The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[An Observer]

On 3/18/2023 at 5:37 AM, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

This part really interests me. Anyone know if the CSA board minutes are posted online and which meeting the CSA would have voted on accepting the CSB deal?  I am guessing the General Secretary would have negotiated the deal and brought it to the board to be voted on and approved. Really interested to see what was said at the time. Was ‘Mont Pete’ the GS when this was signed?

It really strikes me as the Board members now trying to put it all on Bontis.  That is not how this works. If they didn’t have faith in him to negotiate the deal, they should have insisted on getting some help like an outside consultant.  And they would have had to approve the deal which would have included the lack of a board seat.  And if pertinent information was withheld from the Board, that’s a sackable offence.  And if they delegated it to Bontis to complete without their final approval, that’s on the Board too.  It’s all super convenient for them to try to deflect blame and put it all on Bontis 

[Colonel Green]

24 minutes ago, An Observer said:

It really strikes me as the Board members now trying to put it all on Bontis.  That is not how this works. If they didn’t have faith in him to negotiate the deal, they should have insisted on getting some help like an outside consultant.  And they would have had to approve the deal which would have included the lack of a board seat.  And if pertinent information was withheld from the Board, that’s a sackable offence.  And if they delegated it to Bontis to complete without their final approval, that’s on the Board too.  It’s all super convenient for them to try to deflect blame and put it all on Bontis 

It sounds like it's the anti-Bontis board members talking, so I don't think they're trying to deflect from themselves, they were in the minority.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

On 3/17/2023 at 9:47 PM, Watchmen said:

...Reading it, it sounds very much like Bontis would do whatever it took to get this CSB deal done. That it would be his legacy. And it is. Just not the way he intended...

Victor Montagliani had a very significant role in all of this as well in legacy terms. Was noteworthy that Nick Bontis got the CONCACAF VP role recently.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

On 3/17/2023 at 8:54 PM, Watchmen said:

...- CSB tried to sit down with players (men and women) prior to 2022 to explain the deal. Their efforts were blocked by the CSA...

Because top CSA officeholders knew they would go ballistic and feared more of the details would leak out? If the men's team hadn't unexpectedly qualified for Qatar maybe they could have kept the lid on things like the unilateral ten year extension rights for CSB and the fixed fee nature of the terms even in men's World Cup finals participation years until 2026.

Edited yesterday at 01:40 PM by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Cicero]

15 hours ago, SF said:

My 2 cents is that the whole Board and senior management team need to resign and be replaced (like Hockey Canada). This would almost certainly mean some decent and qualified people would be lost, but this situation is screaming for a huge reset.

These sorts of Stalinist purges are fashionable these days, but what evidence is there that they result in better management? This presumes every board member and manager is incompetent and/or corrupt. That seems very unlikely, and this approach seems unlikely to fix the core problems, while it cuts out all kinds of institutional knowledge which likely still has value. Whatever the factors are that repeatedly led to bad decision making, I doubt wholesale purges will be the solution. It seems likely that having to run on a shoestring budget for most of its existence has caused most of the problems. They made a deal which in retrospect looks like they gave up too much, and its architects and supporters are running for cover. How does an institution learn and correct itself if you just reset everything? I'll bet the same issues just crop up again with new people.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

30 minutes ago, Cicero said:

... How does an institution learn and correct itself if you just reset everything? ...

A completely new governance structure bringing in qualified people from the professional level of the sport as opposed to the amatuer level provincial associations rather than only tinkering at the edges post-black t-shirt protest style?

A lot of the current issues arose out of people inside the CSA bubble developing unhealthy levels of hatred for MLS when the youth academies unexpectedly usurped the CSA's previous role in elite player development at the youth level and when the level of the players being developed in Canada turned out not to be high enough for the initial set of domestic player rules approved for TFC to be viable moving forward.

Instead of fostering more pro soccer to complement what MLS was providing they set out to do something at cross purposes with it and effectively had to sell off the family silver to attract investors in order to be able to do that.

Edited yesterday at 02:22 PM by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Cicero]

6 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

A lot of the current issues arose out of people inside the CSA bubble developing unhealthy levels of hatred for MLS when the youth academies unexpectedly usurped the CSA's previous role in elite player development at the youth level.

I have no inside knowledge, so I can't say that what you're saying isn't true, but MLS academies account for a pretty small number of players. Did these other academies really make that much money off individual players' development, seems there would be no lack of youth dreaming of a career even with some of the cream scooped off by MLS teams? Seems Sigma, for one example, kept functioning quite well after TFC academies were up and running. So do you have specific examples of individuals who felt MLS hurt their organization?

Edited yesterday at 02:25 PM by Cicero

[dyslexic nam]

4 minutes ago, Cicero said:

I have no inside knowledge, so I can't say that what you're saying isn't true, but MLS academies account for a pretty small number of players, and did these other academies really make that much money off individual player development? Seems Sigma, for one example, kept functioning quite well after TFC academies were up and running. So do you have specific examples of individuals who felt MLS hurt their organization?

The hatred of MLS is obvious given the complete omission of the MLS academies from our national teams.  
 

 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

The CSA had national training centres in different parts of the country and that provided jobs for the boys.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100723183717/http://www.canadasoccer.com/trainingcentres/trainingcentres.asp

Selection for that through the different provincial programs played a major role where the makeup of youth national teams was concerned. Once the three MLS academies emerged things changed in a big way on the men's side of things and a lot of influential people in youth coaching were sidelined precisely because it was soon the MLS academies that were the dominant factor in player selection terms making the provincial programs and national training centres superfluous.

Edited yesterday at 06:50 PM by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Metro]

On 3/17/2023 at 6:50 PM, Watchmen said:

I'll never tell anyone how to spend their money, but 1) the Athletic is great and 2) a 1 year subscription goes on sale for $1 a month somewhat frequently. 

