Kevin Blue named CSA General Secretary and CEO

[Bigandy]

7 minutes ago, RS said:

I'm not Ozzie, but I did read this in the article (bolding mine):

That means if Canada beats Trinidad and Tobago and goes on to win two games in the Copa, it will cost Canada Soccer more than $600,000 in player bonuses, in addition to at least $500,000 in expenses related to travel costs and staging a pre-tournament camp for players and coaches.

Fair point! 

My sentiment is that the unnamed source is saying far more than 1 million. 1.1million is not far more than 1million. 

Edited March 18 by Bigandy

[InglewoodJack]

11 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

We all know that CSA has no money. But the better we perform at the copa, the more prize money we win. NOT the more likely we are to be insolvent. 

The (likely correct) implication in the article is that Canada is not going to reach the quarters at the copa, meaning no bonus. The worst case scenario is that we win two games and don't qualify which I'm not sure how that math works, but in all likelihood, we win one game and get bounced in the group stage. You can make a case that we may be the second best team in our potential group (Argentina, Peru, Chile), but based on recent performances, if you're looking at the situation purely as an income vs. expenses calculation and not as a fan, you have to factor the likelihood that Canada does not earn a single penny in bonus for Copa.

If Westhead is being biased, what do people think is his agenda? What is his alleged angle here?

[RS]

1 minute ago, InglewoodJack said:

If Westhead is being biased, what do people think is his agenda? What is his alleged angle here?

[Aird25]

14 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

But in a bizarre twist that is linked to Canada Soccer’s media and sponsorship contract, it's possible that the better Canada performs in the Copa, the more it could accelerate the federation’s path towards insolvency.

This is a big part of the the connection I don't get. Correlating the CSB deal to Copa America expenses is just so tangential that I can't even imagine trying to write the article. 

[InglewoodJack]

1 minute ago, RS said:

I just figure Westhead is one of the most respected, if not the most respected sports journalist in Canada at the moment, and he made his name in hockey, not soccer, so I don’t know what he’s getting out of doing a November surprise before a Canada Soccer presser.

[kacbru]

1 minute ago, RS said:

in addition to at least $500,000 in expenses related to travel costs and staging a pre-tournament camp for players and coaches.

But this is a sunk cost regardless if they win or lose.  It has no bearing on the argument that winning is bad for the CSA and only mislead

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

5 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

If Westhead is being biased, what do people think is his agenda? What is his alleged angle here?

I was out of the country for most of the hockey stuff but if you make your name via scandals, then it is in your interest that there be scandals.  British tabloids can teach you that.

[Bigandy]

3 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

The (likely correct) implication in the article is that Canada is not going to reach the quarters at the copa, meaning no bonus. The worst case scenario is that we win two games and don't qualify which I'm not sure how that math works, but in all likelihood, we win one game and get bounced in the group stage. You can make a case that we may be the second best team in our potential group (Argentina, Peru, Chile), but based on recent performances, if you're looking at the situation purely as an income vs. expenses calculation and not as a fan, you have to factor the likelihood that Canada does not earn a single penny in bonus for Copa.

If Westhead is being biased, what do people think is his agenda? What is his alleged angle here?

Although I agree with your interpretation, the article clearly says that the better we perform, the closer we are to insolvency. Not that winning games but not advancing will hurt us. If it was presented that way, then I am all for it. 

We also have to account that fifa covers part of the expenses for teams attending these tournaments. There is a possible case where we lose money at copa. But thats IF we do not advance and that is against the entire spirit of the article. 

Westheads angle is that he wants views which need controversy. Its not a good sell to say, "CMNT has the opportunity to generate funds at copa to help with ongoing financial crisis. If they get out of the group, they could make a few hundred thousand"

Lets also look at the timing of the article. Its released right before the press conference. 

The major issue I have is that its all negative spins. No talk about the possibility we make money at copa, no real sources or evidence for his claims, somehow the CSB deal is brought up in an article about how copa performance is tied to performance, it doesnt report that player fees havnt changed in years, etc. Every topic has a negative spin and doesnt include any information that could be seen as positive. 

 

[InglewoodJack]

1 minute ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

I was out of the country for most of the hockey stuff but if you make your name via scandals, then it is in your interest that there be scandals.  British tabloids can teach you that.

