Alberta Soccer Dispute Continues ON

[Richard]

Why are this Mario and his 'board' so keen to retain their positions at the ASA, what's in it for them? Under the circumstances I find it really hard to believe they are motivated solely by altruistic concern for the betterment of soccer in Alberta. The time, effort and obvious financial cost suggests something else underlies this whole sorry state of affairs.

[oc64]

Why are this Mario and his 'board' so keen to retain their positions at the ASA, what's in it for them? Under the circumstances I find it really hard to believe they are motivated solely by altruistic concern for the betterment of soccer in Alberta. The time, effort and obvious financial cost suggests something else underlies this whole sorry state of affairs.

That is the million dollar question and I have not been able to come up with an answer for it. Colin's company did get a large contract from ASA so that might explain his involvement but I can't really pin anyones motivations down. Do they really think their involvement is such a key to soccer in Alberta that everything would completely fall apart without them?

[YYC]

Who hoo! There is a lawyer, a locksmith, day to day security and a PR consultant to boot! The bills must be piling up, and the cash flow is nonexistent. No wonder they are trying to intimidate the membership into double payments. Maybe CUSA & CMSA should give them a cash advance? The old ASA guard should fix the problem in their own back yard before they start bullying the membership. Better yet, go away and take your antics with you, neither is wanted here!

[kj52]

Why are this Mario and his 'board' so keen to retain their positions at the ASA, what's in it for them? Under the circumstances I find it really hard to believe they are motivated solely by altruistic concern for the betterment of soccer in Alberta. The time, effort and obvious financial cost suggests something else underlies this whole sorry state of affairs.

It's all about a combination of protecting turf and political ambition. These guys see this a path to CSA and more of what they've come to enjoy, lots of (they hope) expense paid trips, hobnobbing with the rich and famous, finding out more ways to make money from soccer, etc., etc. Also in order to protect their own operations in Alberta, they need to make sure no one is going to be investigating them for any reason (I'll leave it up to others to speculate on what those reasons could be). Controlling ASA just allows them to keep things tidy and neat and keep any inquisitive types away.

[oc64]

If Mario and his group gain complete control it will be a trainwreck. I'm saying right here that if that happens, Mario and Colin will be suing each other by this time next year. There is no way they can play nice with each other long term.

[YYC]

If Mario and his group gain complete control it will be a trainwreck. I'm saying right here that if that happens, Mario and Colin will be suing each other by this time next year. There is no way they can play nice with each other long term.

What? You mean there is no honour among thieves?

[oc64]

What? You mean there is no honour among thieves?

The intesting part will be to see if CSA suspends anyone then for "taking legal action"

[YYC]

Chris is already "suspended" in Alberta and Canada; can he be suspended twice? Just checked, he is still listed as Alberta member on the CSA web site.

http://www.canadasoccer.com/directory/board.asp

And how is it that Mario and the group were not suspended when they filed a court action on April 26 seeking an injunction against some 16 Alberta districts? It is unclear whether or not the claim has ever been withdrawn. Could it be that some CSA members are more equal?

[Bill Spiers]

And how is it that Mario and the group were not suspended when they filed a court action on April 26 seeking an injunction against some 16 Alberta districts? It is unclear whether or not the claim has ever been withdrawn. Could it be that some CSA members are more equal?

Just to be fair, CSA did state on May 4th. to both parties that "Any litigation is contrary to the CSA By-laws. The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) shall have jurisdiction over disputes between parties belonging to the CSA".

Subsequent to that, the ASA Board (Mario Charpentier) stated on May 6th. that "The Canadian Soccer Association has intervened and has made decisions. We have complied and have withdrawn the Originating Notice of Motion yesterday".

[YYC]

Sure, but did not try to suspend them, did they? And Mario also stated that he isn't a bully! Do we believe that too?

