Morace to quit after WWC?

[Richard]

Bill Spiers: "We need to get people on the CSA Board who have the credibility and the contacts with Corporate Canada to bring in additional sponsorship revenue so that the CSA doesn't have to rely on player fee increases as the only way to generate that additional revenue."

Well said Bill. The root of the problem is the lack of money. The inability of the CSA to draw adequate sponsorships - ever, despite all kinds of promises - is one of their biggest failings. This is due to many factors I'm sure, not the least of which is a lack of confidence on the part of potential sponsors that their money will be handled responsibly. Youth soccer registration money should not be relied upon to fund senior national teams.

[CoachRich]

Regarding Bill's comment. Since September of last year our women have been together full-time and in a new continent every month. In the same half-year our men were together 2 days while our U20 and U17 women's programs have been reduced to one camp a year. Somewhat ironically a horrific scenario our women fought for decades to get out of.

Yes, the CSA still has our WNT in the kitchen and have done for over 10 years.

Canada AM video today

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/video/supporting-coach-carolina-morace/article1901811/

Carmelina Moscato of the Canadian women's soccer team, and James Bunting, an attorney representing the team, say the Canadian Soccer Association is in talks with the coach, and explain how the team should be treated equally to that of the men's team.

[empty_search]

To Vic, re post #142

On the first quote at least, not thoughtful enough. I considered rewriting that section before I posted because it wasn’t precise enough, but got lazy. It is not meant to imply anything – it was supposed to be a conclusion. Assuming that the board thought it through, my logical conclusion is that they a) mistakenly thought that the women would not react in a way which would create turmoil, felt that any turmoil created would not threaten the bid process or c) felt that any possible threat to the bid process was of less significance than some other goal or principle. If the answer was “c”, then they weren’t putting the bid process first.

Your next comment about not giving in to terrorists suggests that you too believe that certain principles are more important than reaching a particular goal. (in this case securing the World Cup bid) I personally feel the same way. I do wonder whether we might not disagree on which principles should be brought into play first and/or how principled the various players in the debacle have been to this point.

I am not certain why you include the reference to the homicide client. I hope that I have not given the impression that it means that I believe everybody can act without consequence. It is more in the line of, “adults have the freedom to act, but they had better be prepared to face the consequences of their actions – and it is better to know or at least anticipate the potential consequences of their actions before rather than after they act.”

Ed D

[ThruBall]

The present conflict with the Women’s National Team, coach and players, relates to:

 Control of the Budget

 Equitable and Fair Compensations

The CSA so far has admitted to acknowledging they will attempt to build a bridge to bring CM back into the fold after the world cup and on another front have started to negotiate with the Women’s team Lawyers regarding a compensation program; the out come of these two conflicts is unresolved at this time.

Both points of contention arise from the CSA’s Executive control and Administration management of their General Revenues.

What is the CSA Executive picture of fiscal responsibility based on 2009 and 2008 published financial numbers?

Combined Total Revenue = $ 30.2 Million 100%

- Membership Dues = $ 13.4 Million

- Sponsorship = $ 8.0 Million

- Sports Canada Grants = $ 3.6 Million

Summary Total = $ 25.0 Million 83%

Staff for the Same Period 32 100%

Combined Expenses = $ 29.2 Million 100%

Admin & General = $ 18.3 Million 63%

Staffing

Executive 2

Soccer Admin 7

Finance Dept. 4

Business Development 4

Technical Staff Association 3

Total Admin & Management 20 People

National Teams Expenses = $ 10.9 Million 37%

Staffing

National Team Staff 12

National Team Players 150 (25 per team X 6 teams – 3m / 3f)

The CSA Head Office is a purchased facility. Mortgage and upkeep for this property is insignificant in the greater scheme of this analysis. The mortgage is likely less than $500 per month amortized over 25 years (see Financial Statements) and the up keep is less than 1,500 per month for heating, electric, water, and general insurance. Metcafe St. is a mid town address in Ottawa.

Computers and Travel Vouchers have been contributed to the CSA in the amount of $93,000 over the past two years. To equip each person with a brand new computer estimated at $3,000 per station in either 2008 or 2009 would amount to $96,000.

