Voyageurs Organization Referendum Proposal

[RJB]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Regarding alternative ways to determine who gets the right to vote, I agree with you piltdownman that there are some people who don't post here but yet regularly attend national team games and who are full Voyageurs in my books. I would like to allow some of them to vote as well but don't see a good method of doing so. I don't really feel that being in possession of one Canada game ticket necessarily qualifies you as a Voyageur. To some extent this might be an argument for having paid memberships (those who pay get a card and voting priviledges while others can still post and participate for free) but that can also be debated in the future. On the other hand I do think that posting is also part of the parcel of participating on the Voyageurs on a regular basis so those who do not post really can't complain about not having a vote as they only have themselves to blame. Additionally, I think the number of voters in this situation would be extremely small and not worth creating some difficult and controversial method of having them declared eligible.

This is getting out of hand. How many stipulations are we going to include??? My Dad has been to a few Canada games, is he a Voyageur? He's not even Canadian! The only way is to include all persons on this website.

I think that any wishes to restrict the number of voters accounts to something similar to an Old Boys Club. Is this a way of controlling the outcome? Only let the senior members vote, only let the most active people vote? That's not an organization. We need to hear from everyone - including/especially the people who we don't agree with - so that we can remain an inclusive group.

Members on this site are Voyageurs, and as a result, they should get a chance to vote. As there is currently no other accepted agreement as to what constitutes a Voyageur, this is the only way going forward.

[The Ref]

quote:Originally posted by RJB

Foolish. This discussion should he held HERE! If people want to talk about it elsewhere, then so be it. However, to direct people away from this website to have a discussion about this website is assonine.

I totally agree. Of all the dumb ideas, this one of going into a for profit site to discuss our affairs take the cake. I am prepared to vote here and right now. I refuse to register into this facebook crap. Surely we can reach a consensus here. Just have a vote. I think the reality may be that there is a group who do not want any change or any form of organization or be subjected to certain rules.

[piltdownman]

I also agree that it should be here ... but only in the "Voyageurs" section, not in the "Men's National Teams & Players" section.

[Reza]

Guys

relax.

All the events leading upto the 4 qualifiers were organized through facebook.

Voting is not that easy if you don't know all the questions to ask.

I have compiled a list out of all threads which includes some 25 different questions that needs to be answered in regards to a range of questions.

Just relax a bit. Cool heads will prevail.

Thanks

[El Hombre]

quote:Originally posted by piltdownman

Rivercity, respectfully I disagree. I think their has to be some level of 'arbitrary cutoff'. I think their should have to be some level of commitment to actually have your opinion count. I don't think post counts should be the only factor (I have some 1100 posts about much of nothing ) That's why I suggest anyone who went to a Canada Match, and then takes the time to take a picture of the ticket also should qualify. I still think in the long run that paid membership is the way to go (but that's a whole other topic). But I would argue that the forum and website should always be free for all.

Just as a quick rebuttal before I retire to the shadows again: this just smacks of elitism. If you want to make an arbitrary cut off, then make it 15 posts. What is the big worry? Are you trying to keep out the crazies? Because I have a lot less faith in a system that favours the vote of someone who feels the need to rant all the time (say over and over again on an arbitrary subject like the CSA's personal vendetta against Lars Hirschfeld) over someone who gives their input every now and then but prefers to lurk.

Also, through personal experience at V gatherings, I've found that it's those with a smaller post count that are the most fun to drink with and they'd be the ones I'd want making decisions.

[piltdownman]

Yes maybe elitism, I guess my only fear is that a big chunk of the votes will some with people with very few post, who then disappear. I mean whats to keep me from registering dozens of accounts and voting with all of them to get my petty little way?

I must note that I'm not going to do this

[Duane Rollins1555362254]

I've posted this over on the Facebook page, but since not everyone is able/willing to read that I'm going to repeat myself here.

I feel that the first step we need to make is to see whether the majority of Vs want to see change. If there isn't, then it's pointless to continue the discussion. If there is, we can start to figure out just how big a change we want to make and how we want it to look.

On Facebook I propopsed asking the following question:

"Do you support restructuring of the Voyageurs into a formal organization with elected leadership?"

I'm not married the the wording. Making the question even simpler...something like "Do we want to review how the Voyageurs are structured" might be appropriate as well.

To me, it starts with asking if there is interest in this.

