Alberta Soccer Dispute Continues ON

[SoccerFather]

You might be right about attending to due process but let's not forget that the SGM was a legimate forum and legally held. Where is the CSA on this?

We must not forget what the Charpentier group has done to soccer in Aberta:

- Suspending volunteer coaches for putting the interests of children first

- Threatening districts with suspension for running provincials

- hiding medals from children at provincial tournaments

- banning coaches for life because they put kids interest first

- threatening lifetime suspension for running camps

- hiring family members and padding their owns pockets with association money

- firing staff for doing their jobs (what is this going to cost??)

Hopefully, enough ofus will rise up when the distict meetings take place so that we can rid ourselves of the Charpentier, Inness, Chater types that are DESTROYING soccer in this province.

[kj52]

I don't understand your complaint. According to the rules the ASA made an internal decision that could be reviewed to determine it's validity. Rather than interfere with a provincial association the CSA is upholding their authority and demanding all parties follow the procedures they agreed to when they accepted positions on the ASA board.

It looks to me like the decision to remove Mr. Billings can still be reviewed following the procedure Mr Billings agreed to when he accepted the job. Taking it to court appears to be in violation of the rules of the ASA, CSA and FIFA that he agreed to uphold and abide by as an officer of the ASA. Why is he afraid to follow the correct procedure? From out here it looks like the decisions of this one man are what is costing the ASA money and credibility. Regardless of the truth of the matter and whether his suspension should stand the damage done by taking this fight to court is huge and only undermines his case.

It's not hard to understand your confusion Ted. If you read the previous 69 pages and the multitude of links provided you will be able to gain an bit of an understanding of this affair. I can tell you quite truthfully that at this point you likely don't have 10% of the information you would need to be able to contribute anything meaningful to this conversation and I'm not trying to be harsh. The back ground is essential and very farreaching in the potential consequences to Canadian soccer.

[Bill Spiers]

I know how unpopular my opinion is, but I will reiterate it once again...Billings SHOULD have attended the ASA / CSA hearings, regardless of whether or not the outcome(s) was/were a fait accompli.

He could have then attended the SDRCC; I have always felt strongly that it is best to follow the avenues of appeal available. Processes are in place in both associations, and Chris would have been well-advised to go through the painful exercises because he would have been in an even better position to advocate for the massive change required in this province (and country).

But what is your opinion on the validity of the April 24th. SGM. If someone thought that there were irregularities in the calling and the holding of the SGM, should they not have followed the processes available to challenge the legality of the SGM?

[kj52]

But what is your opinion on the validity of the April 24th. SGM. If someone thought that there were irregularities in the calling and the holding of the SGM, should they not have followed the processes available to challenge the legality of the SGM?

Bill Spiers has hit the nail on the head, if anyone should have been following procedure it was the Charpentier group. They deliberately chose not too and relied on their relationship with the CSA executive committee to avoid having to justify their illegitimate actions. CSA is as much to blame for this as they are. Their whole strategy has been to try to shift attention from themselves and focus on the bogus "suspension" of Mr. Billings and people still get sidetracked by it.

[fishman]

Certainly appreciate why you advocate that path Fishman, but to be honest I firmly believe he would have become another D.D., by now this would be over, Mario would be acting president of ASA and the rural districts would have their own association separate from ASA.

kj52, DD was reinstated, and the tough, hard road he travelled eventually saw his good name restored. I do, however, concede that Mario would be acting president of the ASA had Billings gone down the road I advocate. I just strongly believe in the latin term "dura lex sed lex" - the law is hard, but it is the law. And by jumping though the hoops of the absurd ASA / CSA, the hard laws can be exposed and hopefully changed.

But what is your opinion on the validity of the April 24th. SGM. If someone thought that there were irregularities in the calling and the holding of the SGM, should they not have followed the processes available to challenge the legality of the SGM?

Two wrongs don't make a right, Bill. Of course Charpentier can't see the irony of this all.

