Kent Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 4 hours ago, narduch said: To be fair, in a group of 4, It is possible to have 3 teams on 2 wins and 1 loss and one team with 3 losses. I still think Westhead is a wind up artist on this subject. If we consider all games to be completely evenly matched, with all 3 potential outcomes equally likely (Team A wins 33% chance, Teams draw 33% likely, Team A loses 33% likely), and if we assume Canada will get exactly 2 wins and 1 loss, that still only leaves a 1.23% chance of them not advancing. You need the exact results in the 3 other group stage games, so 0.3333*0.3333*0.3333 = 3.7% chance of happening. Then you need Canada to lose the tie breaker against the other 2 teams with 2 wins and a loss. So 0.37*0.3333 = 1.23%. Throw in the 10% chance of us even getting 2 wins and 1 loss in the first place (again, with even odds on all possible results) and the chance of the scenario happening is 0.12%. In reality, the odds are probably smaller than that because we would be the underdog in all 3 games. If I've messed up my math, someone please correct me! narduch and Bigandy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie_the_parrot Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bigandy said: I think you misunderstood. Trying to use insurance coverage as a cost to CMNT is weird. Its not a CMNT cost.... How would you know? Have yet to see anything definitive in that regard or even on who pays the premium where FIFA's club compensation program is concerned. Information as to which games are covered by the program is not the same thing as who is paying the premium on the coverage. Edited March 19 by Ozzie_the_parrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie_the_parrot Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 26 minutes ago, shermanator said: ...I should also point out that while Westhead was not on yesterday's press call, Northern Tribune was. I've seen their name dragged through the mud a few times here and wanted to give them a shout out... ^^^ Some people on here only changed their tune about Northern Tribune after I stopped reposting their tweets and started to comment about a dip in the quality of their output. Edited March 19 by Ozzie_the_parrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestHamCanadianinOxford Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: How would you know? Have yet to see anything definitive in that regard or even on who pays the premium where FIFA's club compensation program is concerned. Information as to which games are covered by the program is not the same thing as who is paying the premium on the coverage. There are no premiums. Again. It's not insurance for the clubs or the organizers. It's a compensatory program from FIFA. Edited March 19 by WestHamCanadianinOxford The Real Marc and Bigandy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: How would you know? Have yet to see anything definitive in that regard or even on who pays the premium where FIFA's club compensation program is concerned. Information as to which games are covered by the program is not the same thing as who is paying the premium on the coverage. So your argument is: The article is correct that Copa is going to cost far more than 1 million dollars because we do not have definitive evidence over who pays the premiums of a FIFA protection policy (which inherently implies fifa pays). Even though we do not know if such an injury will take place? AND the article makes no mention of player compensation. This is just absurd. Theres nothing to suggest there are premiums to be paid? Fifa is likely self insured and pay out of pocket for these injuries as what insurance company would take on this risk. I could be wrong about this but theres no evidence to suggest CSA has paid anything new/substantial when Akinola got injured. You are bringing up completely random and irrelevant points and justifying them with "Its safe to assume the copa will cost far more than 1 million dollars because 1. we cant know for absolute certain if the premiums exist 2. how much the premiums are 3. who pays the premiums 4. If a player from canada will get injured Nonsense stance thats trying to support your anti CSA/CPL/CSB agenda. EDIT: @WestHamCanadianinOxford beat me to it but he's correct. Its not insurance but a compensation program. Therefore, no premiums. Edited March 19 by Bigandy narduch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie_the_parrot Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 13 minutes ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said: There are no premiums. Again. It's not insurance for the clubs or the organizers. It's a compensatory program from FIFA. https://www.ecaeurope.com/media/2786/technical-bulletin-fifa-club-protection-programme.pdf ...FIFA has insured its obligation under this programme with recognised international insurers and will pay compensation after it has received indemnification from the insurers. FIFA will provide compensation only to the extent that it receives indemnification from the insurers... Edited March 19 by Ozzie_the_parrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestHamCanadianinOxford Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 minute ago, Bigandy said: This is just absurd. Theres nothing to suggest there are premiums to be paid? Fifa is likely self insured and pay out of pocket for these injuries as what insurance company would take on this risk. I could be wrong about this but theres no evidence to suggest CSA has paid anything new/substantial when Akinola got injured. To your point. There is extensive sections in the official document about FIFA relationship with the insurers that cover their