============================== Subject: A Canadian Fan's rant Date: 27 Nov 1997 18:52:13 GMT From: halchuk@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca (Stephen Halchuk) Fed up with biting my tongue and griping only to my fellow soccer enthusiasts, I wrote the following lengthy diatribe to the management of the Canadian Soccer Association. I'll let you know of any responses I get. I encourage other Canadian fans to let their opinions be heard. Stephen ------------------------ [Please forward this to the Chief Operating Officer, the President, and the Directors of the Canadian Soccer Association. I am hoping they will respond, if not to me personally then to Canadian soccer fans in general in the form of a press statement. I am a long time supporter of the national sides (men, women and youth squads) and the following represents an average fan's perception of the state of the management of the CSA. I have tried to be even handed in my criticisms and I hope it is taken seriously.] A Letter to the management of the Canadian Soccer Association. I am sadly writing to withdraw my support of the Canadian Soccer Association. I've blamed Bob Lenarduzzi for his naivete when it comes to tactics and his sticking with an ageing squad when it was obvious there were better younger legs waiting to do the job. I've blamed national team players who put club before country and left the squad in the lurch when there was still everything to play for. That covers the poor on-field performance of Canada in the final round of CONCACAF qualifiers. Now its time to look for answers for the continuing poor performance off the field. The past year can only be described as disasterous in terms of some of the decisions made (or not made) by the CSA. It started when the draw for the final round was announced. I was extremely disappointed at the set-up. Four of the five home matches were either at our smallest venue (Swanguard) or at poor times of the year (April, October, November as opposed to May, June, July, August, September). I was given explanations of field conditions, venue availability, player schedules, the "luck" of the draw, the "fixing" of the draw to accomodate the desires of Mexico and the USA, but these do not hide the fact that the CSA management did not raise its voice loud enough to ensure that the team had the best field and the best time of year to play its games. CONCACAF did not have the foresight to align the final round match dates with those of Europe/South America, so it meant that Canada had flexibility in choosing its dates (with the exception of the last two qualifiers in November). If the CSA had spoken up to ensure that the home dates matched the needs of our team, we may have done better. We have a voice, just as Mexico and the USA have a voice, but ours seems to stay silent. Next came the Wagner fiasco. Claims by the CSA of an ineligible player on the US roster generated bad blood with the USSF and left the CSA with egg on its face. It seemed obvious from the research done that there was some discrepancies either in the records of the DfB or FIFA, but when the CSA was told that the matter was explained with no official passports/birth certificates/other documents provided to positively identify the Wagner in question, their voice was once again silent. Why did the CSA not insist on documentation? Why was no official press release explaining the situation released by the CSA? Why, if the CSA was so meekly going to accept FIFA's non-explanation, did they not issue an apology to the USSF and Canadian fans for the embarassment caused by the incident? Next came the mid summer break. More than 65 days between competitive matches and the CSA manages to scrape together a single friendly. In comparison, most of the other CONCACAF teams played 3 or 4 friendlies during this time. This match against Iran was made possible only due to the tireless efforts of the Manager of Communications, Mehrdad Masoudi. What did the Competitions/Event Coordinator (the person who one would assume would coordinate games) do to arrange for other matches to be played at this critical time? Arguments could be made that it was too expensive to fly players home to participate, but with a larger portion of our first team in Europe, a mid summer break in effect, and some 50 UEFA nations to choose from, surely the CSA could have gathered the team in Europe for one or two matches at a lesser expense? Finally, the latest string of events. It seemed to be ominously foreshadowed by the press release concerning Bob Lenarduzzi's resignation. In reference to the hiring of a replacement coach it was announced that "the CSA expects to finish this hiring process by the end of next year(1998)". No announcement of an interim coach to guide the team through the Gold Cup and next years many friendlies - for surely there will be many as the team needs to rebuild. The latest blow was the announcement of Canada's withdrawal from the Gold Cup. The CSA's official line is that it was being a good neighbour to World Cup qualifier Jamaica by allowing them to take Canada's place in the tournament in order to gain valuable experience. Unofficial sources said that there were financial constraints, Canada wouldn't perform well in the tournament, and the release of overseas players would be difficult to achieve. None of