[kj52]

kj52, DD was reinstated, and the tough, hard road he travelled eventually saw his good name restored. I do, however, concede that Mario would be acting president of the ASA had Billings gone down the road I advocate. I just strongly believe in the latin term "dura lex sed lex" - the law is hard, but it is the law. And by jumping though the hoops of the absurd ASA / CSA, the hard laws can be exposed and hopefully changed.

Unfortunately it appears that the "law" doesn't apply to the Charpentier group, they get the free pass on their activities. Mario would not only be the "acting president" but ASA would be totally screwed for years to come. If only one group does not have to obey the law then they will have control for as long as they want it.

[kj52]

If there is one group that the "law" does not apply to, then we de facto have a third world dictatorship. Show trials, lifetime suspensions and separate organizations forming would be the inevitable results. Attending pre-determined so called "hearings" doesn't change or help anything other than causing the accused and those who support him to walk away from the sport. The bylaws of the ASA are not so hard, they do need change but if they were followed none of this would be happening.

[rdroze]

CSA: 'Follow the process' (Edmonton Sun, Friday, July 23)

Their stand regarding the current dispute between the two warring factions of the Alberta Soccer Association had been clear from the beginning.

As the national governing body of the sport, the Canadian Soccer Association wanted to see an in-house resolution to the problem, keeping it out of the courts.

<snip>

“It’s important to get it resolved in the right way,” he said. “If it’s done quickly, then great, but if it’s done incorrectly, then the timing of it is not so much the issue. It’s making sure it’s done correctly as we see it from a national governing position.”

derek.vandiest@sunmedia.ca

This is a very one-sided article.

Even after 700+ posts in this thread, I'm still not sure what's really going on, but Montagliani comes across as being very reasonable in this article.

But where is the response or opinion from Billings or anyone who supports his side? I have trouble believing this sort of journalism is considered acceptable these days, unless there's an ulterior motive.

[beetle]

What position on the pitch do Lawyers play? Looks as if non-Soccer people have more say into how our game will work. Very sad. Same non-soccer people can justify their actions on "law". Punish the kids because of it. Very very sad.

[oc64]

I find it interesting that CSA states

1. We don't know that the suspension was applied properly

2. We don't know that the suspension was warranted

But, in the same breath they state that they recognize the suspension as valid, the SGM as invalid, and Mario's group as leaders in Alberta. Doesn't everything hinge on whether or not the suspension is valid, warranted, and applied properly? What is CSA's basis for failing to recognize the validity of the SGM and the result's of it?

When Montagliani was in Edmonton helping Mario and his clan bully the ASA staff into submission I know that he was asked directly why CSA was involved at all. He stumbled badly and finally came up with "when we see a problem we want to help"

The truth of the matter remains that members of CSA have been involved all along. They are part of the problem and were part of the plan right from day 1. If neither side has made a formal appeal to them why are they issuing statements and making proclamations? Shouldn't the process they claim to hold so closely require them to wait until a formal appeal has been made? Just like CSA wants Chris to submit to a formal appeal process of his suspension, shouldn't the same formal appeal process apply if Mario and Colin wish to overturn the decisions of the April SGM? Why two sets of rules?

[Halley]

First off, I apologize for the length of this post and for the fact that despite my editing, it is probably a rambling mess in some parts.....

I have been reading this thread with much attention (all 70+ pages of it in fact), though I have not yet commented (and therefore justly deserve the title of lurker). Just a few comments I wanted to add however:

- For the record, I would probably come down on the Billings side of this entire equation (despite having had a couple of run-ins with him in the past). I say "probably" only because although I know a great deal of the situation, I am 100% certain that I don't know all of it.

