Jump to content

Women's Team in Turmoil?


Breakwood

Recommended Posts

This is exactly the difference between overt and clear process and ambiguous and murky process. The CSA has a notorious history of murky, unclear and in a lot of cases incompetent decision making and CSA means specific people who have been running it for the last twenty years and certainly refers to Pipe.

Integrity is earned and accrued through peoples experience with you. The CSA has earned very little and demands a lot. The imbalance is indicative of someone with little integrity.

The CSA can and have exhibited greed in the past as far as Kerfoot I dont have any direct info on his level of greed but so far what I have heard about him from the players posts and articles I am not impressed. The CSA, Pipe and Kerfoot have a lot of apologising to do if even a touch of what Charmaine stated is true. And any honest soccer fan in this country would expect that all of these people account for themselves and an independant review of the issue be forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 456
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Boy those CSA lawyers are as slow as the CSA themselves

if the CSA felt that the womens are lying why have they not come out with the evidence yet

the delay seems to indicated that it either being manufacturered right now in the lawyers office or they hope by the time Canada qualify for the world cup showing the services of those players was not neccesary thus justify their ommision from the program and everything would be swept under the carpet since the selected squad had accomplish the goal that was set and the program is on course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by sj

Boy those CSA lawyers are as slow as the CSA themselves

if the CSA felt that the womens are lying why have they not come out with the evidence yet

the delay seems to indicated that it either being manufacturered right now in the lawyers office or they hope by the time Canada qualify for the world cup showing the services of those players was not neccesary thus justify their ommision from the program and everything would be swept under the carpet since the selected squad had accomplish the goal that was set and the program is on course.

One reason for Csa silence may be that the matter in question has been kept away from the Csa staff. After the denunciation there is a lot of prepared statements, which cannot be believed. What has come to light now I think is a long history of inadequate management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

You really have a problem don't you. Maybe some counselling would help.

Yes, I agree 100% that this saga needs to be addressed properly and the facts revealed and people held accountable for their actions, on both sides. Until then none of us really knows what transpired which has been my point all along, thanks for reinforcing it.

I must have a lot of free time, with nothing to do, or why else would I read insulting posts like these. I gotta get a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Richard

You really have a problem don't you. Maybe some counselling would help.

Yes, I agree 100% that this saga needs to be addressed properly and the facts revealed and people held accountable for their actions, on both sides. Until then none of us really knows what transpired which has been my point all along, thanks for reinforcing it.

I must have a lot of free time, with nothing to do, or why else would I read insulting posts like these. I gotta get a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the mainstream sports press seems to be having trouble dealing with this issue, it seems everyone is missing the point of the players not be carded by Sport Canada anymore ... who is the CSA giving the cards too ?

Who is replacing Hopper as A carded female ?

And is there not an appeal process outside the CSA on carding issues ?

One has to hope the Calgary lawyer studied sport law and has some experience with the issues of what Industry and Trade Canada has as responsibility for the corporate operations of the CSA to live up to its stated rules, and even more so where is the Minister of Sport ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by analyst

Do we know the whole story? Probably not, like when were the 3 players first told to consider moving to Vancouver, was it before any of them signed to play elsewhere? Richard does have a point that we need more information.

They lost the $20,000 from Kerfoot, which was meant to help players reside in Vancouver so the team could be more successful, but did

they also lose their funding from Sport Canada.

But I think there's enough information in the EMails from Pellerud for us to indict Pellerud. Ther's not enough information to exonerate the three women, but enough to nail Pellerud.

The controversy helps sell papers.

Richard - you criticized me for my posts in this thread. Does your criticism extend to the above post of mine - a post which does support your call for obtaining more information before passing judgement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by analyst

Richard - you criticized me for my posts in this thread. Does your criticism extend to the above post of mine - a post which does support your call for obtaining more information before passing judgement?

Not at all, this was a fair post except I don't agree about condemning Pellerud outright based on evidence provided only by the three players concerned without also hearing evidence from the the CSA and its staff which we have not yet had.

As for the carding money question, here is an extract from a Toronto Star article:

"As carded athletes and members of the squad, the two women [Charmaine Hooper and Christine Latham] had been receiving $1,500 a month. Hooper and Latham have not been cut from the team and have not had their government funding revoked, but they haven't been paid since August.

Kevan Pipe, the Canadian Soccer Association's chief operating officer, says the women's carding status is "on hold," and they won't be paid until their conflict with the national team is resolved.