It is assumed the Soccer Equipment was Contributed to the Association valued at $1,500.000; $850,000 in 2008 and $900,000 in 2009. (Note 6 Finanical Statements - ambiguous) The details of this equipment is unknown however to assume a national kit for a player might consist of 5 soccer balls, 3 kit bags, 6 shirts, 3 shorts, 6 sets socks 3 track suits, 2 wet kits, 1 winter kit the value of this kit in todays dollars would be $1,600 per player. If the CSA were to provide their entire 150 national players with these items new each season, the total expenditure for 2008 and 2009 would amount to $480,000. The CSA is showing Inventory on their Financial Statements in the amount of $30,200.

The Technical Directors Office and Technical Expenses, excluding the amounts disclosed on above listed on their Financial States in Note 6 (If incurred reduce by $1,500,000) have generated a combined expense for both years of $ 6,787,026. A staff of 3 people, managed by David Benning is responsible for the day to day administration of these expenditures. If the expenditures are not related to the National team, not related to the National Team Kits, what are the expenditures related too? If they are related to the Provincial Soccer Association programs, they should appear with in the PSO statements. These amounts, driven from a General Administration arm of the NSO are not directly related to the National Team expenditures which on their own account for 23% of the NSO revenues.

Administration & General Expense combined consume fully 63% of the NSO revenues. 20 People are involved in the executive decision making and day to day administration and control of these funds; $915,000 per person. This amount should be a measure of the efficiency of the NSO. How does it compare to other NSO’s in Canada? How does it compare to the USSF?

National Team Funding amounts to $10,9000,000 over 2008 and 2009 representing 37% of the available revenue. In other words, 37 cents for every dollar raised goes towards building the National Team Program (including the Youth Programs). 12 people with in the NSO staff of 32 are paid from this amount as well as all the expenses associated with the National Teams programs. The Finanical Statements disclose that the CSA subscribes to the GAP principal of matching expenses to the revenues with in the period the revenue is derived.

Of the $30.2 Million in Revenue, 85% is from reoccurring sources i.e. Player Dues, Sport Canada, and Sponsorship ($8 Million). With 4 people directly engaged in Business Development, there should be nothing but upside to the amount of reoccurring revenue for the CSA annually.

These numbers are their numbers and audited by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

What is the problem? Money is plentiful. Dollars are being consumed at the rate of 63 cents for every dollar raised. Why?

To solve this conflict the CSA Executive will need to OK a redistribution of Revenue and the Control to go along with it and make adjustments with in their current management style and revenue distribution plans.

Will the Executive do that?

[paul-collins]

Compare and constrast to the breakdown from 2003 that I linked before:

Total expenses are budgeted at $9,565,619, excluding the $100,000 contingency.

Included in this are:

ƒ Salaries and benefits of approximately $2,131,000. (22%)

ƒ Competitions costs of $1,434,867. (15%)

ƒ National Team program costs of $2,891,520. (30%)

ƒ National Youth Development Team costs of $1,075,000. (11%)

ƒ Other National Teams administration costs of $186,000. (2%)

ƒ National Training Centre costs of $536,500. (6%)

ƒ Other domestic program administrative and other costs of $1,310,732. (14%).

[Vic]

Ed works for me. And Rich it's certainly been a long arduous process to get where they are. They question is where are they. And that will get looked into pretty closely now I imagine. We'll see what that turns up but I still think both the short-term and the long are pretty predictable.

And to break the record one more time, if we had a really good women's committee this would have all been avoided.

[Richard]

Thruball: I would agree that spending priorities remain a problem with CSA fiscal management as you illustrate so clearly, as they do in many of the provincial associations as well.

Vic: The absence of a properly constituted women's committee is a disgrace.

[CoachRich]

Women's Committee -

It took me since the prep Olympic training at UBC to just a couple of months ago to get an answer on the WC. Over that time, I tried many times and many contacts in the CSA to get any info on the Women's Committee. My take on things is that it wasn't functioning as they couldn't furnish names. Finally I was able to get it through Peter Montopoli office after several tries to find out that Jeannette Kuc - President of SSA was the WC Chair.

Did the WC function at all over that time? No, but it seems that the CSA has a great track record of not functioning or even wanting to listen. Good example lately is the Athlete Reps. They put in the time, show up at AGM's to give input and the CSA either says no time for you like Kara experienced at the SGM or some of the CSA BOB just walk out as anything to do with players is the last item on the agenda, always.

Sadly, what I understand is in the new governance model there will be no WC to offer input to the CSA BOD. There might be a WC but it will be under the Technical Ops side and has no input in governance. Because of that it makes the current stance and it's timing by the WNT all that more important.