I proposed that anyone who is interested in voting send an e-mail to thevoyageursvote@gmail.com (I set it up tonight). The thinking is that it's unlikely that someone would take the time to vote on the issue if they didn't already self-identify as a Voyageur (which is enough for me). I volunteered to count the votes and report back here. The vote would be non-binding. It would simply be an assessment of interest to help direct future conversations.

To keep the voting transparent, I would advertise the e-mail password: canadiansoccer

Would people be interested in seeing this question (or something similar) answered?

[Soju]

Thanks everyone who is posting here. Some of us don't use facebook and would like to be kept in the loop as it were.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

The first order of business is to determine whether we want to change from the existing structure and leadership to a new one. Only after that is decided should there be a debate/referrendum on what the new structure should be, ie. whether the Voyageurs should become a NPO, have an elected Board of Directors, Incorporate, etc. The current leadership is entirely willing to resign and in part has already done so but it is only fair that before we undertake a major change in structure and leadership, a majority of posters have to agree that they would like to see this happen.

I agree that the post count is not a perfect system but it is the only impartial one. There are Voyageurs who rarely post but read the forum and attend many games. I would like to vouch for them and let them vote but there is no way this could be done fairly without the appearance of being partial or stacking the vote with friends.

I take great offence to your comment, "for me and from what I gather from others here, many who have been shut up and shut out for reasons I do not understand". This is blatantly false. I don't know of anyone who has been shut out and if there are cases they were few and done for good reason (people unable to work with others, people who insult other members, people who seem to be unstable). For the most part very few people have volunteered to help. In fact, this is a big concern of mine that if we do democraticize, how many of the people demanding change will be willing to volunteer the time and effort to do the organization required. Regardless of that, if people disagree with my opinion I am fine with that but do not make false statements and lies about how the organization has been run in the past. If you are going to make accusations of being shut out then you need to post actual instances when this has happened. I would also suggest that if it has happened in the past it may have to do with the frequency of posts you make insulting other members like this little gem from about 10 days ago (concerning SCF08 in http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2806):

You are mudslinging Grizzly and debasing yourself. I know people have been shut out because they have said so, and I have been PMd on occasional issues, as have others here.

You are trying to discredit my opinions, which were perfectly valid and shared by a lot here, just because I don't agree with you. That is cheap and is typical of people who lack arguments. You are being excessively defensive and refuse to acknowledge your first post in this thread is a blatant distortion of Voyageur reality.

Grizzly, there have been at least 3 to 4 dozen people who have dedicated time and effort to various aspects of Voyageur activity over the years I have been around. Maybe more. None of them ever had to pass a test, get approval from this so-called direction you are falsely making up, do a means test, have their honesty checked. I happen to be one of them, though my participation in a few little things was minimal and almost testimonial (I even remember setting up polls on the website for a while, a lot of fun, remember that, or maybe you weren't around then?).

However, no person in the "direction" ever said yes or no to me acting on behalf of the Voyageurs for a specific issue or situation. You know why? Because this "direction" has never existed as you are deceptively making it out. I did what everyone else has done: try to honestly express a general sentiment when acting on behalf of the Voyageurs, and I have always supported anyone who has basically followed that rule of thumb. When people call for someone to speak to the press, for example, lots of folks have stepped up, and as long as they spoke as passionate fans with a bit of knowledge about current reality they have done marvellously. I think you are slighting all those efforts by your manipulation of current reality.

Of course I cannot come close to those who have worked for months or years on an almost daily basis, like on the web, handling the Voyageurs Cup in the early days, moderators, or even those who have spent years as custodians of banners, incredible dedication.

Beginning this thread with the implication that there exists another type of leadership at Voyageurs, that there is a sort of institutional crisis because the last of a long line of people working their butts off are disappointed and have dramatically resigned (I never heard of such a dramatic description of things in all the years I have been here, this crisis management in the face of resignation, I find it ridiculous), and that now is the time to react, is a distortion. It is also suspect that you feel that the decision on the reaction should be arbitrarily restricted in a way that favours "old guard" interests, it is totally unfair. Which is why I do not agree with the referendum proposal as you have set it out. If that bothers you, I am sorry, but it is no reason for you to try to discredit my views by other means, as that is just cheap.

So stop mudslinging and distorting current reality and answer the question: why now Grizzly? With no matches, a lame duck coach, a CSA that is interim and legally questionable under fire like never before, and this board as busy as ever, why are you right now particularly on this crusade? Be open about it and stop reacting so defensively when someone criticizes you.

[Winnipeg Fury]

"You are mudslinging Grizzly and debasing yourself. I know people have been shut out because they have said so, and I have been PMd on occasional issues, as have others here."