I had an oportunity to read the transcript of the proceedings and am not satisfied that the action has been withdrawn. In fact, the judge had asked several times, but their lawyer stated that he had no instuctions as to how to proceed. Someone please correct me if I am wrong!

[oc64]

Sure, but did not try to suspend them, did they? And Mario also stated that he isn't a bully! Do we believe that too?

I had an oportunity to read the transcript of the proceedings and am not satisfied that the action has been withdrawn. In fact, the judge had asked several times, but their lawyer stated that he had no instuctions as to how to proceed. Someone please correct me if I am wrong!

I think the lawyer actually said he didn't even have a client anymore. It seems as though the judge was almost encouraging Chris to request that the judge award him legal costs. Up to this point I don't believe that Chris has done so.

[a_coach_in_ab]

Just to be fair, CSA did state on May 4th. to both parties that "Any litigation is contrary to the CSA By-laws. The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) shall have jurisdiction over disputes between parties belonging to the CSA".

Subsequent to that, the ASA Board (Mario Charpentier) stated on May 6th. that "The Canadian Soccer Association has intervened and has made decisions. We have complied and have withdrawn the Originating Notice of Motion yesterday".

Bill, would you be able to paste the documents containing those quotes?

[oc64]

Just to be fair, CSA did state on May 4th. to both parties that "Any litigation is contrary to the CSA By-laws. The Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC) shall have jurisdiction over disputes between parties belonging to the CSA".

Subsequent to that, the ASA Board (Mario Charpentier) stated on May 6th. that "The Canadian Soccer Association has intervened and has made decisions. We have complied and have withdrawn the Originating Notice of Motion yesterday".

That is very true. The contradiction is that Mario and EMSA have used the court system in other instances without consequence from ASA or CSA

Edit - I believed this to be the case base on anecdotal evidence only. I now must say that I could be wrong. I have googled the two cases that I believed to have been settled through court action and have so far found no info.

[a_coach_in_ab]

That is very true. The contridication is that Mario and EMSA have used the court system in other instances without consequence from ASA or CSA

Be careful, the "2 wrongs make right" path can be very slippery.

[oc64]

Be careful, the "2 wrongs make right" path can be very slippery.

I agree with that too. The current problem is that if you keep enough of your cronies on the various boards (CSA, ASA, districts) then you can essentially act with no fear of reprisal as long as you can keep the court system from being involved.

[Bill Spiers]

That is very true. The contridication is that Mario and EMSA have used the court system in other instances without consequence from ASA or CSA

Any examples? Links to the court cases?

[tmcmurph]

The CSA is now threatening the members who have filed for legal action, stating that it is contrary to CSA Bylaws and that CSA will take appropriate action. Apparently the CSA is above Canadian law. Would somebody let the Supreme Court of Canada know this, the last time I heard they were under the mistaken impression that they were the ultimate level of jurisprudence in Canada, I guess they must have been misinformed. Or maybe the CSA is only superior to Alberta Courts. Who knows, maybe Mario can fill us in.

If your bylaws don't allow access to the legal system then your bylaws are illegal. You can not refuse someone their day in court, period. I would love to see 1 example of any such bylaw even making it past the first level of the judiciary.

[The Kid]

I heard Mario has this guy representing him, so watch out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWtTUrJQehw

[oc64]

Any examples? Links to the court cases?

Here is one I was thinking about but I was wrong. It went to court but at the instigation of EIYSA not EMSA. Still, I don't think anyone was suspended by CSA or ASA for taking the dispute to the court system.

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=ecebac72-3bad-4aef-8a43-b93af3ebf973&sponsor=

[yeg51]

It is somewhat relevant. The decision was handed down late in the day, on the eve of provincials. If CSA, ASA or EMSA had intervened at that point, the notion of "contempt of court" probably had saner heads prevailing. Kern's comments, I think, speaks to that.