[StrandOne]

The root of the problem is the lack of money. The inability of the CSA to draw adequate sponsorships - ever, despite all kinds of promises - is one of their biggest failings. This is due to many factors I'm sure, not the least of which is a lack of confidence on the part of potential sponsors that their money will be handled responsibly. Youth soccer registration money should not be relied upon to fund senior national teams.

Steve Sandor wrote an article http://bit.ly/hjEdND to which I commented as follows:

“Does anyone believe the CSA is sitting on unspent cash?”

Ok, you asked so let me start by pointing to the $200,000+ that the Women’s Nat’l Team earned from winning CONCACAF. It’s money that is directly attributable to the women’s performance that the CSA couldn’t banked on.

Then there’s the matter of the $300,000 bonus FIFA recently gave to all FIFA countries as an additional disbursement from the 2010 World Cup.

So I’m going to say YES it seems as though there’s $500,000 that the CSA couldn’t possibly have counted on that has been added to the coffers in recent months.

Now what?

So let’s now turn our attention to raising money. I don’t know what firm is charged with corporate partnerships or marketing but GAMES are not the only assets an organization can create that generates revenue. It’s easy for people to swallow status quo excuses when you understand little about and care even less about innovation.

Have you heard of the National Soccer Coaches Association of America? They have a wonderful little shindig going — their annual convention. Not only are their seminars, networking opportunities, and trade show USEFUL– I hear it’s a lot of fun. Trade show admission & booths / MLS & WPS Drafts / convention admission / event sponsorship all drive revenue. It’s once a year.

And that’s just one example of how merely looking to the South will bring to light examples of how to GENERATE REVENUE. Need more examples? Look to other “niche” sports to see how they’ve created brand new markets– snowboarding & Shaun White don’t seem to be hurtin’ in this slow economy. Where are their lame excuses?

VAN2010 has passed. Own the Podium money has dried up and even government officials are telling governing sport feds to diversify their revenue streams. If you’re going to ask CDNS for money– give them something they value. Get creative. INNOVATE.

I’m just sayin’…

[DougAB]

DougAB,

I'm curious if you get the same take as me on comparing the CSA financials to the USSF financials when it comes to admin and program expenses ratio?

USSF Financials 2009

Cheers,

Neil

The CSA’s Board Approved Budget allocations as a percentage of the projected overall CSA operating Costs for 2009 (13,079,000):

-2009 Men’s Senior National Team (8%) – 996,000

(Including salaries, supplies & management)

-2009 Women’s Senior National Team (7%) – 908,000

(Including salaries, supplies & management )

-2009 Men’s & Women’s Senior National Teams Total (14.5%) – 1,904,000

(Including salaries, supplies & management)

-2009 Overall national team programs (senior/youth/futsal/beach/Paralympic) (26%) – 3,371,000

(Including salaries, supplies & management)

-2009 amateur club/provincial competitions (16%) – 2.091,000

-2009 mini soccer endeavors/sport promotion (7%) – 936,000

US Soccer Audited Expense Breakdowns as a percentage of overall US Soccer Expenditures:

-2009 Men’s Senior National Team (21%) – 8,593,000

(Not including salaries, supplies, equipment & management )

-2009 Women’s Senior National Team (18%) – 10,210,000

(Not including salaries, supplies, equipment & management)

-2009 USA Men’s & Women’s National Teams Total (39%) - 18,712,000

(Not including salaries, supplies, equipment & management)

-2009 Overall national team programs (senior/youth/futsal/beach/Paralympic) (75%) – 36,544,187

(Including salaries, supplies, equipment & management)

**As an aside, it was really amazing to compare the 2009 CSA’s MNT and WNT program budgets of less than 1 million dollars each (overhead included) next to 2009 US Soccer’s MNT and WNT program expenditures of 8.5-10 million dollars each (overhead not included). Or US Soccer’s Youth National Team budget of 12.7 million (just youth programming, no salaries included) to the CSA’s Youth National Team budget of 1.5 million (including salaries, and other adult national team programming such as beach, futsal, and Paralympic).

Is this really a gender issue of who is gets a greater percentage of the nominal CSA Senior National Team Budget (WNT versus MNT) or could this really be about how the CSA choses to allocate a much higher percentage of its own overall budgetary funds towards community programming, amateur club and provincial soccer competitions and/or its own administration compared to how other Federations such as US Soccer choses to allocate their budgetary funds?

Who in the CSA is responsible for how it allocates its overall Budget? Are these derived from the Board or the Head Office or both?

I can’t imagine that either the Men’s or the Women’s National Team Head Coach would ever say that they would be happy with a National Team Program Budget of less than a million dollars which included fixed costs such as coaching and other staffing salaries, management expenses and team supplies.