Jeffrey, who has been 'shut-out.' I can say I'm a professional player, but doesn't mean that I am.

[Vancouversoccerman]

Other than being a supporter of Canadian Soccer and a Voyageur through attending games, I have no strong feelings either way from maintaining the status quo or creating a formal organization.

One of the things I like about the current situation (I wouldn't really call it "structure") is that everyone is free to contribute as little or as much as we want. When opportunities or issues arise, the group as a whole has been pretty good at finding solutions that work for each city Canada plays in.

Having an organized structure may provide more accountability and opportunities to grow. But it may also just replace people who actually do things with people who want titles. It also opens the door for the group to become unfocused, pursue personal agendas, and become consumed with petty bickering instead of actually accomplishing goals. It's one of the reasons why I resisted calls to turn Friends of Soccer into a society. Some of the people involved wanted to turn it into a sounding board for soccer issues unrelated to the Vancouver stadium, and that would have created a lot of division and bickering. We didn't need that at a time when continuity of purpose and message was the most important thing.

I, like a lot of people here, am a Voyageur because I enjoy watching Canada games with passionate supporters who give their all for Canada. I'm always amazed at the commitment of people who travel halfway across the country to support our teams. As long as I can continue to do that with ease and safety, I'm happy. If there's a scarf I can buy, even better! And I enjoy the vigorous debates on this board as well.

If we know one thing from this board, there's a million different opinions on the direction of Canadian soccer and the Voyageurs. But there's unity of purpose as well. If an organized structure can help the Voyageurs build and grow, while maintaining that unity, then fine. But if organizing just becomes a forum to pursue power and agendas, the staus quo is working just fine.

[gator]

^ Some very good points Vanman, I feel about the same way! I am not against us becoming a more formal organization, if that is what the majority want! I can share a personal story that has some parallels! A small marina/boat club which I have belonged to for awhile, this summer decided to form a boaters' association, most people were in favour of it, even if we didn't feel it was necessary! It's a family run marina and the owners are quite approachable about any concerns we might have! Well it turns out the people most determined to start the association have their own personal agenda and it has unfortunately produced some personal rifts that just weren't there before! This is just one example, and I think our marina will be just fine, but please understnad why I am a little hesitant to jump in to something like this!

[Captain Spaulding]

quote:Originally posted by piltdownman

Yes maybe elitism, I guess my only fear is that a big chunk of the votes will some with people with very few post, who then disappear. I mean whats to keep me from registering dozens of accounts and voting with all of them to get my petty little way?

I must note that I'm not going to do this

Sorry if this hurts anyone's self esteem, but I don't think the Trots will see you guys as worthy of infiltrating and splitting. Maybe if you were calling for government takeover of the CSA....

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by gator

^ Some very good points Vanman, I feel about the same way! I am not against us becoming a more formal organization, if that is what the majority want!

A majority of what, though? Regular posters, all posters, and/or lurkers who attend games across the country, or something else? We can't even identify or agree on what the base is from which a majority could be consituted from, which is one of the problems with the movement to a more formal organization.

I'm in favour of letting things continue to grow & move organically the way they have been in recent years.

[nolando]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

A majority of what, though? Regular posters, all posters, and/or lurkers who attend games across the country, or something else? We can't even identify or agree on what the base is from which a majority could be consituted from, which is one of the problems with the movement to a more formal organization.

I'm in favour of letting things continue to grow & move organically the way they have been in recent years.

me too, for what it's worth - i love the steps that are being made and applaud those who have undertaken the major projects - but lets point out and note that these steps are being taken naturally, as those involved and willing to involve themselves have seen fit

we have overcome the disaster of the plf scarf scam and seem to be on our merry way - but let's not forget that we have had one major success story as far as organising fan support and taking over a stadium goes, only one (the jamaica game), and now the nats are for all intents and purposes going into hibernation for the next three years

and don't forget that within weeks we will shrivel to the hardcore group that we usually are outside of our brief windows of WCQ livlihood - a small group that can pretty much only agree on our collective love for the game and for ouir MNT

and that's fine with me - that's the way it should be

if our team had managed to go a little further then this thing might have required the time of organization that might or might not have needed something more formal to get things together...as it stands there is nothing to fret about

if we get a group in toronto for the gold cup we could decide who would like to be in charge of that particular project and all of the related events, or those people will simply take it upon themselves - just like it has always done

in my opinion we don't need a set leader for contacting the CSA or the press - we can do these things as we all see fit, one job at a time, like all good grassroots, volunteer prjects do - it keeps us free, keeps us true, and discourages the gloryhunters and powerseekers who we know are in our midst, and keeps things sane around here

again, just my two cents

[Duane Rollins1555362254]

Let me repeat myself:

What harm is there in having a vote on whether there is interest in changing at all?

