The Arbitrator decision (Hooper vs CSA)

[fan]

The "false creek" fiasco was a fiasco from the beginning. It is irrelevant whether it was exposed, uncovered or overtly and clearly stated by all members involved. It was and is a huge mistake and represents the incompetence of all people involved. Exactly the same for the amount Pellerud paid to Kerfoot, it is totally irrelevant. All you can debate is the level of incompetence.

Putting words and editing other peoples statements out of context is an art form is displayed very well in all chat rooms KAS.

The word "conspiracy" only demonstrates that the people who use it generally are naive, weak people who cant handle the truth and wouldn't defend themselves or anyone else. Quite similar to what we get from Colin and the CSA now. Look face the facts there has been corruption in every level of all sports high and low worldwide. Referees,directors and owners become greedy or corrupt. And unfortunately you get some that are just plain not able or incompetent to do their job.

Yes, on the other hand their are nut jobs and people claiming conspiracies to a ridiculous point. You have to be able to decipher. Anyone with any common sense will defend themselves and ensure that they have been treated fairly. Anyone who will not and cries "conspiracy" to hide their fear is not someone I want walking beside me anywhere.

Look at the actual facts. Colin did not defend us. Pellerud, Kerfoot and the CSA all participated in an extremely poor action. They all manipulated and ruined an excellent scenario with the women's team. Regardless if you think Hooper was at fault this should of been handled a millions times better than that.

Pipe was a disaster a lot of you defended him and called people who pointed out that he was incompetent "crazy" or contributing to a "conspiracy" theory. The fact is, you did not bring it up, you did not defend yourself or your team or our sport.The CSA has not presented a budget for years and you did not bring it up, you did not question it.

The fact is the CSA has not presented a budget, this is unacceptable and a actual fact of incompetence. As you can clearly see how can you continue to discuss and interact with an organization that does not present a budget.

One idea of whatever is plausible or feasible in this vein is, for all soccer organizations in Canada withhold all of their fees in an escrow account until the budget is accounted for and the people responsible are removed for not presenting one.

This is not a time to splinter and debate over these smaller petty issues but to unite and defend our sport in the serious issues that exist.

Now Colin is continuing in the same pattern and you need to see this as a time to change and defend our sport.

[CG]

Dear KAS,

I have reread all of your emails and I give you credit for your intelligent posting. I withdraw my dismissive remark, and acknowledge that it was unnecessary. I still maintain you are beating a dead dog, and I wish you would stop because I do not see the point of it. Let me explain:

"Nonetheless, I would not go so far as to suggest that Pellerud's somewhat heavy-handed and uncompromising approach to this constitutes "union busting"."

It appears that you believe that Pellerud is heavy handed and uncompromising? Sure appears so.

"Either the other members of the team were arm-twisted into compliance, and therefore effectively sold them out, or these three greatly misread the feelings of their teammates."

More evidence of your belief in the "possibility" that members of the team were "arm twisted". Qualified as it should be. Yet you keep coming back the this point that Pellerud, or his staff were "heavy handed and uncompromising."

"If by "ghosts" you are refering to the idea that the other players decided to sell-out Hooper and Latham, or that the coaching staff bullied them into agreement, I made it clear that those are only possibilities, and that there is no real evidence to support it."

The context of this email as I read it is that you believe there is a "possibility" that the players sold out H and L, or the coaching staff bullied the other players. You rightly point out that there is no evidence to support this speculation. So why do you persist in putting it forward in three separate postings? Only you can answer that, but it is not crazy for me to point out your fixation on this point. If this process were to go even further so that you might be vindicated, what purpose would it serve other than to keep the team in a state of limbo for another 10 months and how would that be useful in preparing the team for the Olympics? Its time to put this theory down. The evidence revealed in the arbitrators report clearly shows that Hooper was manipulative and lied. I think it demeans the intelligence of the current WNT to suggest that they knew that about Hooper, and chose willingly to play without her.