- As a consequence, I would suggest that I generally agree with the sentiments of most of the posters here. I have noticed, however, a disturbing trend in the posts. As time progresses, many of the more logical and appropriate posters have become much more emotional and inappropriate. In the last handful of pages, I see suggestions to begin a harassment campaign, completely unfounded allegations against members of "the other side", most notably Colin Innes and generally unfounded allegations regarding the motives of a number of people. With regards to Colin, it is completely fair to ask whether the apparent conflict with ASA and Skillstorm was divulged. It is decidedly unfair to suggest that he has committed fraud, as the poster suggesting that the cost of his Newswire subscription (which may or may not even exist - it is highly likely that the subscription is Gowlings') may have been fraudulently billed to both ASA and Skillstorm. The same goes for the post regarding the shredding or material at the ASA office, which judging from later posts almost certainly did not occur. In any forum, that is libelous, and should not be tolerated. I appreciate that it was an attempt at humour, but for me, it failed in that regard. Items which are clearly speculative should be noted as such.

- A few posters have mentioned that the people on "this side" are as strongly entrenched and unwilling to listen to fair discussion as "the other side". At the start of this thread, and indeed for the first 40 pages, I would have disagreed with that sentiment. However, in the last few pages, there has been an uptick (at least in my view) in immediate disregard for alternative viewpoints. Case in point: The discussion surrounding whether Chris should have appeared in front of whatever hearing was prescribed. There has been a ton of mention about how the original suspension was invalid (entirely possible, though it strikes me as something for a judge/mediator/arbitrator to decide) and whether the SGM (either one) was legitimate.

Much has been made of the result of the Billings SGM (and the CSA response to it). The comment from Bill Spiers jumps to mind: "But what is your opinion on the validity of the April 24th. SGM. If someone thought that there were irregularities in the calling and the holding of the SGM, should they not have followed the processes available to challenge the legality of the SGM?". I would point out that if the Mario/CSA side is correct that the Billings suspension was valid (which given the response from CSA would appear to be the case until such time as a mediator/arbitrator/judge rules against it) then there was no capacity in which to call said SGM. Ergo, the actions taken there are null and void, and there is no need for them to follow any process to resolve it. If I get 15 people together in a room tomorrow for a meeting called by me (another person with no standing within ASA), I would not expect that the board would need to hold a hearing to determine whether my meeting is valid. From their perspective, there is nothing to adjudicate. For this reason, I agree with Fishman that Chris should have attended the hearings as far as necessary to gain a ruling on the suspension. If the suspension is invalid, then you move on to step 2 and deal with the SGM (which could have procedural issues regardless of the ability of Chris to call it, but might also have been done correctly). If however, the suspension is valid then the rest of the conversation is irrelevant. SoccerFather states categorically that "the SGM was a legimate forum and legally held". I do not believe that to have been decided in any meaningful way since that too strikes me as a matter for an adjudicator.

I am not making a case that the Charpentier group is correct in their actions. In my experience, they are almost certainly acting improperly at virtually every turn. Only that the situation is dramatically less cut and dried than many on here would have people believe, at least from a technical perspective. There are some very critical elements that need to be adjudicated before either side can say with any conviction that their actions were correct. Obviously, the validity of the original suspension is the lynchpin to the entire affair. Although there are some very convincing arguments on here to suggest that it was improperly done, I would suggest that there are also some very good arguments that it was done entirely correct. Just because they have not been well articulated here (if at all), does not mean they do not exist. I struggle to believe that the Charpentier group does not believe that what they have done is correct, and given that there are intelligent people in that group (particularly if you set aside actions related to soccer), there must be a reason for that belief.

Regardless, there is no question that I share the belief that the only way to resolve this is the dissolution of the board and another election to re-establish the board in its entirety. I cringe at the thought of what happens if that board is no more functional than the one elected at the last AGM was.

I sincerely appreciate the comments offered in this forum and the wealth of information that has been presented. I just wish that more recent posts had more information to offer, and less wildly unfounded speculation.

[Guest Ed]

^ That is a 'GOLAZO' post. I agree with your synopsis. Welcome to the forum.

[masster]

Wow, so many Alberta people are coming out of the woodwork in this thread. Make sure you all buy tickets to FC Edmonton now ;-)

[fishman]

Halley, it is great to see new posters (and as such, new Voyageurs). Your points are well articulated and thoughtful. I agree that as this thread grows, so too does the vitriol. Like you, I generally come down on the Billings side of things, but to be clear, that is less about Chris Billings and more about the need for significant change in our provincial soccer culture.