I have the e-mail set-up (thevoyageursvote@gmail.com). It won't be binding in anyway. It will just be to see how much interest there is.

The Facebook discussion has dried up. This has been talked about for a few days now. No one is going to stop anyone from adding their two cents moving forward. It's time to take the next step (and maybe the last one if there is no interest.

I'm going to start a thread. If the mods what to delete it, I won't take offense. I just feel that there needs to be some evidence as to whether there is interest. Otherwise, why are we bothering to have this debate?

The question I'm going to ask is this:

"Do you believe that a review of how the Voyageurs is structured is needed."

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

"You are mudslinging Grizzly and debasing yourself. I know people have been shut out because they have said so, and I have been PMd on occasional issues, as have others here."

Jeffrey, who has been 'shut-out.' I can say I'm a professional player, but doesn't mean that I am.

You want me to tell you about people sending personal messages to me in their own name, all in a huff, but you can't answer the many asking you to account for yourself when acting for all of us, on your own accord, and exclusively, in the name of the Voyageurs:

http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18022&whichpage=2

Get some perspective, man.

Maybe you should worry about all those who sent you questions, supposedly your fellow Voyageurs, who as I write you are ignoring, instead of trying to get me to reveal the content of private conversations.

What is worse, since you have claimed exclusivity, as long as you are not fulfilling the task you also are also blocking every and anyone else on this board from doing it instead of you.

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

You want me to tell you about people sending personal messages to me in their own name, all in a huff, but you can't answer the many asking you to account for yourself when acting for all of us, on your own accord, and exclusively, in the name of the Voyageurs:

http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18022&whichpage=2

Get some perspective, man.

Maybe you should worry about all those who sent you questions, supposedly your fellow Voyageurs, who as I write you are ignoring, instead of trying to get me to reveal the content of private conversations.

What is worse, since you have claimed exclusivity, as long as you are not fulfilling the task you also are also blocking every and anyone else on this board from doing it instead of you.

Jeffrey, you are spreading lies. Nobody has been 'shut-out.' It is a complete fabrication.

Who are these unnamed masses continually storming down my door ?

You can't tell me because they don't exist.

[Gordon]

Why organize...it implies a reason to exist formally that just doesn't exist here. Well, that is not quite true...we are all interested in the national team and having a certain level of organized support at the games and all that entails (which does mean ticket allocation systems, designated supporters sections, and I suppose some degree of formal interation with the CSA) but we were able to move on that without structure so what is the point? On pretty much everything there is no common ground, no common purpose, no common objective. I think we have moved along decently on an informal basis.

Interesting to see though, that we are managing to take a few steps backwards through this discussion...the few people who are "doing" now being put off from doing so...sort of the story of soccer in Canada really isn't it?

[Trident]

I dont understand? This is a debate on whether to stay the same or became an official organisation? with a board and whatnot?

So the choices are unorganised beerswillers or the suits who call themselves RPB?

[Grizzly]

Doug this can not be a private conversation as long as Jeffrey continues to make serious public allegations of impropriety while presenting no evidence whatsoever to back up his claims.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

You are mudslinging Grizzly and debasing yourself. I know people have been shut out because they have said so, and I have been PMd on occasional issues, as have others here.

You are trying to discredit my opinions, which were perfectly valid and shared by a lot here, just because I don't agree with you. That is cheap and is typical of people who lack arguments. You are being excessively defensive and refuse to acknowledge your first post in this thread is a blatant distortion of Voyageur reality.

Grizzly, there have been at least 3 to 4 dozen people who have dedicated time and effort to various aspects of Voyageur activity over the years I have been around. Maybe more. None of them ever had to pass a test, get approval from this so-called direction you are falsely making up, do a means test, have their honesty checked. I happen to be one of them, though my participation in a few little things was minimal and almost testimonial (I even remember setting up polls on the website for a while, a lot of fun, remember that, or maybe you weren't around then?).

