Octavio Zambrano

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

5 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

 I am 100% convinced that if that game was being played in Toronto they would not have protested like that, in front of family and friends. The attitude towards Vancouver, where virtually no players were from, was frankly shitty. Many of us Vancouverites are still fundamentally pissed off about it.

Again maybe don't let regionalism/nationalism cloud your judgement so much.

Maybe, he said all those things and they still did what they did. And then he supported their decision.  He can't force anything. That speculation is as valid as the stuff you are using to create your scenario and his motivations. 

But again, even if he didn't, you can't say he didn't field a team.  He can't force them to play. That is the only way your original statement could be true. 

 

[costarg]

11 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

You may have to explain, but knowing about something or supporting something or even being "in on it" is very different to me than being the cause of it as your first statement says: "Herdman failing to field a team vs Panama in Vancouver, costing the CSA millions perhaps:"

Do you believe he could have stopped it? 

When so many of the players are on record saying they would "go through a brick wall for the man", I'm pretty sure it's fair to say they would have listened to him if he objected.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

Just now, costarg said:

When so many of the players are on record saying they would "go through a brick wall for the man", I'm pretty sure it's fair to say they would have listened to him if he objected.

You can be pretty sure, if you want, but saying that for the cameras after a win and the realities of a labour dispute are two different things.

My point was we don't know what actually was said or done but Herdman didn't "not field the team."

[costarg]

2 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

You can be pretty sure, if you want, but saying that for the cameras after a win and the realities of a labour dispute are two different things.

My point was we don't know what actually was said or done but Herdman didn't "not field the team."

Absolutely, good point.  Purely just my thoughts here no proof or actual knowledge, I just feel that conversation had to take place between JH and the guys.  They're a close knit bunch, I don't see the players not confiding in/with him.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

7 minutes ago, costarg said:

Absolutely, good point.  Purely just my thoughts here no proof or actual knowledge, I just feel that conversation had to take place between JH and the guys.  They're a close knit bunch, I don't see the players not confiding in/with him.

I would guess they did as well. What he said or where he stood, only they know.  But again, even if he agreed and supported, that is not the same as him being the driving force of not fielding a team. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

17 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

You can be pretty sure, if you want, but saying that for the cameras after a win and the realities of a labour dispute are two different things.

My point was we don't know what actually was said or done but Herdman didn't "not field the team."

He most definitely did not field a team.

Name a single similar case in world football, in the last 30 years. It's a huge research project that'll take you to the oddest cases. 

It was inexcusable and imo he should have been fired. It's not the first time I've posted this view.

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It's not the first time I've posted this view.

Sorry but it's also not the first time your views have been based on your head canon of events and regional/national perceived offenses either. 

No one without biases thinks it was Herdman who did not field the team. In my view I guess.

 

 I am sure the players would appreciate you giving them no agency in their labour actions.

Edit: Which points to the weird contradictions in your view.  You say the players would not have done this in Toronto and take it as an offense to you and yours in Vancouver.

But you say Herdman didn't field the team. 

Herdman would have been in Toronto too, so if he was the cause, it would have happened anyway. 

 In reality, you can't have it both ways.

Edited August 25, 2023 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Unnamed Trialist]

21 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Sorry but it's also not the first time your views have been based on your head canon of events and regional/national perceived offenses either. 

No one without biases thinks it was Herdman who did not field the team. In my view I guess.

 

 I am sure the players would appreciate you giving them no agency in their labour actions.

Edit: Which points to the weird contradictions in your view.  You say the players would not have done this in Toronto and take it as an offense to you and yours in Vancouver.

But you say Herdman didn't field the team. 

Herdman would have been in Toronto too, so if he was the cause, it would have happened anyway. 

 In reality, you can't have it both ways.

It's no contradiction to argue in favour of the free will of all parties involved. It's a multi factor question, don't know why that should bother anyone.

 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

4 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It's no contradiction to argue in favour of the free will of all parties involved. It's a multi factor question, don't know why that should bother anyone.

 

Sounds pretty but, of course it is a contradiction. People's free will directly clash every minute of every day. Arguing for them all is impossible or at least really silly.

Vancouverites wanted to watch a game, the players wanted to use their ability not to play to cancelled a game and  make a point. Those wills can't both be fulfilled in reality.

 

Edit: Interested in your thoughts on the Rubiales situation.

Edited August 26, 2023 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Unnamed Trialist]

49 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Sounds pretty but, of course it is a contradiction. People's free will directly clash every minute of every day. Arguing for them all is impossible or at least really silly.

