Jump to content

2020 CPL Island Games


SpursFlu
 Share

Recommended Posts

I imagine the discourse around this issue might also be a bit different were it a foreign manager like Silberbauer in 2019 or a punching bag like Gale who had created this problem for himself, instead of the manager of the league's flagship team who comes from the world of Canadian player development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all very bush.  

Bush because it wasn't crystal clear before the tournie started how this rule worked and the consequences for failure to comply.

And it's bush because a fine doesn't exactly advertise the U21 minute requirement as being particularly important to the CPL.  Which is kinda bad for a league which has been sorta trying to make out its identity as something friendlier to developing players.

However, and I'm just saying, this tournie is being conducted in a bubble.  There isn't an option to parachute players in in the event of injury and for a team to remake itself on the fear it may/may not lose those players feels a bit harsh and could adversely effect the quality of play at the tournie as a result.

Still, better to have left the minutes out than offer this scenario.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, grande said:

I wonder if, instead of a fine, a salary cap hit might be a better punishment?

I feel like a salary cap hit just ends up punishing the players. Could mean they sign one less player next year, or players have to take pay cuts.

I had assumed from the beginning that the numbers would have to be met in the first round, reset, then be met again in the second round. Very disappointing if this isn't the case. Forge should not advance if they can't meet the numbers. It is their own fault they didn't play their younger players more/only signed the minimum required 3 players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

It's all very bush.  

Bush because it wasn't crystal clear before the tournie started how this rule worked and the consequences for failure to comply.

And it's bush because a fine doesn't exactly advertise the U21 minute requirement as being particularly important to the CPL.  Which is kinda bad for a league which has been sorta trying to make out its identity as something friendlier to developing players.

However, and I'm just saying, this tournie is being conducted in a bubble.  There isn't an option to parachute players in in the event of injury and for a team to remake itself on the fear it may/may not lose those players feels a bit harsh and could adversely effect the quality of play at the tournie as a result.

Still, better to have left the minutes out than offer this scenario.

 

You aren't wrong on any points here.  Not everything needs to be made public though, so teams could've been notified of the consequences for failing to comply with the U21 rule. 

Forge's plan was obvious, lock up a 2nd round spot and then give minutes to the U21.  Smyrniotis is a very smart man and planned that when he put together the squad and teams knew they weren't going to bring in players later on.  Knowing that they chose to proceed with signing only the minimum requirement and chose to play the first 4 games with only three minutes for U21 players.  

If you choose to walk that close to the line sometimes you're going to cross it and you have to suffer the consequences.  If the punishment isn't harsh the league would be wronging the 7 other clubs (and their supporters) who played by the rules. 

Edited by Stouffvillain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2020 at 4:17 PM, Macksam said:

I love my club Y9 and all the players who represent it, and while I didn't think too much of the support for BLM since every sports league is doing that, I still have put in my two cents...and I am trying to be as respectful as I can. This is me being serious, forget the goofy **** about "ascending to another level" or how truth is poison to most people and red pilling this and that. Forget about all that.

There will be no agitating in this post.

The problem with all mainstream media talking points right now of how systemic racism exists are arrived at with a certain kind of selective deductive reasoning that leads to a conclusion, which can easily be argued as a false conclusion. Not saying it is a false conclusion but the argument can be made that it is one. I am also going to tell you why that is a bad thing.

I want to look at a few parts of this video (not the German incidents) to illustrate my point:

  • 0:45 - not being allowed into an establishment
    • He states they told him its because of their shoes but believes it was because of skin colour
    • I need more here, did he see people of other racial backgrounds get in who were wearing similar footwear? 
    • To me, this is selective deductive reasoning leading to a possible false conclusion.
    • I have been prevented from entering a club based on a T-shirt before. It happens
  • 1:00 - Pulled over by the police
    • Did the cop actually say "you look like a drug dealer?"
    • What were the various reasons cops gave for pulling him over numerous times?
    • Could profiling have occurred here? It's possible but I need more details.
  • 3:30 - Friend's Dad got in the way of his friendship
    • Yeah, this is pretty clear cut but this isn't a systemic issue
    • There is no policy in the world that can eliminate racism on a micro level like this short of going full police state where everyone's speech and behavior is monitored at all times, but that would be a terrible society to live in
    • It's unfortunate his friend's dad harbored those views but there is not much you can do here
    • Move on, make new friends, there are a lot of kids who don't have parents that are full of prejudice
  • 4:00 - Getting followed around a store and then looking into the bag after
    • Could this be because of his skin colour? It's probable
    • Again, did he see other kids of different background get treated the same? Different?
    • When I was 14 to 18 years old, I recall similar occurrences with myself at the bookstore or Wal-Mart
    • It's usually the teenage factor that drives this behavior rather than race
    • Security sees a young kid with a backpack on his school's lunchbreak and they get antsy
    • When it comes to this being systemic issue, I doubt the minimum wage security guard is being given a directive to scrutinize black customers more than anybody else
    • If he is, it should be thwarted obviously but I doubt it's in his job profile
    • If he feels he was treated differently than somebody else, the Human Rights Court can take his case since I believe they do look into situations where businesses discriminate when it comes to customers
  • 4:33 - Neighbour of his friend thinking he witnessed a drug deal
    • Again, micro-level, can't do much here
    • If a jerk on the street prejudges you, just move on with your day
    • Not going to comment on the police as they just responded to the call
  • 4:57 - Being called derogatory names at school
    • Again, mirco-level issue, can't do much here if some jerks call you that, move on with your day
    • School board policies are pretty strict across the board and suspensions would be handed out to the guilty parties if he stepped forward or had witnesses who vouched for his story so the systemic angle is already covered
    • Granted, school bullying is pretty bad and a lot of stuff goes unpunished in general mind you
  • 7:00 - Being from a different neighborhood and having people look out there window along with growing up and having parents of others kids call you names at a soccer match
    • First one is another micro issue that is never going to be eliminated
    • As for the parents, you can try removing them from the sidelines but who is really going to police and enforce that?
    • Anybody that is saying or doing openly racist things is just socially stigmatizing himself, probably some low life who has nothing going for himself so let him act a fool and destroy his own reputation
  • 8:18 - Have to look over your shoulder when you leave your house
    • Why? Who are you looking out for?
  • 8:50 - Lady clutching her purse and crossing the street
    • Another micro-level case of prejudice that is never going to be eliminated
    • Move on with your day,
    • You, Kyle Porter have good things going for you, you have places to be and things to do while that old lady probably has nothing going for her
    • Who cares about her

And at the end of the video, what they want, which has been stated before is change.

Corporations, some levels of government have been quick to get on board with the BLM movement and push the overall message but when you are given the platform and you cite the above mentioned items? Big Corporations and big government are going to ask you this, how do you want us to fix it? And the answer unfortunately is going to be "I don't know...." because like I said before, a lot of those issues cannot be remedied by policy. You all must have noticed in the video how nobody had a tangible thing about what they wanted done except for this vague word called "change". 

This is bad because the moment you say I don't know, big government is going to say "well, I'm not going to do anything then."

So, if you want to talk about racism and systemic discrimination, talk about something of merit. 

Do not talk about someone looking out their window and giving you a funny look.

I know that this is certainly a delicate topic, and one that's become rather explosive given the events of the last few months (George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, Chantel Moore, etc.). I think most of us here recognize that this is a bit of an "elephant in the room" topic that can't really be ignored, but that is also difficult to discuss at times. I really appreciate you taking the time to collect your thoughts on this and to write them down in as matter-of-fact and neutral a tone as possible (I've seen a lot of other people on the interwebz who have yet to master that skill). All of that said though, I'm going to respectfully disagree with some of the specific points you raise. 

I've worked in six different federal departments/agencies through my career with the public service, nearly the entirety of which has been spent working in policy analysis and development to try to change the way government responds to certain issues. Most of that time I've actually spent on policing policy with respect to police interactions with certain minority populations. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of it, the way the policy process works generally follows these steps:

  • Priority topic/initiative X is identified by the Minister
  • Direction is given to identify and examine potential options to change a certain aspect of X
  • Public service employees undertake necessary analysis
    • Examine new/existing studies on X, collect/analyze relevant quantitative data, talk to relevant stakeholders for their perspectives/experiences, collect/analyze relevant qualitative data
  • After completing analysis, public service employees assess the options on X previously identified to determine feasibility and/or changes necessary
  • Revised options on X are presented to the Minister for consideration
    • Associated data (quantitative and qualitative), pros and cons, costing, etc. are all provided to contextualize the options and help the Minister make an informed decision
  • Minister makes a decision as to the preferred option for X

Depending on the department, the issue, the cost, etc., the Minister may or may not be required to present his/her preferred option to Cabinet so that other Ministers can weigh in. In those instances, the same general process is followed, but with additional information an analysis in order to address concerns that other departments might have on X. 