[CoachRich]

Well stated CG.

In having seen the WNT players in Van at practice & doing interviews, what impresses me from a coaches point of view is how much they have bonded, support & push one other to their limits. It's very evident they all are very close as team mates in how they interact, hang out & care for one other. I think how the team acted to Amber Allens injury this Sunday says alot of how close they are to one other & the goal they have as a team.

IMO maybe one of the reasons the players moved forward from the 3 is that the majority of the team saw the importance of a timetable of coming together as team & bonding as quickly as possible under the benefit of the residency program provided by Kerfoot. Once under the same roof they could act as a team in one spot to address issues rather than being spread out all over NA.

[CG]

posted by Vic. " There was no mention of a rent subsidized house in the SDRCC report."

Technically you are correct. The word "subsidized" was not glaringly used that I can see with a quick review. However, there is this mention in the SDRCC report:

There was no mention of a rent subsidized house in the SDRCC report…

"The Claimants point to the following facts as indicia of Pellerud’s conflict, actual or

apparent, of interest, namely:

1. The monthly rent of $1,500.00 Pellerud pays Kerfoot for the West Vancouver

home."

Sounds like subsidization was mentioned in the report to me. Call me crazy.

[Richard]

Thanks CG, I thought the point you make was so patently obvious that it didn't need to be spelled out. Apparently it did, for some people.

[Vic]

Actually CG, despite Richard's attempt at closure, subsidization wasn't mentioned in the report. From the conclusions:

"He pays $1,500.00 per month rent to Kerfoot to live in the home. The Claimants initially suggested that Pellerud and his wife lived in the home rent-free. There is no evidence before this Panel of the fair market rent for the home. There is no evidence to suggest that the rent paid is not reasonable and entirely satisfactory to Kerfoot."

If the rent paid is fair market value, I completely agree, it's enough to say "I rent from Greg Kerfoot and pay $1,500 per month," and offer up bank records to prove that. But if fair market value is many times what's paid, then no, that's not full disclosure, and it's highly unethical to not reveal the benefit received in a federal hearing into bias between the two parties.

I actually had no idea how much it was worth, and just stopped and went and found out. It doesn't take long to find his waterfront address, and the price of the home. It's listed in the Great Estates of British Columbia, and is listed at $9,500,000. And I believe everyone here can do the math on fair market value for

that.

p.s. The previous tenant got a 12-year trading ban and heavy fine for insider trading. I believe that's what Alanis calls a black fly in your Chardonnay.

[Richard]

Vic, the reference is by implication and is as clear as day.

I have no doubt all parties involved in the arbitration understood perfectly.

Do you need it spelled out explicitly in words of one syllable?

[Vic]

Yeah Richard, that's right, it's all fine. It's all legit and above board.

"There is no evidence before this Panel of the fair market rent for the home. There is no evidence to suggest that the rent paid is not reasonable and entirely satisfactory to Kerfoot."

That, is the Arbitrator saying his judgement did not take into account any monthly compensation received as a result of the 'subsidy'. And he expressly put it in there for good reason.

[Massive Attack]

Why are we still harping on the rent for? Its obvious that Hooper and Latham's lawyers dropped the ball on that point. It was actually the one fact that they had on their side, but they used it poorly. It's also obvious that the rent is seriously below market value.

By the way, taking lessons in irony from Alanis Morrissette is in and of itself, ironic.

[Richard]

"It's also obvious that the rent is seriously below market value."

Hence my original reference to subsidised rent. It is public knowledge, what's the problem? Many senior executives receive housing assistance in one form or another. If Revenue Canada deems the rent to be below fair market value it will be treated as a benefit and Pellerud will have to pay income tax on the subsidy portion, so what? The arbitrator was aware of the rent issue when he made his ruling, Pellerud's employer (the CSA) is well aware of his housing arrangement and very likely has been all along. Frankly I am only too pleased that Greg Kerfoot thinks highly enough of our women's team coach to make that house available to him. Way to go, we should be proud!