He said Sport Canada's funding year starts in September, and the CSA tries to settle funding disputes by January. In the meantime, he said, Hooper and Latham are still carded, and still in the national team's player pool. "We still have the ability to restart their funding at any point in time," Pipe said.

Sport Canada spokesperson Josianne Jalbert said all carded athletes are obligated to be available for games and practices, but that only Sport Canada can make a final decision about an athlete's funding."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161726632309&call_pageid=1044529386722&col=1044529386490

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article says

"Defender Sharolta Nonen, a non-carded player, left the team in solidarity with Hooper and Latham."

I heard through the soccer grapevine that she has had problems with Pellerud in the past and had her money reduced or suspended.

Can we ask for a list of the carded athletes? Is that not our right as taxpayers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharolta was not on the team for the 2005 year and thus was not carded, and when she rejoined the team in the spring of this year, my understanding was that the allocations for the number of carded athletes for the women's program were already determined/done for the cycle. I would assume had all of this not had happened and Sharolta continued in the program, her carding status would have been been reinstated for the next cycle.

Some provinces releases a list of their carded athletes. Quebec, for instance, has all their athletes getting government funding (at various levels) listed at their site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSA hopes to bridge gap

By NEIL DAVIDSON

TORONTO (CP) - Disgruntled veteran players and threats of a lawsuit don't make for a good advertisement for women's soccer in Canada, the president of the Canadian Soccer Association acknowledged Thursday.

"I would agree. It's not the situation we should be in and we're hoping the players will decide against going to the court and rather come to the CSA," Colin Linford said in an interview.

"We have mechanisms to deal with some of these issues and I would much rather them come and talk to us and let's see where we can address their concerns within the structure of the CSA."

Linford was referring to an internal appeals process.

The CSA boss made his comments after telling a news conference of his desire to make playing for Canada a more attractive option and getting more people involved in the sport.

Longtime captain Charmaine Hooper, defender Sharolta Nonen and forward Christine Latham have threatened a lawsuit over being cut from the national team.

The CSA says the three were suspended for failing to play in a pair of exhibition games against China in August.

The players argue they are being punished for not committing soon enough to a residency program, funded by Greg Kerfoot, the millionaire owner of the Vancouver Whitecaps. The residency program would see national team players in Vancouver for camps leading up to next summer's World Cup and possibly the 2008 Olympics.

Linford's comments could be seen as an olive branch for the three players if they decide to accept it. Their lawyer, Calgary's Alan Ross, has already said an appeal with the CSA may be an avenue to follow.

Asked whether the appeal process could lead to the three being reinstated, Linford said player selection is up to the coaching staff.

"I would hope that by meeting their concerns, talking to them, seeing if we can address them, we'll open a door that maybe some of them can walk through."

The women's team is in South Korea for the inaugural Peace Queen Cup tournament. Canada opens Saturday against Italy.

The event is a warmup for the Gold Cup in late November, which serves as a World Cup qualifier.

Hooper, Latham and Nonen have a combined 243 caps and 87 goals for Canada. Hooper has scored 71 goals in 131 appearances.

Their stance has caused a split in the team, with the other players seemingly opposed to their decision not to join the team for the games against China.

With Canada looking to host the 2011 Women's World Cup, the association has plenty of incentive to settle such a public spat.

Linford, who was elected president in May, also seemed to suggest that his association could have handled its sponsorship agreement with Kerfoot better.

Kerfoot avoids the media spotlight and his deal to help fund a residency program for the Canadian women was not made public.

"I want benefactors. Let's be honest. All associations need a benefactor," Linford said. "What I want from a benefactor (is someone) who says to me 'Here's the money. Now you decide where you're going to spend it."'

Asked whether he had that in the Kerfoot situation, Linford replied: "Not to my knowledge - I have to say I'm new on the block - no."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think no matter what the formal outcome, if these three players are called up again it will just cause yet more damage to the morale of the team and hence it's performance because of everything that has transpired and the ill-feeling it has caused on both sides.

None of us can know what the outcome of any enquiry might be but I suspect what may well happen is the CSA will agree to the lifting of their suspension and reinstatement at least of their carding money for now which would defuse the situation and perhaps negate any demands for an enquiry or lawsuit, but they won't be called for any more games or camps or perhaps one last token call made. Nobody can sue for not being selected to a national team or not being called up for a training camp. If they're no longer part of the program then they're not eligible for any Kerfoot dollars and renewal of their carded status becomes moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed…you may know how it is, nearing the end of an article; you pull back/wimp out….and I was still a bit giddy from our Gold Cup triumph. Getting to the Hex is the benchmark—that even if you don’t make it to the Big Show, there’s a relatively short, almost bearable (about 9 months) bereavement till when the healing process begins – viewing the WC.