obligations. For example: "FIFA has insured its obligation under this programme with recognised international insurers and will pay compensation after it has received indemnification from the insurers" No else is insuring anything as part of this program. Bigandy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 3 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: https://www.ecaeurope.com/media/2786/technical-bulletin-fifa-club-protection-programme.pdf ...FIFA has insured its obligation under this programme with recognised international insurers and will pay compensation after it has received indemnification from the insurers... This doesn't imply anything about National federations paying anything. It just talks about fifa.... Again, this is a wild goose chase and your using a logical fallacy of ignorance to prove your case. Absolute nonsense debating. narduch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestHamCanadianinOxford Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: https://www.ecaeurope.com/media/2786/technical-bulletin-fifa-club-protection-programme.pdf ...FIFA has insured its obligation under this programme with recognised international insurers and will pay compensation after it has received indemnification from the insurers. FIFA will provide compensation only to the extent that it receives indemnification from the insurers... That explicitly says FIFA is the insuree, which means they pay any premiums. Right? There are no premiums for clubs or federations. Edited March 19 by WestHamCanadianinOxford Cheeta and Bigandy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 minute ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said: To your point. There is extensive sections in the official document about FIFA relationship with the insurers that cover their obligations. For example: "FIFA has insured its obligation under this programme with recognised international insurers and will pay compensation after it has received indemnification from the insurers" No else is insuring anything as part of this program. Thanks. If I understand you correctly, Fifa is insured that if they cannot afford to pay the clubs, an insurer will step in and pay the clubs on fifa's behalf. Just like most organizations have insurances over any obligation. Therefore the insurance being referenced is insuring Fifa as an organization, but not providing any finances for injuries related to the compensation program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aird25 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 What does any of this have to do with Kevin Blue? MtlMario, WestHamCanadianinOxford, cornerkick and 5 others 3 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 More stats on the 2 wins and eliminated rabbit hole. I checked World Cup, Copa America, Gold Cup, Euro Cup, AFC Cup, and African Cup of Nations going back to the year 2000 inclusive. That time frame covers 48 tournaments that featured 4 team groups. I checked how many teams got exactly 2 wins and 1 loss in the group stage and finished top 2 in the group, and how many of those 2 win and 1 loss teams finished outside the top 2 in the group. I didn't count any teams qualifying as a best 3rd place finisher. 48 tournaments. 98 teams with 2 wins and 1 loss. All 98 teams advanced. Canada actually came very close in 2011 Gold Cup to being in a group with 3 teams on 6 points. If Tejada didn't score against us in injury time in our final game, there would have been 3 teams on 6 points in our group. We would have lost the tie breaker though. I don't remember the game, maybe we were pressing for a goal because of the tie breaker problem? Also a sidebar, this happened to be the last tournament I checked and this group result is crazy. Bigandy, maplebanana and narduch 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaFan123 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 @Kent2011 Gold Cup was when 3rd placed teams could advance so we would have went through with a win no matter what. We weren’t pushing for a goal, we just choked as was standard fashion. Kent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Observer Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 7 hours ago, Aird25 said: What does any of this have to do with Kevin Blue? Not sure but I am sure he is going to solve it. Unnamed Trialist, MtlMario, cornerkick and 2 others 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie_the_parrot Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 15 hours ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said: That explicitly says FIFA is the insuree, which means they pay any premiums... Well we've made progress if you now accept that there is insurance coverage involved along with a premium that will have to be paid by someone. Been a while since I was involved in running an amateur club in Ontario but my recollection is that the OSA had an insurance policy that covered medical expenses that did not fall under OHIP resulting from injuries that happened during games or training. AFAIR it was the clubs that paid the premium as part of the player registration process because the OSA didn't have a magic money tree available for that. Don't claim inside knowledge but the national association paying the premiums for the players they call up based largely on the size of their contracted club level salary seems like the most likely scenario for the club compensation program angle to the insurance coverage that will be necessary during an international window unless FIFA has a magic money tree available for that. If so, the whole process of staging a game and/or training camp could have become a lot more expensive for the CSA over the last six years where both