VPjr Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Soccer/article/264000 Looks like the CSA has not been effective in trying to muzzle Evan Pellerud Comments? Anything new in this article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Our women's NT had a similar numbers of international friendlies then their rivals in this year WC: USA 15 Germany 14 Australia 13 (5 of those games had crazy scorelines like 10-0) Canada 11 Norway 10 Brazil 10 England 9 New Zealand 9 Denmark 7 I don't see why we needed more games to practice kick and run. BTW, playing at home would've been nice but if I'm a coach who's preparing his team to play in a WC in China, I'm taking every opportunities to play games away from home to have my team prepare for tough conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Interesting article where Pellerud makes it clear that none of the problems are his fault. I thought he was in charge of the women programs but maybe I am mistaken. No mention of the 4 people from his staff who have resigned (unconfirmed). Perhaps Kerfoot with all his money can hire a marketing firm to round up some more sponsors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 From the article: "Would he want to coach the men's team? "It would be interesting to take on that challenge," he said." What a horrifying thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 quote:Originally posted by loyola Our women's NT had a similar numbers of international friendlies then their rivals in this year WC: USA 15 Germany 14 Australia 13 (5 of those games had crazy scorelines like 10-0) Canada 11 Norway 10 Brazil 10 England 9 New Zealand 9 Denmark 7 I don't see why we needed more games to practice kick and run. Agreed. The US team's example illustrates that more money thrown at a programme won't solve fundamental problems that exist on the field with the style of play a team adopts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Que Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 You can have all the money in the world and it still won't quarantee anything, that's the way it is in sports. Just ask the New York Yankees. But what it will do is make you very competitve so that you have a decent chance to win. The question is do we have adequate funding that will give the team a fighting chance to be successful (however you might define that). Good for EP for speaking his mind (he is just fighting for his program). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 The women's program has a budget of $700,000, of which the CSA contributes around $155,000. "Close to nothing," Pellerud said. So..here is the sixty four thousand dollar question ..where did all the other money from CSA female player registrations go ? How much of the female funds have been squandered paying off.. the blazers...who have worked for the CSA ? This really does cry out for a full examination.. maybe its time the female players... when the the CHRC and filed a systemic discrimination complaint to open up the rot on Metcalfe Street. I find it interesting ..Pelerud in now aligning himslef with the Olympic movment ..after being exposed to the COC after Rio... of course his statement the program is not being run professionally has to include ..himslef taking a good look in the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Trillium The women's program has a budget of $700,000, of which the CSA contributes around $155,000. "Close to nothing," Pellerud said. So..here is the sixty four thousand dollar question ..where did all the other money from CSA female player registrations go ? How much of the female funds have been squandered paying off.. the blazers...who have worked for the CSA ? This really does cry out for a full examination.. maybe its time the female players... when the the CHRC and filed a systemic discrimination complaint to open up the rot on Metcalfe Street. I find it interesting ..Pelerud in now aligning himslef with the Olympic movment ..after being exposed to the COC after Rio... of course his statement the program is not being run professionally has to include ..himslef taking a good look in the mirror. I agree with your questioning and conclusions, hope you don't get called names for it. I wonder if Pellerud has thrown away his muzzle because he may have gotten wind from the CSA that he is going out the door? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Pellerud had great success in transforming our program from fledgling to stable and respected. That was genius, and will put him in the hall of fame, and for which I am sure he has been ably compensated. But like everything in life, somewhere along the line that all got lost. Call it Solo's living in the past if you will. The old build it up and burn it down. He's done his best, and the blame for our quagmire really isn't his. It's the protectors of our national teams who are supposed to see it coming and step in before someone accidentally burns things down. And without them, we'll repeat the same mistakes with the next coach who comes in as well. Coaching the same group for a long period of time is an extremely difficult thing to do. It's incredibly stressful to continually have to stay a move ahead of people, some of who you have been teaching for 8 years. I think this has been coming for a long time now. The Olympic qualifier upset in Mexico was the first early warning sign, and the handling of last Summer's fiasco was an even bigger flag. And I have no doubt that if we had a stronger national body all this could have been avoided. quote: Pellerud refused to call the tournament a failure for ninth-ranked Canada. "If you look back to