Cheeta- “Concacaf Trash” was obviously hyperbole, that in those days I was still besotted by our Nats- and I can partially explain the despair as the Yanks started to pull away….I came on board the Canuck soccer scene during the mid-70’s, a loyal fan of the Whitecaps , catching a few WCQ matches held at Empire Stadium. The Yanks were our natural rivals, a Scots – Limey scenario (same 10-1 population ratio….but from ’76 –to the late 80’s, we always managed to find a squad of hewers of wood, carriers of water who possessed skill, blended with big hearts…we seemed to have the edge.)

While the ratio in the NASL for domestic players to imports was roughly the opposite of the current MLS requirements, with the free movement of NA players, in the heyday of the NASL, the number of canucks/yank starters across the league was about even, a big boost for our national squad.(I was hoping that a Canadian team in the MLS might again bring free – to – apply – your – trade- on- any- team scenario for both nations….the yanks were smart to put in their haywire procedure for Toronto FC.)

With 2 spots truly open (Mexico being disqualified) we didn’t build on our ’86 qualification, failing to get to Italy’90….the yanks did, hosted in ’94,developed a new league and their annual kit sponsorship is greater than the CSA’s budget…..I don’t believe we can even be spotted in their rear view mirror.

Now the yanks don’t care if they play us, we’re not a priority…and that drop in esteem/their success still feels like a gut – wrench….and I’m not the only one who has recently spoken out on that hard- to- shake downer….. For example, a gentleman you can catch every Thursday night….

A quick detour - I would like to plug “the soccer show” on the fan 590 (linked on sportsnet.ca). While they don’t archive the show like Inside Soccer radio, it’s available on “hot audio” for a week, till the next installment. When I first clicked on the show and heard the silky tone of Brit ex-pat host Nigel Reed, I thought we’d be in for a heavy diet of Euro-snob talk about the glam game overseas – but that’s not the case. Yes, they do visit the Prem, Italy, competitions “ over there”….but they devote a healthy chunk to the Toronto, Canadian scene. Mr. Reed keeps the show rolling, high energy, usually features 2-3 guests – the hour goes quickly.We also have his co-host, Robert Iarusci

While you would like to have a more focused outpouring from the former Nats mainstay – especially in his criticism of the CSA, he usually drops in a few tasty tidbits about his playing days, recently reminiscing about his team mates Pele and Johan Cruyff. I wish that he would work harder, fill 5 minutes per show with interviews with acquaintances (not just big shots, also include former coaches, players, administrators etc.)

You can also tell that the ‘what went wrong that we can’t even see the yank’s dust” rankles Mr. Iarusci till this day, a heaviness in his voice when he speaks on this issue.

Last week he commented on the recent controversy with the women’s team – and echoing a few posts-he suggested that perhaps the greatest travesty was not the exclusion of the 3 players, but that Mr. Kerfoot’s generosity is being squandered on a “punt and run” style that he witnessed recently , when the gals played Italy in Toronto last June.

I could handle 90 minutes of this show.

The Ref – thanks for the kind words- but since the press seldom departs for the train station- who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now back to the main topic…

I’ve always liked Andrea Neil – her longevity with the squad, her style of play, the fact that she penned a few articles for the late (a shame it folded before it’s potential was fully exploited) “offtheball.com.”, and on a small personal note, when the voyageurs sponsored t-shirts for our squad at the ’99 WWC, I drew Andrea.

So it was with gentle laughter that I viewed her contributions to Slam’s Jim Morris article “Soccer team wants to put controversy behind them”---that starts with the rather chilling, what have you done for me lately ….”She sided with Hooper in the past when the players argued for more money.”

Then she is quoted “At the beginning there was disappointment and frustration in not really knowing what was going on and wanting to be part of it”….which is probably a reference to when all the players received an e-mail on Aug.9 telling them that Hooper and Latham were no longer part of the residency program, recipients of the 20 grand.