The CSA has Men’s and Women’s Senior National Team objectives of:

- Qualifying for the 2014 Men’s World Cup

- The Women’s Team winning a medal at the 2011 Women’s World Cup and 2012 Olympic Summer Games

**Perhaps the CSA needs to take a more realistic approach as to how they go about allocating their own funds before they set these types of lofty objectives? Our Canadian Men’s and Women’s National Team coaches along with our players do not have magical powers.

[kj52]

Those are chilling numbers Doug. Not that most people aren't more or less aware that the U.S. and other nations spend a lot more than Canada but seeing it in black and white does not give rise to much optimism for Canada's international chances.

[Bill Spiers]

As an aside, it was really amazing to compare the 2009 CSA’s MNT and WNT program budgets of less than 1 million dollars each (overhead included) next to 2009 US Soccer’s MNT and WNT program expenditures of 8.5-10 million dollars each (overhead not included). Or US Soccer’s Youth National Team budget of 12.7 million (just youth programming, no salaries included) to the CSA’s Youth National Team budget of 1.5 million (including salaries, and other adult national team programming such as beach, futsal, and Paralympic).

Is it really a surprise that a country 10x the size of Canada (population) can afford budgets 10x the size of Canada?

Is this really a gender issue of who is gets a greater percentage of the nominal CSA Senior National Team Budget (WNT versus MNT) or could this really be about how the CSA choses to allocate a much higher percentage of its own overall budgetary funds towards community programming, amateur club and provincial soccer competitions and/or its own administration compared to how other Federations such as US Soccer choses to allocate their budgetary funds?

Keep in mind that items like 'Competitions' bring in revenue ($1.6 million) to partly offset the expenses ($2.5 million). Scrap the programme and you lose both the revenue and the expenses.

Who in the CSA is responsible for how it allocates its overall Budget? Are these derived from the Board or the Head Office or both?

It used to be the membership at an AGM or SGM approved the budget. That was changed recently so that the Board approves the budget. However, the membership still gets to approve fee increases which, in turn, has a major impact on the revenue side of the budget.

[terpfan68]

As I see it, there are four stakeholders in the debate. Coach Morace, the players, the CSA and the fans (including the youth players). As it stands now Morace's revelation that she is leaving and the debate here and elsewhere can only hurt Canada's bid for the WWC. If the bid fails then only one of the stakeholder does not suffer a lose. I might be a fan of Morace's coaching but I am not a fan of how she has handled this situation. She could have waited till the winning country was announced. By bringing this all up before it was announced she has done a diservice to the players and to the country. Does anyone else feel this way or is it just too attractive to put all the blame with the CSA?

[hc1]

Thanks for that breakdown Doug.

2009 Canadian Women’s Senior National Team (7%) – 908,000

(Including salaries, supplies & management )

vs

2009 US Women’s Senior National Team (18%) – 10,210,000

(Not including salaries, supplies, equipment & management)

and even more shocking:

-2009 Overall Canadian national team programs (senior/youth/futsal/beach/Paralympic) (26%) – 3,371,000

(Including salaries, supplies & management)

vs

-2009 Overall US national team programs (senior/youth/futsal/beach/Paralympic) (75%) – 36,544,187

(Including salaries, supplies, equipment & management)

Of the money that they take in, the US can run their organization and still give 75% of their budget to support national teams of all levels & types... and somehow when the pie gets divided in Canada, we can only mange 1/3 of that? Someone tell me that I am reading that wrong because we appear to be paying waaaay too much for office supplies.

Someone is getting rich from soccer in Canada, and it ain't our players...

[paul-collins]

Of the money that they take in, the US can run their organization and still give 75% of their budget to support national teams of all levels & types... and somehow when the pie gets divided in Canada, we can only mange 1/3 of that? Someone tell me that I am reading that wrong because we appear to be paying waaaay too much for office supplies....

I was going to say "economies of scale" but then I did the math - the USSF's remaining 25% is $12.2m where the CSA's remaining 74% is 9.6m. The CSA is spending 3/4 of what the USSF is *on themselves* to administer a game that presumably has 1/10 the participation. I'm sure there's a base amount you have to spend to set up an office that has international duties, but I can't imagine that it accounts for how close these two numbers are.

As to terpfan's post, I think there will always be a perception that CM's actions would affect the FIFA decision, but really, if that's all it takes to sway them to choosing the only other applicant, we weren't very close in the first place. Let's blame the ASA reformers instead for turning aside FIFA's direct written support of their (deposed) blazer boys.

