Richard Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 At the CSA AGM in Banff the CSA 'Membership' approved an $8 player levy for 2010, a $1 increase over 2009. www.bcsoccerweb.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonm Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Any year end financial numbers announced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachRich Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I was told not before the AGM so they should be out. Got another ask in but maybe someone in the V's already has them. Anyone hear if the CSA renewed any of their sponsors as I thought some are up for renewal? Bigger $ out of the players this next go around as they approve their SP. Hope they got someone working on new sponsors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Its kind of funny that they only got $1.00 approved for 2010. I know for a fact that many clubs started collecting $5.00 extra this year, selling it as a "CSA fee increase that they must pass along". I'm curious to know where the extra $850-900K is going to be allocated. I'll find out and report back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 The extra $5 dollar increase was probably for the provincial association and from that extra $5, $1 extra dollar went to the CSA. Why are provincial associations raising costs? Costs of running their organizations maybe went up??? I'd love to examine their books very closely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fengshui Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Article in the Globe and Mail today about this. Titled "CSA Raised Levies, Anger" http://sports.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090505.wsptcsa4/GSStory/GlobeSportsSoccer/home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 ^^^ So the article says the money will be going to youth national teams which I agree with. The dumbass lady Gandubert who is old guard CSA wants it to go elsewhere to things that I suspect don't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag futbol Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I couldn't agree more. Not hard to see why we are were we are today with people like her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squid2 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Just as a matter of clarity, Jean's no lady but Jean is a bona fide fartcatcher though. And no, Jean isn't a big fan of current CSA set-up. He is Mr Jean C Gandubert, current Chief Administrative Officer of the Oakville Soccer Club (2004-present). He continues to maintain a highly valued position on the OSA's "League Management Committee". A failed candidate for the CSA position of General Secretary. Ex Executive Secretary of the Quebec Soccer Fed (94-99)(maybe 91-99)). Ran the FQSF with Dominic Maestracci (current CSA prez/Ex FQSF Pres) @ Dino Madonis (current FQSF Prez) and pretty much ruled FQSF referees association too. A senior provincial and federal bureaurocrat in the early 2000's. His ex wife is Sylvie Beliveau, ex HC of the WNT (mid 90's, pre Turnball). He was a senior mgr at Hollinger Media Inc in the late 80s. I dare say few in Canadian soccer measure up to his level of footy politics and bureaurocratic BS. Although I haven't heard much lately, I'm pretty sure he's not as tight with Maestracci & Madonis as he once was. To me, he's just a taller version of Pipe. But he should be given credit for his contribution and stewardship at the Oakville SC. They are the largest club in Canada. The Oakville SC has the ability to sway many clubs nationally and if they break away from the OSA/CSA fold, many clubs in Ontario and other provinces will follow. Gandubert knows only too well what kind of games the CSA is playing off-the-field. His knife could soon be cutting too close to the bone for the CSA's liking. I suspect that Gandubert doesn't disagree with the $$$ for the NYTs, he would like to see evidence that the funds received are = to the amount applied to the NYTs. That's not currently in place. Nor is there any proactive disclosure on the part of the fartcatchers, which I understand is something be may have lobbied hard for. Anyway, he also allegedly desires/expects/demands changes in governance and administrative within the CSA, which of course are not forth coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squid2 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 unrelated, but good to see Peter Mallet back to reporting on the CSA. Hopefully, he'll be back to cracking lead stories on the CSA again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 quote:Originally posted by squid2 Anyway, he also allegedly desires/expects/demands changes in governance and administrative within the CSA, which of course are not forth coming. Hello Squid....good to see you back at the keyboard. Hope all is well. hopefully you'll be back up in this neck of the woods soon. Some type of governance reforms MIGHT actually be forthcoming. The CSA is up to something. Just not sure what exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 re squid2 Gandubert sounds like one of those Petite Emperors which have plagued Canadian soccer for too long. A little feudal Lord protecting his own patch and exercising whatever influence he can by leveraging his current club's membership and finances. Don't get me wrong. Few here have a greater appetite for governance reform than myself but from the brief bit in the Globe article and your own opinions I'm not getting positive karma from this person of influence. In this instance CSA bashing seems to be little better than a means to an end. But what end and to who's lasting benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squid2 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Cheeta re squid2 In this instance CSA bashing seems to be little better than a means to an end. But what end and to who's lasting benefit? I just call it positioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Spiers Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 quote:Originally posted by VPjr Its kind of funny that they only got $1.00 approved for 2010. I know for a fact that many clubs started collecting $5.00 extra this year, selling it as a "CSA fee increase that they must pass along". Keep in mind that the original CSA proposal - fee increases of 2/2/2/1 over four years followed by 3% increases to maintain existing programmes - is still on the table (except that it will start in 2011 instead of 2010). Some provinces were ready to approve the full increase this year - others wanted the proposal scaled back - others wanted more time to review the proposal with their membership. (Ontario was in this latter group - particularly since the final version of the CSA proposal was only received a month or so ago). The $1 increase for 2010 was a compromise that gave the CSA some new money for 2010 but allowed the provinces considerably more time (until the May 2010 AGM) to fully review the CSA proposal - get answers to how and where the money would be spent (where that wasn't clear) - and suggest alternatives. quote:Originally posted by VPjr I'm curious to know where the extra $850-900K is going to be allocated. I'll find out and report back The original CSA proposal had allocated about $700,000 to the U-17 and U-20 Women's programmes. With both of these teams scheduled for CONCACAF Qualifying and, hopefully, FIFA World Cups in 2010, I am hoping that a significant part of the new money generated from the $1 increase will still be allocated to these programmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 That's great Bill, thanks for the update. Hope you're right too. Do you know how the salary of Morace and her staff is handled? Are they fully paid by the CSA or are there any 3rd party contributions? And in the past we have had dedicated U17 and U20 Women's coaches. So if Morace's staff is looking after either or both, does that mean there is more money in the system to run their programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Vic That's great Bill, thanks for the update. Hope you're right too. Do you know how the salary of Morace and her staff is handled? Are they fully paid by the CSA or are there any 3rd party contributions? she is paid entirely by CSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 That's great, hope either the extra contributions or her and her staff looking after either of the youth teams means cost-savings and extra money to run their programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 ^ Vic, the cost savings that will be derived for the women's program as a result of Carolina (and staff) coaching both the Senior and U20 team is a relative drop in the bucket vs. the cost savings that could be realized in many other areas of that operation. I'm not convinced that the already meagre WNT budget is being maximized as effectively as it ought to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 With the CSA finances in the state they are any cost savings are welcome no matter how much of a drop in the bucket they may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 ^ agreed....all I'm saying is that alot of significantly greater savings are quite easily attainable and those savings could go A LONG WAY to boosting the fortunes of the WNT program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 7, 2009 Author Share Posted May 7, 2009 No argument there but there is merit to the old saying 'watch the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trillium Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 AGM in Banff ... sounds expensive does it not ? Seriously the CSA needs more revenue the model is to tax players not to build commercial income, so if we want to move ahead the dollars must flow, will it be money well spent, only time will tell. Has the CSA shown competence to this date ? No. Is the current president on the right track most likly yes. Is the CSA board changing mmm nope with the new director at large form Ontario we are going backwards, a very retrograde step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard No argument there but there is merit to the old saying 'watch the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves'. More like "Penny wise, pound foolish" this bunch. They done paying off Nykamp yet? Wonder if Mitch is bored sitting at home with nothing to do but cash those CSA cheques? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 I doubt it, suspect he is busy looking for another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 ^ he has another job lined up from what I hear.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.