So why didn’t Neil (described as the national team’s conscience) immediately get hold of Charmaine, find out what is happening, perhaps persuade her to head to the Rock, hold a team meeting there, try to straighten it out. Apparently the desire to show team unity was short – lived… “..at this point we have moved on mentally quite a while ago”….How do you gut your Captain so easily (a side issue to explore is perhaps Hooper wasn’t/isn’t popular with the rest of the squad.) I can’t help but contrast the current pragmatic “let’s move forward” view of Sinclair, McLeod with the concerns, bravery – cohesion- expressed by more than a few veteran players in ’99.

The statement released by the players did seem to have talking points provided…and it doesn’t really hold water. The players claim they turned their back on Hooper and Latham because they didn’t show up for games against China, leaving them short-booted…which makes you think the games were in China, not Nfld. It’s probably safe to say that the players didn’t hit the tarmac at St. John’s an hour before the 1st match…they arrived a few days earlier. So when Hooper didn’t arrive, it was time for Les Meszaros to pull out the cell, phone Charmaine…”What’s with the 180- a few weeks ago, I had to yank you off a plane – and now that I want you at O’Hare – you don’t show up!”

So when the two players didn’t arrive (we actually aren’t aware when the CSA were informed that they would be no-shows), you immediately go down the depth chart, youth squads and call a few players up (how easy would it have been to fly in a few players from the GTA who would have been thrilled to be part of the team) …if a few players had come down with food poisoning, hurt in the first scrimmage—they would have done nothing? There’s something queasy about the team’s willingness to heave –ho their captain so nonchalantly.

The recently hit the stands issue of Inside Soccer magazine (Ed, sorry to see you’re absent from the contributors, robbing me of the opportunity to provide my usual “glowing” feedback) that started with 17 people voicing their opinion on “Soccer: making it work in Canada.” It had roughly the same guys/gals ratio (15/2) as you spot when you visit the CSA’s website, click “directory” and then “board of directors” (20/1)

Joining Nicole Hartrell for the female perspective was Hooper, who spoke about improving the game by looking at the current rules and laws of the sport. Taking in recent events, I think she would now have gone in a different direction, perhaps working off an observation made by fellow contributor Paul Stalteri.

Stalteri’s main focus was to suggest that Canadian players need a higher profile in Canada, by sponsorship, more games, that infrastructure has to be improved. He also dropped this in…”Our governing body, the Canadian Soccer Association needs to be more transparent so that its decisions are made public and its officials are held accountable.” A bold statement by a current member of our Men’s squad and it doesn’t have that usual generic, throw away complaint feel about the CSA….you sense it was deliberately bold, that he could expand on that observation with specific scenarios.

Pipe’s tenure with the CSA has him drifting into J. Edgar Hoover-ville ( no, I would only suggest that he dons a dress on Halloween, his collection of dossiers are slim) , that those monitoring, deciding his fate is basically a revolving door ( probably an average 5-6 year stint as a director, president) , that his lengthy service and abilities (he seems like a smooth (if somewhat predictable) operator -smart in dealing with internal politics- probably conducts a killer GM, numerous contacts at home, abroad) makes it difficult for a “newbie” to vigorously question his performance, mount a campaign for his departure. The longer he stays, his status as irreplaceable, grows.

His experience definitely shows in “Hooper 3 – Shafted Again!”, his recent interview on “the Soccer Show “ - deftly handled – not a waver in the vocal chords as he mentions legal proceedings, that this is in Pellerud’s purview…he would almost have you believe he’s just a bystander in this situation….poor guy, compelled by others wishes, regulations, to do the dirty deed (I’m sure he was gutted when he had to make that call to Sport Canada…at least he didn’t shilly - shally.)

This compares to newly – elected President Colin Linford’s confession that he is distressed – negative publicity- by the 3 players exploring legal action (did he think Hooper would take this quietly?), not up to speed on the Kerfoot sponsorship “… I have to say that I’m new to the block”. Pipe may have played a part in dropping him in it….but you can see how he would be dependant on the COO’s experience.

He also strikes me as a bit lame, coming out with the lets get behind (regardless of your roots) Canada ”Back Home Team at Fifa U-20”…people don’t respond to that – even those disturbed dudes, the Italian Soccer Fanatics, who were probably born in Canada, would cheer on the Azzuri should they meet Canada in the final. That 495th such plea in the last decade is not going to sway the folks it’s intended to move. One benefit of that article…it confirmed that Linford indeed met the two point criteria to be President – possess twig and berries, a foreign passport (if I could get 4-1 odds, I’d lay down a twenty that in the CSA’s 94 year history, they’ve never had a Canadian - born President…bets from Colin Jose not accepted.)

