Gian-Luca Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Berube just said CSB got little more than 2 million in sponsorships in 2022. johnyb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aird25 Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Apparently sponsorship revenue was still less than $3 mil in 2022 johnyb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 (edited) CSB received had $8.2M in revenues according to Paul Claude Bérubé. Even if it was a 50% split, it would be $4.1M instead of the $4M. The NDP MP didn't care by this important piece of information ***Unless I heard wrong Edited March 20, 2023 by Ansem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Aird25 said: Apparently sponsorship revenue was still less than $3 mil in 2022 Is that accurate? I understood that the broadcasting revenue was less than 3million. This doesnt account for other sponsorship revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 So was it $2 million or $8.2 million? I muted the stream during that answer as I had some work to concentrate on (imagine that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aird25 Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Ansem said: CSB received $8.2M in sponsorship revenues according to Paul Claude Bérubé. Even if it was a 50% split, it would be $4.1M instead of the $4M. The NDP MP didn't care by this important piece of information I must have heard that wrong. I thought it was 2.8, but I'm listening to it in the background while working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Why are these questions & answers being capped by a time limit? The "transparency" they are demanded is limited to two-minute answers? Utterly absurd, you have Peter Julian stating conclusions based upon answers that the CSA members haven't had time to fully give. He's comparing the Cdn national team broadcasting rights to MLS rights under Apple without any info that the CSA used to pay TSN to broadcast their games. johnyb and grigorio 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Just now, Aird25 said: I must have heard that wrong. I thought it was 2.8, but I'm listening to it in the background while working. You were correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 (edited) It was $8.2M because he then said that even if they had a 50% split, they wouldn't be that far off. Of course, CSB stands to make more as time goes by Had it be $2.8, it's CSB paying out of pocket which makes no sense Edited March 20, 2023 by Ansem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Just now, Gian-Luca said: Why are these questions & answers being capped by a time limit? The "transparency" they are demanded is limited to two-minute answers? That's just standard practice for these things. Otherwise they'd go on for hours. They were very strict on the time limits when the WNT members were there, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastPros Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 At the beginning of the meeting, the committee agreed to summon Bontis and Montagliani in late March. narduch and Ansem 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruud Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 11 minutes ago, Ansem said: CSB received had $8.2M in revenues according to Paul Claude Bérubé. Even if it was a 50% split, it would be $4.1M instead of the $4M. The NDP MP didn't care by this important piece of information ***Unless I heard wrong Includes one soccer revenues and all revenues from CPL? What about costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 8 minutes ago, RS said: That's just standard practice for these things. Otherwise they'd go on for hours. They were very strict on the time limits when the WNT members were there, as well. The women though were the ones asking for transparency, not being asked to provide it, so their requirements for timing is less of an issue. This hearing has largely been useless because true transparency can't be provided by 30 second soundbites. I understand that the politicians seemed clueless when talking to the women, they are coming across just as clueless here. johnyb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aird25 Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 12 minutes ago, Ansem said: It was $8.2M because he then said that even if they had a 50% split, they wouldn't be that far off. Of course, CSB stands to make more as time goes by Had it be $2.8, it's CSB paying out of pocket which makes no sense The translator may have gotten it wrong? She definitely said $2.8 million in sponsorships of all kind. I went back and listened again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 10 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said: The women though were the ones asking for transparency, not being asked to provide it, so their requirements for timing is less of an issue. This hearing has largely been useless because true transparency can't be provided by 30 second soundbites. I understand that the politicians seemed clueless when talking to the women, they are coming across just as clueless here. That's a good point, but I think they are still somewhat "bound" by their internal rules to keep the hearing going. To your second point: I had to turn it off. The politicians are still as clueless today as they were two weeks ago, and I was actually starting to feel sorry for Earl Cochrane. VinceA and Gian-Luca 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 14 minutes ago, Gian-Luca said: The women though were the ones asking for transparency, not being asked to provide it, so their requirements for timing is less of an issue. This hearing has largely been useless because true transparency can't be provided by 30 second soundbites. I understand that the politicians seemed clueless when talking to the women, they are coming across just as clueless here. I totally agree with you, but some of the CSA reps tend to spew answers that are long and not entirely related to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 5 minutes ago, RS said: That's a good point, but I think they are still somewhat "bound" by their internal rules to keep the hearing going. To your second point: I had to turn it off. The politicians are still as clueless today as they were two weeks ago, and I was actually starting to feel sorry for Earl Cochrane. Earl Cochrane as usual isn't coming across all that great, but he's looking like a superstar genius in comparison to the politicians VinceA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Comment from Paul Claude Bérubé Before CSB CSA made $1.4M in sponsorship / per year With CSB Minimum $3M / per year paid to them by CSB johnyb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Now Housefather is grilling the CSA on FIFA hiring Adriana Lima as an ambassador. Great to see that our taxpayer money is being used to talk about important transparency issues. VinceA, RS, red card and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Gian-Luca said: Now Housefather is grilling the CSA on FIFA hiring Adriana Lima as an ambassador. Great to see that our taxpayer money is being used to talk about important transparency issues. So I'm not missing out on much then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Gian-Luca said: Now Housefather is grilling the CSA on FIFA hiring Adriana Lima as an ambassador. Great to see that our taxpayer money is being used to talk about important transparency issues. That is ridiculous. Theres so much bias in this meeting and virtue signaling by these politicians. Talk about what is within Canada soccers control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 MPs are more interested in their own bias and being right than truly understanding what's going on. No I'm not defending the CSA but this ain't black or white either - zero interest in nuance johnyb and Bigandy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 On 3/19/2023 at 10:17 AM, Ozzie_the_parrot said: 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. Same thing occurred with the OSA when TFC academies first arrived. Provincial teams threatened players and clubs informing them they would no longer be in good standing with the province if players chose to go to TFC. Ivan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawafan Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 On 3/19/2023 at 10:29 AM, dyslexic nam said: The hatred of MLS is obvious given the complete omission of the MLS academies from our national teams. Obviously that has changed. If the CSA wanted to use the top players, they would have no choice but to use the pro academies. Now they really only go through the academies to secure talent in Canada. Granted most top kids are in the system, but there are plenty of kids who would excel if given the opportunity. Ivan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Aird25 said: The translator may have gotten it wrong? She definitely said $2.8 million in sponsorships of all kind. I went back and listened again I just went back at 11:49:50 Les informations que nous avons obtenus, nous permets de croire qu'en 2022 CSB a obtenu pour environ $8.2M de commandite de toutes sortes The information we have obtained, allows us to believe that in 2022 CSB has obtained for approximately $8.2M of sponsorship of all kinds Edited March 20, 2023 by Ansem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now