Charlie Davies: Anger At FC Sochaux

Update 05/15: Finally conversed with Neil Buethe at USSF. Neil is a class act; frankly (and I wrote this in an email back to him) he didn’t have to take the time to answer my questions since TSG is looking for commentary from Sunil Gulati or Bob Bradley, but he did. Thank you Neil.

TSG: MGT: Was the decision not to put Charlie Davies on the 30-man roster in any way influenced by Sochaux management?

USSF: Bob has provided detail on this in his comments.

TSG: MR: Was the decision not to put Charlie Davies on the 30-man roster in any way influenced by Sochaux medical reports?

USSF: Same.

TSG: If there any statement today on the Charlie Davies radio interview that was published online earlier today?

USSF: No.

TSG: Who is responsible for rehab and surgeries if the player gets hurt during international duty? Are clubs compensated if a player is hurt while on international duty?

Pages 29-34 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players covers the release of players to association teams.

Specifically as it relates to insurance, please note IX. Final Provisions, Annexe 1. Section 2.1-3 which states:

Financial provisions and insurance:

1. Clubs releasing a player in accordance with the provisions of this annexe are not entitled to financial compensation.

2. The association calling up a player shall bear the costs of travel incurred by the player as a result of the call-up.

3. The club with which the player concerned is registered shall be responsible for his insurance cover against illness and accident during the entire period of his release. This cover must also extend to any injuries sustained by the player during the international match(es) for which he was released.

TSG: Is there still any possibility that Charlie Davies can be called into camp after Sochaux ’09-’10 reason ends on May 15th?


USSF: Since Charlie was not in the 30, he can not be selected for the 23-player final roster as the 23 need to be selected from the 30.

———

Update: A well done piece by ESPN’s Jeff Carlisle on the ramifications of decision-making around Davies roster cut.

—————

TSG is still compiling our thoughts and comments on Charlie Davies exclusion from the provisional 30-man roster.

Today, there is a Charlie Davies radio interview from France out where Charlie expresses his displeasure with FC Sochaux management.

Charlie made a curious comment that Bob Bradley called him and said that a letter FC Sochaux management played a “big part” in Davies’ not making his roster. I find it “curious” that the US would reference a letter from Sochaux in making their decision when their doctors are in constant contact with Davies and the decision is, exclusively, US Soccer’s.

The radio interview here

The Shin Guardian interview from Sunday

Chuck D: Back in (near) full effect

Some excerpts from the radio commentary:

• “For me not being able to get a chance is very painful.”

• “Bob Bradley called me the night before the selection was put out. He explained to me that Sochaux sent a letter saying they weren’t going to clear me and wouldn’t release me to go with the national team and that this had a big part to play in not being able to have selected me.”

• “Since the accident I have not spoken with the president of FC Sochaux. He has not spoken with me; he has not given me any explanation. He hasn’t given me a reason why he has not said I can play.”

Some commentary pulled from Tuesday’s roster story:

• From UncleDude:

“It was the correct decision. ” Amen. If he was ready to go he would be in the squad. Nobody wants him on the squad more than Bob as he gives us the best chance to win. HE”S NOT READY. Gift him a roster spot because it would be a great story and he’s worked hard? Put down the juice boxes and orange slices. It would have been a great story but this is the World Cup. As for equating Gooch to Davies? C’mon guys…we all love Chuck D but that’s apples and oranges.

Being cleared to play by your club after a major knee injury suffered on the pitch during a National team game gets you the benefit of the doubt with the coaching staff…NOT being cleared by your club after suffering life threatening injuries in a fatal car crash AFTER sneaking out after a curfew mandated by the coaching staff selecting this team means you do NOT get the benefit of the doubt even if you maintain you are at %80 fitness.

Harsh words I know…but it’s the truth. I think people have forgotten HOW this happened. This wasn’t a Nigel de Jong tackle.”

• From Biggy, Constantly Offsides:

I don’t think most US fans thought he was a lock for SA. we did think he would get a shot to prove his fitness over the next twenty days. That is my issue. Robbie Rogers isn’t going to make a huge difference in SA. He likely won’t make the 23. A 85% healthy Charlie Davies COULD make a difference in SA. Give him his shot in the 30 to show if he is ready. If he isn’t, who is going to argue? But know we don’t know if Bradley is trusting his own judgement/Sochaux’s judgement on his fitness.

These two sources have incredibly different motivation in when to declare CD healthy. CD is a game changer. Most of these other guys aren’t at this point. I like rogers and sasha, but they can’t do what Charlie does. It’s a disappointment that he has worked so hard and doesn’t even get a crack at the thirty. It just doesn’t make sense. We don’t have complete information. I pray that if it ever comes out that Bob took Sochaux’s doctors word on this one instead of getting someone out there himself that he is fired on the spot. I like Bob. I like Charlie. I’m bummed the way this is playing out, and think that Davies, like a torres or fab is worth taking a flyer on for the thirty.

• From Matthew, TSG:

I think Sochaux had a vested interest not to pass Davies fit. You have to remember, their “investment” was almost ruined in October and putting “their investment” in harm’s way…well they have no reason to do this.

Davies can still not be prohibited from going to USMNT camp.

I don’t think the that Bob Bradley should have invoked Sochaux at all in his press conference. He should stand behind whatever the USSF decision is/was, not reference a club team’s statement or doctors.


About these ads

111 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 7:10 AM

    Continuing my thoughts here. Certainly the US has to have delicate relationships with clubs when calling players, however–in my mind–this has all been created by–if Davies statements are accurate–Bob Bradley referencing a Sochaux letter.