I agree with this as I am an off and on subscriber, but Canadian soccer coverage is VERY sporadic. Joshua Kloke is the only journalist who covers it, and only on a prime time basis. Basically, the odd article on TFC and now the men’s and women’s NT. His other priority are the Leafs.

 

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

16 hours ago, An Observer said:

It really strikes me as the Board members now trying to put it all on Bontis.  That is not how this works. If they didn’t have faith in him to negotiate the deal, they should have insisted on getting some help like an outside consultant.  And they would have had to approve the deal which would have included the lack of a board seat.  And if pertinent information was withheld from the Board, that’s a sackable offence.  And if they delegated it to Bontis to complete without their final approval, that’s on the Board too.  It’s all super convenient for them to try to deflect blame and put it all on Bontis 

Clearly Bontis has to take some of the blame for the recent labour negotiations but I dint understand how he is being blamed for the CSB deal. He wasn’t president when it was signed so why, as the article claims, did other board members feel pressured by him to vote for the CSB deal?  It feels like he is a convenient scapegoat to cover up past and current failings of the board.  

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

1 hour ago, Metro said:

I agree with this as I am an off and on subscriber, but Canadian soccer coverage is VERY sporadic. Joshua Kloke is the only journalist who covers it, and only on a prime time basis. Basically, the odd article on TFC and now the men’s and women’s NT. His other priority are the Leafs.

 

Has Kloke offered the Voyageurs any proceeds from his book or even acknowledge the existence of the Voyageurs?

[narduch]

24 minutes ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

Has Kloke offered the Voyageurs any proceeds from his book or even acknowledge the existence of the Voyageurs?

I'm still mad about that

[dyslexic nam]

1 minute ago, narduch said:

I'm still mad about that

Same.  

[The Real Marc]

1 hour ago, Greatest Cockney Rip Off said:

Has Kloke offered the Voyageurs any proceeds from his book or even acknowledge the existence of the Voyageurs?

I can't imagine he made enough money to share.

[dyslexic nam]

5 minutes ago, The Real Marc said:

I can't imagine he made enough money to share.

For me it isn’t about money to the V’s.  But if you are going to capitalize on the identity of a whole group, some sort of recognition and attribution would have been a pretty basic courtesy.  I won’t patronize anything this guy does.  

[SF]

6 hours ago, Cicero said:

These sorts of Stalinist purges are fashionable these days, but what evidence is there that they result in better management? This presumes every board member and manager is incompetent and/or corrupt. That seems very unlikely, and this approach seems unlikely to fix the core problems, while it cuts out all kinds of institutional knowledge which likely still has value. Whatever the factors are that repeatedly led to bad decision making, I doubt wholesale purges will be the solution. It seems likely that having to run on a shoestring budget for most of its existence has caused most of the problems. They made a deal which in retrospect looks like they gave up too much, and its architects and supporters are running for cover. How does an institution learn and correct itself if you just reset everything? I'll bet the same issues just crop up again with new people.

That's all fair enough, but the basic point here is that the current CSA establishment has lost the trust of many of it's key constituencies. If you can rebuild that with the current (or some of the current) leadership, then by all means. 

My personal sense is that something dramatic needs to happen to start the difficult process of repairing relationships. 

I have no inside knowledge, but I would wager that the decision of the Board to appoint Crooks as President was, in part, informed by their view that her profile would somewhat appease the women's national team. Which, of course, it did not.

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 3/19/2023 at 2:17 AM, Colonel Green said:

It sounds like it's the anti-Bontis board members talking, so I don't think they're trying to deflect from themselves, they were in the minority.

According to most of our women's players and those defending them, this isn't possible. Everyone on a board always agrees and is tainted for life by anything the majority agree to.

Edited 7 hours ago by Unnamed Trialist

[Aird25]

When everyone involved is either elected or selected the people negotiating can change pretty quickly. I really think the focus should be on what’s best long term. Let’s go from here and set ourselves up for success. Bontis is gone, Hutch and Sinclair are on their last legs, Beckie will be hard pressed to get herself back in the mix etc. How is it even decided who is involved in negotiations for the players?

[narduch]

The CSA reps testify at the committee today. 11 am ET

[Bigandy]

58 minutes ago, narduch said:

The CSA reps testify at the committee today. 11 am ET

Does anyone have a link to watch?

[narduch]

1 minute ago, Bigandy said:

Does anyone have a link to watch?

 

 

[Bigandy]

How do we think this will go? I think that CSA will get grilled on the numbers that may look unfair at surface level, but may actually be reasonable costs due to circumstances. However, I don't think the committee will have any understanding of how soccer works and therefore it would be hard to justify the spending of CSA. 

[shorty]

Maybe not but I just watched 2 minutes of Earl Cochrane getting skewered on not knowing when the CSB was officially approved. He looked really bad and unprepared. 
 

Regardless of whether the deal is ultimately good for Canadian soccer or a poorly thought out fire sale, more of this flustered, “I wasn’t there so I don’t know” from Cochrane will make it hard for the government to justify public spending on the CSA as it stands. Whatever that means, as the powers of the committee are probably not more than censure or recommendation, as others have mentioned. 

Edited 6 hours ago by shorty
Loading on the ferry. Had more to add but had to cut it short.

[Ansem]

1 minute ago, shorty said:

Maybe not but I just watched 2 minutes of Earl Cochrane getting skewered on not knowing when the CSB was officially approved. He looked really bad and unprepared. 

Paul Claude Bérubé seems more prepared and explained the context of the CSB approval. Keep spending $1M to have games broadcasts or get paid $4M to help finance the overall program.

He said it made sense at the time but that it should be reviewed in today's context.