these reasons justify the CSA's withdrawal from the Gold Cup. The CSA's mandate is to promote Canadian soccer, specifically the national teams. While allowing Jamaica to take our place is a laudable gesture, it should not be a gesture that the CSA should make. CONCACAF could easily have expanded the tournament to allow the Reggae Boyz to compete. What does allowing Jamaica in to the tournament at Canada's expense do to improve the sorry state of Canada's soccer program? The CSA should not be so hard pressed for cash that it is unable to participate in a tournament hosted by our next door neighbour. Earlier this year the CSA proudly announced sponsor after sponsor signing multi-year contracts which would inject several million dollars into the national program. The Royal Bank of Canada, MasterCard International, JVC Canada, Gillette Canada, General Motors, Umbro Canada, Air Canada, Burger King, Snickers, World Soccer, TSN, and Canoe have all pledged their support. None of them (to my knowledge) have withdrawn their support as the result of Canada's failure to qualify for France98. Add this money to the existing government support and Canada should have no problem in sending a team to southern California in February. Teams in much more dire financial situations (Cuba, Guatemala) seem to be able to manage it. Releasing players from their European club commitments has always been a problem. But it is a problem that faces almost every nation in CONCACAF. Some players may no longer be committed to the team. Some players may have legitimate club concerns or injuries. Some players will come no matter what the cost to their club prospects. Regardless, there are many North American based players who could have filled the gaps and would be eager to show that they are capable of representing the country. Many of Canada's future stars, who were given little or no opportunity to play for the national side in the qualifiers, are sitting on the bench for their clubs, playing in indoor leagues or not playing at all over the winter break. The Gold Cup would have been Canada's golden chance to begin its rebuilding process with these young men. They would have gained invaluable experience in three competitive games and with two teams advancing from their group, had a legitimate chance for a second round spot. With the apparent attitude of "we won't do well at the tournament so we won't bother participating" we are additionally throwing away the chance at an invitation to the next Copa America and possible participation in the FIFA/Confederations Cup. If you don't make the attempt, you'll never get there. The CSA now leaves the Canadian team and its fans with promises of a few friendlies against World Cup finalists in May. Why would a European, African, Asian or South American finalist want to travel overseas and go out of its way to play a team that finished bottom of its group, withdrew from the only competitive tournament available to it for the next two years and will not have played a competitive match almost 6 months? Yes, we will probably play some friendlies in May (solely because of our proximity to the USA), but these should have been played in addition to the invaluable competitive Gold Cup matches, not instead of. The Gold Cup is a continental championship. Only teams which are destitute or under international sanction generally don't participate. What is Canada's reason? These games represented our only competitive matches for the forseeable future. Failure to participate not only robs our players of experience and the chance to excel, it will also surely mean that our international ranking will plummet. With FIFA looking more and more to its ranking system to seed teams in tournaments, the consequence of non-participation will be to make our qualification process for future tournaments all the more difficult. What considerations were made regarding the long term affects of this decision? The Canadian national team is barely keeping its head afloat in the backwaters of the world soccer community. With this decision the CSA seems content to allow it to sink rather than throw it a life preserver. The questions remain. Why was nothing done to improve Canada's home dates in the final round of qualifiers? Why did the CSA not press FIFA and the DfB to provide a comprehensive explanation of the Wagner affair? Conversely, if the CSA was satisfied, why was no official CSA statement made to that effect and an apology sent to the USSF for the mix-up? Why were there so few friendlies arranged this summer when building a cohesive national squad was imperative after a poor first half performance? and most importantly, why did the CSA withdraw from the Gold Cup when it provided a prime opportunity to rebuild the team with new players and competitive matches? I look to the Chief Operating Officer Kevan Pipe, the President Terry Quinn and the Directors Angus Barrett, Frank Capasso, John Diamond, Esther Dupperon, Edward Grenda, Dino Madonis, Gil Oickle, Tom Pollock, Iain Robertson, Joey Saputo, Jim Spencer, and Brent Thorburn to take full responsibility for the decisions of the past year and to provide full answers to the players and the fans. Please, give me reason to reinstate my support of the CSA. I remain a loyal fan of Canada's national soccer teams, if not their management Stephen Halchuk