Billings has demonstrated courage to take on this task of overthrowing the cronyism that plagues our association...but I think he should have had the full courage of his convictions and attended what might have been a kangaroo court. Even if the outcome was decided in advance, the exercise could have brought to light the old-boys-club mentality within our sport.

My long-time involvement in soccer has been almost exclusively as a player and coach; my anger is directed towards the gross mismanagement of the association's technical department and allocation of funds that should be directed towards player development and coaching education. I can't say with certainty that the group led by Mr. Billings would be more effective in realizing Alberta's sporting potential, but I can say with complete conviction that Mr. Charpentier et al have demonstrated a complete inability to grow the game, especially at the elite level.

As such, I guess I am throwing my somewhat reluctant support behind the Billings/Hodges crew, although I concur that the best possible outcome is the dissolution of the board(s) and a new election of qualified individuals. This thread shows that within Alberta, a group of well-intentioned individuals exist who might be able to fill the void. I say might, because as you have said, this discussion is spiraling downward in its decorum.

[Halley]

Halley, it is great to see new posters (and as such, new Voyageurs). Your points are well articulated and thoughtful. I agree that as this thread grows, so too does the vitriol. Like you, I generally come down on the Billings side of things, but to be clear, that is less about Chris Billings and more about the need for significant change in our provincial soccer culture.

Billings has demonstrated courage to take on this task of overthrowing the cronyism that plagues our association...but I think he should have had the full courage of his convictions and attended what might have been a kangaroo court. Even if the outcome was decided in advance, the exercise could have brought to light the old-boys-club mentality within our sport.

My long-time involvement in soccer has been almost exclusively as a player and coach; my anger is directed towards the gross mismanagement of the association's technical department and allocation of funds that should be directed towards player development and coaching education. I can't say with certainty that the group led by Mr. Billings would be more effective in realizing Alberta's sporting potential, but I can say with complete conviction that Mr. Charpentier et al have demonstrated a complete inability to grow the game, especially at the elite level.

As such, I guess I am throwing my somewhat reluctant support behind the Billings/Hodges crew, although I concur that the best possible outcome is the dissolution of the board(s) and a new election of qualified individuals. This thread shows that within Alberta, a group of well-intentioned individuals exist who might be able to fill the void. I say might, because as you have said, this discussion is spiraling downward in its decorum.

I agree with virtually every word of this. There is no question that the elite level has not progressed anywhere near as well as it should have. There is tons of fault to go around on this, some lies at the feet of recreational thinking being applied to elite level programs, and some is the result of the elite programs being willing participants at times because the inclusion of recreational programs has enabled them to keep costs down (i.e. the fees paid by all players, including recreational players, benefit the elite programs disproportionately. Not saying that is right or wrong, just the way it is). This is true of virtually every program from players to coaches to referees. I would see a lot of use in more formally separating elite play from recreational play, but think it is important to recognize that this is going to come with increased costs on the elite side.

Wholeheartedly agree with the notion that it is not Billings/Hodges/Aab/anyone else that I support. Support only the notion of change/reform.

[TFCRegina]

Then let's talk about how you'd reform the ASA. What changes would you guys suggest?

[kj52]

One thing that would have become apparent if Mr. Billings had attended the "investigation" that was called for on April 23rd was that the procedure violated nearly every recommendation that the SDRCC suggests that NSOs follow. This would have become more evident all the way up the line and could very well have put the CSA in an extremely awkward position. I can't help but think that if CSA had rejected an appeal (which seems likely) the Executive Committe would have been very reluctant to risk binding arbitration at the SDRCC. I suspect there would have been a request for mediation instead and if they did not care for the result could easily have referred the matter back to the ASA to be settled internally. The end result of that would put us right where we are today - in front of Court of Queen's Bench. This is all speculative to be sure but based on the behaviour of the parties involved I do not think it entirely unlikely.

[fishman]

Then let's talk about how you'd reform the ASA. What changes would you guys suggest?

