Mobiiiiiiiilio Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. I have a feeling that a lot of the guys who are cockily going ahead with this and calling for the defeat of dissent 12 days before the match are going to end up totally changing or altering their opinion before the event. Probably a lot of different protests will appear, in different form, and guess what? That will put you all in the minority, won't it? Because those of us saying we would never wear anything but Canada colours to a Canada game are not saying the game is not a good place to protest. It is an okay place, too late, wrong context, unfair to the players, but an okay place, just okay. Given that you are going to change your minds four or five times in the next few days on what the right protest should be, you are hardly in a position to try to shut up a few people who don't agree with just one of them (I am speaking in plural by the way). I had a boss who once told me, "Don't come to me with your problems, unless you have a solution." You're very good a pointing out the negatives in what many of the Voyageurs are trying to come up with in order to show their displeasure in a rather short period of time.....any and all of their ideas are more viable than your criticisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 quote:Originally posted by ag futbol After wathcing that I'm suprized that Paul James took the oportunity to focus most of his anger at Linford as opposed to the CSA ... Then to bash the him for leaving as opposed to waiting to be fired was just stupid. James should realise flat out that Linford's days were finished. If he stayed on he simply would have been removed by the board. He should be looking at why he was there in the first place: to implement change. His changes were rejected by the very board that elected him so he had no manidate, so he left. That's pretty simple stuff. Been thinking on this and I'm guessing but I suspect that James may be pissed at Linford for two reasons but they're both related to feelings of disappointment. The 1st and most likely being that Linford wasn't completely isolated on The Board. He may have bodies in there who shared the vision of his mandate. By resigning Linford has as much as abandoned them. The 2nd being Linford didn't prove to be quite the iron willed politician maybe Paul James was hoping he'd be. I mean it's not as though Linford was new to all this, he's been around the hierarchy for a while. Colin must have understood that reforming the CSA would be a war of attrition. Paul James may be right. Colin Linford is no politician and was in over his head at that level. But Linford may have the last laugh yet. He's gone out with a flury and even if nothing dramatic happens tomorrow or next month or the season after, Linford has poisoned the CSA's imagine beyond any stain we've ever seen before. We're finaly inching towards reform Okay, and sure a 3rd reason. Linford's dramatics in expressing the opinion that the CSA is so FU'd that any young player with the option should be looking to play for the Auld Country. Misquoted, taken out of context, whatever, that statement got right up James nose. He's not giving Mr. Linford the benefit of the doubt on that one. Disclaimer. Just guessing on reasons #1 & #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. The media will only and can only write a little short paragraph about any protest on the 12th because in the meantime they'll have to analyze the game, quote the players, talk to Mitchell, and get the opinion of the CSA. It is a bonehead manoeuver in my opinion, badly thought out, and I am pretty pissed off that you are so poorly representing many fans by pushing ahead with it. With all due respect you could not be more wrong. Making the protest in conjunction with the game has the potential to be far more effective than any media release whether collectively constructed or imposed by a vocal minority. By waiting for the game we give ourselves enough time to properly organize, draft a series of more effective releases and potentially take the focus off the game for the media. If done right, the media will write only a small paragraph on the game and focus on an issue that will still be reasonably fresh in people's minds - especially if we keep at it with the media by advising them of our plans beforehand. Arranging for photographers and TV cameras to cover some sort of action (like the mock funeral I suggested in the other thread) is a lot more effective than sending out words. Given that the media does it's best to ignore National Team games anyway, if we can make a creative demonstration with good visuals and a clear message we could get on national TV and print media. No matter how good a release is all by itself it will accomplish little but to add a quick quote to media reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest speedmonk42 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 quote: Sorry but in this case you are minority,it is time for action. You were talking for years and we all know result nothing ever happened now is time to try something different and if you are not ready for something new you are just like CSA Board,they are scared too. I am sorry but that is terribly unfair. We have all been 