The point is that this is all a very involved, time-consuming process that requires an incredible amount of work by a lot of people. No one in government expects a private citizen to come up with a fully-cooked, concrete solution to a major issue by themselves. We would never, never dismiss an issue or respond "well, I'm not going to do anything then" because we recognize that it's unrealistic to ask an individual to come up with a solution and do the kind of analytical work needed to effect change. If that were actually the case, then we wouldn't need a bunch of bureaucrats to be working on these issues full-time, year-round. I think we can also agree that it's not ideal to have a bunch of bureaucrats in Ottawa coming up with solutions in isolation, so talking to people outside of the Ottawa bubble is a key part of coming up with real-world solutions. 

The statements made during the Y9 video are all comments on lived experiences by specific individuals. Is it 100% certain that in every single instance cited that racism was the sole factor that led to the described outcome? Without interviewing witnesses or the other people involved, you can never have that perfect level of certainty. It's entirely possible that there were other factors that contributed to these situations. But that doesn't mean that racism wasn't *a* factor, as you acknowledge in a large number of your comments. And it doesn't mean that these kind of statements should be discounted. A concept I learned a long time ago that I've also found useful is "impact, not intent". Even though Person A may not have consciously intended anything malicious when interacting with Person B, it doesn't mean that Person B still didn't find themselves in a difficult situation as a result. In the context of systemic racism, this is all the more relevant because it can manifest itself in a thousand subtle but significant ways. Most daily experiences of racism never involve someone actually saying "I am treating you in this way specifically because you are of a different race". It's so pervasive that it often goes unsaid, either because the person on the other end isn't aware of the impact of what they're saying/doing or because they don't feel the need to explain or justify themselves. It would be great (from a data perspective) if every incident of racism was a textbook smoking gun where someone was explicitly, admittedly racist, but that's very rarely the case. But there's enough study of the issue and the ways in which it manifests itself that it's not terribly difficult to recognize it. Ignoring this kind of problem isn't going to help create change.  

Qualitative data like this is, by its nature, more subjective than purely quantitative data. As you rightly point out, it can be difficult to validate every single detail in every instance. We always do our best to make sure that we're providing the higher-ups with the most accurate information possible, so we do our due diligence when reviewing the qualitative data we receive from stakeholders/the general public. But it's still of great use to government decision-makers because it helps contextualize quantitative data and bring it to life, so to speak. We have studies and statistics up the wazoo that speak to the continued legacies of slavery, colonialism and ongoing racism for visible minority populations (lower life expectancies, lower financial prospects, lower levels of employment, lower levels of undergraduate/post-graduate education, lower levels of home ownership, more frequent health problems for certain populations, higher levels of police interaction, higher incarceration rates, severe over-representation in the criminal justice system, etc.). But the senior bureaucrats and politicians making decisions on how to try to address these issues are - despite rumours to the contrary - human. Being able to engage with people and hear the stories of their lived experiences helps people better understand the real-world impacts of these issues and inform decision making. For me, I experienced that in a very real way about a year and a half ago when working on a file related to the opioid crisis. It's one thing to see the stories in the papers and read the studies. It's a very different thing to meet with a grandmother who's in tears as she speaks about losing two daughters to overdoses and doesn't know how she can afford to raise three granddaughters at her age. Personal accounts aren't a perfect form of data, and on their own they're not always enough. But they're still an important part of the equation in helping make the impacts of these issues understood, both for government and for the general public. 

I'd also just note that for issues of systemic racism (and a lot of other social issues), discussions aren't targeted solely at government and business. It's systemic: it touches everyone. Maybe this kind of video won't change anyone's mind in Ottawa or on Bay Street, but considering that this is a video about soccer players in a relatively upstart league, I don't think anyone expected that to begin with. This is the kind of thing that can help Joe Public stop and think for a minute on the impacts of his words and actions when he interacts with people of different backgrounds. Maybe a bouncer will see this and think about what it means to turn away someone because of their shoes (that one still baffles me a bit; I've seen plenty of offensive/questionable t-shirts, but shoes strike me as relatively benign). Maybe someone's mother or grandmother will see this and try to be a bit more trusting the next time they see someone of a different race on the sidewalk. Maybe some teenager will see this and think a bit more about what it means to use racial slurs at school. This exact video might not create a lot of stir at the Cabinet table or the boardroom table, but it might just help stimulate conversation at the supper table. 