Good governance in sports organizations is easier said than done, especially when you are talking about Boards being staffed by volunteers. Some of those volunteers are well-intentioned, while a few are keen to be in positions of power for the sake of having power.

I will think about this for a good while before responding, but any reforms must put football first. That is, the sport must be first and foremost in any and all decisions. I don't believe that has been the case for a long time.

[Halley]

One thing that would have become apparent if Mr. Billings had attended the "investigation" that was called for on April 23rd was that the procedure violated nearly every recommendation that the SDRCC suggests that NSOs follow. This would have become more evident all the way up the line and could very well have put the CSA in an extremely awkward position. I can't help but think that if CSA had rejected an appeal (which seems likely) the Executive Committe would have been very reluctant to risk binding arbitration at the SDRCC. I suspect there would have been a request for mediation instead and if they did not care for the result could easily have referred the matter back to the ASA to be settled internally. The end result of that would put us right where we are today - in front of Court of Queen's Bench. This is all speculative to be sure but based on the behaviour of the parties involved I do not think it entirely unlikely.

You might be totally right. But I don't see what the problem is with any of that. It's not like this got into court a week after the issues started. If the entire process had been run through and you still get to a point where this is the end result, I think that is better than skippin over everything in the middle to get there.

TFCRegina: I think the biggest thing (and obvious to everyone reading this I would suggest) is the change to Governance. The Board is (or at least should be) responsible for strategic direction and critical decisions (note that deciding whether to pay for heaters is not such a decision). Everything operational is the responsibility of staff. Now, that might mean needing to spend more than a few minutes hiring good staff, and it might mean paying them better, but surely you would realize savings in efficiency (and legal fees I guess) by doing so. As a truly fascinating comparison, Colin Innes is the president of CUSA, which is a remarkably well run organization. Why? Because the Board does not run it. It is operated by a very talented staff and ED who have the appropriate autonomy to do their jobs. It's not actually that hard if people will just let go a bit.

I think that would go a tremendous distance towards improving things. From a more specific point of view, if I were named dictator of all things soccer (heaven help us...), I think that I would separate elite programs from recreational programs (ironically, this is where EMSA/EIYSA have it right - at least in theory). Then you open up the province to things like Super-Y or a provincial league for elite players (think AMSL Youth). I would also get the ASA out of the areas they know nothing about, like referees. There are some very effective models to follow regarding having a separate referee association essentially sub-contracted to manage that program. Again, that would be a short term drain on ASA coffers since that is one of the only self-supporting programs in the organization, but would probably be an improvement.

[kj52]

Then let's talk about how you'd reform the ASA. What changes would you guys suggest?

First item would be restructuring of voting. The present method is somewhat similar to the CSA - number of players/250 = number of votes not to exceed 25% of total eligible votes. Although a very large number of people suggest one Distrct= 1 vote or a variation such as Edmonton: 1 vote each for EDSA, EMSA and EIYSA and Calgary: 1 vote each for CMSA, CUSA and CWSA, I don't believe that that would ever be acceptable to either EMSA or CMSA. Some form of compromise would be necessary but there has to be something that can prevent the two largest voting blocks to only need a couple of small districts joining them to completely control elections. This is the underlying problem that won't go away at ASA and guarantees the future shall remain as the past. Not only the voting structure but how the Board of Directors function is in dire need of change. ASA professional staff have to be protected from the day-to-day interference that they have been subjected to for the past eight years. When Gary Sampley was Executive Director the one big positive for the staff was that he insisted that the Board go through him and he provided a buffer that disappeared with the end of his employment. We'll never truly move ahead under our present system, the question is - how can change be implemented? Present bylaws permit the largest organizations to block any attempt at reform so how do we get there?

[kj52]

I posted before I saw your post Halley, I think you have clearly stated the common sense viewpoint. Why the points you've made aren't apparent to every individual involved in soccer in this province is beyond me.