the CMNT and CWNT are concerned because national team players are on more lucrative contracts than they used to be. Meanwhile the size of the annual CSB payment may not even have kept pace with inflation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what is being claimed by the unnamed sources in Rick Westhead's article just because people don't like the implications of what they have to say. There are reasons why securing a new set of financial arrangements was so high on Kevin Blue's agenda on taking the job. Edited March 20 by Ozzie_the_parrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestHamCanadianinOxford Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 4 hours ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: Well we've made progress if you now accept that there is insurance coverage involved along with a premium that will have to be paid by someone. Been a while since I was involved in running an amateur club in Ontario but my recollection is that the OSA had an insurance policy that covered medical expenses that did not fall under OHIP resulting from injuries that happened during games or training. AFAIR it was the clubs that paid the premium as part of the player registration process because the OSA didn't have a magic money tree available for that. Don't claim inside knowledge but the national association paying the premiums for the players they call up based largely on the size of their contracted club level salary seems like the most likely scenario for the club compensation program angle to the insurance coverage that will be necessary during an international window unless FIFA has a magic money tree available for that. If so, the whole process of staging a game and/or training camp could have become a lot more expensive for the CSA over the last six years where both the CMNT and CWNT are concerned because national team players are on more lucrative contracts than they used to be. Meanwhile the size of the annual CSB payment may not even have kept pace with inflation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what is being claimed by the unnamed sources in Rick Westhead's article just because people don't like the implications of what they have to say. There are reasons why securing a new set of financial arrangements was so high on Kevin Blue's agenda on taking the job. The more irrelevant words you write, the more ridiculous your irrelevant comment looks. My mistake for engaging. ray, red card, longlugan and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigandy Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said: The more irrelevant words you write, the more ridiculous your irrelevant comment looks. My mistake for engaging. I second this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtlMario Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 On 3/19/2024 at 12:48 PM, Kent said: If I've messed up my math, someone please correct me! You had me at 0.3333. 😄 Cheeta and Kent 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie_the_parrot Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 https://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/canada-soccer-is-desperate-for-cash-and-the-new-boss-is-a-fundraiser-walking-straight/article_57b8bf7e-e55e-11ee-a04d-07f86a5cdf83.html ...Well, sure, but even that answer raises a fundamental problem in Canadian soccer right now: the national teams are locked into that 20-year deal with Canadian Soccer Business, after Canada Soccer signed away the sponsorship and broadcasting rights in 2018 for an annual flat fee, which is currently $3.5 million per year. The actual revenues are far greater, of course. CSB sold the broadcasting and a few other rights to its assets to a company called MediaPro for $8.7 million per year over 10 years. The real total revenue number is clearly much higher. That is the essential problem here, beyond any incompetence, beyond anything else. More corporate sponsors for Canada Soccer doesn’t actually benefit Canada Soccer... So what’s left? The men’s team’s contract demands remain unreasonable. As TSN reported, Canada Soccer’s deficit this year was $4 million, and that was the number after they made sweeping cuts up and down the organization; the original deficit is believed to have been at least double that number. The cash reserves are believed to be on pace to run out some time within the next two years... Something must have become a lot more expensive since 2018 for finances to deteriorate that drastically, but CSB deal apologists like WestHamCanadianinOxford and Bigandy will keep trying to justify the unjustifiable and pin it all on the Panama postponement. rkomar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narduch Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 The thing is, if you break the CSB deal, that broadcast revenue evaporates. Maybe that would make some people here happy. But there is zero chance in hell TSN or Sportsnet are paying $8.7 million per year for broadcast rights. red card and johnyb 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzie_the_parrot Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) ^^^appears to have missed that the rights have been claimed back from Mediapro by CSB over missed rights payments so the broadcast money likely has already largely evaporated. None of that changes the fact that attracting extra sponsors to the CMNT and CWNT would do diddlysquat at this point to solve the CSA's financial crisis and with the 2026 co-hosting just around the corner they are going to miss out on a massive financial windfall in that regard. That's why this was in the article: https://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/canada-soccer-is-desperate-for-cash-and-the-new-boss-is-a-fundraiser-walking-straight/article_57b8bf7e-e55e-11ee-a04d-07f86a5cdf83.html ...Blue did emphasize philanthropy, though. “A significant growth area that comes from my background will be in developing the right type of philanthropic structure to help connect major gift support with the priorities that the donors want to support,” said Blue. “I know we've had some of this activity happen in the past.” And the present, if you count private financial support for the national teams over the past few years from people such as Vancouver Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot. But even if membership approves the fee change, it can’t be collected until 2025. And even if charity can be a fiscal Band-Aid for the organization, who is lining up to donate money to a federation that is being sued by its women’s team for mismanaging its financial assets? ... Worth noting that the poster above attempted to ridicule me back on page 3 of this thread when I suggested that philanthopy was being mentioned because it was Kevin Blue's potential work around where the CSB deal is concerned. Edited March 22 by Ozzie_the_parrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narduch Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ozzie_the_parrot said: ^^^appears to have missed that the rights have been claimed back from Mediapro by CSB over missed rights payments so the broadcast money likely has already largely evaporated. None of that changes the fact that attracting extra sponsors to the CMNT and CWNT would do diddlysquat at this point to solve the CSA's financial crisis and with the 2026 co-hosting just around the corner they are going to miss out on a massive financial windfall in that regard. That's why this was in the article: https://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/canada-soccer-is-desperate-for-cash-and-the-new-boss-is-a-fundraiser-walking-straight/article_57b8bf7e-e55e-11ee-a04d-07f86a5cdf83.html ...Blue did emphasize philanthropy, though. “A significant growth area that comes from my background will be in developing the right type of philanthropic structure to help connect major gift support with the priorities that the donors want to support,” said Blue. “I know we've had some of this activity happen in the past.” And the present, if you count private financial support for the national teams over the past few years from people such as Vancouver Whitecaps owner Greg Kerfoot. But even if membership approves the fee change, it can’t be collected until 2025. And even if charity can be a fiscal Band-Aid for the organization, who is lining up to donate money to a federation that is being sued by its women’s team for mismanaging its financial assets? ... Worth noting that the poster above attempted to ridicule me back on page 3 of this thread when I suggested that philanthopy was being mentioned because it was Kevin Blue's potential work around where the CSB deal is concerned. The point I am making is that the 2 traditional broadcasters are not going to come in and increase revenue. They will not help the situation that the CSA is in, even if the CSB was axed. Also we can't say definitively what the deal is between CSB and Mediapro anymore. They have an ongoing unsettled court case. My speculation is they end up renegotiating out of court. The fact that One Soccer is back broadcasting CSB content leads me to believe that. And your last point is also wrong. I was laughing at how the only topic you are interested in on this forum is CSB. It's basically the only topic you post about. Don't you find that weird? Edited March 22 by narduch Metro 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Do you guys sleep? johnyb, Kent, Shway and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanSoccfan11 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) I love how we are still singularily focusing on an item that makes up roughly 6% of total Canadian Soccer Association revenue. Changing the deal or axing the deal will not materially impact the financial health of the organization. It is a very small part that seems to be get far more weight then it should. The simple fact of the matter is expenses have skyrocketed with inflation the last number of years and the CSA has been blocked from raising fees. What other organization on this planet hasn't raised prices lately? Fee increases in line with inflation, plus some other initiatives will help far more then "fixing" the CSB deal. Edited March 22 by CanSoccfan11 Bigandy, narduch and johnyb 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narduch Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 1 minute ago, CanSoccfan11 said: I love how we are still singularily focusing on an item that makes up roughly 6% of total Canadian Soccer Association revenue. Changing the deal or axing the deal will not materially impact the financial health of the organization. It is a very small part that seems to be get far more weight then it should. The simple fact of the matter is expenses have skyrocketed with inflation the last number of years and the CSA has been blocked from raising fees. What other organization on this planet hasn't raised prices lately? Fee increases in line with inflation, plus some other initiatives will help far more then fixing the CSB deal. It helps when there is one poster on this forum that hates the CPL because it wouldn't allow MLS reserve teams into its league. And now he is singularly infatuated with the CSB deal as a roundabout way to discredit/kibosh the CPL. He must be so happy he is getting a wider audience discussing this issue outside the CPL sub-forum. Bigandy, YorkRegionFan and Shway 3 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