    We’ll try to get commentary here from either USSF or Davies…

    Reply

  2. Posted by Nick on 2010/05/13 at 7:16 AM

    Matt – I agree that invoking Sochaux in his reasoning is a bit spineless, but I’m wondering if his comment just didn’t come out right….it sounds like this will kill any chances of Charlie going to SA to cheer on his teammates.

    Most curiously it’ll be interesting to see how the squad reacts; everyone seems to like to play for Bob and respect him as a coach, but most of them are also very close friends with Chuck Deezy. Will the players in the CD9 camp resent Sweatpants? Will they be grown men and just get on with it? Is this 1998 all over again?

    Reply

    • Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 7:22 AM

      I agree Nick — I’m trying to debate how or even if I’ll follow-up with USSF here.

      I actually gave Stu Holden an option to answer a Charlie Davies question yesterday–I didn’t feel it appropriate to push him on the subject give that we were a) in a more informal interview and b) he wasn’t prepared for it–he declined to offer any commentary.

      Here’s the thing though…if you’re Bob Bradley, why even invoke the name Sochaux in the least! Why even create an opportunity for confusion.

      I think the players will be fine.

      The question is–and Charlie choose his words very carefully when answering our questions on his “expectations” to make the roster–he slowly and clearly said that “he hope to” not “expected to.”

      Davies doesn’t–from our time with him and others–has been very aware of the fact that he put himself in the situation and in not looking to put pressure on Bob Bradley….so to me there is at least some merit…some more dialogue to be had with as strong as Davies comes across in the interview.

      Reply

  3. Posted by Bob on 2010/05/13 at 7:32 AM

    It seems that it is still not clear whether the clubs or the national team have the ultimate say if and when an injured player can or will play in the WC. Who pays their salary when they are on national duty? Who is responsible for rehab and surgeries if the player gets hurt during international duty? Are clubs compensated if a player is hurt while on international duty? I think we need a full answer to those questions before we can fully understand what happened to CD9.

    Reply

  4. Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 7:36 AM

    Bob:

    I’ve tried Neil Buethe, USMN spokeman, a few times this morning–most of your questions above I have in my questinos for him.

    I’ll let you guys know if I hear anything.

    What are your guys thoughts on if TSG should reach out for more response from Charlie — he follows TSG on Twitter and is fairly responsive to us.

    Not sure what I am going to do here, but feedback from y’all can’t hurt.

    Reply

    • Posted by Shane_K83 on 2010/05/13 at 10:21 AM

      Touchy situation, Coaches dont like being told they are makeing poor choices by a player.. Sounds to me like a chain of events in in order…

      1: Charlie falls out with Sochaux

      2: Charlie falls out with sweatpants

      3: Fans side with Davies..

      Hopefully in a perfect world, Charlie just bites his lip and returns next year, does his talking on the pitch for Sochaux, than head to England after next year..

      Reply

      • Posted by uncledude on 2010/05/13 at 10:32 AM

        “Hopefully in a perfect world, Charlie just bites his lip and returns next year, does his talking on the pitch for Sochaux, than head to England after next year..”

        THIS.

        Reply

  5. Posted by Andy on 2010/05/13 at 7:41 AM

    “I think Sochaux had a vested interest not to pass Davies fit. You have to remember, their “investment” was almost ruined in October and putting “their investment” in harm’s way…well they have no reason to do this.” – Matthew TSG

    Okay, now correct me if I am wrong as I am very un-informed on all this stuff, but cannot players drastically improve their “value” with an outstanding performance in a WC? Wouldn’t Sochaux benefit from this as they hold CD9’s rights? Imagine if CD9 had never been in the accident and was heading to camp in peak form, what would we as fans be expecting of him? Great, great things. Our attack would be focused around him, not Altidore. CD9 is not going to play in France for the rest of his career, so if it is in fact Sochaux that denied him playing in the WC they must clearly think that him participating is far more likely to do harm not good?

    Reply

    • Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 7:45 AM

      Correct Andy — I think Sochaux’s first priority is to insure that Davies is healthy for next season. If they feel that WC participation would be a risk then…as my first statement goes…

      Reply

  6. Posted by jake on 2010/05/13 at 7:42 AM

    I’ll go ahead and start it…

    Classic case of the French being the French. Always trying to bring the U.S. down. (Except for the whole revolution thing.)

    Reply

    • Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 7:46 AM

      Let’s stay on point here Jake. :>

      Reply

      • Posted by jake on 2010/05/13 at 8:52 AM

        Really,

        If, from other comments below, they are going to play hardball and not release him voluntarily for camp (notwithstanding any FIFA mandated ‘two week before the World Cup’ release), it seems pretty selfish. Investment or not, you won’t hear a lot of other clubs keeping players back from participating in a camp obviously focused on getting ready for the World Cup. This especially if Charlie didn’t see it coming or wasn’t given notice of the letter.

        Reply

  7. Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 7:46 AM

    Here are the questions I have emailed USSF — I will let you know if or when I hear anything.

    1) MGT: Was the decision not to put Charlie Davies on the 30-man roster in any way influeneced by Sochaux management?

    2) MR: Was the decision not to put Charlie Davies on the 30-man roster in any way influeneced by Sochaux medical reports?

    3) If there any statement today on the Charlie Davies radio interview that was published online earlier today?

    4) Who is responsible for rehab and surgeries if the player gets hurt during international duty? Are clubs compensated if a player is hurt while on international duty?

    5) Is there still any possibility that Charlie Davies can be called into camp after Sochaux ’09-’10 reason ends on May 15th?

    Reply

    • Matt, there is some precedent for country being liable to club for a player’s injury, see Michael Owen:

      http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-FA-Will-Pay-For-Michael-Owen-039-s-Injury-27413.shtml

      I want to say an Arsenal player was involved in a similar situation but the specific event escapes me.