[Guest Ed]

First item would be restructuring of voting. The present method is somewhat similar to the CSA - number of players/250 = number of votes not to exceed 25% of total eligible votes. Although a very large number of people suggest one Distrct= 1 vote or a variation such as Edmonton: 1 vote each for EDSA, EMSA and EIYSA and Calgary: 1 vote each for CMSA, CUSA and CWSA, I don't believe that that would ever be acceptable to either EMSA or CMSA. Some form of compromise would be necessary but there has to be something that can prevent the two largest voting blocks to only need a couple of small districts joining them to completely control elections. This is the underlying problem that won't go away at ASA and guarantees the future shall remain as the past. Not only the voting structure but how the Board of Directors function is in dire need of change. ASA professional staff have to be protected from the day-to-day interference that they have been subjected to for the past eight years. When Gary Sampley was Executive Director the one big positive for the staff was that he insisted that the Board go through him and he provided a buffer that disappeared with the end of his employment. We'll never truly move ahead under our present system, the question is - how can change be implemented? Present bylaws permit the largest organizations to block any attempt at reform so how do we get there?

^ Well replacing the largest organizations with people who want reform has to be step 1. I am on that crusade starting this week, starting with my local club (which ironically has a very large number of 'teams' participating in the CMSA leagues and therefore some voting strength, according to the CMSA by-laws).

[Halley]

First item would be restructuring of voting. The present method is somewhat similar to the CSA - number of players/250 = number of votes not to exceed 25% of total eligible votes. Although a very large number of people suggest one Distrct= 1 vote or a variation such as Edmonton: 1 vote each for EDSA, EMSA and EIYSA and Calgary: 1 vote each for CMSA, CUSA and CWSA, I don't believe that that would ever be acceptable to either EMSA or CMSA. Some form of compromise would be necessary but there has to be something that can prevent the two largest voting blocks to only need a couple of small districts joining them to completely control elections. This is the underlying problem that won't go away at ASA and guarantees the future shall remain as the past. Not only the voting structure but how the Board of Directors function is in dire need of change. ASA professional staff have to be protected from the day-to-day interference that they have been subjected to for the past eight years. When Gary Sampley was Executive Director the one big positive for the staff was that he insisted that the Board go through him and he provided a buffer that disappeared with the end of his employment. We'll never truly move ahead under our present system, the question is - how can change be implemented? Present bylaws permit the largest organizations to block any attempt at reform so how do we get there?

I'm not sure why an easy first step isn't to move away from player numbers and move towards financial contribution. As I understand it, youth players contribute somewhere between $10 and $17 to ASA per player depending on their age, while senior players contribute something like $25-$30 (it is a bit difficult to pin down the number because senior fees are assessed on a per team basis I believe). That would seem to start to equalize things a bit.

[ted]

It's not hard to understand your confusion Ted. If you read the previous 69 pages and the multitude of links provided you will be able to gain an bit of an understanding of this affair. I can tell you quite truthfully that at this point you likely don't have 10% of the information you would need to be able to contribute anything meaningful to this conversation and I'm not trying to be harsh. The back ground is essential and very farreaching in the potential consequences to Canadian soccer.

I'm sorry you missed my point. There is no confusion on my part. I cannot understand, based on the 69 pages of vitriol, allegations and hearsay posted on this topic, how asking for people to obey the rules they agreed to is a problem. I cannot understand how people give the CSA a hard time about trying to stay out of this mess when these very same people are first to condemn the evil CSA for interfering in Provincial affairs.

Heck, I cannot understand why Mr Billings, who seems to have a case to make against the ASA, does not realize that stepping over the line is a bad strategic move. No matter what his case was nor how just his intentions, by taking action in a provincial court he has crossed a line that is likely going to cost him the war. No right or wrong anymore, just FIFA rules which Mr Billings agreed to uphold as an officer of the ASA.

As for meaningful contributions to this thread: the only meaningful contribution would be to lock it down except for updates from the media. Anything and everything useful has been said already which is why there is so much anger and hate being spewed forth in recent days.

Clearly soccer in Alberta is in shambles. Equally clearly, a group of fans of the National Team on a message board are not going to fix it.

[Guest Ed]

^ Speak for yourself. This National Team fan is going to bat to help 'fix it' as I am part of a big southern Alberta club.