[Vic]

The U.S. has a $50 million dollar warchest from hosting the World Cup. Take that away and watch those numbers move. You're also presuming the CSA and the USSF are identical structurally and in terms of reporting. They're not. The USSF segments off groups (AYSO, USASA, etc) who record most of the national registration fee revenue and a have a similar level of expenses.

When it comes to athletics, Canada and the U.S. are two completely different worlds and using a linear rule like population is pretty crude. It's like begrudging the Indian military because they're not four times as big and powerful as the Americans.

You can really appreciate the difference in the tale of two countries by looking at the university system. There are thousands of post-secondary institutions in the states, and of them just two in the NCAA College Cup final (Notre Dame and Stanford) each provide at least 150% what the entire CIS does in athletic scholarships. Another example would be UNC who alone has 20 full-time athletics fund raisers who have brought in a quarter-billion dollars in athletic donations in the past five years.

This isn't the CSA's problem or fault. It's you and I. It's a culture that doesn't honour or value athletics anywhere even close to what they do.

Comparing country to country will always be statistically problematic because of the large number of variables in government structure, sport structure, population, scale, etc. The better comparison would be inside the country - to programs like our national women's hockey, basketball, volleyball, softball, ringette, etc. Another good comparison would be to our paralympic team. I think that one would floor people.

[paul-collins]

Fair comment on differing reporting, Vic.

As to "valuing" athletics, it's more about "monetizing" them (one definition of value, I know) than it is about holding it in high esteem. Just as we (used to) value the blue beret over the green one, we do seem to value the amateur sports pursuit over the professional one (as you pointed out in the CIS vs NCAA comparison), and it has the trickle-up effect.

Hockey seems immune to this mindset, and is the one place we have a monetized and successful development program.

[CoachRich]

I was going to say "economies of scale" but then I did the math - the USSF's remaining 25% is $12.2m where the CSA's remaining 74% is 9.6m. The CSA is spending 3/4 of what the USSF is *on themselves* to administer a game that presumably has 1/10 the participation. I'm sure there's a base amount you have to spend to set up an office that has international duties, but I can't imagine that it accounts for how close these two numbers are.

As to terpfan's post, I think there will always be a perception that CM's actions would affect the FIFA decision, but really, if that's all it takes to sway them to choosing the only other applicant, we weren't very close in the first place. Let's blame the ASA reformers instead for turning aside FIFA's direct written support of their (deposed) blazer boys.

Thank you as your ratios match what I had dread.

[Vic]

I could be wrong Paul but I have a feeling the Americans outspend our women's program at our national game too. But they're nowhere near us in the culture or passion. We'll always be the Brazil of hockey.

[hc1]

Another good comparison would be to our paralympic team. I think that one would floor people.

Vic: I appreachiate your posts and passon. This board is made better by your participation. Sometimes its like you are in my mind, and at other times we couldn't get further apart. But thats ok - your writing is alway respectful and knowledgable. My one gripe: you often post tantalizing little tidbits like the one above that, unless someone specifically asks you for details, just remain sitting there. Don't be shy: make your posts longer and fill in the details - we will all be smarter from it!

[CoachRich]

The US MWC $50M went to the US Soccer Foundation -

The $50M profit from the 1994 MWC was invested into the US Soccer Foundation which is a separate charitable foundation that has nothing to do with the US Soccer Federation.

The US Soccer Fed like any other soccer entity has to apply for a grant from the US Soccer Foundation but they US Soccer Fed makes enough money on it's own and has only received 2 grants each in 1995 and 1996. I don't believe any of the national youth associations have applied either hence the foundations money has benefited directly those below the national levels. Basically the grassroots.

http://www.ussoccerfoundation.org/site/c.ipIQKXOvFoG/b.6149843/k.A430/Grant_Recipients.htm

Very impressive concept and track record in the US soccer community. It leads me to the big question of what is the value of the CSA doing a home WC when we make no profits to put back into the sport? Yes, like we might get a huge player surge like we did with females after the U19 WC but it seems that only put more money into the CSA but not the grassroots.

US sports stats

I back Vic as they are off the map. Especially their high school, college and university systems. I use to go to US university football games and some of the stadiums were packed with 60,000+ paying spectators. Basketball 18,000+. I was blown away at not only the numbers but the passion. Bottom line is the US school system treats sports as a business to benefit the sport and the their schools.