      Reply

    • Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 8:11 AM

      the difference was the Owen was hurt while playing in a game…not in a car accident

      Reply

      • Very true, something like this would be much more applicable to Onyewu or Holden’s injuries.

        Reply

      • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/13 at 8:57 AM

        The bigger FAs have insurance to cover injuries to players ‘whilst’ on international duty. The issue here is that Davies is *still* injured.

        Saying he’s 85% fit and better than the 100% X is, IMO silly – because I feel the chance of injury to a player who is not completely fit are increased, right? So what are Sochaux expected to do? Send an injured player to the WC and have him potentially miss more games?

        I feel until we see the extent of the medical report and understand how far he is from being 100%, it’s always going to be speculation.

        Reply

        • Here he comes with his lethal dose of reality.

          Reply

        • George, I don’t think the issue at this point is so much if he should have gone to camp or not, it’s if his club overstepped their bounds in providing potentially misleading information to the USSF so he wouldn’t go.

          Reply

        • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/13 at 9:35 AM

          CFIG, I understand the issue, but from what I have read over the last month or so is that the USSF have been monitoring Davies’ situation very closely, and even had a member of their own medical staff in Sochaux.

          During WCQ (albeit UEFA zone) all the major FAs called players for international duty even if their club doctors said they were not fit (except the obviously injured), for their own medical staff to assess the player. In most cases they were sent back to their clubs.

          So my point is that Bradley therefore must trust the first-hand info that the USSF medical staff gave him. To say that he left it up to Sochaux’s medical staff would be naive, no?

          Reply

        • Totally agree George, which is what makes it even more curious that Bradley made the Sochaux letter sound like a very determining factor in his decision. That’s the part I’m trying to understand.

          If the USSF had confidence in their evals, good or bad, then why even reference the letter?

          Reply

  8. The other interesting thing here is that Charlie could still, theoretically, be part of the 23 man roster, correct? As per being called in in the first place, Biggy nails my thoughts that seeing what an 85% Davies could do in camp is much more value for the pick than someone like Rogers who simply isn’t going to make the 23.

    As per BB, I would think (and was under the impression) that Bradley had extensively researched the issue personally and with USSF staff, but citing the letter as a major factor in his decision makes me think that CD has a right to be a bit upset. We don’t know what information Sochaux’s president was operating under but considering he hasn’t even spoken with Davies it seems his letter may have been more opinion (and protecting his investment) than fact.

    I’m split on trying to get a response from Charlie, part of me would love to hear his side but the other part of me doesn’t want to add fuel to the fire.

    Reply

    • Posted by uncledude on 2010/05/13 at 10:37 AM

      “85% Davies”

      This number has been thrown around quit a bit. Where does it come from? It’s been taken as a fact by people here on the board and folks like Woody Paige.

      I think it’s pretty safe to say that if he WAS 85% he’d get a run out for his CLUB…which he hasn’t.

      Reply

      • Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 10:47 AM

        Dude, I think it’s from an interview sweatpants gave a couple weeks ago concerning CD. He was speaking hypothetically about the decision making process and said something to the effect of if 85% is enough and he’s only 80%, do we bring him. That’s my guess… a quote from BB himself.
        I don’t agree with you that he’d get a chance from Sochaux to play @ 85%. There’s nothing for them to gain in doing so.

        Reply

        • Posted by uncledude on 2010/05/13 at 10:55 AM

          “There’s nothing for them to gain in doing so.”

          Fair point. I just can’t help but believe that Sochaux, USSF and BB have better information on whether he can play or not.

          Also, Charlie needs to be careful here with taking his anger public…he’s injured because HE broke a team rule. He’s voicing his anger at his club because of what he says he was told by BB. This is all getting messy for BB and Sochaux and will reflect poorly on CD9 in the transfer market if he does NOT come back onto the pitch with guns ablazin.

          Reply

        • Dude, all the more reason for him to return to the MLS with Henry at RBNY…

          Reply

    • Cfig: technically Davies could be on the 23, but it is highly unlikely, particularly since he won’t be training with the squad. I believe the only way this is possible is if someone over the course of training camp gets injured, then you can replace parts of your 30 man selection.

      I have had many long conversations with Biggy on the issue, and while his opinion differs, I feel you absolutely cannot waste a spot in the 30 man on a player you have fitness questions about. If it were questions of ability at an international level, that’s different, and that’s exactly what this month is for, but fitness is not something he will achieve in a month, and taking a spot away from another player who could be the difference maker in South Africa is the wrong way to go about it. Bradley, for once, did something I agree with.

      Cut your losses and find a replacement for him before the Cup, sure no one is probably as spectacular as Davies was pre-injury, but I can almost guarantee Davies himself isn’t as spectacular either.

      Another huge glaring point no one seems to mention is the likelihood he will ever play the same. He had a devastating injury, and that typically comes with fear of re-injuring yourself, particularly when you know you aren’t at 100% fitness. Hell, Eduardo is half the player he used to be. Who’s to say he runs at defenders like Terry, Ferdinand, or Vidic with the same gusto that he used to?

      Reply

      • Eddie Johnson is out for 10-15 days. According to mlssoccer.com the staff will check him out at princeton and make a decision. EJ is saying like a week, but do you still keep him in camp? For me, Bradley choosing Findley over Davies is a big statement, whether you like it or not. If EJ can’t go on with camp, who do you think gets called up? Casey? Davies? Adu? If I had to list in order who has priority out of those 3 in BB’s mind right now it goes Casey, Adu, Davies. Just remember EJ or anyone else not continuing opens yet another door for Davies, this time with a smaller chance than people thought before.

