The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Watchmen]

It also mentions that the CSB is still the biggest sticking point for the players. "It's the biggest domino to fall" according to Johnston.

I think Blue understands it needs to be reworked, and he'll probably have a bit more trust from the players on that because he's not the one who signed it originally. Bontis was always in the position of having to defend it, since he's the one who signed off on it. And I don't think Blue is going to tear it up either, because as the article mentions it's needed to help other aspects of soccer. I'll maintain that the fairest thing is still to figure out a percentage of profits for both parties that works and ensures a spirit of co-operation from everyone. Because it's the flat rate that's killing it.

[Bigandy]

39 minutes ago, Ruud said:

Actually any agreement has to take into consideration right to images shirt sales etc as well as their personal likeness value so best players have much to gain or insist on gaining through their agents. 
 

Doesn’t the “ football is their life”guys refer to players who have agents and PR folks who advise on these matters?

Good point. However, (from my understanding) of the 15ish sponsors we have, only a handful use player images. Nonetheless, your opinion is an important aspect of the broader scope of things but not the main focus of my post on the board. 

This is just one of the issues related to the negotiations that Johnstons talking about. I would assume the bigger talking point for johnston is about prize money compensation, appearance fees and the CSB deal VS. image rights. 

In either case, I was talking about how i disagree that the argument is about the richest players. 

The general sentiment of the public who share this opinion has never been that our superstars are pissed about their WC compensation. It's always been about the lower earners on the team and the CWNT who also make substantially less than davies. 

[Ruud]

1 hour ago, Aird25 said:

I assumed players on the national team had agents. Is that wrong?

Maybe “teams” of handlers is more appropriate ?

 

[Ruud]

31 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Good point. However, (from my understanding) of the 15ish sponsors we have, only a handful use player images. Nonetheless, your opinion is an important aspect of the broader scope of things but not the main focus of my post on the board. 

This is just one of the issues related to the negotiations that Johnstons talking about. I would assume the bigger talking point for johnston is about prize money compensation, appearance fees and the CSB deal VS. image rights. 

In either case, I was talking about how i disagree that the argument is about the richest players. 

The general sentiment of the public who share this opinion has never been that our superstars are pissed about their WC compensation. It's always been about the lower earners on the team and the CWNT who also make substantially less than davies. 

I got your point- it is an interesting contention - we can assume that players  differ in their desires to “give back to Canada soccer” and by how much.  Is it positively correlated with current income? Ie those making millions are more willing to give back their word cup earnings to support the other teams.

 

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Gian-Luca said:

Did Johnston say that the CSB probably needs to end, or just the current deal/terms? The two are not the same thing.

I've always read it as the terms of the deal, that it's the flat rate that's the problem.

[Bigandy]

8 minutes ago, Ruud said:

I got your point- it is an interesting contention - we can assume that players  differ in their desires to “give back to Canada soccer” and by how much.  Is it positively correlated with current income? Ie those making millions are more willing to give back their word cup earnings to support the other teams.

 

It is interesting. 

A similar thought but framed from the perspective of the lower paid players is: 

Is there a positive correlation between lower earning players and having a higher earning/bonus payment expectations. 

It appears that weaker teams pay out higher bonus payments to the players with many federations having the womens teams requesting for an equal share of the mens prize money. 


It broaches the age old perspective of "I'm an employee doing all the work, why does my boss make all the money?" Even though it totally ignores the resource input of the employer/CSA. 

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

11 hours ago, Watchmen said:

...I'll maintain that the fairest thing is still to figure out a percentage of profits for both parties that works and ensures a spirit of co-operation from everyone. Because it's the flat rate that's killing it.

Problem is that once shareholders start to be involved in a CSB context the directors are legally obligated to do what is in their financial interest rather than acting in a way that ensures a spirit of co-operation. The CSA going bankrupt and having to be legally reconstituted in the aftermath might be the only way out of this mess.

[Aird25]

14 hours ago, Ruud said:

Maybe “teams” of handlers is more appropriate ?

 

 

4 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Problem is that once shareholders start to be involved in a CSB context the directors are legally obligated to do what is in their financial interest rather than acting in a way that ensures a spirit of co-operation. The CSA going bankrupt and having to be legally reconstituted in the aftermath might be the only way out of this mess.

Teams of handlers on one side, shareholders and directors on another, and CSA presumably involved somehow. Sounds complicated. I wonder if any of them can kick a ball. There might be a bit of fun in that

[dyslexic nam]

5 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said:

Problem is that once shareholders start to be involved in a CSB context the directors are legally obligated to do what is in their financial interest rather than acting in a way that ensures a spirit of co-operation. The CSA going bankrupt and having to be legally reconstituted in the aftermath might be the only way out of this mess.