IMHO, it does however, reflect , CSA's, ASA's and EMSA's real fear of a court battle, where the absence of "natural justice" on their part in terms of rulings, hearings, suspensions etc would not sit well with the CQB. In this day and age, even the most grievous crime in Canada nets a term of 25 to life, with potential parole options. Compare that with the coach who had the temerity to work in two opposing leagues EMSA and EIYSA, getting a lifetime ban from all aspects of soccer, who to this day is fearful of retribution should he even comment and be considered "bringing the game into disrepute".

What is going to interesting is ASA's defence in the wrongful dismissal suit brought about by the former ED. Option 1 "This court has no jurisdiction, only CSA has" is laughable. Option 2 is defend yourself and under even the most employer centric labour laws on the basis of their track record (instant dismissal and threats in writing no less) is a Titanic after the iceberg. Option 3 is settle and get the heck out out of there, is a PR winner ... not

[tmcmurph]

"yeg51: What is going to interesting is ASA's defence in the wrongful dismissal suit brought about by the former ED. Option 1 "This court has no jurisdiction, only CSA has" is laughable. "

Yea the whole "our bylaws prevent members from court action" stuff is laughable. Let me see if I get this right: The ASA/CSA was formed UNDER Alberta/Canada laws but can claims its bylaws prevent its members from exercising their rights under the same legal system? Good luck with that line of reasoning. Find me a precedent for that one. Organization bylaws fall UNDER the laws of the authority that allowed them to exist in the first place.

#3 is the only real option but they desperately don't want to because they would look even more incompetent (if that is possible).

[oc64]

It is somewhat relevant. The decision was handed down late in the day, on the eve of provincials. If CSA, ASA or EMSA had intervened at that point, the notion of "contempt of court" probably had saner heads prevailing. Kern's comments, I think, speaks to that.

IMHO, it does however, reflect , CSA's, ASA's and EMSA's real fear of a court battle, where the absence of "natural justice" on their part in terms of rulings, hearings, suspensions etc would not sit well with the CQB. In this day and age, even the most grievous crime in Canada nets a term of 25 to life, with potential parole options. Compare that with the coach who had the temerity to work in two opposing leagues EMSA and EIYSA, getting a lifetime ban from all aspects of soccer, who to this day is fearful of retribution should he even comment and be considered "bringing the game into disrepute".

What is going to interesting is ASA's defence in the wrongful dismissal suit brought about by the former ED. Option 1 "This court has no jurisdiction, only CSA has" is laughable. Option 2 is defend yourself and under even the most employer centric labour laws on the basis of their track record (instant dismissal and threats in writing no less) is a Titanic after the iceberg. Option 3 is settle and get the heck out out of there, is a PR winner ... not

I think it also sets a precedent that using the court system as a dispute resolution method does not trigger discipline from CSA and ASA. Discipline can't be selectively applied.

[1867]

So let me get this straight-CSA says an illegal "suspension" which was contrary to the bylaws is ok and that the valid election of Mr Billings is a nullity but then they summarily ignore a legal SGM to remove the malfeasors and they say that the membership of ASA cant go to the courts to have their legal president back and these criminals removed? If Billings suspension is legal why isnt the SGM? What are these guys up to? Why the double standard? What the hell are the Courts for other than for situations like this?

CSA thinks they can dictate to our membership who is to lead them. If we cant go to the Courts to fix this then you may as well burn it down-metaphorically-and start over. F#!K CSA if they want to act like this. They arent worth following. They will have to suspend all of us. Many more will step up. We have nothing to lose but our chains. Sounds over the top I know but imagine if the province elected a premier and the Parliament of Canada said we dont like that guy-we like another guy-and you cant go to the Courts.

[fairthought99]

I know that by posting here those who will not listen to reason will not answer these questions because they know it would be detrimental to their case. but if you are unbiased just read below.

1. Billings was suspended by the board. 9 of 10 voted for the suspension and the other board member abstained. Which is legal under the bylaws of the association. Regardless of what you think, it is allowed.