Not every person who speaks out about racism is going to be a perfect spokesperson for the cause, and not every person who speaks out about it will have the expertise to propose a specific, concrete solution. But that's not their responsibility - that's the responsibility of people who are paid to work on this stuff full-time. Some do go the extra mile and get involved with different volunteer or NGO groups, which also makes a big difference in a lot of communities. But for those who don't have the energy or time to do so (family commitments, precarious employment situation, or a hundred other reasons), speaking out still matters. If acts of racism were the exception rather than the rule, then maybe it would be easier for people to let it go as you suggest. But when it's something that people are confronted with every day, simply for the fact that they exist, I don't see how letting it go is really an option. Institutional racism isn't an easy thing to overcome, especially when those institutions are so firmly entrenched and society has built up around them. But by talking about these issues more and more, through different media and in different contexts, it helps bring attention to the issue and force the conversation of what concrete changes can be made. Individual, personal acts of racism might not ever be completely eliminated, but that doesn't mean it's not worth taking action to reduce them. Society has come a long way in the last 50 years in terms of racial equality, in terms of opportunities and attitudes. I don't see any reason why we can't keep going further. 

I won't pretend to have any insights about how decisions are made in the private sector, but I've always had the impression that banks/companies tried to speak with their wallets. Beyond adjusting/updating internal policies to reflect societal norms and changes, it always seemed to me that they'd invest in/sponsor/donate to businesses and causes that provide them with returns, be they monetary capital (profits) or social capital (goodwill/positive PR). So when the public starts to pivot on an issue, banks/companies tend to be savvy enough to know when to invest more or pull the plug on something that aligns with a particular cause. Am I totally out to lunch in thinking that that's how that works? Are there any folks here who are more business-y than me who can offer some insights? 

Again, I do want to thank you for putting your perspective down on paper (so to speak), and for doing so in such a matter-of-fact way. There are a lot of people out there who just start shouting their opinions online without much thought being put into them, and that's clearly not the case here. I'm not trying to stir to pot in responding to your post; I'm just offering my perspective based on my experience in working on these issues, and trying to further the conversation. If ever we find ourselves at the same match (God, I can't wait for spectators to be allowed again!), I'll be the first to buy you a pint and chat. But for what it's worth, I don't think that an approach of  "don't talk about problems unless you have solutions" works for something this large, this complex and this pervasive. I think "if you see something, say something" is the better way to go - and one that's been forcing a lot of conversations for a lot of people these last few months. 

Edited by m-g-williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Forge punishment.

Easy, at the conclusion of the first round, before places in the final four are awarded, deduct three points to any team that has not met the minutes requirement.Then calculate the final standings for round one.

Easy, direct and finished quickly without affecting future budgets. 

Anything less IMO renders the rule a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My U13 team was drawn to be one of the spectator teams for tomorrow’s game between the Deaddies and York 9.  Woot woot!
 

I am expecting York to go for the throat since they won’t want anything but max points from FCE.  Looking forward to it - and if I can get my camera in there I will try to snap some pics.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

I am expecting York to go for the throat since they won’t want anything but max points from FCE.  Looking forward to it - and if I can get my camera in there I will try to snap some pics.  

I'm hoping FCE finds their game. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

My U13 team was drawn to be one of the spectator teams for tomorrow’s game between the Deaddies and York 9.  Woot woot!
 

I am expecting York to go for the throat since they won’t want anything but max points from FCE.  Looking forward to it - and if I can get my camera in there I will try to snap some pics.  

$100 if you wear a shirt that says "I went to a CPL game and all I got was this stupid Coronavirus"

Jokes people, jokes :)

have fun!

Edited by SpursFlu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Forge needs to first actually break the rule to start, they still have a game, there is a chance Maan will be ready, and if he's not...I suppose Forge could play an emergency tender for the minutes needed to meet the requirements (which I think would be awesome). 