where we were, there was a lot of achievement," he said. "There was a lot of positives to build on." There was one big positive. The WWC proved getting upset in the Olympic qualifier in Mexico and the Pan Am games weren't accidents. That's three strikes. quote: "You need to see a direction," Pellerud said. "I think you need to see a commitment from my leaders. If I can't win the fights anymore, then other people should have the chance to win the fights." The impoverished women's program can't afford a Pipe-ish buyout (I heard a sick, sick figure that would make you all throw up), so I really wish someone would hire Even so he could resign and we could all move on. The guy needs freshness and a new challenge as much as everyone else. I would have thought living in Kerfoot's house that the vacant Whitecaps Men's job would be a gimme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted October 6, 2007 Author Share Posted October 6, 2007 I'm convinved that EP wants a buyout. I am equally convinced he wants the 'Caps job. It remains to be seen if I'm right. This article seems very well calculated and purposeful. it should be interesting. Trillium is right...where does the money from girl's soccer go. I'm not saying that the women's program ought to have equal funding from the CSA vs. the MNT program but equitable seems fair to me. How could they have been given so little to prepare for a WC. Come on...it's as though the CSA wanted failure. It's an indictment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Pellerud knew years ago what money he was getting from the CSA namely $150K, as he stated so in a symposium. He also added that he was not too concern as he would make up by playing boys' teams. Later when asked by Kerfoot what he needed to win the WC he said it was a residential camp. He got that too. The end result... well we saw that in China. Should had he advanced out of their group they probably would have blown out of the water in their next game and the embarrassment could have been worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Whose embarrassed? Considering the money spent I'd say we got full value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Que Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I seem to recall a soccer central show a year or 2 ago where C.F. said that the WNT get about 500k a year, but that they felt they really needed 2M a year in order to be adequately prepared for WWC and Olympics (and not just show up). How did we get even further down to the 150k level? What the heck does 150k buy you these days anyways? 150k is minimum obligation funding. They are basically on Welfare or life support (however you want to look at it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 It would be interesting to see what the teams that advanced to the second round spent on their Women's National Teams. I know money is not the answer to all problems but it does take away the excuse that lack of money provides. I am particularly interested in the amounts spent by Australia (similar to Canada), Norway (much smaller country) and Brazil (developing country) spent. Anyone have the figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Anyone who thinks the WNT budget is 150K is loco. They get money from different places. That number is the CSA contribution this year, because of the U20. In previous year's they got significantly more. And, more importantly, it doesn't include salaries. I notice he doesn't mention that figure though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 ok I'll bite. How much? If you don't know guess? And where exactly does this money tree grow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Que Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 quote:Originally posted by terpfan68 It would be interesting to see what the teams that advanced to the second round spent on their Women's National Teams. I know money is not the answer to all problems but it does take away the excuse that lack of money provides. I am particularly interested in the amounts spent by Australia (similar to Canada), Norway (much smaller country) and Brazil (developing country) spent. Anyone have the figures? Here is some info about England from an article a couple of weeks ago. "The English are essentially amateurs - teachers, students, mail carriers - playing the American professionals. It wasn't until the early 1970s that women were even allowed to play at stadiums run by men's pro clubs. Though there's no U.S. women's league, players on the World Cup team will all earn more than US$200,000 annually in salary and bonuses if the Americans win the World Cup. The United States Soccer Federation spends about US$10 million annually on the women's team, and runs a six-month residency camp in southern California. It's difficult to compare, but the women's game in England is now getting nearly the same financial support, England spokesman Alex Stone said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccertaxi Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by terpfan68 It would be interesting to see what the teams that advanced to the second round spent on their Women's National Teams. I know money is not the answer to all problems but it does take away the excuse that lack of money provides. I am particularly interested in the amounts spent by Australia (similar to Canada), Norway (much smaller country) and Brazil (developing country) spent. Anyone have the figures? Here's what I found regarding Australia's funding (press release dated Sept. 11, 2007) Australian soccer to 'kick on' with Australian Government funding The Minister for Arts and Sport, Senator George Brandis, will tonight announce the Australian Government is providing funding of $16 million over four years to support our male, female and Paralympic football teams. This builds on funding of $15 million announced previously to assist the Australian Soccer Association (now known as the FFA) over three years to 2006–07 so it could make changes to its structure and governance as recommended by the Crawford Report 1. The FFA also receives annual funding from the Australian Sports Commission, and received $3.1 million in 2006–07. Sounds like they're getting a bit more money than our teams... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 I read somewhere that the real gross WNT funding for 2007 was around $600k excluding carding money from Sport Canada and excluding the Kerfoot million. Not sure where the $150k number comes from but I suspect it was a deliberately cherry-picked figure to make a point in the media and horrify fans, seems it was a tactic that worked considering how many times I've seen it quoted here. If anybody has better information please post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Richard I read somewhere that the real gross WNT funding for 2007 was around $600k excluding carding money from Sport Canada and excluding the Kerfoot million. Not sure where the $150k number comes from but I suspect it was a deliberately cherry-picked figure to make a point in the media and horrify fans, seems it was a tactic that worked considering how many times I've seen it quoted here. If anybody has better information please post it. I heard the figure with my own ears from Pellerud's mouth. Was he truthful or was he lying to all? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Pellerud is just trying to shift blame and make himself not look as bad. I think that's fairly obvious. The women's national team can not truly move forward until he's gone. We could have the greatest budget in the World and it wouldn't matter if Pellerud was the coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Que Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Vic Anyone who thinks the WNT budget is 150K is loco. They get money from different places. That number is the CSA contribution this year, because of the U20. Hey, no one is saying they have a budget of 150k. Read the article. "The women's program has a budget of $700,000, of which the CSA contributes around $155,000." My point is whether 150k from your national soccer federation is adequate. I'm not counting the money they have to beg, borrow or steal from other sources. "Most of the team's funding comes from the Canadian Olympic Committee, Sport Canada, and Greg Kerfoot, a Vancouver millionaire who helped finance a residency program." That is there budget. I don't care if you have the Brazilian coach or the German coach you are not going to go far on that. And as far as the U20 team being the reason for lower funding that is just this years excuse. Next year it will probably be legal bills/settlements they need to pay off and then after that ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 How much of the registration fee paid by players 9 years and up goes to the CSA? How many players pay that fee? What percent of the money going to the CSA is returned as services to players? What percent of the money returned to players is specifically designated to the National Teams? How is the money going to the National Teams split between the Men's and Women's program? Is there anyone who can answer these questions or is this bulletin board just made up of opinion and not facts.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Since a team who qualify for the Men's WC receive 10 millions $, does a women's team gets money for their qualification? 200 K or 500 K? My question is why do we need more money? To do what exactly? We have played a lot of games prior to the tournament (only 3 teams played more) and we had a residency program for half the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 quote:Originally posted by loyola Since a team who qualify for the Men's WC receive 10 millions $, does a women's team gets money for their qualification? 200 K or 500 K? My question is why do we need more money? To do what exactly? We have played a lot of games prior to the tournament (only 3 teams played more) and we had a residency program for half the year. Exactly, the women "failed" because they are badly coached, we have a retrograde style that denies any possible on the ball talent, and the players amazingly accept this passively, as they are character-less since the veterans were silenced. On top of that the players themselves have behaved like a cult, in a shell, holed up in their own reality, with the captain shi-tting on the players who led them in the past and were ostracized and talking about Brownie-style unity, a big childish bubble of their own doing that burst in their own faces. I think the players and the coach have to take some responsibility for how they play and played, and step up and be responsible. Their attitude, both the coach's and the players', reeks of extreme irresponsibility and immaturity. Come on Sinclair and company, show some leadership and stop acting like school kids. Sorry to say, but I think we give them a huge fat benefit of the doubt only because they are the women, and in the end, treating them as less responsible and less mature is effectively sexist. Why shoud we be so soft on them, are they representing Canada or not? It is time for someone on the team to speak up and take the role that we lost when we lost the veterans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.