        Reply

  9. I agree that Bob trying to lay off responsibility for the decision on Sochaux created a lot of bad optics – both for Charlie and for fans. The whole “look, I really wanted to name Charlie to the roster but Sochaux wouldn’t let me” quotes were just bad.

    What Bob should have said: “While we are disappointed not to have Charlie Davies in camp, we determined that he has not recovered to the point where he will be able to play at the level required at the World Cup. To even be in the discWe wish him the best in his continued recovery and hope to have him back in the national side very soon.” He should have said, Sorry Charlie, but you’re just not ready and left his club out of it. The last thing an emerging player like Charlie needs is a falling out with his club, like the one Bob has precipitated.

    Not that it will happen but can you imagine the storm if Charlie appears in Sochaux’s final match of the season, as he hopes?

    Reply

    • Posted by itally on 2010/05/13 at 10:09 AM

      Well said — just what I was thinking (but not articulate enough to write!).

      Reply

      • Thanks… Articulate is not how I’m feeling today. After the Fulham match yesterday, today at work is a bit “ouch”.

        The thing was, this was what Bob seemed to be saying at the Jersey unveiling to go from this to “Sochaux wrote us a letter”.

        Reply

  10. Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 7:58 AM

    I have messaged the following to Charlie, but I’m not expecting a reply:

    Charlie: Just communicating there is quite a buzz about your interview on a French radio spot over here. You’ve been very gracious with your time to TSG.

    We’re not soliciting you, but we’re a platform if you have more commentary. Not expecting a reply here…best wishes as always.

    Will let you guys know if I hear anymore from USSF. I’m not reaching out to Sochaux at this time because they are generally offline at this time.

    Reply

    • Posted by PinowskiAP on 2010/05/13 at 8:23 AM

      Great job following up on this. TSG has done an excellent job getting information straight from the players and officials that matter.

      Last night I noticed that the French press was really digging into this story. I did some investigating, found the radio interview in question, and posted it on the BigSoccer forums. It’s great to see this story get so much attention in the blogosphere and news outlets (ESPN, SI, etc). Look at how it’s ballooned!

      It seems to me that a straightforward answer from either USSF or Sochaux would put to rest the whole fiasco.

      Reply

  11. Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 8:03 AM

    I think Bradley HAD to mention Sochaux when commenting on why Charlie was left out. Suppose Bradley was intending on including Charlie when he received a letter from Sochaux stating that he would not be released…is Bradley to then make it appear that he was the one that made the decision to not include Charlie even though he was intending to include him? The fact that Charlie was hurt while on international duty could be a reason why Bradley would try and appease Sochaux and not include Charlie…that is…if he had the ability to regardless of him not being released by Sochaux. The precedent is there for coaches to include injured players in their 30 man rosters even if they arent medically cleared to play at the time…see Barry, Gareth….

    Personally, listening to Charlie in the interview…he knows he can go out and play right now if needed…but is aware that he needs to get his form back. His wounds are healed…all he needs now to be fully recovered is minutes. Which should be good enough to be included in the 30 man provisional roster ahead of say…robbie findley…who is almost definitely not going to be on the 23

    I never assumed charlie was a lock for the world cup roster…i assumed he would be given a chance. I dont understand how Sochaux can justify having him fully participate in practice for the last 3 weeks…but then say that he is not medically fit to play.

    I think everyone would be able to accept a situation where Charlie made it to the camp, but was found to not be quite up to a world cup level of fitness…but the current situation where we’ll never know is a tough pill to swallow.

    Reply

  12. Posted by Applesauce on 2010/05/13 at 8:13 AM

    Bob Bradley is an idiot and Daives got hosed. As simple as that. And who would expect anything different from the French? I never liked the guy, but even Bruce Arena wouldn’t take have taken Sochaux’s word for it and left it at that.

    We need a ballsier manager.

    Reply

    • Posted by SteveM11 on 2010/05/13 at 9:06 AM

      Amen. Buh-bye, BB!! Let’s get a manager with who can sack up. Even if he felt Charlie wasn’t ready, he should be man enough to say, “I, Bob Bradley, have made the decision to cut you from the 30 man squad. I don’t think you’re ready.” Not, your Frog run team back in Europe said no, so I’ll hide behind that.

      Reply

    • Posted by Randy on 2010/05/14 at 10:32 AM

      That ballsier manager is Dominic Kinnear

      Reply

  13. Posted by obxfly on 2010/05/13 at 8:17 AM

    Can’t blame Charlie for being upset. That is just going to be part of the normal process of any human missing out on their dreams. You know Coach Bradley had to agonize over this decision for hours and hours. He had to know more than we do about his condition.

    My question is what happens if he gets on the field this weekend and scores a couple? Will FIFA allow him into camp or is it too late?

    Reply

    • Posted by Nick on 2010/05/13 at 9:18 AM

      If this situation were to occur, I bet Eddie Johnson’s hamstring injury would all of a sudden be severe enough to drop him from the 30 man. Or possibly Findley gets Swine Flu…

      Reply

  14. Posted by Jeff on 2010/05/13 at 8:17 AM

    Matt,

    Great journalism, I really like and appreciate the openness and transparency with which you explain your interview process to your readers. It’s nice to see how things get handled up.

    As for Davies, I was under the impression that, while Sochaux of course is required to release Charlie to participate in the WC, they were not required to release him to participate in the camp (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/ps_792_en-annex_ii_74.pdf). Check out letter F. As the WC starts on June 11, Sochaux would not be required to release Charlie until 14 days prior, or May 28. And it sounds like Sochaux wasn’t going to release him anytime before they were required to by FIFA. This pretty much rules out Charlie’s chances of making the team. If he hasn’t played in any games, and couldn’t participate in the camp, how could Bradley and the rest of the USMNT staff have the chance to determine if he’s game-ready, or anything close? They would have had to wait until the Turkey friendly in Philly on May 29 and just plug him in there with no team training, and that obviously is not feasible. By two weeks before the WC, the team needs to have moved on. It’s a shame, but it sounds like Sochaux’s refusal to release Charlie to play was the death knell for his chances of making the squad.