If you are on a path that will lead to the bankruptcy of your partner, you aren’t looking out for your long term financial interests.  I would think that the directors involved would take the long view and want a sustainable sort of financial success.  They won’t give anything away for no reason - but pending financial pressures could justify them rethinking the contractual arrangement without in any way violating their mandate to look after their own financial interests.  

[narduch]

3 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

If you are on a path that will lead to the bankruptcy of your partner, you aren’t looking out for your long term financial interests.  I would think that the directors involved would take the long view and want a sustainable sort of financial success.  They won’t give anything away for no reason - but pending financial pressures could justify them rethinking the contractual arrangement without in any way violating their mandate to look after their own financial interests.  

I'm trying to think how this even gets resolved. 

The only thing the CSA can really offer is to extend the deal. 

We are currently in year 6 of what is reportedly a 20 year deal.

Meanwhile CSB also has to deal with their broadcast partner. Who they have a legal dispute with.

It may take all 3 parties sitting down together to hammer this out.

[dyslexic nam]

2 minutes ago, narduch said:

I'm trying to think how this even gets resolved. 

The only thing the CSA can really offer is to extend the deal. 

We are currently in year 6 of what is reportedly a 20 year deal.

Meanwhile CSB also has to deal with their broadcast partner. Who they have a legal dispute with.

It may take all 3 parties sitting down together to hammer this out.

I still wonder about the mechanics of the reported extension clause.  I know it has been discussed before but I have never heard of an agreement that can be unilaterally extended (by a decade) by just one of the signatory parties and not through mutual agreement.  I draft and sign many agreements as part of my job and the idea of having one party completely beholden to the whims of the other is insane from a contract perspective.  

[narduch]

2 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

I still wonder about the mechanics of the reported extension clause.  I know it has been discussed before but I have never heard of an agreement that can be unilaterally extended (by a decade) by just one of the signatory parties and not through mutual agreement.  I draft and sign many agreements as part of my job and the idea of having one party completely beholden to the whims of the other is insane from a contract perspective.  

Yup.

And again, we don't really have all the information. So as always, we can only speculate. Which we love to do lol.

I know people may respect Westhead, but any information he provides needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt.

[MtlMario]

It makes sense (and they will) for CSB to come to an arrangement with the CSA because the better our National teams do the more the sponsorship $$$ will come in. Nobody wants the CSA to go belly up so to speak. I think some people are making too much of a negative deal with all of this (for some reason).

Edited March 22 by MtlMario

[Bigandy]

One awful consideration is that what happens if we renegotiate for a % fee and we get less than 3 million. 

This is mostly speculating but lets say the csb makes 8.2 million in revenue in a world cup year. 

• In a non world cup year, lets bring it down to 6 million.
• Now we take out 1 million that is going to the CPL as the 8.2 mil is combined.
• Remove 1million in broadcasting fees.
• Remove 1 million for operational expenses to acquire 8.2 million. 
• The CSB profit is now 3 million. 

CSA gets 50% - 1.5 million. 

Ok ok ok.... I get that this is purely speculating. maybe these numbers are all high. Lets double the CSB profits to 6 million. 
Thats still only 3 million for CSA. 

Ok ok ok ok .... Still not convinced. Lets make the CSB profits 9 million. MORE than their revenues. Thats 4.5million to the CSA. Thats 500k more than our current agreement. 

The argument that a % of profits instead of a flat fee will fix the financial crisis of CSA is nonsensical. 

The CWNT/CMNT got a great CBA proposal and wanted more and now they lost that offer and are going to get less. Is the same thing going to happen if we renegotiate the CSB deal.... 

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, narduch said:

Yup.

And again, we don't really have all the information. So as always, we can only speculate. Which we love to do lol.

I know people may respect Westhead, but any information he provides needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt.

I think the extension clause was known before Westhead started writing about anything. At the very least, the rumour of it's existence was known beforehand.

[Ruud]

2 hours ago, narduch said:

I'm trying to think how this even gets resolved. 

The only thing the CSA can really offer is to extend the deal. 

We are currently in year 6 of what is reportedly a 20 year deal.

Meanwhile CSB also has to deal with their broadcast partner. Who they have a legal dispute with.

It may take all 3 parties sitting down together to hammer this out.

Bob Rae to mediate?  Better yet former Mayor Miller who is alresdy a footy fan?