Talk about chasing your own tail round and round. Get over it people, we have a coach and a team that needs to prepare and focus on the World Cup and we would all do well to do the same ourselves instead of wasting time and energy looking for ghosts where there are none. Perhaps the whiners are just jealous that they don't live in a multi-million dollar West Vancouver home.

The Claimants had their day in court so to speak, they lost. Good job they didn't try to sue in the court system proper, they might have been saddled with costs too.

Get on with your lives people!

[Vic]

"Many senior executives receive housing assistance in one form or another."

I don't know how you run your business, but legitimate businesses would NEVER let senior executives tank on their housing expenditures. And there are a lot of decent people out there who make sure that never happens. Oh wait I minute. I lied. Cue the Conrad Black trial in Toronto. They thought they had carte blanche too.

"The arbitrater was aware of the rent issue when he made his ruling."

That's pure conjecture without a single fact presented to support it. And if that's an accident, and you have any, please, knock yourself out. Otherwise, pony up or shut up.

"Perhaps the whiners are just jealous that they don't live in a multi-million dollar West Vancouver home."

You couldn't be more wrong. I love where I live. I've also been around long enough to know what's mine and what I can afford, and the meaning of "there's no free lunch."

"Get on with your lives people!"

Interesting you should say that, because I make a point to, every single day.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

"It's also obvious that the rent is seriously below market value."

Hence my original reference to subsidised rent. It is public knowledge, what's the problem? Many senior executives receive housing assistance in one form or another. If Revenue Canada deems the rent to be below fair market value it will be treated as a benefit and Pellerud will have to pay income tax on the subsidy portion, so what? The arbitrator was aware of the rent issue when he made his ruling, Pellerud's employer (the CSA) is well aware of his housing arrangement and very likely has been all along. Frankly I am only too pleased that Greg Kerfoot thinks highly enough of our women's team coach to make that house available to him. Way to go, we should be proud!

Talk about chasing your own tail round and round. Get over it people, we have a coach and a team that needs to prepare and focus on the World Cup and we would all do well to do the same ourselves instead of wasting time and energy looking for ghosts where there are none. Perhaps the whiners are just jealous that they don't live in a multi-million dollar West Vancouver home.

The Claimants had their day in court so to speak, they lost. Good job they didn't try to sue in the court system proper, they might have been saddled with costs too.

Get on with your lives people!

Believe it or not, but some of the stuff you say I agree with.

As to "costs", no costs were assigned to any of the parties. So each one pays their own costs.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

"It's also obvious that the rent is seriously below market value."

Hence my original reference to subsidised rent. It is public knowledge, what's the problem? Many senior executives receive housing assistance in one form or another. If Revenue Canada deems the rent to be below fair market value it will be treated as a benefit and Pellerud will have to pay income tax on the subsidy portion, so what? The arbitrator was aware of the rent issue when he made his ruling, Pellerud's employer (the CSA) is well aware of his housing arrangement and very likely has been all along. Frankly I am only too pleased that Greg Kerfoot thinks highly enough of our women's team coach to make that house available to him. Way to go, we should be proud!

Talk about chasing your own tail round and round. Get over it people, we have a coach and a team that needs to prepare and focus on the World Cup and we would all do well to do the same ourselves instead of wasting time and energy looking for ghosts where there are none. Perhaps the whiners are just jealous that they don't live in a multi-million dollar West Vancouver home.

The Claimants had their day in court so to speak, they lost. Good job they didn't try to sue in the court system proper, they might have been saddled with costs too.

Get on with your lives people!

Believe it or not, but some of the stuff you say I agree with.

As to "costs", no costs were assigned to any of the parties. So each one pays their own costs.

[Richard]

Pick me up off the floor please as I recover from the shock that The Ref agrees with something I say!!