    Reply

    • Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 8:30 AM

      that is actually pretty interesting…May 28 is too late for charlie to make the squad.

      Reply

  15. The whole situation seems shady. Some of BB’s picks are mind-boggling, (Sasha?) and his reasoning is a little shifty. Eddie Johnson scores, what, four goals in two years and gets included? Beasley starts 9 games all year, and two serious injuries in two years, plus he’s out of form on the int’l level.

    I love Bease, and I want him to make the team. And I’ve gushed about my past man-crush on EJ. Those guys are great players, but their downsides are just as risky as CD9’s. At least as risky as it would have been to bring him to camp. Out of form, injury risk, “what have you done for me lately?”

    Really, the reasoning is a little light on logic, which is out of character for BB (although not really if you think how he keeps including Bornstein and Sasha, despite their ability to prove us right more often than not, more than a hint of favoritism from his MLS coaching stint). His last line of reasoning is deferring the decision to Sochaux, which has a (well-documented) conflict in interest with the USMNT.

    We need more info, but we all know what we’ll get from USSF/Sweatpants… that familiar silence that comes from not giving a crap about what the fans think, informed though we may be.

    Reply

  16. Posted by PinowskiAP on 2010/05/13 at 8:41 AM

    One excerpt from the radio interview is particularly disturbing:

    “[Lacombe] has not given me a reason why he sent the U.S. national team a letter saying he didn’t understand why they put me on the provisional roster and he didnt’ understand why they would call me and that I can’t play and that they would not release me.”

    According to this statement Davies was already on the provisional roster days before the announcement. We know that some clubs were informed prior to Tuesday (Buddle’s inclusion was leaked by the Galaxy days before). If this truly is the case, there is much more behind Davies’ exclusion than previously thought.

    Reply

    • Man I hope you’re wrong and Sochaux really has his best interests at heart. If any of what you’re saying is true I’m going to be upset bro. I’m talking start an internet campaign against Sochaux upset. Don’t underestimate the power of suggestion.

      And to think, I was ready to get a Sochaux kit too… hmpf.

      Reply

    • Considering the phrasing there you’re right, that does sound a bit shady.

      Reply

    • Posted by Applesauce on 2010/05/13 at 1:56 PM

      This is what I’ve been saying the whole time. A real manager would have fought for a player as important as Davies. Sochaux will obviously want to protect their assets, and as a business, I don’t blame them. I blame Bradley for not challenging them. I blame the USSF for not intervening. We all know Davies is going to be 100% by June 12th. He’s been in full contact practice for over two weeks. While there was always the possibility his form would not be there, it is apparent his fitness would. For those of you who would take a Robbie Findley to camp over Charlie Davies, speak up now or forever hold your peace.

      Nobody?

      That’s what I thought.

      Reply

      • Posted by uncledude on 2010/05/13 at 2:22 PM

        “A real manager would have fought for a player as important as Davies. ”

        One more time…slowly. Let’s review FACTS:

        1)HE CAN NOT PLAY…BY HIS OWN ADMISSION therefore HE IS NOT WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

        2) A “real manager” would come out and BLAST his ass in the press for whining about not being selected and point out that he basically told the coaching staff to STUFF IT on the eve of a WORLD CUP QUALIFIER to get a piece of strange.

        Reply

        • Posted by Applesauce on 2010/05/13 at 4:05 PM

          You must be confusing “facts” with “things you made up”.

          “Can not play…by his own admission?”

          Dude, get your head out of Bob Bradley’s ass and then try to smell what’s up.

          “he basically told the coaching staff to STUFF IT”

          Again, where did you get this tidbit? From the Sochaux medical office? I hear they’re pretty good at convincing people of lies.

          Reply

  17. Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 8:50 AM

    Guys, still trying US Soccer (my guess is they are not answering for a reason).

    I’ve got to step out for a bit (radio program) and I put a little moniker from the “Best of…” on the right sidebar which I promise to take down after I conclude our radio interview….

    Reply

  18. Posted by John on 2010/05/13 at 9:07 AM

    Obviously nothing is going to change roster wise going forward, but it is pretty interesting that Bradley laid some of the blame in the direction of Sochaux.

    Potentially this is a mistake, only time will tell. If Bradley comes out and says that they evaluated Davies and decided against it (with no added caveat), then the decision resides solely on the coaching staff of the USMNT. However with his current method he has potentially poisoned the relationship between player and club by indicating that Sochaux purposefully kept Davies out.

    This whole thing is more likely a case of missteps and bumbling weirdness in regards to people protecting their investment, but it doesn’t make any side (National Team, Club, and Player) look good. Considering that Davies isn’t going to get anything positive out of this (he isn’t getting called up to the USMNT and he might get the screws put to him at Sochaux now) his best course of action is probably to let this simmer and use it for fuel.

    Reply

  19. Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 9:13 AM

    Well, considering Sochaux issued a statement saying that a rep from US Soccer came to the club in person to evaluate Charlie’s fitness, I’m unsure what to think. I assumed Bob was sort of “laying off the decision” to FC Sochaux for convenience’s sake and that we’d all been a little duped into believing Charlie’s fitness was more progressed than in fact it was.
    Until I hear from US Soccer that the rep was never there, I think I’ll continue to believe that was the case. I still think “80% Charlie” with zero match fitness is better than 100% EJ with “big Greek game experience”.
    I know Rooney missed a lot less time with his whole metatarsal debacle, but they still brought him in 06 for only a small contribution because he was worth it to them. I can’t imagine we have made a decision to not bring Charlie for anything less than clearly not ready vis a vis in (american) person evaluation.