Nepean, Ontario ---------------------------------- Subject: Re: A Canadian Fan's rant Date: 28 Nov 1997 13:07:31 GMT From: "N. Bruce Kelloway" (nbk@cast.navnet.net) Well said Stephen, although not as forcefully said as I would have liked. Allow me this opportunity to correct your second last paragraph, just a bit. In listing the directors of the CSA you list Gil Oickle, the Soccer Nova Scotia President. Regretably, I advise all that Mr. Oickle died earlier this year. His contributions to soccer were tremendous, and he will be missed on the SNS scene. Frank Bailey is the guilty party that you are looking for. Allow me to say that if his participation in the management of the CSA is a good as his managment of Soccer Nova Scotia, the sport is in a hell of a lot of trouble. The listing of the Directors of the CSA is typical of Frank and his management style. Gil's name remains but Franks is invisible. Maybe what is needed is what the MLS experienced, the players rebelled, started their own organization and notified the higherarchy that these were the terms from now on, and this is the way it is going to be. The administrators had no choice but to listen. The CSA and it's subsets, the OSA, SNS, etc. are organizations for administrators, with the very occasional player development program. Players and Referees are wasting their money on this form of management. ========================================================== Subject: A Canadian's rant continues: Kevan Pipe responds! Date: 17 Mar 1998 17:58:05 GMT From: halchuk@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca (Stephen Halchuk) [a little bit of background to this. Last November, being extremely frustrated with the "annus Horriblus" (forgive my Latin) that was 1997 for the Canadian Soccer Association, I sent a long email to the CSA outlining my concerns over the decisions they made during the WC qualifying campaign. I also posted it here at the time so I won't bore you with it again. If you are really interested in wading through it, the letter has somehow made its way to the RSSSF archives, and can be found at: http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/non-official/rsssf/rssbest/canadianrant.html Not surprisingly, I did not receive a reply. I resent the letter (in January) the traditional way directly to the CSA's Chief Officer, Mr Kevan Pipe. I added a note on how all the promised friendlies which were to be arranged in lieu of the Gold Cup appeared to have dried up. Last week, just as I was contemplating a further note, a letter arrived from Mr Pipe. Although it was 3 pages long, it didn't really answer my concerns. In brief, his answers to my questions were: Gold Cup - they took the long term view thinking young, inexperienced players without an established coach would gain nothing from the Gold Cup tournament. They since asked 20 countries to play friendlies, all refused/were too expensive. The final round of WC qualifiers draw was not fixed in USA's/Mexico's favour. Lenarduzzi wanted no preparation games in the summer break (Canada did have one, the fewest by far of all the 6 CONCACAF finalists), he wanted the players to rest. The Wagner Affair - CSA stands by its position, no further comment. and there was a lot of moaning about how there is no support for the game. I emailed him the following reply and he promptly sent a brief comment] Mr Pipe Thank you for the letter dated March 2 which you sent in response to my enquiries. Some issues were cleared up while some remain in question. While I have given up on getting a full reply to my questions, I will restate them so my position is clear. You are welcome to respond. The Wagner affair: You state that: "... the CSA stands by its position [can I infer that the CSA's position presumably is that Wagner was an ineligible player?]. It is interesting that shortly thereafter, US Soccer dropped the player who has never been heard from again ... The Association has no intention to apologize for this issue and will offer no further comment." That the USSF has dropped Wagner probably has more to do with his inability to fit into the team, rather than his eligibility, don't you think? If you are implying that it does have something to do with his ineligibility and the USSF dropped him like a "hot potato" in order to kill any further enquiries, please, please get the documentation to prove it and clear up the uncertainty. (as an aside, Wagner has been heard of since, he played in the friendly against Paraguay on the weekend.) The issue sadly remains unresolved. Two options arise: 1. Wagner was eligible and the CSA appears to have been a little hasty and/or overzealous in its accusation that he was ineligible. This is how the matter now stands, since FIFA has said he is eligible. The CSA should therefore have done the honourable thing and apologized to the USSF and Wagner for the grief they were put through. 