The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[RS]

9 minutes ago, Ansem said:

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

Weird. Scott Mitchell tweeted that CSB "never took out a red cent" from the deal.

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, RS said:

Weird. Scott Mitchell tweeted that CSB "never took out a red cent" from the deal.

The other half would have been reinvested into the league - which makes sense by looking at the jump in salary. Not taking a red cent meant, not writing cheques to themselves

[PastPros]

4 minutes ago, RS said:

Weird. Scott Mitchell tweeted that CSB "never took out a red cent" from the deal.

Which is open to interpretation... Doesn't mean they didn't make money.

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

All Scott Mitchell's statement implied was that none of the CSB investors have taken money out of CSB so far. That's different from having no revenues flowing from CMNT and CWNT related revenue streams to CSB. We still don't know how the Onesoccer deal works and whether it is revenue positive for CSB at this point and what other league associated expenditures and past financial losses CSB revenues might be funding or paying off.

[Bigandy]

 

Just now, PastPros said:

Which is open to interpretation... Doesn't mean they didn't make money.

I mean, if the statement is true, then it kind of does mean that they didnt make any money personally. That money is not within the investors account. They cannot spend it on personal items and instead it is being reinvested back into the company and therefore soccer in canada. 

Until the owners start taking money out of CSB, they have not made any money. Case and point - At any point, there could be costs that eat up the cash in the CPL's account and then no investor would even have the possibility to make any money. 

Isn't the best case scenario (given the current restrictions of the CSB deal) for anyone who cares about soccer is that the CSB makes as much money as possible and then the investors don't personally don't take a red penny. 
1. The more money they bring in, the more money can be used to grow CPL
2. The more sponsorship dollars the CSB brings in, the better/easier it will be for CSA to leverage sponsorship once the CSB deal is over. 
3. The more money the CSB makes, the easier it is to renegotiate the deal and get more cash to CSA. 

 

[Bison44]

So in what is prob their best year, CSB brought in 4.2mil more than it paid out?  Minus expenses and minus the % of those deals that were lumped in the CPL content and sponsorship.  That about right??

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

1 hour ago, PastPros said:

At the beginning of the meeting, the committee agreed to summon Bontis and Montagliani in late March.

That's when things will get really interesting. 

[Metro]

2 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

So in what is prob their best year, CSB brought in 4.2mil more than it paid out?  Minus expenses and minus the % of those deals that were lumped in the CPL content and sponsorship.  That about right??

On a related note, is $8.2 million per year or total since the contract began?

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

9 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

... 2. The more sponsorship dollars the CSB brings in, the better/easier it will be for CSA to leverage sponsorship once the CSB deal is over. 
3. The more money the CSB makes, the easier it is to renegotiate the deal and get more cash to CSA. 

After the 2026 World Cup, CSB can unilaterally extend the deal out to 2037 on terms very similar to the first 10 years.

[Bison44]

5 minutes ago, Metro said:

On a related note, is $8.2 million per year or total since the contract began?

Look up ^^^, it went by fast, but I am pretty sure they said 8.2 in 2022, assuming much less in the previous years eh?  

 

[Bigandy]

Just now, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

After the 2026 World Cup, CSB can unilaterally extend the deal out to 2037 on terms very similar to the first 10 years.

Yup, which furthers my point that if we are stuck in a contract until 2037, we want the CSB to make as much money as possible.

It would be horrible for the CSB to have marketing revenues of 1million in 2037 and then the CSA would not have a pool of sponsors in 2038. 

The CSB has also stated its intention to modify the deal to help CSA. The more money the CSB makes, the more the would be willing to share with CSA. 

[Shway]

So in the end the CSB isn't the bad guys that they are perceived to be. 8.2M split in half and then running a league....
I'm interested to see what stance the players will take. 

Will they change their tune, knowing that pockets aren't being lined? 

[Dominic94]

I don’t see how the current deal makes it as they’ve breached it twice and the incoming new leadership is unlikely to keep it. Finally, it doesn’t seem like it was ever even properly approved.

[Ruud]

Thought there were some decent questions.
 

 Approving a deal in March formally but then having amendments presented in December on so called secondary clauses…. but not formally approved !  Wish we knew what those secondary issues were 

and CSB being in breech of contract once in 2020 but they seem to be “working on it “ based on the agreement clauses.  
 

finally borrowing for men last year but not for women this year is a good insight. 
 

housefather was quite good actually 

[Ruud]

Thought there were some decent questions.
 

 Approving a deal in March formally but then having amendments presented in December on so called secondary clauses…. but not formally approved !  Wish we knew what those secondary issues were 

and CSB being in breech of contract once in 2020 but they seem to be “working on it “ based on the agreement clauses.  
 

finally borrowing for men last year but not for women this year is a good insight. 
 

housefather was quite good actually 

[Ruud]

Thought there were some decent questions.
 