[eramosat]

On 3/21/2024 at 4:40 PM, Gian-Luca said:

Did Johnston say that the CSB probably needs to end, or just the current deal/terms? The two are not the same thing.

 

On 3/21/2024 at 5:45 PM, Watchmen said:

I've always read it as the terms of the deal, that it's the flat rate that's the problem.

Johnston's "quote" from the article is simply not detailed enough to determine what he means.  He says that CSB deal is the first domino to be addressed...but zero about what he thinks it actually takes to topple that first domino...tearing it up, re-negotiating A, B or C terms, accepting it, anything. 

SO it is a big nothing burger, in terms of what it tells anyone about what he actually wants, or would accept.  

 

P.S.  To me, it gets harder every day to successfully negotiate a conclusion to this episode.  Some players are on their way out...new ones are coming in.  Same on CSA side.  Plus the "old" deal will presumably have to live alongside the "new" deal for the 2026 WC...and how does that get dealt with when some parties are party to one, and others to both, who is determining who gets input, and to what degree? 

A truly thankless job.

Edited March 23 by eramosat

[RJB]

 

1 hour ago, narduch said:

Includes some subtle shade towards the players over the dispute

 

That wasn't particularly subtle in my opinion.  But of course, as Jack is on the company side of this dispute.  He may well be correct but it's difficult to take his opinion as anything other than quite biased.  

[Kadenge]

Guys it's game day. Can we give this thread a rest until after the final whistle!

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, eramosat said:

 

Johnston's "quote" from the article is simply not detailed enough to determine what he means.  He says that CSB deal is the first domino to be addressed...but zero about what he thinks it actually takes to topple that first domino...tearing it up, re-negotiating A, B or C terms, accepting it, anything. 

SO it is a big nothing burger, in terms of what it tells anyone about what he actually wants, or would accept.  

 

P.S.  To me, it gets harder every day to successfully negotiate a conclusion to this episode.  Some players are on their way out...new ones are coming in.  Same on CSA side.  Plus the "old" deal will presumably have to live alongside the "new" deal for the 2026 WC...and how does that get dealt with when some parties are party to one, and others to both, who is determining who gets input, and to what degree? 

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.

Antonio Gramsci

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

30 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.

Antonio Gramsci

Of course, Gramsci.  It all makes sense now. 

[eramosat]

28 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Of course, Gramsci.  It all makes sense now. 

a bit...just a bit...too philosophical for me. 😉

for me, the CSA pay dispute is now squarely in reality TV territory.  anything could be introduced as a factor, and it's about as meaningful as which bachelorette lands which bachelor...or vice versa...which is to say, inconsequential.  nobody has moral high ground...or any high ground, of any type.  

[Ozzie_the_parrot]

On 3/21/2024 at 6:15 PM, red card said:

...But unlike some others in the media, Kloke added context after this by stating end of CSB means demise of CPL, loss of jobs in the Canadian soccer economy and a number of national team players got their development in CSB-owned L1s. Kloke's sources say CSB paid approximately $100k to cover the rights and production costs to ensure Sinclair’s final match was broadcast on TSN.

Now the T&T game is out of the way, discussing this topic on here is reasonable again.

There are a couple of very dubious assertions in the quoted text. Why would CanPL automatically have to fold without the CSB deal rather than cut its cloth accordingly? The interest is clearly there to sustain some level of domestic pro league setup in the absence of an ongoing subsidy from the national team programs. Would it really be the end of the world if it were something closer to what Joe Belan envisaged at D2 level?

The L1s existed before they were owned by CSB and would in all likelihood have continued to exist if CSB had never owned them so mentioning that angle looks like a complete red herring to me. Clubs like Vaughan Azzurri and AS Blainville wouldn't suddenly cease to exist and stop developing players if there were no CSB deal. Beyond that the CSB deal isn't funding anything comparable to the three MLS academies which are still the dominant factor in national youth team selections on the mens side of things.

Edited March 24 by Ozzie_the_parrot

[Bison44]

Now that stupid game is over I can respond to posts from 3 days ago.  I finally get to rant endlessly about my favorite topic, how quickly can we downgrade the CPL into a regional bus league like L10???  And I would also just like to say, help help I am being persecuted for truth telling and everything anyone else posts is drivel.  

[narduch]

6 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Now that stupid game is over I can respond to posts from 3 days ago.  I finally get to rant endlessly about my favorite topic, how quickly can we downgrade the CPL into a regional bus league like L10???  And I would also just like to say, help help I am being persecuted for truth telling and everything anyone else posts is drivel.  

Definitely unhinged