Vancouverites wanted to watch a game, the players wanted to use their ability not to play to cancelled a game and  make a point. Those wills can't both be fulfilled in reality.

 

Edit: Interested in your thoughts on the Rubiales situation.

There's a much broader and deeper context to playing in Vancouver, which made the result even worse.

If you recall, during qualifying, we spoke at length here about playing at BC Place, which clearly could have been a good venue. But the travel in certain windows made it untenable, since we needed good connections to Central America in tight time frames. Or then there was the fact they replaced the turf in late 2021 to January 2022. Pretty sure, but still: the choice to go there for the first available friendlies and then Curaçao was a compensation for very rational decisions about the qualifying campaign. 

Then it was the Davies homecoming. 

And it was supposed to be a bit of one for Herdman, who lives in Van.

Then they arranged Iran, it looked to be a full sell-out, then it was cancelled. Major let down. Then they found a make-shift replacement, which thrilled few of us, but was the feature weekend game people could travel to. Boycotted. To top it off, Bontis never appeared in Vancouver until the last minute, which was a huge failure on his part (they let the discontent fester for days irresponsibly). 

The CSA still owes Vancouver, a game and an apology. The players do too. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

12 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

There's a much broader and deeper context to playing in Vancouver, which made the result even worse.

If you recall, during qualifying, we spoke at length here about playing at BC Place, which clearly could have been a good venue. But the travel in certain windows made it untenable, since we needed good connections to Central America in tight time frames. Or then there was the fact they replaced the turf in late 2021 to January 2022. Pretty sure, but still: the choice to go there for the first available friendlies and then Curaçao was a compensation for very rational decisions about the qualifying campaign. 

Then it was the Davies homecoming. 

And it was supposed to be a bit of one for Herdman, who lives in Van.

Then they arranged Iran, it looked to be a full sell-out, then it was cancelled. Major let down. Then they found a make-shift replacement, which thrilled few of us, but was the feature weekend game people could travel to. Boycotted. To top it off, Bontis never appeared in Vancouver until the last minute, which was a huge failure on his part (they let the discontent fester for days irresponsibly). 

I still think that the players would never have fathomed a boycott at BMO, with scores of friends and family ready to attend.

All, all that text says is that it upset you, fair enough.  And you are ready to make up hypthoticals (if at BMO...) to make yourself more upset - less fair.  

 

But it does not make any sense of the stuff you were spouting about free will.  Once the players excercised theirs, Herdman has no ability to field them. So again the talk him not fielding a team is rubbish, whatever conversation we make up behind the scenes. Let's judge him on the things he can actually control.   

 

Still would appeciate your thoughts on Rubiales.

Edited August 26, 2023 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[Unnamed Trialist]

47 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

All, all that text says is that it upset you, fair enough.  And you are ready to make up hypthoticals (if at BMO...) to make yourself more upset - less fair.  

 

But it does not make any sense of the stuff you were spouting about free will.  Once the players excercised theirs, Herdman has no ability to field them. So again the talk him not fielding a team is rubbish, whatever conversation we make up behind the scenes. Let's judge him on the things he can actually control.   

 

Still would appeciate your thoughts on Rubiales.

We speak about women's football on the corresponding forums, you're free to join.

Anyways, your argument oversimplifies what happened. The players didn't decide independently of Herdman, he was complicit from the start. They didn't train with his consent, they had no curfew the night previous to the game with his consent.

Just tell me one recent case of a coach joining a players strike, consenting not training, preparing a game boycott, with absolutely no consequence for that coach.

[Kadenge]

^^^^  you guys need mediation 🙂

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

We speak about women's football on the corresponding forums, you're free to join.

Anyways, your argument oversimplifies what happened. The players didn't decide independently of Herdman, he was complicit from the start. They didn't train with his consent, they had no curfew the night previous to the game with his consent.

Just tell me one recent case of a coach joining a players strike, consenting not training, preparing a game boycott, with absolutely no consequence for that coach.

Him "joining" the strike is a massive oversimplication, he can't play the game, he is not their colleague, so he can't join.  So is saying that because he didn't do the impossible - force them to play - he is on the hook for the money.  It was players' free will, which you brought up but I had to explain, that meant Vancouverites were not able to see a game. Unless Herdman can overide that somehow, you are left just speculating about what happened. 

You are still upset, fair enough.  But to assign responsibilty devoid of logic is not fair.  Interesting as always. Have a good day.  

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Kadenge said:

^^^^  you guys need mediation 🙂

We've been at it so long we've decided to just continue together but in different beds. Tens of thousands of kilometers apart.

[Bison44]

But what about the kids??