However, no person in the "direction" ever said yes or no to me acting on behalf of the Voyageurs for a specific issue or situation. You know why? Because this "direction" has never existed as you are deceptively making it out. I did what everyone else has done: try to honestly express a general sentiment when acting on behalf of the Voyageurs, and I have always supported anyone who has basically followed that rule of thumb. When people call for someone to speak to the press, for example, lots of folks have stepped up, and as long as they spoke as passionate fans with a bit of knowledge about current reality they have done marvellously. I think you are slighting all those efforts by your manipulation of current reality.

Of course I cannot come close to those who have worked for months or years on an almost daily basis, like on the web, handling the Voyageurs Cup in the early days, moderators, or even those who have spent years as custodians of banners, incredible dedication.

Beginning this thread with the implication that there exists another type of leadership at Voyageurs, that there is a sort of institutional crisis because the last of a long line of people working their butts off are disappointed and have dramatically resigned (I never heard of such a dramatic description of things in all the years I have been here, this crisis management in the face of resignation, I find it ridiculous), and that now is the time to react, is a distortion. It is also suspect that you feel that the decision on the reaction should be arbitrarily restricted in a way that favours "old guard" interests, it is totally unfair. Which is why I do not agree with the referendum proposal as you have set it out. If that bothers you, I am sorry, but it is no reason for you to try to discredit my views by other means, as that is just cheap.

So stop mudslinging and distorting current reality and answer the question: why now Grizzly? With no matches, a lame duck coach, a CSA that is interim and legally questionable under fire like never before, and this board as busy as ever, why are you right now particularly on this crusade? Be open about it and stop reacting so defensively when someone criticizes you.

Jeffrey how exactly is quoting a post in which you insult and abuse another member who differed with you on whether Maradonna should be coach for Argentina mudslinging? If you don't want anyone to point out that you frequently make posts that are insulting and offensive towards other members who disagree with you then don't make posts that are insulting and offensive towards other members. I did not write anything that insulted you, I merely quoted your own words. You are the one that is bringing yourself into disrepute by such actions.

You are making accusations that you and others were shut out of the Voyageurs oranization but have provided absolutely no evidence to support these allegations. You are making a big issue out of transparency, but seemingly do not believe it should apply to you. Either name names and instances of people being shut out or stop making baseless accusations. To make things even more ridiculous, in your incredibly confused and obscure post above, you are claiming that the Voyageurs leadership that shut you out does not even exist. You can't have it both ways.

I am perfectly able to get along with and respect the views of those who do not agree with me. If the majority of the Voyageurs wants the structure and leadership to change I will accept that decision. What I will not accept is people making slanderous and false accusations about things that have been done in the past and trying to use these lies to get what they want. And what do people like Jeffrey want (I want to be clear I am not referring to everyone who wants change here but rather those who don't seem to working in a positive manner on the issue)? What is his motivation for all the claims he is making? Does he have the best interests of the Voyageurs in mind or is he just trying to settle personal agendas and stir up s-hit?

WF offered Jeffrey the chance to conduct the CSA interview after he complained that it was inappropriate for WF to conduct it. Not surprisingly Jeffrey refused to do it on the excuse that although he unlike WF is a journalist he is not a sports journalist. I am personally happy that he did refuse because I have my doubts as to whether he would be professional but it sure does not back up his claim as to having been shut out.

We have just completed one of our most succesful years as an organization. Many people who are busy with other aspects of their lives have dedicated a lot of time to making sure the Voyageur Cup went well and all the WCQ games went well. The work that these people have done this year should be appreciated but instead their names are being dragged through the mud on the forum. If this continues many of the people who are doing the most work for the Voyageurs will leave the organization. Are there people willing and able to replace them? Who will be interested in doing the work after seeing how those who have done it in the past were treated?

What we need is unity and a movement towards positive change not bickering and divisiveness. We came out of the WCQ with a great sense of togetherness despite the results but this current debate is destroying this. The problem in our organization is not that people are being shut out but rather that not enough people are volunteering to do things. If people want more say in how the organization is run they should volunteer to get involved instead of bitching on the forum. If we are going to completely change the organization, those advocating this better be damn sure they have people willing to do the jobs of those they are replacing.

At the moment if we can not even agree on how to run the vote and who is eligible, how are we going to agree on by who and how the organization is run? Yet even the majority of people advocating change have said they think the organization is well run at the moment. Are we going to risk throwing this away to appease some principles that none of us can agree on? As I said before it is more important we are an effective organization than a democratic one. Would anyone really care if the CSA was an old boys club if all of the old boys were competent and we were qualifying for the World Cup (And no I am not admitting that the Voyageur leadership is an old boys club because it is not, I am only stating a principle)?