Financial malpractice in Canada’s 6th most popular sport (IIRC CSA’s budget is 6th biggest in Canadian sports?) seems like small potatoes vs the hockey stuff he broke, no? It’s like if a British tabloid broke whatever it is that’s going on with Kate and William and co., and then turned around and broke a story that was like “buckingham palace is operating at a £2M loss yearly”. Juicy story but the former is what everyone is talking about. Granted, I don’t know too much about the inside baseball when it comes to these reporters, so maybe I’m missing something. 

[Ruud]

17 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

The (likely correct) implication in the article is that Canada is not going to reach the quarters at the copa, meaning no bonus. The worst case scenario is that we win two games and don't qualify which I'm not sure how that math works, but in all likelihood, we win one game and get bounced in the group stage. You can make a case that we may be the second best team in our potential group (Argentina, Peru, Chile), but based on recent performances, if you're looking at the situation purely as an income vs. expenses calculation and not as a fan, you have to factor the likelihood that Canada does not earn a single penny in bonus for Copa.

If Westhead is being biased, what do people think is his agenda? What is his alleged angle here?

Also where is the Bell Media white knight to offer millions and solve all our problems 

[InglewoodJack]

2 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Although I agree with your interpretation, the article clearly says that the better we perform, the closer we are to insolvency. Not that winning games but not advancing will hurt us. If it was presented that way, then I am all for it. 

We also have to account that fifa covers part of the expenses for teams attending these tournaments. There is a possible case where we lose money at copa. But thats IF we do not advance and that is against the entire spirit of the article. 

Westheads angle is that he wants views which need controversy. Its not a good sell to say, "CMNT has the opportunity to generate funds at copa to help with ongoing financial crisis. If they get out of the group, they could make a few hundred thousand"

Lets also look at the timing of the article. Its released right before the press conference. 

The major issue I have is that its all negative spins. No talk about the possibility we make money at copa, no real sources or evidence for his claims, somehow the CSB deal is brought up in an article about how copa performance is tied to performance, it doesnt report that player fees havnt changed in years, etc. Every topic has a negative spin and doesnt include any information that could be seen as positive. 

 

I can see where you are coming from. I think the idea that Canada has some success but does not advance should be a strong implication, just like if this article was about the World Cup- we know we aren’t moving on. 
 

I hear you on the negativity- as a fan, I want to hear more about the positive direction we’re seemingly headed in since Blue’s appointment, but I can understand the need to break a story about how dire things are. If there is an inside angle here, I hope it’s Westhead and whoever is feeding him information trying to but CSB’s feet to the fire. 

[SpursFlu]

I think the agenda is a huge agenda and I'm not sure why it's an agenda by whoever has sicked Whitehead on the CSA 

One thing is abundantly clear. They don't want our men's national team to succeed. They don't want the CPL to succeed. Whitehead is paid by Bell Media. TSN is owned by Bell Media and ESPN. ESPN is owned by Disney. Disney and Bell are both basically owned by Blackrock and Vanguard. Who both basically own everything. They don't own the CPL and the CSA

People can fact check me on all that if they like. If I'm wrong I'm wrong

I'm just presenting my observations and what I think is true. Make of it what you want. I just want to enjoy men's Canadian football. That can't be all that bad can it?

[Canuckia]

1 hour ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

 

I love this guy!!!

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

4 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

Financial malpractice in Canada’s 6th most popular sport (IIRC CSA’s budget is 6th biggest in Canadian sports?) seems like small potatoes vs the hockey stuff he broke, no? It’s like if a British tabloid broke whatever it is that’s going on with Kate and William and co., and then turned around and broke a story that was like “buckingham palace is operating at a £2M loss yearly”. Juicy story but the former is what everyone is talking about. Granted, I don’t know too much about the inside baseball when it comes to these reporters, so maybe I’m missing something. 

Not the greatest example because the Kate Middleton photo thing is actually a ridiculously tiny story.  It is being used to hint at other scandals but do people actually care if she Photoshoped some pictures?

It's what a journalist can do with it.

[RS]

14 minutes ago, kacbru said:

But this is a sunk cost regardless if they win or lose.  It has no bearing on the argument that winning is bad for the CSA and only mislead

I think it's mentioned to provide more context.