2. Billings believes he is above the law and that rules and regulations do not apply to him. if he is so right then why does he just not go through the proper steps as outlined by the bylaws and rules and regulations? because he believes that he is above the law or that he will lose. there is no other explanation.

3. Why would 9 of 10 people who most of the time do not really get along agree that Billings needed to go? could it be that maybe just maybe he did some shady borderline illegal acts, or was totally out of control?

4. Billings is the front man, and actually a puppet of those who wish to once again control Alberta Soccer like they did 10 years ago, doing what they liked with no opposition and no need to follow the rules. So the old boys club is really trying to come back into power. Troke, Turner, Thome, Bowie.

5. If any of you spent money or treated people the way Billings has treated volunteers, staff and board members, i am sure you would be out on your ears. So why is this different for Chris?

You should applaud the board of directors of ASA for having the courage to get rid of a tyrant like Billings. What if these things had happened to you or someone you care about? would you not want someone to stand up and defend them? This is what this board has done. Shame on all of you for supporting such actions by billings just because you hate Colin and Mario.

I look forward to your replies as i am sure they will be filled with lies and misinformation.

Fairthought99

[TFCRegina]

I know that by posting here those who will not listen to reason will not answer these questions because they know it would be detrimental to their case. but if you are unbiased just read below.

1. Billings was suspended by the board. 9 of 10 voted for the suspension and the other board member abstained. Which is legal under the bylaws of the association. Regardless of what you think, it is allowed.

2. Billings believes he is above the law and that rules and regulations do not apply to him. if he is so right then why does he just not go through the proper steps as outlined by the bylaws and rules and regulations? because he believes that he is above the law or that he will lose. there is no other explanation.

3. Why would 9 of 10 people who most of the time do not really get along agree that Billings needed to go? could it be that maybe just maybe he did some shady borderline illegal acts, or was totally out of control?

4. Billings is the front man, and actually a puppet of those who wish to once again control Alberta Soccer like they did 10 years ago, doing what they liked with no opposition and no need to follow the rules. So the old boys club is really trying to come back into power. Troke, Turner, Thome, Bowie.

5. If any of you spent money or treated people the way Billings has treated volunteers, staff and board members, i am sure you would be out on your ears. So why is this different for Chris?

You should applaud the board of directors of ASA for having the courage to get rid of a tyrant like Billings. What if these things had happened to you or someone you care about? would you not want someone to stand up and defend them? This is what this board has done. Shame on all of you for supporting such actions by billings just because you hate Colin and Mario.

I look forward to your replies as i am sure they will be filled with lies and misinformation.

Fairthought99

Except that he did. He called for an SGM. The membership supported him over the board. It's quite simple really. The so-called "ASA Board' headed by the Mario Clown Club ignores the results which don't go in its favour.

I will remind you that it wasn't Billings who blatantly attacked the children in an attempt to seize power. It was the Clowns in the Mario crowd.

All this talk about 9 offenses that caused Billings to be removed, but no criminal charges laid, no independent audit done...wonderful work. It's like you think it's just ok to wantonly fire people on allegations rather than evidence. The fact that Mike's son got promoted through this whole mess reeks of corruption and graft. If Chris did something wrong, get an independent auditing firm, like MNP or KPMG in and have them go through the books...unless of course you're afraid of what would actually come out?

I applaud the real board of directors, the BIllings crowd, for having the stones to stand up to the oligarchs of the past who are more concerned with ruining sport for children, denying opportunities (Super Y) for children and maintaining the old guard stand. It was this same group of clowns who went and voted unanimously against reforms for the Conflict of Interest and Transparency rules at the AGM.

You can come to me when your clown club does something that actually benefits Canadian soccer, and isn't just a wanton power grab.

And Addressing point 5...if BIllings has treated people so badly, how come the Mario Club has to keep firing workers from his board? How come the membership backs Chris? Oh right, because he's not a jerk like Mario and Colin.

Thanks for coming out champ.