Regs Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 You forgot the Taliban! quote:Originally posted by fan The Whitecaps, Kerfoot and the CSA are pathetically linked in a collusive triangle that appears to at least ensured victory for the Whitecaps and even if it is pure and good should have never been allowed or attempted. The CSA and this report and group are as usual, ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 The Arbitrator decision is a great read, as mentioned above. But I suggest people also read through the original thread about this topic. That is also compelling to say the least. It really puts internet forums into perspective. Its amazing the difference between the internet and real life. 90% of posters were sure that Hooper was right and that the demise of Pellerud was guaranteed. Its funny how different the truth is. http://canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10612 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 The suspension ended in November but the coach to this day continues to punish them and letting the rest of the players run the team instead of him. I resent the coach, the manager and the players who turned their back to their captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I don't see how anyone comes out looking good from this airing of dirty laundry. I can say, having been through many labour arbitrations, that if this were an employer-employee relationship in Saskatchewan, there would have been a different outcome. Nevertheless, it is not, Hooper does not look good, although mostly for what appear to be embellishments and her behaviour after the funding was withdrawn. Pellerud looks better than intial reports, but he and his entourage mishandled the situation badly, although I do not believe there was malice. Again, issues of a Canadian coach not able to deal with strong personalities and egos. I am most dissapointed in the players, however. Vic highlighted exactly what caught my eye. Either they lack the backbone to stand up to Hooper or they set her up. Karma is a bitch though, right now they are trying to draw public attention to their lack of support leading up to the World Cup - see the other active thread on this forum - and pretty much the only person with the gumption and wherwithall to do it is sitting at home in Chicago pulling their knives from her back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I don't see how anyone comes out looking good from this airing of dirty laundry. I can say, having been through many labour arbitrations, that if this were an employer-employee relationship in Saskatchewan, there would have been a different outcome. Nevertheless, it is not, Hooper does not look good, although mostly for what appear to be embellishments and her behaviour after the funding was withdrawn. Pellerud looks better than intial reports, but he and his entourage mishandled the situation badly, although I do not believe there was malice. Again, issues of a Canadian coach not able to deal with strong personalities and egos. I am most dissapointed in the players, however. Vic highlighted exactly what caught my eye. Either they lack the backbone to stand up to Hooper or they set her up. Karma is a bitch though, right now they are trying to draw public attention to their lack of support leading up to the World Cup - see the other active thread on this forum - and pretty much the only person with the gumption and wherwithall to do it is sitting at home in Chicago pulling their knives from her back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 quote: Gordon, you made my day. Praise the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerdad152 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I am so confused how so many posters can keep pointing to the fact that Kerfoot charges Even only $1500 a month and point to that as being so under market value. Yes if you were looking for rent in the open market you would pay more. BUT from a business point of view the more Kerfoot charges the more income he must declare. If the house in question is in his own personal name and not a company name there maybe some tax reasons for him not to charge a high rent. In fact the rent may be enough for the property taxes to be taken care of ( which is not out of the ordinary to find out here) and this might be all he is trying to cover, lets be honest wether Kerfoot charges $5000 a month or $1500 a month it is not a major source of income for him. In fact if he did charge $5000 a month he is looking at a tax bill of $26400 vs $7920 at $1500. It is not out of question for an accountant to advise their clients not to take a large income from an asset ( mine has told me the same thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gordon Either they lack the backbone to stand up to Hooper or they set her up. Or a bit of both. The decision essentially exonerates Pellerud (though not the playing style his team adopts ) and the CSA, but I'm of the view that things could have been handled better. There should have been more disclosure and more notice with respect to the residency program - had their been this whole messy situation might have been avoided. Hopefully this is a mistake they will learn from if they attempt to do the same on the men's youth side of things. As for Latham, while the document she signed may not have been a contract, she may have believed that to have been the case, and Pellerud certainly did when he urged her to break the committment. Although it can be argued that is urging was for her greatest benefit as the development as a player, it still doesn't look good to the naked eye, IMO. Though Hooper comes