[Ruud]

Is there another way to have this discussion?
 

.1 running a successful federation in the 21st-century cannot rely alone on government subsidies.  I think there was a recent article saying as much, and how many sports federations were underfunded

2 happens to have been an interesting test case as costs increased and the ambition of the Federation increased to develop domestic leagues 

3 There can be no comparison made with hockey  And so far basketball does not yet have the same demands on its  players .  Big media ignores us all  

4 The model for success for  women and men has  proven elusive  

 

[Ottawafan]

39 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

The math is 200k in player fees per win. If we get out of the group we get 1.5million. If we win all 2 group games, thats 400k in costs and then we get the 1.5million. I would take that deal any day.  

His point is to manipulate the reader to believe what you described but can you play out a scenario where the numbers work out negatively? 

If they win this Saturday and only win once at COPA but don’t get out of the group, it seems like they will be underwater for that stretch. Don’t know what type of money the CSA will get for qualifying but absolutely that’s likely not going to be a good scenario financially. 

[Bigandy]

6 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

I hear you on the negativity- as a fan, I want to hear more about the positive direction we’re seemingly headed in since Blue’s appointment, but I can understand the need to break a story about how dire things are. If there is an inside angle here, I hope it’s Westhead and whoever is feeding him information trying to but CSB’s feet to the fire. 

I think you missed my point. Im not saying that the financials are dire but I want to hear about the positives. 

The information westhead is presenting is that there are costs to winning games. Thats half the story. Theres also prizes for winning games which he briefly touches on. 

Based on the above he comes to the conclusion that: The more we win, the closer to insolvency the federation becomes. 

That conclusion is wildly negative and false. Whats the most we can win? the whole tournament. If we win the whole tournament, we are much much better off. 

Why does he come to the conclusion about winning and insolvency when that simply is not true. Maybe theres a possible scenario where we win and are set back, but the overall conclusion could be more accurate if he wrote, "the further we progress, the more money CSA will profit from, even though costs also rise." 

 

[RS]

13 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Although I agree with your interpretation, the article clearly says that the better we perform, the closer we are to insolvency. Not that winning games but not advancing will hurt us. If it was presented that way, then I am all for it. 

The article actually states that Canada Soccer's financial woes could accelerate with each passing game. It doesn't make a definitive statement that their woes will rise.

From the second paragraph (again, bolding and italicizing are mine): "But in a bizarre twist that is linked to Canada Soccer’s media and sponsorship contract, it's possible that the better Canada performs in the Copa, the more it could accelerate the federation’s path towards insolvency."

That's the entire angle of the story as written, that costs could outstrip what Canada Soccer brings in. Given that Canada would likely need to make the quarters to break even, the possibility is fairly strong (as @InglewoodJack mentioned).

However, I do think it's a bit disingenuous to not state that it's common practice for host countries to foot the bill for friendlies and also to use Australia's finances as a comparison to Canada's, but the main crux of the article isn't wrong.

[Bigandy]

1 minute ago, Ottawafan said:

If they win this Saturday and only win once at COPA but don’t get out of the group, it seems like they will be underwater for that stretch. Don’t know what type of money the CSA will get for qualifying but absolutely that’s likely not going to be a good scenario financially. 

So the article saying "the more we win, the worse it is" is not true in your opinion? 

Because I agree, youve presented the worst case scenario. Winning once only and getting kicked out. Its a shame westhead has presented a different narrative. 
 

[InglewoodJack]

4 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Not the greatest example because the Kate Middleton photo thing is actually a ridiculously tiny story.  It is being used to hint at other scandals but do people actually care if she Photoshoped some pictures?

It's what a journalist can do with it.

The Kate photo is small, but if someone were to break the story everyone hopes breaks- William is leaving kate for that noblewoman because George is dying and he doesn't want a commoner queen and his kids born out of wedlock might mess with the line of succession and all that- and the same reporter also breaks some financial story about the royal family mismanaging funds or whatnot- I think very few people are going to look at the latter story as any type of incitement, because the big story that tabloid would've broken would be the biggest news event of the year in the UK, just like the Hockey Canada scandal was probably the biggest story of the year in Canada.