That said, I fully agree a fine is not adequate punishment. Not sure what it should be. I think fine, point deduction and loss of U-Sports draft picks seems fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving them a fine and letting them advance to the next round is like a player scoring a goal with their hand, clear as day, and then just give him a fine but letting the goal stand. It should be at least a 3 point deduction, if not disqualifying them for the next round. If they don’t advance to the next round I would say the point deduction should be applied to next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really looking forward to this 4 team group stage, especially if Forge aren't expelled from the tournament, this has  a real tournament feel to it as opposed to having semi final knockout matches, obviously teams will play 3 matches guaranteed, goal difference could be huge! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2020 at 4:46 PM, Cheeta said:

It's all very bush.  

Bush because it wasn't crystal clear before the tournie started how this rule worked and the consequences for failure to comply.

And it's bush because a fine doesn't exactly advertise the U21 minute requirement as being particularly important to the CPL.  Which is kinda bad for a league which has been sorta trying to make out its identity as something friendlier to developing players.

However, and I'm just saying, this tournie is being conducted in a bubble.  There isn't an option to parachute players in in the event of injury and for a team to remake itself on the fear it may/may not lose those players feels a bit harsh and could adversely effect the quality of play at the tournie as a result.

Still, better to have left the minutes out than offer this scenario.

 

We heard Calvary brought in 6 young players to train with the team. During a regular season teams often brought in extra bodies, often youth, to cover for injuries (third keepers). Forge could pick up a university player from the Maritimes to solve this, or one from Hamilton, the Sigma system, even. 

I find it extremely irritating that we hear how well they are doing, when they have not had the same risks, it is a bad example. And worse then the One Soccer pundits are licking their butts all day, that love affair has to stop. This team is laughing in the face of the entire league, and they are the champs. So I say leave them out of the final four if they cannot produce the u-21 minutes required on the last day. Let Young go bid for an MLS franchise if winning while ignoring developing young Canadians is so important for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

We heard Calvary brought in 6 young players to train with the team. During a regular season teams often brought in extra bodies, often youth, to cover for injuries (third keepers). Forge could pick up a university player from the Maritimes to solve this, or one from Hamilton, the Sigma system, even. 

I find it extremely irritating that we hear how well they are doing, when they have not had the same risks, it is a bad example. And worse then the One Soccer pundits are licking their butts all day, that love affair has to stop. This team is laughing in the face of the entire league, and they are the champs. So I say leave them out of the final four if they cannot produce the u-21 minutes required on the last day. Let Young go bid for an MLS franchise if winning while ignoring developing young Canadians is so important for them. 

Very harsh on Forge IMHO, this club has been based on developing young Canadian talent for one and they have yet to break the rule, your comment on bringing an MLS team to Hamilton is crazy, it's not going to happen and many of us don't want anything to do with that for the exact reason you state!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jonovision said:

So now that all the matches this weekend matter, it will be *very* interesting to see what happens with Forge and their U21 minutes situation.

It would take a pretty crazy swing of results to see Forge go out now. Likely BS but I saw someone on fb saying the fine is $10k. They can easily write that off with advancing. Expect them to start both youngsters and if the game is in danger they will pull them and eat the fine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, toontownman said:

It would take a pretty crazy swing of results to see Forge go out now. Likely BS but I saw someone on fb saying the fine is $10k. They can easily write that off with advancing. Expect them to start both youngsters and if the game is in danger they will pull them and eat the fine.

 

Barring any kind of sanctioning IF they do not meet the U21 minutes requirement Forge is through, they hold the tiebreaker (head to head results) against both Ottawa and Pacific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2020 at 2:06 PM, Stouffvillain said:

Barring any kind of sanctioning IF they do not meet the U21 minutes requirement Forge is through, they hold the tiebreaker (head to head results) against both Ottawa and Pacific. 

I think you are right.

In case of a draw of more than two teams, then you count total points between matches involving those >2  teams.

If there were a five way tie at 11 points (wins by Valour, Atlético, Pacific, Cavalry and York9 draw), Forge would be through on their total head to head points. 

At. Ottawa - 7 pts

Forge - 7 pts

York 9 - 6 pts

Pacific - 5 pts

Cavalry - 5 pts

If this is right (anyone?), Cavalry has to win to make sure they go through, as they only have +2 the favour for the second tie-breaker (goal difference) while Pacific, winning, will also have at least that. Pacific has to try to win by more than a single goal.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...