The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[aslemko]

Just now, Soro17 said:

Having negotiated many contracts, I have a pretty good idea. Termination for breach, non-performance, fine. Null and void is something all together. A court would hesitate to find in a case like this that an agreement is a nullity. There is also likely a severability provision which would say that, even if a court finds a provision is unenforceable, only that provision gets severed and everything else remains in effect. 
 

At the end of the day, if the CSA wants out, it will have to pay to have the deal terminated. 

 

Just now, Soro17 said:

Having negotiated many contracts, I have a pretty good idea. Termination for breach, non-performance, fine. Null and void is something all together. A court would hesitate to find in a case like this that an agreement is a nullity. There is also likely a severability provision which would say that, even if a court finds a provision is unenforceable, only that provision gets severed and everything else remains in effect. 
 

At the end of the day, if the CSA wants out, it will have to pay to have the deal terminated. 

I am a lawyer too Junior so dont pull this shit that you know what is in a contract that you have never seen. 

[The Real Marc]

14 minutes ago, Sal333 said:

I don't what you do for a living but let's say you're a plumber. Would it be okay for me to ask you to go plumb some pipes for your country. We'll give you some compensation and oh you gotta stay there for awhile and you don't get to bring your family. And a corporation will get rich from your loyal service to your country.

I'd bet you'd be the first to bitch and whine. People who volunteer other people's time and labour usually are.

The players are paid for their services. And yes, they are volunteers.

Your analogy is terrible but to be nice I'll try to make it work for you - if I was asked to plumb some pipes to represent my country at the World Plumbing Championships and the going rate didn't make up lost wages at home and/or the World Plumbing Championships weren't really that important to me, and/or I didn't like how the national plumbing association spent their share of the proceeds of the championships (and/or insert any other reason here), I'd decline the call.

But that's not what these players are doing. Because that's too risky.

We all do different jobs for different reasons. As Califax pointed out, its common to do the same work at different pay - because the purposes and the context change the value. If playing for Canada was about the pay, none of them would show up. Canada is going to the World Cup. Individual players are not. Which is why their hand here is weak.

Edited June 6, 2022 by The Real Marc

[Soro17]

2 minutes ago, ensco said:

Two points on the contract

1) I think any contract signed by a not for profit that receives significant government funding is VERY different than a normal commercial contract, in terms of the reasonable level of disclosure/scrutiny  that is appropriate.

2) Any contract that hid material elements can and will be undone by courts. The players are coming thisclose to accusing Bontis and the CSA of corrupt dealings on that contract. If there is corruption, this will not just “stand” because “a deal is a deal”, regardless of the terms of the contract.

Hid material elements? What are you talking about? CSA management and board would have had access to the full terms of the agreement prior to its execution. 

[Redpunkfiddle]

Imagine that. Lawyers arguing that one thing means different things.

[PastPros]

25 minutes ago, Wingback6 said:

No they absolutely do fucking not. I am shocked that the contract was allowed to be signed without apparently any sort of over sight from say, oh I don't know, the minister of sport? Contracts are declared null and void all of the damn time. To all of you who think this matter is done.

And you. Are you are saying it is appropriate for our national program to be a revenue stream for private enterprise? 

 

Nope. Not saying that at all.

They offered a contract. It was accepted. It was a risk on their part - and they won big, therefore they should benefit.

That's all I said..

I have no knowledge of the contract details. My assumption is that they bet on Canadian Soccer when no one else would.

Edited June 6, 2022 by PastPros

[JohnnyFranchise]

3 minutes ago, The Real Marc said:

Nope. This is terrible analogy because you can't find one to suit your argument.

So I'll try to make it work for you - if I was asked to plumb some pipes the represent my country at the World Plumbing Championships and I didn't think it was worth my time, in part because I'm handsomely paid plumbing closer to home, or because the World Plumbing Championships aren't important to me, or only plumb for the money, I'd decline the call.

We all do different jobs for different reasons. As Califax pointed out, its common to do the same work for different purposes at different pay. If playing for Canada was about the pay, none of them would show up. Which is why their hand here is weak.

Oh, I went straight to google after reading that one 🤣

https://bpec.org.uk/uk-apprentice-crowned-plumbing-world-champion/

[ensco]

Just now, Soro17 said:

Hid material elements? What are you talking about? CSA management and board would have had access to the full terms of the agreement prior to its execution. 

The logical inference of the players letter is that something about that contract is not on the up and up. We will see.

[Shway]

All those development programs, grassroots programs….are all basically funded by the people. 
 

8 Mill in player, coach, ref fees should be more than enough for those programs.

Grassroots aka OPDL is a freaking scam with parents expected to pay 5k a season.

Im with the players on the side of “where the hell is the money going”.

[Soro17]

5 minutes ago, aslemko said:

 

I am a lawyer too Junior so dont pull this shit that you know what is in a contract that you have never seen. 