Current strife aside, you would have to suggest that there’s a positive spin to be had for the CSA….benefiting from three benefactors (Sapputo, Kerfoot, MLSE) new stadiums and strong support –moola- are putting a smile on the soccer fans in our three largest cities, making the CSA’s job a little easier (many would say-about time!), a quality tourney next year, basically happy with the majority of the coaching staff.

Yet without a champion – an inquisitive press – how can we judge their (Pipe) performance? I’ll give a small example (that also shows how easy it is for Pipe to handle/wait out their occasional curiosity.). A few years back, ISM’s Dennis Fitter wrote an article that expressed displeasure that the CSA spent the $600,000 bequest (basically a gift from Fifa for the financially – successful 2002 U-19 WWC held in Canada) in architectural drawings, scale model for the new stadium at the Ex….Fitter suggested there were better ways to spend the loot. Next issue found him backtracking…that the CSA had informed him Fifa had strings attached – their generosity had to be used for a new stadium. They (CSA) always seem to find “cover” – and even if you accept that, couldn’t they perhaps have come out in that initial press conference three years ago with an artist’s rendition of a 20,000 seater at the Ex- and then make a proud announcement that they found an additional $400,000, putting a million dollars down on a new stadium? Yes, that would represent a small percentage of the cost, but it would suggest more of a player than folks who go about cap in hand. There’s also the question – did MLSE in fact utilise those plans? (Or truly squander the bucks). Probably the only member of the media who knows/cares is ISM’s stadium aficionado, Paul S Hendren. Give this board 24 hrs. - And even restricting stories to the last 20 years - we could come up with a 7 year run of “cold cases.”

I think Richard’s suggestion that some compromise will be reached is true, that Hooper’s future appearances will be limited – the Coach picks the team (why didn’t Pellerud have the smarts/balls to use that approach to cut Hooper? He could have said that he was building a team to have a good show in the ’08 Olympics, that Hooper would then be 40, he was looking to the future. Charmaine would have cried foul, but what could she really say to counter that argument?

It’s too bad that a great scenario – the potentially glorious testimonial after the’ 08 Olympics for Ms Hooper, a full house at BMO featuring the greats of Women soccer (past and present), will probably not happen (or is that the CSA;s way out?).

While this story has generated more than the average amount of press for a canuck soccer saga, I don’t think we’ll ever see the whole story. One can only hope that Charmaine writes her biography, that she devotes a few chapters to the CSA – and has the smarts to be fair, contact Turnbull on how he’s reflected on his time in charge, see what Pipe has to say in retrospect about the CSA’s funding of the Women’s program in the 90 ‘s. That could be her greatest triumph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even our U.S. neighbours find Pellerud's and CSA dealings to be crooked and that the 3 players got screwed by the coach. See postings in Ponytail Posse. I personally hope that Colin Linford will have the fortitude to order an inquiry in the mess created by Pellerud and Pipe. Keeping the CSA staff in the dark is not gentlemanly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by The Ref

Even our U.S. neighbours find Pellerud's and CSA dealings to be crooked and that the 3 players got screwed by the coach. See postings in Ponytail Posse. I personally hope that Colin Linford will have the fortitude to order an inquiry in the mess created by Pellerud and Pipe. Keeping the CSA staff in the dark is not gentlemanly.

Our US neighbours don't have any more factual evidence upon which to base any judgements than do we. Until we have the full story from both sides all we can do is speculate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Mark I don't really need to buy the latest issue now do I? But I will.

I still am backing the women that are off the squad. How about a chorus Raise a Little Hell by Trooper for Hooper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed, I hope you continue to write, not only because when motovated, you put out some great stuff, but that ISM could definitely use a western perspective,stories (especally with WorldFootballpages.com on the Qt.)

On a high note to-day, it was good to see Ben Knight show some balls with a domestically hard-hitting, thoughtful article on the controversy dogging our Women's team. Wait- a-sec, my mistake, sorry - it seems the castrato is more than happy to continue to sing his usual (Premiership, Fifa) tunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, I have done a spring USL preview for the last couple of years at Alfons' request but have not been in the loop otherwise of late. My motivation is pretty much non-existent now anyway, except for following a bunch of players (personal favourites).

You should just put that little nugget a couple of posts up of yours in print.

So who's up for a birth certificate review for the past 10 or so CSA presidents? That's a project!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...