumped to any conclusion and judged CSA and its staff or the players. My point all along has been that I will not do so without all the facts from both sides. This position has erroneously been interpreted by some, you included it would appear, as my absolving the CSA of all liability.

I have expressed the opinion that these three player's careers with the national team are likely over as a result of their actions. This is merely an opinion and I don't believe it is unreasonable. It is not in any way pre-judging that case at hand however, please do not confuse these two distinctly separate points.

[Mark Bick]

Richard - apologizes for suggesting that you knew about the residency- but you did acknowledge that Kerfoot's generous sponsership was widely known in the Lower Mainland. I would suggest that as a member of the press , you should have revealed - and request from the CSA how the money would be utilized - to the public. While what you write, discretion, is your choice , the mandate for the press is not to sit on a hot story like a million dollar gift, just to sastisfy Kerfoot's reluctance for the spotlight. Even before the recent dramatic turn of events, when you toss in the twenty players, their families and friends, the CSA etc., probably hundreds of people knew of the residency program....it was bound to get out. If Kerfoot allowed this information to be released to the press, it would have been a one week story... newspapers, Fox, the Score, Soccer Central, etc. Now we have this mess....

Richard, I think you've been strong in your responses, belief (about 20 now) but for one exception - you ducked Ed's valid argument. Charmaine and family were on their way to Vancouver 2 weeks before the matches against China to establish residency in Lotus Land...apparently her husband had been promised a job with the Whitecaps, so he quit his job in Chicago.... and then phoned at the last minute- apparently on the plane- not to come out to Vancouver. Then national Team manager Les Meszaros on August 9 not only informs Charmaine , but apparently the rest of the team (if you believe the original CP article) that since CH wouldn't commit to residency, her funding was cut. Richard, according to that timeline ---reported by the press (and I believe them about the e-mails sent to the teammates)--- what exactly did Charmaine do wrong?

I wouldn't blame her for not showing up for those friendlies-- as long as she let the CSA know in advance. This is a sad way to treat Hooper.... and I have a strong suspicion that this came about because Pellerud was pissed at her voicing her opinion about his giving the Ottawa players a pass while calling up the NJ gals.

[Guest Ed]

Well I suspect the reponse will be that the statements by Charmaine regarding the incidents re the flight to Vancouver are 'alleged' and not proven facts.

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Mark Bick

Richard - apologizes for suggesting that you knew about the residency- but you did acknowledge that Kerfoot's generous sponsership was widely known in the Lower Mainland. I would suggest that as a member of the press , you should have revealed - and request from the CSA how the money would be utilized - to the public. While what you write, discretion, is your choice , the mandate for the press is not to sit on a hot story like a million dollar gift, just to sastisfy Kerfoot's reluctance for the spotlight. Even before the recent dramatic turn of events, when you toss in the twenty players, their families and friends, the CSA etc., probably hundreds of people knew of the residency program....it was bound to get out. If Kerfoot allowed this information to be released to the press, it would have been a one week story... newspapers, Fox, the Score, Soccer Central, etc. Now we have this mess....

Richard, I think you've been strong in your responses, belief (about 20 now) but for one exception - you ducked Ed's valid argument. Charmaine and family were on their way to Vancouver 2 weeks before the matches against China to establish residency in Lotus Land...apparently her husband had been promised a job with the Whitecaps, so he quit his job in Chicago.... and then phoned at the last minute- apparently on the plane- not to come out to Vancouver. Then national Team manager Les Meszaros on August 9 not only informs Charmaine , but apparently the rest of the team (if you believe the original CP article) that since CH wouldn't commit to residency, her funding was cut. Richard, according to that timeline ---reported by the press (and I believe them about the e-mails sent to the teammates)--- what exactly did Charmaine do wrong?

I wouldn't blame her for not showing up for those friendlies-- as long as she let the CSA know in advance. This is a sad way to treat Hooper.... and I have a strong suspicion that this came about because Pellerud was pissed at her voicing her opinion about his giving the Ottawa players a pass while calling up the NJ gals.

We certainly have the story from Hooper's point of view, second or third hand, as reported/interpreted in the press. We also have what are presumably Hooper's own words on her website. We don't yet have anything from the CSA's or anybody else's point of view. Are you willing to make a judgement based on information provided only by one side of this dispute, I'm not? I reserve judgement until ALL the facts are in.

If I was aware of the Kerfoot grant then certainly the mainstream media was aware. I recall hearing Christine Sinclair talk about it and its benefits in an interview on TV and/or radio some months ago. She was lauding the fact that it meant the 20 players who benefitted could focus 100% on the national team program and preparation for WC without having to worry about finding distracting and disruptive McJobs on the side in order to survive.