    Reply

  20. Posted by Matt B on 2010/05/13 at 9:16 AM

    What a crazy situation. It seems like everyone would benefit from being a bit more transparent here, but I can’t see that happening. From Bradley’s standpoint, I can understand not wanting to piss off Sochaux, especially as Charlie was injured on national team duty. But I wish he’d be more clear about whether the letter from Sochaux was the main reason Charlie didn’t make the cut, or if it was just one factor. I’m not too worried about how this will affect the team, as one of Bob’s biggest strengths is really having his finger on the pulse of the locker room. I imagine that the players are privy to a lot more information than we are.

    As for the club, how in the hell does the team president not even talk to Charlie at some point in the last 7 months? To use an example from my hometown of Detroit, if Miguel Cabrera were to get in a career-threatening accident, Tigers President/GM Dave Dombrowski would be practically camped out in his hospital room (in fact, last fall, DD bailed Cabrera out of jail). As for sending the letter to USSF, it seems like a cowardly move to send it without even giving Davies a heads up. I can understand wanting to protect your investment, but don’t you think the US coaching staff would be careful with Charlie? After all, they are pretty heavily invested in his future as well (maybe not from a monetary standpoint, but certainly from a job security/success on the field standpoint).

    Now to Charlie: I can understand his anger completely. It’s one thing to miss out on a World Cup, but it’s quite another to feel like your club sold you out to keep you off the team. However, calling out your team president in such a public fashion is probably not the greatest career move. I’ll be very interested to see how his club situation plays out in the near future.

    Reply

    • Hey great point, Charlie definitely might be on the move now. Hey, he’d have a hell of a following in the MLS (you know, a temporary stint. STOP LAUGHING!)…

      Reply

  21. Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 9:20 AM

    Whatever happened to AC Milan’s overtures about getting compensation for Gooch’s injuries? That was more “legit” of a claim, but I only heard about it immediately afterwards. I assumed they were italian about it and took less money on the dl or something =)

    Reply

  22. All: Sochaux’s Rebuttal:

    Charlie Davies continued, since his car accident, his long way of rehabilitation. Since April 22 he trains with his team mates on the pitch during training sessions in order to gain progression in his rehabilitation. He hasn’t played a single match so far.

    The U.S squad, with whom FC Sochaux-Montbéliard is in regular contact after Charlie Davies’ accident, has been informed that the latter will be in a stoppage of work situation until June 24.

    A member of the USSF, the United States Soccer Federation, came to Montbéliard at the end of the month April in order to verify in person the condition of the player before the decision has been taken not to select Charlie Davies for the next World Cup. A decision only to be made by the USSF.

    (Posted by Jen Chang on Twitter: http://www.fcsochaux.fr/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1570&Itemid=106)

    Reply

    • Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 9:27 AM

      There was a link to that statement on this site, as well. Thus I’m a little perplexed as to why no one seems to be remembering Sochaux’s claim that US Soccer evalutated him in person prior to making a decision.

      Reply

      • Right, which makes me more curious why BB cited the letter as a primary factor rather than their own evaluations.

        Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/13 at 9:43 AM

      The USSF are not a Mickey Mouse FA. They know what they are doing and have some clout in world football. I think many people within the USA underestimated USA football. Trust me, they are no mugs – they know all of their rights.

      Reply

      • Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 10:04 AM

        I agree with you on this one… I sincerely doubt USSF didn’t arrive to this conclusion on their own. Assuming this is the case, I’m pretty disappointed they are using Sochaux to disperse responsibility for the decision. I think Charlie is venting some understandable frustration in the interview. I doubt it’s typical for team presidents to carry discourse directly with players, and his team’s certainly has valid reason to not want to coddle Charlie imo.
        He goes out before a NT qualifier, gets into an accident we’re all convinced in our hearts involved drinking, can’t contribute to the team’s season, wants to have heart to hearts with the team president and be cleared for the WC… he’s understandably but not necessarily justifiably frustrated. He’s lucky he was just put in the doghouse by his president and not his gf… but I digress.

        Reply

  23. Didn’t see that link anywhere here yet… that’s a statement that was just released.

    Reply

    • Actually if you check the date on the press release it was from yesterday, someone posted a reference to it in the comments on the “30” thread. I believe it was released after BB’s statements and before Charlie’s.

      Reply

      • Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 9:42 AM

        Oh, didn’t read your comment. before posting. I thought it was part of the regular content.

        Reply

    • Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 9:40 AM

      I don’t remember if it was in one of the “right margin boxes” or the twitter stream, but I did follow the fcsochaux link from here, and yes, that statement was issued yesterday.

      Reply

  24. Posted by Alex on 2010/05/13 at 9:57 AM

    I’m just trying to look for positives here, but it seems like complacency issues are not going to be a problem in Charlie’s career, at least not until after Brazil 2014. Now, with this huge chip on his shoulder, you get the feeling that he is going to work harder than ever

    Reply

  25. Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 10:12 AM

    Who thinks that Davies has seen the letter….and that is what has led him to believe that his club is to blame?

    Reply

  26. ugh this is my nightmare. If Bob had come out and said “After evaluating Charlie in person we don’t feel that even bringing him to camp would be sufficient time for him to return to a fitness level that would allow us to use him in the world cup” I would be fine with it. It’s not even the fact that Charlie isn’t there, its the fact that NO ONE wants to take responsibility here. It makes everything oh so fishy. Which makes me think again, that Sochaux has influence here that they should not have. Everything is pointing toward that more and more.