out looking even worse. At the end of the day, my comments from the original thread basically remain the same - what a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I think the arbitrator made it crystal clear... the decisions made by Pellerud relating to membership, carding and funding of the Claimants were not affected by any bias, conflict of interest, apparent conflict of interest or improper motive. This was in response to ugly public charges made by Hooper et al which the arbitrator has determined were unfounded. Pellerud and the WNT players led by Sinclair showed a lot of class in their restrained and measured responses to the ugly public allegations. None of this of course detracts from the wonderful contribution Charmaine Hooper made to the Canadian WNT program before this latest sequence of events. I doubt anybody here wishes or intends to minimise that contribution, least of all me. It is most unfortunate that she saw fit to end her international career in this fashion. A simple, graceful retirement with a smiling wave goodbye would have left a much sweeter taste. Instead we have all this bitterness and recrimination by which to remember her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 quote: Gordon, you made my day. Praise the Lord. Actually, you did even more for me too. Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regs Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hmmm... out on a bit of a limb here, but... how's Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I had a nice belittling witty reply all written but decided the truth fits better than anything: you probably think you are funny, but you are actually just rude, mean and disrespectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regs Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 To be honest, I was not trying to be funny in a malicious way, I was taking a 'somewhat educated' guess at who you were based on a couple of your most recent posts to this board, hence the "out on a limb" part... Sorry if you were offended. Not really sure if my posts on this site have been of the 'mean and disrespectful' variety but a self review of them is an exercise I'll do shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 It's no trouble, and it appears I misread you too. I was over the line. Thanks very much for the reply and the professionalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAS Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have already written a ridiculously long post on this, so I will try to keep this one short [EDIT: unsuccessfully]. The three players do not look good in this, particularly Hooper. The full story, however, has not been told. While I understand why the rest of the team was pissed off in Newfoundland and afterwards because the three did not show up (a clear mistake - from both a professional and political/tactical level - that they admitted to), the unanswered question is what happened with the other players during the first week of August? Did they cave under pressure from Pellerud, or were they ok with the preparations and agreed without fuss? Since Latham clearly did not know that most of the team had agreed to the camp despite the "solidarity" E-mails, why were these three apparently kept in the dark by the other players? Simply put, the team had a right to be pissed at them for skipping Newfoundland, but there had to have been a great deal of communication problems, misunderstanding, or outright backstabbing for Latham and Hooper to write such strong "stick together" E-mails and assume a position of strength when attempting to negotiate with the coaches, only to find that the team had abandoned them. I don't know if they were sold-out, or out-of-touch. There is no proof that players like Sinclair set-up and launched a coup against Hooper. It seems likely that with so many players already based in Vancouver, and the Ottawa Fury players perhaps being pissed at their captain's comments, Hooper and Latham misjudged the situation. Perhaps a lack of communication from the other players added to this. I don't know if Hooper is the only player who is married and with a child, but her unique circumstances likey made her more interested in negotiating better terms than a young/single player who may not have felt as secure with her position, and who did not need anyhting more than what was being offered anyways. I have to restate my view about Pellerud renting from Kerfoot. If the house is worth ~$6.5M, and rent is only $1500/month, then that is a HUGE subsidy and can be considered a form of financial compensation/bribe. There is a tremendous amount of generosity here, which means that their is a tremendous financial incentive for Pellerud to remain on Kerfoot's good side. If I am spending $1500/month for a small apartment that goes for that amount in the open market, then I can be distant and completely professional with the landlord. I don't have to suck-up to him, because if one upsets the other then I can move into a comparable place for the same price. If someone lets me live in a $6.5M mansion for only $1500/month, however, then he is clearly doing me a huge favour and I am indebted to that person. I would do almost anything to keep that person happy and keep such a sweet deal. Such a relationship is open to manipulation and therefore the introduction of bias. We all know how the arbitrator ruled, but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the reps done their job and entered this information into evidence. Regardless, even a moron can see that there is a problem with Pellerud renting from Kerfoot - and far below market value at that. Since Pellerud