'talking' for many years and we are all just as helpless as the next fan. If this 'protest' allows some people to let off some steam and maybe even get the group noticed then go for it. But blaming anyone in this group for inaction is totally inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 quote:Originally posted by JB_Tito Sorry but in this case you are minority,it is time for action. You were talking for years and we all know result nothing ever happened now is time to try something different and if you are not ready for something new you are just like CSA Board,they are scared too. This is getting way out of hand. I am despising members of this board much more then I am hating the CSA. Jeffrey is a member I respect very much. The reason being he has gotten up and done some positive things for this group of soccer fans. Saying stuff like "if you are not ready for something new" is just total crap. As far as I can tell, sending letters to the media was, and is, a new idea as of this year. And who is to say it did not have an effect? And it was Jeffrey who did most of the hard work in those letters we sent out, a guy not even living in Canada! Now your ripping at him because he believes something that goes against what you guys want. Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB_Tito Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 CSA Board is still in power right,if Linford didn't resign would any of this happened? No,we would be still bitching on our forums and they would be doing they way of ruling. We are talking changes like in Australia,well in Australia government was involved.When I suggested sending emails to certain MPs in Ottawa,response was F#*k them they will not do anything about CSA. Here is again what we can do beside visual protest at BMO. We start and end with political pressure on Helena Guergis the Minister of State for Sport http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/min/guergis/contact/index_e.cfm or guergh@parl.gc.ca email her on your own ask for the CSA to be put into guardianship by Sport Canada. Copy Fry.H@parl.gc.ca the liberal critic for sport .... Copy malol@parl.gc.ca the Bloc critic for sport ( and he has masters in business administration ...) If we don't try how we know Gov. will do nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 quote:Originally posted by JB_Tito If we don't try how we know Gov. will do nothing at all. There is something I agree with you on. I have contacted the Minister of State for Sport and I am going to contact my MP, former Minister of Sport, Michael Chong. Who knows, maybe he can let me know if indeed the government can do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agray Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Below is a link to the segment on the scores website. Seems as if they'll be talking CSA on a regular basis. They often ask for viewer feedback and comments for all soccer issues. Hopefully they'll get some decent response and keep hitting the CSA. http://www.thescore.ca/videos/index.asp?vidID=1967&progID=158 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhat Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 After watching the Score segment, I overwhelmingly agree with Paul James' comments. It was also nice to see that the Voyageurs are recognized as the pro-Canada voice for our MNT. Despite our occasional (or more) differences in opinion, the Voyageurs CAN make a noticeable stand and ultimately, make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 quote:Originally posted by redhat After watching the Score segment, I overwhelmingly agree with Paul James' comments. It was also nice to see that the Voyageurs are recognized as the pro-Canada voice for our MNT. Despite our occasional (or more) differences in opinion, the Voyageurs CAN make a noticeable stand and ultimately, make a difference. I agree with you that the V's can make a difference or at least, when we want to, we can have our voices heard. I personally disagreed with most of Paul's opinions. To blame Linford for most of this mess is a joke. To say that Linford should stick around for 4 years (as an unpaid volunteer) because that's the term he was elected to is a joke...I suggest he take a job that pays nothing and causes you nothing but aggravation. Yes, Linford obviously accomplished none of his stated goals but there are two sides of the story and Paul looked like he was speaking on behalf of the CSA... Maybe he wants the U20 job that is currently vacant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 quote:Originally posted by VPjr I personally disagreed with most of Paul's opinions. To blame Linford for most of this mess is a joke. To say that Linford should stick around for 4 years (as an unpaid volunteer) because that's the term he was elected to is a joke...I suggest he take a job that pays nothing and causes you nothing but aggravation. Yes, Linford obviously accomplished none of his stated goals but there are two sides of the story and Paul looked like he was speaking on behalf of the CSA... Maybe he wants the U20 job that is currently vacant. He used to have that U20 job & voluntarily gave it up years ago. I doubt he wants it back, probably a good thing as I think he's much better as an analyst. I