The implied Canada Soccer scandal is that CSA board members signed a bad deal with CSB and it screwed up the program's financials. Not really a juicy story and no one has any reason to believe there's anything deeper than a poor business deal signed by people who may not have been qualified to negotiate that type of deal

 

All of this is hypothetical, but my point is that whatever he breaks on Canada soccer is so small compared to his hockey work, and if he did want to stir the pot and drive clicks, he could probably just report on what I assume are the dozens of stories about hockey players doing... less than honourable things that I am certain are sitting in his inbox right now.

[Ivan]

21 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

I just figure Westhead is one of the most respected, if not the most respected sports journalist in Canada at the moment, and he made his name in hockey, not soccer, so I don’t know what he’s getting out of doing a November surprise before a Canada Soccer presser.

Westhead's angles as a sports journalist are not on the sport itself (do you actually think he would have been on Blue's media call today?), but on controversy or scandal in sport.

He has a "unnamed source" that is feeding him one-sided information that he deems report-worthy.   The Women's NT players back this source, as do a few of the men (obviously, players like Davies don't really care) so Westhead is running with it.  

The problem the vast majority of soccer purists have (called CSB apologists by the vocal minority on here) is that TSN or Sportnet does not have another journalist to tell the other side.  Matthew Schianetti, for example, is not going to go against his coworker - defeats the purpose, or number of clicks, so to speak.

[Bigandy]

2 minutes ago, RS said:

The article actually states that Canada Soccer's financial woes could accelerate with each passing game. It doesn't make a definitive statement that their woes will rise.

From the second paragraph (again, bolding and italicizing are mine): "But in a bizarre twist that is linked to Canada Soccer’s media and sponsorship contract, it's possible that the better Canada performs in the Copa, the more it could accelerate the federation’s path towards insolvency."

That's the entire angle of the story as written, that costs could outstrip what Canada Soccer brings in. Given that Canada would likely need to make the quarters to break even, the possibility is fairly strong (as @InglewoodJack mentioned).

However, I do think it's a bit disingenuous to not state that it's common practice for host countries to foot the bill for friendlies and also to use Australia's finances as a comparison to Canada's, but the main crux of the article isn't wrong.

Thats how manipulative journalism is done. 

It "could" "possibly" "potentially". 

There isn't a definitive stance, but it angles the reader towards a bias feeling. When the casual audience reads that statement, they do not walk away thinking "Canada winning the copa will be goo financially". They walk away feeling "Even if canada wins it all, they could go bankrupt because of it". 

[RS]

1 minute ago, Bigandy said:

Thats how manipulative journalism is done. 

It "could" "possibly" "potentially". 

There isn't a definitive stance, but it angles the reader towards a bias feeling. When the casual audience reads that statement, they do not walk away thinking "Canada winning the copa will be goo financially". They walk away feeling "Even if canada wins it all, they could go bankrupt because of it". 

Respectfully, I think you're projecting your own interpretation onto the general public.

The main thrust is that Canada Soccer is in dire financial straits and these games could make it worse. What's factually incorrect about that?

[Bigandy]

3 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

The Kate photo is small, but if someone were to break the story everyone hopes breaks- William is leaving kate for that noblewoman because George is dying and he doesn't want a commoner queen and his kids born out of wedlock might mess with the line of succession and all that- and the same reporter also breaks some financial story about the royal family mismanaging funds or whatnot- I think very few people are going to look at the latter story as any type of incitement, because the big story that tabloid would've broken would be the biggest news event of the year in the UK, just like the Hockey Canada scandal was probably the biggest story of the year in Canada.

The implied Canada Soccer scandal is that CSA board members signed a bad deal with CSB and it screwed up the program's financials. Not really a juicy story and no one has any reason to believe there's anything deeper than a poor business deal signed by people who may not have been qualified to negotiate that type of deal

 

All of this is hypothetical, but my point is that whatever he breaks on Canada soccer is so small compared to his hockey work, and if he did want to stir the pot and drive clicks, he could probably just report on what I assume are the dozens of stories about hockey players doing... less than honourable things that I am certain are sitting in his inbox right now.

The CSB deal has been used as a catalyst to bring up former sexual scandals of canada soccer/whitecaps etc.(see heritage committe meetings) and unequal gender pay. Pretty juicy topics. Both worth while discussions but not directly related to the CSB deal.