ag futbol

Totally fair. I hope someday soon we all get back to discussing on-field stuff because the organization reaches a level of function where it’s not worth our focus.

Yeah I agree, our financial issues (and ability to fund programs or have friendlies) didn’t start with the CSB contract. It’s a long standing problem for the organization. And in no way do I want to trivialize that because it’s always been a thorn in our side. But I respectfully disagree on some of your other points. This organization should be setting its sights on how it builds towards having the resources / program depth of other top nations (top 30 nations, to be fair). Looking towards the non-U.S. / Mexico nations of CONCACAF is not giving us the example of how to get there. They have societal issues and other constrains Canada as a country does not have. Their sometimes qualification / sometimes stumbles really reflects the broader circumstances they have to deal with. We need to be working towards establishing a program that we can be confident qualifies in every cycle and then aspirationally improves from there. We need to look towards nations that are currently hitting those kind of targets as examples. Personally, as a general example, would look towards the number of games we’re playing on the men’s side vs. other ongoing WC qualifying nations. Think it would very much shake out that we’re on the light side.

In the testimony in front of parliament regarding the CSB deal, it seemed incredibly clear to me the organization was (at best) flawed in its analysis. From a business perspective, there are a ton of red flags. The one I would point to the most, is the staff member who worked on the analysis seemingly gave no value to the future growth prospects of the rights they were selling. They looked backwards at history for justification, giving no value to a potential world cup hosting, exponential improvements in the player pool, and rapidly rising popularity of the sport in general. All of these are factors that would have materially boosted the price. My perception of the testimony from the others in leadership who showed up in parliament, is they wanted to avoid talking about this issue and otherwise point to the guy in the corner who crunched the numbers. Well, sorry to say it, but if you’re in leadership and you sign a contract that is this transformative, you need to understand the issue inside and out, not just point to the guy in the corner. And generally, any organization I know that’s worth its salt, that is looking at signing a contract this long and this impactful, would certainly retain outside advisors to verify they are thinking about it properly. Otherwise, you risk crippling the organization. Sitting where we are today, in an environment where the CSA can’t afford to do the basic things a normal, functional federation does (like keep its national teams active) it would appear to me this contract is a bust. Even if the CPL produced a team of world class players, we’d have no way to keep the team on the field often enough to reach the team's full potential. It's mystifying to me that anyone wants to argue for this contract. The best thing you can say about it is: maybe it was an okay idea, but clearly at the wrong price.

Uh huh. Seems like you’re backtracking in the face of obvious counterpoints and otherwise have your own agenda. But please, don’t let the rest of us interrupt you talking in circles.

If it ties into my compensation or your ability as my employer to compensate me you better fucking believe I want a say on it. Otherwise, I’ll find greener pastures elsewhere.

Perhaps my impression here is unfounded but I think it’s a matter of semantics. And when you shake it out, it means both men’s and women’s teams claim to support pay “equality” but they disagree on what “equality” means. For the women, they think it’s dollar for dollar equality. I am assuming the men support equality but want to tie it to revenue generation (again, all my general impressions, might be 100% wrong)

I haven’t been able to watch today but from the snippets I saw on Twitter it seems like a mixed bag at best. Politicians making this about one issue rather than the broader dysfunction of the association. Although I have to admit some of the descriptions of Bontis’s actions were hilarious. Think he should stick to busting unions of unskilled labourers and stay away from anything that resembles a “talent” business.

He has a lot of characteristics that to me make for a good utility player. I think he’ll be very useful for club and country in the future.

All fair points. Really hard to know which direction this will go. I do wonder about things like the below. If the players won’t play and the sponsors get skittish because of bad press, the contract really isn’t the golden ticket that CSB thought it was. Potential repetitional impact for those involved is huge as well. https://mobile.twitter.com/rwesthead/status/1628096345268518912

I am not a legal expert (I work with lawyers regularly and their work is adjacent to my field of banking). Let me share my experience with private sector entities that end up under really shitty contracts that limit their future prospects. Typically, you try some of the following: 1) Convince your counterparty it is in everyone’s interest to renegotiate (make the pie bigger, make each party more stable, etc) 2) Look for reasons why the contract is invalid and ask the courts to toss it (lack of due authorization, other technicalities). 3) Look for ways that your counterparty has not lived up to their obligations under the contract and use that as justification for breakage. 4) If the other options fail, threaten to file for bankruptcy protection. Basically, you go scorched earth. Tell your counterparty if they don’t come to the table they’ll risk getting nothing and have to line up with every other creditor. Does the CSA as a NFP have this sort of option? Completely unsure but if the CSB contract is seen as detrimental to the long term viability of the CSA and its ability to fulfill its mission, I would be surprised if there wasn’t a legal means to hit the reset button similar to the above.

No argument from me in the sense that it’s more than just the people who need to change (governance and practice need to change too). There is the possibility of improvement, that’s all I’m saying.

A leader who clearly wasn’t great leaves. We fear the replacement will be just as bad. Well, at least the departure leaves things open for the possibility of improvement. There are lots of reasons to be positive about the game in this country that didn’t exist 4 years ago. Lots of reasons why capable people would see being involved in the association as an opportunity as opposed to torture or career suicide. Let’s hold out hope something good can happen. Alphonso Davies and Jonathan David happened, that’s way more of a miracle than a couple capable execs.

Congrats on what sounds like a great career. I am in a similar line of business myself (have spent most of my time in Corporate Banking). When seeing Bontis’s profile, it reminded me of a lot of a guy I ran into early in my career. We had similar social circles and I’d see him out all the time. He claimed to have high level experience in tech, government relations, and consulting. Very showy profile. Around the government people he’s play up his tech expertise. Around the tech people he’d play up his government contacts. But the way he conversed with people was sort of odd. Seemed like a fish out of water in either circle. Eventually asked a friend who knew him a bit better than I did what the story was. “It’s all smoke and mirrors. No substance or real expertise.” Since that time, our showy friend has landed a few high level gigs. But flames out fast and seems to get found out in a hurry. I don’t know if the things Bontis has done outside of academia are as great as they sound or are simply marketed to death. But the boastfulness is really odd. As Canadians we tend to have a strong preference for being understated.

Can someone tell me what Bontis’s accomplishments in business actually are? As you’ve sort of pointed out in the post, he has a lot of platitudes within his self-styled online profile. But I have yet to see much in the way of real outside evidence or reference points.

So does Westhead get paid more or less than you do to litter this forum with tripe?