think James is more or less spot on with what he said, except possibly about Kevan Pipe (and even then I agree that if you are going to get rid of a CEO, it's usually customary to have a qualified replacement in place right away, rather than several months later - that's what real businesses do, making Linford's claims that he wanted the CSA to be run more like a business highly ironic). I didn't see him defending the CSA at all, rather he seemed bitterly disappointed that Linford didn't follow through on his laudable goals (which suprisingly to me seemed to be echoed & endorsed by the CSA guys they had at the beginning of the segment) to help reform the CSA. His comment that Linford appears to have been out of his depth in trying to achieve those goals is difficult to argue with. At least for me, since it echoes what I've been saying for the past week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca He used to have that U20 job & voluntarily gave it up years ago. I doubt he wants it back, probably a good thing as I think he's much better as an analyst. I think James is more or less spot on with what he said, except possibly about Kevan Pipe (and even then I agree that if you are going to get rid of a CEO, it's usually customary to have a qualified replacement in place right away, rather than several months later - that's what real businesses do, making Linford's claims that he wanted the CSA to be run more like a business highly ironic). I didn't see him defending the CSA at all, rather he seemed bitterly disappointed that Linford didn't follow through on his laudable goals (which suprisingly to me seemed to be echoed & endorsed by the CSA guys they had at the beginning of the segment) to help reform the CSA. His comment that Linford appears to have been out of his depth in trying to achieve those goals is difficult to argue with. At least for me, since it echoes what I've been saying for the past week. Well you and I will have to agree to disagree. It's nearly impossible for you or I to make an accurate judgement of Linford's performance in the job. It's definitely possible that he was out of his depth BUT, if so, that means that the people who voted for him must be even less capable of handling the role because, logically, the man voted to be President, should be the person most qualified for the job or the person who presented the best vision for the association. If they liked his vision when they voted for him, whey did they resist his attempts to put his people in place. If he was not the most qualified for the job, why was he unanimously elected. We could play ping pong with this issue for hours, days, weeks. You did not care for Linford (or at least the job he did) and I think it's impossible to judge but I liked his vision and wish he had been given the relatively free reign to put his plans in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 quote:Originally posted by VPjr Well you and I will have to agree to disagree. It's nearly impossible for you or I to make an accurate judgement of Linford's performance in the job. It's definitely possible that he was out of his depth BUT, if so, that means that the people who voted for him must be even less capable of handling the role because, logically, the man voted to be President, should be the person most qualified for the job or the person who presented the best vision for the association. If they liked his vision when they voted for him, whey did they resist his attempts to put his people in place. If he was not the most qualified for the job, why was he unanimously elected. I find it un-persuasive to defend Linford's mistakes by pointing out that the other people on the board are also incompetent (which they very well may be). That's not much of a defense in my view. In terms of your other question, I'd point out that having the vision is great, but "vision" is by & large an abstract concept, putting the vision into practice is not. As an example - it's great to have the vision of an internationally reputed coach with tons of experience to come & coach the national team, but if in reality that vision turns out to be Rene Simoes than I can see why someone might be cautious in wanting to implement his actual plan. Having said all that, I'm not really interested in defending the board either - they may have refused to implement the plan for the wrong reasons, which doesn't help either. I think the player's point that we need the national team run by soccer and/or business people in a more professional manner is the way to go and I think we can all agree on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I think the player's point that we need the national team run by soccer and/or business people in a more professional manner is the way to go and I think we can all agree on that point. On this point, there is no argument...in fact, that statement should be the foundation of the Voyageurs call for change at the CSA, IMO, because I think we ALL can agree on this statement. Of course, I personally believe that the CSA needs far more significant upheaval than simply becoming a more professional organization but that's where the debates get somewhat contentious on this board so I won't push my luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.