2. Wagner was ineligible (the evidence brought to light so far would suggest there is some question). The CSA, having made the accusation and brought the discrepancies out in the open, should have pursued the matter to its conclusion. Full documentation (passports/birth certificates/etc) of all the Wagners in question should have been obtained so the matter could be laid to rest. The CSA would then be vindicated, or possibly would have been shown that Wagner was indeed eligible. The CSA appears to be content to let the matter hang without proper resolution. Knowledgeable Canadian fans won't forget, however and remain frustrated by the CSA's lack of closure one way or the other. I can't get answers from the USSF, the DfB or FIFA, so it was the CSA I turned to in the hopes that the matter would be cleared up. The Gold Cup: as I stated in my original email of last December: "Why would a European, African, Asian or South American finalist want to travel overseas and go out of its way to play a team that finished bottom of its group, withdrew from the only competitive tournament available to it for the next two years and will not have played a competitive match almost 6 months? " If I was able to see that Canada was not going to get any friendlies in Canada before the World Cup, it must have been painfully obvious to the CSA. In this light, the CSA's decision to withdraw from the Gold Cup and make promises of "a few" pre-World Cup friendlies becomes even more puzzling. Bruce Twamley could have acted as interim coach for a Gold Cup team and the squad could have been made up of Canadian based players or overseas players who sit on the bench for their clubs. This would have been an opportunity to assess the players on the fringe of making the national squad. The players may have been badly outplayed. The scorelines may have been embarrassing. But I would have taken three games in a competitive tournament over no games at all (as it appears the case will be). The players would have gained experience, the coaches could begin to judge their talents. Instead, no experience and no insights and the process of rebuilding the Canadian national side gets pushed back several months. You state that the CSA approached "20 countries" (the 10 you listed were all WC98 participants, presumably the other 10 were as well?) and listed the high costs of hosting Scotland. Why didn't the CSA reduce the costs by assembling a team in Europe for a few friendlies? Travel costs would be lower as most of the players are already there. The players would have less disruptions to their club schedules. Numerous friendlies are already being played. Over 30 non-WC98 European teams are beginning to prepare for the Euro-2000 qualifiers and are looking for opponents. It would appear to be a opportunity tailor made for the CSA. Canada in the 80s toured South America, Asia and Africa. If we don't play friendlies at home are we destined to play none at all? Finally a point of clarification on the draw for the final round of CONCACAF qualifiers. You state: "The draw was not fixed. Anyone who says so believes that JFK was killed by the Mafia" My concerns over the "fixing" of the draw came from comments made by the CSA's Mehrdad Masoudi when I asked about the poor dates and the questionable venues. (I attach the pertinent part of an email conversation from a year ago). I did not think the draw was "fixed". Mehrdad probably did not either. It appeared that frustration over the times and venues of the games got the better of us. ---- Begin included message--- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:55:04 -0500 To: halchuk@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca (Stephen Halchuk) From: soccer.canada@rtm.cdnsport.ca (Mehrdad Masoudi) ..... >Who in the CSA should I direct these questions to for a definitive >answer? Are the other venues charging too much to host the matches? >Has the CSA chosen to ignore all of the country east of Alberta? Do >Bobby and the boys not want to leave "sunny" Vancouver? I have printed a copy of your message for Kevan Pipe. He has the same explanation. Between you and I, our friends at CONCACAF, Mexico and USA may have had a deal behind the scenes. ..... ---- End included message--- I can only hope that the CSA is taking steps to ensure that CONCACAF adopts the worldwide fixture dates that Europe, South America and Africa are using to ensure that such a poor list of fixtures does not occur in our 2002 qualifiers. In conclusion, I remain at odds with some of the CSA's decisions made in 1997. I am pleased, however, to see progress being made with the appointment of coaches to the U-17 and U-20 sides. I hope that steps will soon be made to get the national men's and women's sides playing in the near future. Thank you again for responding to my letter. Regards, Stephen Halchuk ------------ Stephen Many thanks for your e-mail. I would again encourage you to stop in for a coffee one day so that we can mutually discuss some items you have listed above. To that extent I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Kevan Pipe, COO CSA --------------- Mr Pipe's responses were more than I expected, but less than I had hoped for. I will have to send Mr. Pipe my regrets over not taking time off work to sip cappucino with him. My fellow Canadian soccer fanatic Chris Macknie brilliantly suggested that I send him a gold coffee cup instead. I'd throw a Wagnerian opera for him to listen to as he drinks his coffee and contemplates the state of the game in Canada. A good tragedy would be appropriate. Tristan and Isolde, perhaps? Cheers Stephen ----- S. Halchuk, halchuk@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca A (football) fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- apologies to Winston Churchill