    Reply

  27. Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 10:26 AM

    “as far as being able to play, I have no pain, i have no problems with me. Of course, I’m not at the level of playing where I was before the accident. I dont have the form that I had, but as far as being capable to do everything…I have no problems with that. Thats why its frustrating, because for the past month, I have been training with the team. Of course, in the beginning, it wasnt so well, but I have progressed a lot, i continue to progress and I still have to progress, but with all the progression that I’ve made, I am definitely ready to play.”

    Nobody knows more than Charlie on if he is ready to play or not. He sounds very confident that he could go out and play for Sochaux or the USMNT. So how is it that both Sochaux and USMNT physios came to the conclusion that he wont be ready to play two weeks in advance of the May 25 friendly?

    For me, the decision to exclude Charlie from the roster had little to do with his physical condition and everything to do with politics between Sochaux management and the USMNT.

    Reply

    • “For me, the decision to exclude Charlie from the roster had little to do with his physical condition and everything to do with politics between Sochaux management and the USMNT.”

      Well said sir. This seems the clearest statement regarding this situation I’ve heard so far.

      Reply

      • the funny thing is this will likely backfire on Sochaux much more then letting Charlie come to camp would have. If all of this is true, I can’t see CD9 there past the winter transfer window.

        Reply

        • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/13 at 1:46 PM

          If Davies was (even close to) fit, do you honest think that the USSF would allow Sochaux to not release him? I think you’re having a laugh. This is the WC. Don’t you think that the USSF would kick-up an almighty fuss with FIFA?

          You guys love to think of conspiracy theories!

          Reply

        • Posted by Applesauce on 2010/05/13 at 1:57 PM

          No I don’t.

          What planet are you on? Tell me more about USSF’s history of great decision making.

          Everybody, listen up! We’re all in for a laugh.

          Reply

        • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/13 at 2:47 PM

          Actually Applesauce, you are right, and it is clearly me that is wrong.

          Davies is actually fit, but Sochaux don’t want to release him. And both Bradley and the USSF are happy with that decision, high-fiving at any opportunity. Actually, they all met in a Paris restaurant on the Champs Elysee and sat around a lovely big round rustic table, eating fromage and pain, whilst drinking France’s finest Pinot Noir chanting “à la tienne”…

          Reply

        • I KNEW it. Bradley always struck me as a lightweight, they got him liquored up and talked him into it.

          Reply

  28. Posted by phlub on 2010/05/13 at 10:44 AM

    Insightful radio interview.

    Charlie’s resentment to the Sochaux President seems valid. His dedication to staying with the team for the sake of his teammates, the coaches, and the fans is really smart and very sincere. His decision to take this World Cup as motivation to succeed in League 1’s next season is also very smart, and courageous as well.

    For any lack of maturity that may have been with him that unfortunate night in DC, he obviously has learned from it. Some may say that he should not speak out against the club, but I like his honesty. He really has nothing to lose. And the blame is on the club administration, not his coaches and teammates.

    I look forward to seeing him have a great season for Sochaux, continuing on his success with more famous clubs, and seeing him compete in Gold Cups, WC qualifiers, and in 2014… the USMT will be oh so strong.

    Reply

  29. Posted by markvisax on 2010/05/13 at 10:47 AM

    Look at the big picture people:

    Charlie Davies’ reaction to all of this has been about himself making the World Cup, not about the team.
    In my opinion, he has reacted very immaturely to the situation, causing problems with the MNT and Sochaux. He should just back off and support the betterment of the team and work on his rehab.
    This is unwanted political, media attention that will bug Bradley through camp.

    Thanks Charlie, now shut up and stop tweeting.

    Reply

    • Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 11:30 AM

      I coudlnt disagree more…sure, distractions are unwelcome, but all he is doing is understandably venting his frustration. He worked so hard to get back to playing condition and wasnt even given a chance. Regardless of whether or not Charlie speaks with the media…the fans and the media are going to talk about his exclusion…and it would be just as much of a distraction.

      He said plainly in the interview that he has accepted that he wont be playing in the world cup and will not be contacting the Court for Arbitration of Sport to appeal Sochaux’s decision to prevent him from attending camp.

      In all likelihood…we wont hear from Charlie concerning this again.

      Reply

  30. Posted by wixson on 2010/05/13 at 12:11 PM

    as much as i like CD, the reality is the only evidence of him being fit was from his unlimited amount of tweets. he scored a goal in practice and got his 1st tackle, not really evidence in my book. If he really was close to being fit BB would have picked him up in a heartbeat, that’s the reality. 82 tweets, 463 God Blesses, and 3,729 exclamation points does not qualify a player for the national team.

    CD got alot of our hopes up and, lets be honest, there were no actual claims to back any of it up.

    Reply

    • Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 12:27 PM

      yes, but who knows better than him if hes ready to play? Keep in mind, Sochaux has deemed him fit enough to fully participate in team practice for 3 full weeks now.

      Reply

  31. Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 12:39 PM

    I think that’s a little harsh, wixson. 4.65 God Blesses per tweet? LOL.
    Who’d want to be the person to tell Charlie, sorry, but no? It’s probably a lot easier for the club that’s paying him with no return than the country he so desires to represent in June.

    Reply

    • Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 1:12 PM

      dont know that this really changes anything. It hurts Johnson’s chances of making it the world cup…but not much more than that.

      Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/13 at 1:52 PM

      Saw Johnson in the web address and panicked. Then realised this is predominantly a US site. Sigh. Of. Relief.

      Reply

    • It just means Johnson’s slim chances of making the 23 are significantly lower than they were before. What it doesn’t mean is that Davies will be added to the 30. That’s just not happening. Charlie may be angry but it’s over.