Sports Culture -

Ice hockey is something Canadian's are born into. It's part of our culture for most of us. When I grew up in front of the tv with my family it was around ice hockey. Even though my main sports are sailing, soccer and skiing, ice hockey is still in my blood. It's part of my culture. When I moved to sail in the trades in the UK as sailing is a huge sport there, it's in their culture. Once there, I was amazed that every kid there had soccerin there blood. Still to this day, the coolest sports events I've every been too was supporting ITFC. I will never forget standing in the Portman Road terraces or doing the derby up at Carrow Road. Those crowds in their culture is something I had never seen in NA. Maybe the culture they have for football is something we have yet to instill in our youth as we don't have a real club system like they do in the UK with their own clubhouses and facilities.

One of the reasons, I enjoyed and competed more in sailing, is that it had a culture where kids grew up with their parents in a club environment. It was a lifestyle and it's cost was very similar to rec soccer and now cheaper than these new leagues like HPL. That same culture in sailing in Canada was also found in sailing and football in the UK. Hence I believe sports culture is something you learn and you have better chance of learning it if it's your country's national sport or if you play rec level in a real club.

Btw anyone remember this quote - "Canada Basketball makes the CSA look like Donald Trump."

[Vic]

Thanks and will take that into consideration in the future. Just caught this in time before running out. It was more just noticing that they had three camps (two foreign) and a tournament in 2009, and would represent an extremely small footprint. That's many times what our naitonal U20 and U17 team have been reduced to. The funding definitely would come from other government sources and not the CSA directly but it reflects on the political correctness vs. real support point.

[terpfan68]

Is it just me or has this thread taken a direction away from its title "Morace to quit after WWC"? The discussion has been pretty informative but it needs to be located under a thread of its own. Morace's plan to abandon her job as women's national team coach should be discussed from her point of view and not be a comparison of how the US funds their soccer.

[empty_search]

To Terpfan,

It appears that no one else is stepping up to the plate – so I will offer a response to at least one of your posts - and perhaps the other one later.

Post #173: I would classify the general topic of discussion within this thread as dealing with the issue of who is culpable for Morace’s resignation and subsequent events – and the potential fallout of those events. The financial element to the discussion legitimately falls within the discussion’s domain to the degree that it reflects the “character” of one the key parties – the CSA. I believe that Duane, who either reflects or in some way represents the position of all or some members of the board, originally brought financials into the discussion. Why he did so is open to some speculation, but I surmise that he did so in order to show the nature of the commitment of the CSA to the women’s program – thereby illustrating that the CSA should be seen in a positive light in this episode. Perhaps unfortunately for him, it opened up something of a can of worms, as not everyone simply accepted the message which he was trying to convey. That it has evolved to a more detailed discussion of the degree to which the CSA is fiscally responsible or competent (compared to the US and otherwise) is not directly related to the original issue, but it is relevant, at least to me.

My own view is that if they are shown to be wanting in this area in general, they may well be wanting in other areas as well. Again, for me, the most important question is, “what percentage of the funds for which they are responsible goes to administration?”. In donating to charities, I am very hesitant to give to any organization that spends more than 10% on administration. Possibly for this reason, I feel that any organization which spends more than 15% on administrative costs is less than efficient. If it gets to be over 20% then there is very likely an element of “self-serving” involved on administration’s part. (In looking at the US numbers which CoachRich linked to, my own admittedly limited understanding and calculations suggest that management costs of their programs run at less than 15%) Although a number of figures have been tossed out here, some of them substantially greater than 15%, I am unsure enough of the actual figure to use it as a measure with which to judge the CSA. Should that aspect of the discussion continue and some sort of consensus be arrived at, it would colour my own views.

Having said that, I do feel that a lot of the discussion about finances is not all that related to the general topic – but that doesn’t mean that those doing the writing feel that way. As a result, although it could fit into a different thread, I don’t know that it has to.

Ed D

[terpfan68]

I'm not upset or anything and even if I were it wouldn't matter but I would like to read some opinions about Morace's motives. Is she being straight forward or does she have a hidden agenda. Was this the "right" time for the discussion? Has she hurt our chances to host a Women's World Cup? Are her supporters willing to provide that support no matter what she does? Is success everything? I would really hate it if we lost the WWC because of her actions and I wonder if anyone else would put the blame on her or would the simply say it was the CSA because they didn't give her what she wanted. (read demanded)

The other discussion about finances are interesting and people seem to be knowledgable for a change and not merely stating an opion.