makes good money, he needs to move his ass out and take other steps to separate the WNT from the Whitecaps as this looks very bad. If the CSA had any backbone/competence, then this would never have been permitted to happen in the first place. Damn, I just can't keep my posts short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Part of the problem in an arbitration case run by the SDRCC could be that there are no powers to subpoena records, witnesses and the defendant for that matter. You can ask for records but if the opposing party does not provide them there is nothing you can do. Income tax returns could have been subpoena, the alleged contract, records, laptops, witnesses who chose not to appear, etc. etc. The whole matter could have been dealt much earlier but when the coaching staff keeps postponing the hearings you are at their mercy. The standard of proof is very low which has its pros and cons. Legal costs are always high and one needs to look at to who has more financial backing and resources. Will the outcome had been different if it had been a Court case, is hard to say, but certainly there would have been more evidence from both sides. There is no appeal of the SDRCC rulings, but you still have the resource of the Courts. Will the three players now file a civil suit in Court, is also hard to say. The financial gains may not be large enough to cover past and future legal costs. In the end we lost three of our best players, not due to injuries and poor performance on the field, but due to not "unconditionally" agreeing early enough to a training camp which lead to some regrettable actions on both sides. A sad state of affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by The Ref In the end we lost three of our best players, not due to injuries and poor performance on the field, but due to not "unconditionally" agreeing early enough to a training camp which lead to some regrettable actions on both sides. A sad state of affairs. But that's not even really true. It appeared that Pellerud was willing to bend, but the three players made the stupid move of missing the Newfoundland camp. That is what sealed their fate. Not the unwillingness to sign up for the residency camp. Maybe some compromise could have been reached latter about the residency situation, but we will never know now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Regs To be honest, I was not trying to be funny in a malicious way, I was taking a 'somewhat educated' guess at who you were based on a couple of your most recent posts to this board, hence the "out on a limb" part... Sorry if you were offended. Not really sure if my posts on this site have been of the 'mean and disrespectful' variety but a self review of them is an exercise I'll do shortly. If it helps any I don't think your posts have been mean or disrespectful, certainly nowhere near that of some other people here :-) I have had my own suspicions about the identity of some people posting on this subject too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 KAS, methinks you are looking for ghosts where there are none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fan Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 The report concludes nothing substantial and as many others stated the process is weak. The fact we lost 3 players to the CSA inept handling is all that remains. Instead of celebrate and prosper with the team and our sport we get digression and manipulative juvenile egotism on display from Pellerud and the CSA. It is a pattern of behavior and attitude that fosters confusion and suspicion and leads to incompetence and destruction on and off the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by fan Instead of celebrate and prosper with the team and our sport we get digression and manipulative juvenile egotism on display from Pellerud and the CSA. It is a pattern of behavior and attitude that fosters confusion and suspicion and leads to incompetence and destruction on and off the field. Your hatred for Pellerud and the CSA is so strong that it makes you blind. Hooper and friends turned their back on the rest of the team, for what seems like petty, selfish reasons. And all you want to do is continue to try to badmouth the usual suspects. You are pathetic. Hooper is/was the greatest female player this country ever produced, but her antics are the equivalent of the Zidane headbutt. A great career that will forever be sullied by one stupid act at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Why won't fan face the fact that the TEAM didn't not want the three players back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 sorry about the double negative. It of course should read: Why won't fan face the fact that the TEAM did not want the three players back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 "Instead of celebrate and prosper with the team and our sport we get digression and manipulative juvenile egotism on display from Pellerud and the CSA. It is a pattern of behavior and attitude that fosters confusion and suspicion and leads to incompetence and destruction on and off the field." Only in your fevered brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Fan's blindness to reality is only reinforced by his/her total inability or unwillingness to grasp that he/she is fast becoming a lone voice in the wilderness with her/his inceasingly shrill bleating repetition of groundless, hate filled blather. Have to wonder who Fan is in real life. Sad really that he/she cannot revel in and enjoy the success the WNT program has and is enjoying even without the Hooper three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.