Sure thing. 

[aslemko]

Just now, Redpunkfiddle said:

Imagine that. Lawyers arguing that one thing means different things.

except that I stating that it is idiotic to make sweeping statements about what might be Iin a contract I have not seen. 

[Shway]

Why didn’t anyone ask Nick the Dick why did we end up with Iran, after the phone calls were ringing of the hook.

[SoCalTransport]

3 minutes ago, ensco said:

The logical inference of the players letter is that something about that contract is not on the up and up. We will see.

It’s simple the players don’t believe what they’re being told by the CSA, I think as more layers of the onion gets peeled, you’ll see where the money is actually going.

[Big_M]

BREAKING

A statement from the womens national team in which they demand equal pay and not equal percentages and in which they say that they will not accept an agreement that does not offer equal pay

This is likely the turning point

Men will now be forced to accept lower to ensure equal pay

 

[sose]

25 minutes ago, The Real Marc said:

This is a silly question. Any adult understand that, yes, you often do have to work for free - depending on the request, the requestor, and then context.

But even taking this silliness at face value, the players work for pro clubs that pay them.

The plays represent the country at the pleasure of the coach that selects them. They should receive some compensation to make up for their lost opportunity at their clubs, but this is not their work.

This is a silly response.  Any adult understands that you do not HAVE to work for free, it is always a choice.

So you are saying they should volunteer their time, leave their families, fly great distances, leave their clubs (that pay them and that are often not happy about players leaving for international duty).  These players and their performances are the reasons the venues sell tickets and the reason for increased merch sales but they should not receive compensation?  

Many CANMNT players are not millionaires and would definitely benefit from the bonus.   

[Soro17]

9 minutes ago, Redpunkfiddle said:

Imagine that. Lawyers arguing that one thing means different things.

Nuance my friend. I was saying two separate things (null and void vs termination in accordance with terms) are not the same thing. 
 

Also, we always need to be right. 😄

[A_Gagne]

[The Real Marc]

3 minutes ago, sose said:

This is a silly response.  Any adult understands that you do not HAVE to work for free, it is always a choice.

So you are saying they should volunteer their time, leave their families, fly great distances, leave their clubs (that pay them and that are often not happy about players leaving for international duty).  These players and their performances are the reasons the venues sell tickets and the reason for increased merch sales but they should not receive compensation?  

Many CANMNT players are not millionaires and would definitely benefit from the bonus.   

It is only a choice in a simplistic understanding of how relationships and work dynamics play out in the context of a career.

(Pssssssst - The players already get paid for playing for Canada. So they're not working for free.)

Edited June 6, 2022 by The Real Marc

[JohnnyFranchise]

2 minutes ago, Big_M said:

BREAKING

A statement from the womens national team in which they demand equal pay and not equal percentages and in which they say that they will not accept an agreement that does not offer equal pay

This is likely the turning point

Men will now be forced to accept lower to ensure equal pay

 

But I thought they WERE going to get equal share of ALL the money. Like, regardless of where the money comes from they both share it equally. 🤷🏽‍♂️

[Gian-Luca]

4 minutes ago, Big_M said:

BREAKING

A statement from the womens national team in which they demand equal pay and not equal percentages and in which they say that they will not accept an agreement that does not offer equal pay

This is likely the turning point

Men will now be forced to accept lower to ensure equal pay

 

The men's team might want to hire the person who wrote the women's press release to work for them...

[DoyleG]

20 minutes ago, aslemko said:

 

I am a lawyer too Junior so dont pull this shit that you know what is in a contract that you have never seen. 

 

16 minutes ago, Redpunkfiddle said:

Imagine that. Lawyers arguing that one thing means different things.

 

3 minutes ago, Soro17 said:

Nuance my friend. I was saying two separate things (null and void vs termination in accordance with terms) are not the same thing. 
 

Also, we always need to be right. 😄

[The Real Marc]

It's been a while DoyleG, but this is a worthy return!

[SoCalTransport]

[sose]

34 minutes ago, Califax said:

Do I make significantly less doing the same work at two places? 
 

yeah. 

So you don't work for free.. but you want others to. 

[Free kick]

Deleted

Edited June 6, 2022 by Free kick

[Gian-Luca]

2 minutes ago, JohnnyFranchise said:

But I thought they WERE going to get equal share of ALL the money. Like, regardless of where the money comes from they both share it equally. 🤷🏽‍♂️

The men's statement, despite what Rick Westhead claimed on twitter, doesn't call for equal pay. It calls for "equitable". Someone could argue that something is equitable (aka fair) without the actual $$ being equal (e.g. the men earn more from FIFA. The women are essentially making that distinction in their statement and even that the % could be equal but the pay might not be if the pool of funds FIFA is providing to the men is greater because it generates more $$ than the women's game does. And someone could argue that this lack of equality is equitable because of the greater $$ coming from the men's game.