The Voyageurs are currently an effective organization that has made a lot of progress in the last couple of years under the leadership of Winnipeg Fury. I don't see any purpose to having a divisive debate at the moment. At the very least I think we should wait for a couple of months for everyone to cool down before discussing this again. In my opinion we should wait until we are not an effective organization that is making a lot of progress before changing ourselves. The result is more important than the process and we have had a lot of positive results this year.

[Tuscan]

What the hell does posting on a f*cking forum have to do with one's loyalty to Canadian soccer? Dear lord, nothing formal needs to happen with the V's!

Personally, we need to just focus on a few things. Raising the profile of Canadian soccer in general (of course focusing on the national teams as more of a priority), encouraging everyone (V's and the general public) to make it out to every Canadian fixture possible, and encouraging travel to our away dates, which I see as the trickiest goal due to financial constraints. The only formal organizing I think needs to take place is working towards these three goals, which has nothing to do with creating a formal board for this organization. Certainly a bit more organizing needs to happen, but creating an all-out board to run the V's, I think, is a bad idea as it will separate this group based on who is on the board.

We need to unite under this single banner, despite which clubs we support. When the boys in red have a match at hand, we all need to come together in support and make every effort to be there for them. When a monumental moment in Canadian club soccer is coming up (in my mind, V's Cup, any MLS playoff action, anything international like the CONCACAF Champs League) we need to make sure that all those around us hear about it, and to encourage them to watch it and take interest in it. We need to expand club soccer in this country and push for new pro clubs to appear across the nation.

This qualifying cycle was a starting point, no doubt about it (oh wait... we still have one more match to go still, right??) and things need to continue on this path. Seeing the youtube video of the V's flag being raised was awesome, such a massive symbol of a growing organization willing to devote itself in undying support. Seeing all the effort put forth to fill BMO Field with a sea of red, worked out between multiple supporters groups, was a landmark for national team support. These are the things that need to keep happening, and creating a formalized board isn't necessarily what is going to do that. Individuals willing to afford the time, effort, and passion toward these goals is what will ensure that future events reach the same, and even higher, heights than what we have achieved so far. It is without question that further organization needs to take place, but a formal board isn't going to do it any better than open communication between members on this already established board will, because there are plenty of us on here, I'd like to include myself in the group, who are willing to put forth their time and effort towards improving things further without having to be a part of some formalized board.

Oh... and it appears that I easily fit the "200 posts" criterion, f*ck y'all who ain't there, I'm votin' beeatch!

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury

Jeffrey, you are spreading lies. Nobody has been 'shut-out.' It is a complete fabrication.

Who are these unnamed masses continually storming down my door ?

You can't tell me because they don't exist.

But there are a lot of people knocking at your door, on the thread you started, and you don't want to answer.

So deal with your responsiblity first and stop with the subterfuge on my simple comment that people complain about not being able to do things, or not do them as well as they would like.

You can call me anything you want, call me a liar, but remember this: I never accused you personally of being the one shutting people out, but you are the one on the defensive about it.

Or how about this thread, where your posts are bordering psychotic. You drown out everyone else, are overbearing, show a lack of respect for longstanding Vs trying to improve things, exagerrate your own personal accomplishments and indirectly insult others who worked hard before you, and say "Me, me, me", "I, I, I" all over the place. There are so many toys flying out of your pram its like an early winter hailstorm.

http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18052

So grow up and stop acting like a puss.

As for Grizzly's comments, there are direct lies there like the comment that WF offered to let me do the CSA interview. He was obviously being cynical and defensive in his remarks and the offer did not exist in reality. It is obvious that anyone negotiating favourable conditions for the Vs, looking for good faith from the CSA, is not in a favourable position to ask the hard questions most Vs want asked from the same organization. That is a basic principle of journalism, those selling ads to city hall are not the city hall reporters.

The real question is that WF had no intention of asking anything sensitive or insisting on it from the CSA, including demanding their resignation (a widespread opinion amongst Vs), and should have realized this.

[Winnipeg Fury]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

But there are a lot of people knocking at your door, on the thread you started, and you don't want to answer.

So deal with your responsiblity first and stop with the subterfuge on my simple comment that people complain about not being able to do things, or not do them as well as they would like.

You can call me anything you want, call me a liar, but remember this: I never accused you personally of being the one shutting people out, but you are the one on the defensive about it.

The thread I started about interviewing the CSA ? You make no sense......

Jeffrey these posts of yours confirm you to be nothing more than a troll.