 Approving a deal in March formally but then having amendments presented in December on so called secondary clauses…. but not formally approved !  Wish we knew what those secondary issues were 

and CSB being in breech of contract once in 2020 but they seem to be “working on it “ based on the agreement clauses.  
 

finally borrowing for men last year but not for women this year is a good insight. 
 

housefather was quite good actually 

[Ruud]

2 minutes ago, Ruud said:

Thought there were some decent questions.
 

 Approving a deal in March formally but then having amendments presented in December on so called secondary clauses…. but not formally approved !  Wish we knew what those secondary issues were 

and CSB being in breech of contract once in 2020 but they seem to be “working on it “ based on the agreement clauses.  
 

finally borrowing for men last year but not for women this year is a good insight. 
 

housefather was quite good actually 

Sorry for triple post

[Bigandy]

21 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

So in what is prob their best year, CSB brought in 4.2mil more than it paid out?  Minus expenses and minus the % of those deals that were lumped in the CPL content and sponsorship.  That about right??

Maybe I misunderstood but here is what I understood. 

- The CSB made 8.2 in revenue. 
- The CSB pays CSA about 3 mil
- The CSB have about 5.2 million to spend on costs after the CSA payment. Theres no indication to say that amount is 4.2 million as no one has seen CSB books. 
-the 4.2 million is a figure that was brought up to show if the CSB deal was good or bad. CSA is implying that a 50/50 split would be a reasonable %. If they chose the % route, instead of the fixed price payment method, the CSA would nearly have the same amount of dollars coming in.  Just to simplify, the 4.2 million is not the profits of CSB. 

Is this how others understood this?

[Ansem]

33 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

 

I mean, if the statement is true, then it kind of does mean that they didnt make any money personally. That money is not within the investors account. They cannot spend it on personal items and instead it is being reinvested back into the company and therefore soccer in canada. 

Until the owners start taking money out of CSB, they have not made any money. Case and point - At any point, there could be costs that eat up the cash in the CPL's account and then no investor would even have the possibility to make any money. 

Isn't the best case scenario (given the current restrictions of the CSB deal) for anyone who cares about soccer is that the CSB makes as much money as possible and then the investors don't personally don't take a red penny. 
1. The more money they bring in, the more money can be used to grow CPL
2. The more sponsorship dollars the CSB brings in, the better/easier it will be for CSA to leverage sponsorship once the CSB deal is over. 
3. The more money the CSB makes, the easier it is to renegotiate the deal and get more cash to CSA. 

 

To add to that, the more money you reinvest into CPL - the more likely that you will grow the league to the point that you won't need the CSA properties to generate media & marketing revenues just like MLS just did.

One of the best way to grow the league is to grow the quality of the product on the pitch and infrastructure. Makes no sense to cash out which would stagnate the league.

[Ansem]

32 minutes ago, Metro said:

On a related note, is $8.2 million per year or total since the contract began?

Just for 2022

 

[Bigandy]

5 minutes ago, Dominic94 said:

I don’t see how the current deal makes it as they’ve breached it twice and the incoming new leadership is unlikely to keep it. Finally, it doesn’t seem like it was ever even properly approved.

I think the opposite. Breaching the deal occurred in 2020, we may have missed the boat on this one as we have continually worked with CSB with no indications we wanted to break the deal. 

The proposed player agreements CSA released talk specifically about working together with CSB to modify the deal... not cancel it. 

Also, there is no evidence to suggest it was not properly approved. I believe that was an unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous board member. To be able to legally break a contract, there would need to be serious evidence presented from CSA. All the CSA representatives basically defended the process of the CSB deal in the hearing today. Why would the CSA representatives defend the deal if they are trying to break the deal?

[Ottawafan]

15 minutes ago, Shway said:

So in the end the CSB isn't the bad guys that they are perceived to be. 8.2M split in half and then running a league....
I'm interested to see what stance the players will take. 

Will they change their tune, knowing that pockets aren't being lined? 

Not sure you can draw that conclusion based on the available information.

[Aird25]

You have to think this whole situation is hurting the amount of sponsorship money available to the sport in Canada. The only deal signed since the men refused to play the friendly is Quesada. It's sad to think how much money in terms of sponsorships, ticket revenue etc. may have already been lost, and will continue to be lost, due to these disputes

[RS]

48 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The other half would have been reinvested into the league - which makes sense by looking at the jump in salary. Not taking a red cent meant, not writing cheques to themselves

47 minutes ago, PastPros said:

Which is open to interpretation... Doesn't mean they didn't make money.

41 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

All Scott Mitchell's statement implied was that none of the CSB investors have taken money out of CSB so far.

I'm aware of the that, but Mitchell's tweet was a terrible attempt to make it seem like an altruistic venture.

It's a business. No more, no less. And there's nothing wrong with that in a macro sense.

[Ansem]

3 minutes ago, RS said:

I'm aware of the that, but Mitchell's tweet was a terrible attempt to make it seem like an altruistic venture.

It's a business. No more, no less. And there's nothing wrong with that in a macro sense.

Very true