Yes, no costs were assigned, that was made clear in the arbitrator's report. My point was, had the Claimants sued in a court of law and lost they would very likely have been lumbered with costs too.

Now, shall we move on guys?

[Vic]

I'll help you move on Richard. Here's a summary of the last two pages of your posts.

quote:

Everything is all public knowledge and above board. What a landlord choses to charge his tenant in rent is private and has nothing to do with an enquiry into the two. There is no problem with ethics between the coach of the WNT, the owner of the Whitecaps and the CSA. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Everythings obvious except to the daft. I understand what's going on. Other people don't. Everythings fine. People who don't think so are whiners.

So, there you go. You're down on record. No need to keep coming back.

[terpfan68]

I realize Toronto is the centre of the universe (Canadian version)but the Conrad Black trial is in Chicago.

[Vic]

Thanks for the correction. The funny thing is I knew that. I've been following it pretty closely. Interesting commentary in the US press about how the jury was disinterested and falling asleep in the defence wrap-up.

[terpfan68]

Didn't mean to be pedantic but it is interesting that the US does a better job of going after the big guys than Canada, or are we just less corrupt? I wonder how the whole Women's National Team issues would have played out in the Excited States.

[Vic]

Reminds me of something I read earlier in the week:

Link

[terpfan68]

Thanks, Not really on the topic, but interesting none the less.

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

"It's also obvious that the rent is seriously below market value."

Hence my original reference to subsidised rent. It is public knowledge, what's the problem? Many senior executives receive housing assistance in one form or another. If Revenue Canada deems the rent to be below fair market value it will be treated as a benefit and Pellerud will have to pay income tax on the subsidy portion, so what? The arbitrator was aware of the rent issue when he made his ruling, Pellerud's employer (the CSA) is well aware of his housing arrangement and very likely has been all along. Frankly I am only too pleased that Greg Kerfoot thinks highly enough of our women's team coach to make that house available to him. Way to go, we should be proud!

Talk about chasing your own tail round and round. Get over it people, we have a coach and a team that needs to prepare and focus on the World Cup and we would all do well to do the same ourselves instead of wasting time and energy looking for ghosts where there are none. Perhaps the whiners are just jealous that they don't live in a multi-million dollar West Vancouver home.

The Claimants had their day in court so to speak, they lost. Good job they didn't try to sue in the court system proper, they might have been saddled with costs too.

Get on with your lives people!

So Richard you agree Pelerud gets a sweetheart deal from ..Kerfoot on Rent .....

and the players case was moving to Vancouver was to give benefit to Kerfoots buisness property a franchise in the W league.

Who pushed the pressure to move to Vancouver... Pelerud.

so...quite simply ... there is the linkage to unknown influence ..that cannot be swept away...link it to the fact Peleruds wife worked for the CSA as womens team manager..and you get the distinct feeling there is to to much of a cozy game going on...

Richard it stinks...did before still does...and hopefully people like CAWS will get on the issue and seek a deeper look.

[Richard]

If you think that corruption and wrongdoing is afoot, lay some real charges and go to court. Hooper et al tried and lost because in large part they could not prove their case for lack of convincing, hard evidence of any wrongdoing. If you're so sure of your ground you have nothing to lose. Failing that I suggest you stop all the groundless, unproven badmouthing and insinuation, stop your destructive behaviours and focus your energy on something constructive. You'll find yourself a lot happier and you'll stop annoying a whole lot of other people.

[The Ref]

The insufficient evidence presented by the Claimants and the lack of response by the Respondent together with possibly a weak handling by the Claimants' lawyer failed the test of probability in front of the Arbitrator. That does not mean the coach and manager were without guilt. It just means it was not proven if one existed.

[Richard]

Get over it Ref. If there was a real case there the claimants would be pursuing it through the courts because this after all was all about money anyway. They chose not to, have you not wondered why?

[fan]

Pipe is gone and we are watching the CSA old boys, Pellerud and Kerfoot crumble like good apple pie crust.