      Reply

  32. Posted by Colin on 2010/05/13 at 1:13 PM

    Where are those Dont Tread videos at…i need to watch something positive.

    Reply

    • Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/13 at 1:48 PM

      You’re kidding right. Look up in the nav bar. Yeah. Let’s send those suckers around to your friends. Finally going to get voting going next week.

      Reply

  33. Posted by kaya on 2010/05/13 at 3:16 PM

    It is what it is… I don’t think there’s anyone too blame. (If there is some conspiracy, I hope it doesn’t take 12 years to find out.)
    The thing that really bums me out is that while CD can certainly play an important role in 2014, even if Donovan makes the squad, he’ll be far from a spring chicken. I really would’ve liked to see those 2 in particular together.

    Reply

  34. Posted by Zardoz on 2010/05/13 at 9:34 PM

    I am still curious about the Davies comment in the interview linked to above when talking about the Sochaux president that ” he has not given me a reason why he sent the US National team a letter saying that… he didn’t understand why they put me in a provisional roster, and he didn’t understand why they would call me and that I can’t play, and that they will not release me.”

    Especially if it’s true that Davies was on a provisional roster then later taken off after the Sochaux president sends his letter, combined with Sweatpants specifically mentioning that Davies was not released by his club, and the president declaring that Davies would not play for his club while he is training and there is a month left in the season, certainly suggests a situation that is not so simplistic as “Davies was not fit.”

    How could he be fit enough to fully train with Sochaux, but not even show up on the 30-man roster when he’d have another month to make progress? It’d be one thing if we had anything resembling depth at striker to not bring him in, but given our situation, to not even give him a shot seems questionable. Instead we get Klejstan and Rogers?

    In the very least, we know Sweatpants made a pretty significant error in even talking about Sochaux in the context of making a decision on Davies. Where else has the coach erred?

    Reply

  35. Posted by Colin on 2010/05/14 at 6:02 AM

    Its casual friday at work…I wore my Davies jersey…how long before they send me home?

    Reply

  36. Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/14 at 8:08 AM

    Guys update here: It’s lockdown at USSF, we have three contacts there that speak for the team. None of them are answering or returning calls.

    Reply

    • Posted by Bob on 2010/05/14 at 9:35 AM

      Any other way to get to them? Do we have contacts at Princeton that could get to BB? Any friends at Columbia U. that could get to Sunil? How about Bruce Arena or Sampson? As former coaches, they must know what the regs are and how much power a club has in restricting a player from going to WC camp. The story was still running on ESPN ticker this morning. Maybe a call from one of those E60 reporters would scare them into giving us some details. Wouldn’t it be great if a Mark Felt-type informant suddenly contacted TSG from Chicago?

      Obviously, I really HATE the way the USSF is handling this story.

      Reply

      • Posted by matthewsf on 2010/05/14 at 9:57 AM

        Bob: That’s it for me on this until a special comment.

        Two things: 1) If no one one wants to speak, they won’t. Bob Bradley is probably kicking himself right now for saying anything whatsoever.

        2) Personally, TSG doesn’t have the resources, network and well we’re not paid by this yet. I would say the best bet here beyond official statements is looking to one of the paid journalists that can exhaust their time, effort and network here. We’re, let’s say, “not equipped” to “dig” into this story

        As a note, I certainly wouldn’t want to initiate any secondhand sources here….I was comfortable with the interview above because it was direct…but most else will be conjecture.

        Reply

  37. Posted by kaya on 2010/05/14 at 9:02 AM

    Perhaps our birdie got his wings clipped? CD9’s twitter account is curiously quiet of late.

    Reply

  38. Interesting that Ghana named a not even close to fit Michael Essien as part of their 30.

    Quite a few teams have done that kind of thing, “just in case”.

    Reply

  39. Posted by Jim S on 2010/05/14 at 12:19 PM

    Has anyone stopped to think, that all this is because CD did this to himself. In the possiblity that he was seriously injured in league play and sochaux said no, the USSF could always ignore them. That isn’t the case though. If I were BB I’m not sure I would want him on the team this cup. Reality Check here. Jozy tweets about what he did, and gets benched, CD did far worse. I’m sure not playing the last couple games and/or make the 30 could just as well be both teams punishing CD for his mistake. Granted it was a mistake, but he still has to pay the price for it. I like CD as much as the next guy and I’ll bet as long as he stays healthy, he’ll be a top-flight striker by 2014, but for now he can just take satisfaction in that he’s healthy and will be ready for his clubs 10-11 season. I think both the USSF and Sochaux are passing the buck back and forth rather than saying “You FUBAR’ed and this is the price you have to pay, suck it up.”

    It just seems as “fan”atics, we were really quick to forgive CD because we just wanted to see him get better and had real compassion for all 3 people involved. That’s called being a decent humand, and you should feel good about it. As for Sochaux and the USSF they are a business and have to look out for what’s best for the business and right now CD is not what’s best, plain and simple.

    Best to CD and hope he tears up L1 next season, and GO USA!

    Reply

    • Posted by Colin on 2010/05/14 at 12:26 PM

      If thats the case…both the USSF and Sochaux would come out and say…you screwed up, youre suspended for X number of games because of it.

      That kind of stuff just doesnt happen though…getting benched because you say or do something you shouldnt have is to teach a lesson.

      In a situation where something you did led to a horrific car accident and serious injuries is punishment enough and the lesson was learned…there is no need to bench the person because of it. 7 months have passed and all is forgiven between Charlie, Sochaux, and USSF….at least for the events of October.

      Reply

    • Posted by Zardoz on 2010/05/14 at 2:53 PM

      Man, that would be really messed up if this is all about punishing Charlie. To take away his dream of playing in the WC (which has been motivating him through a pretty remarkable rehab) because he broke curfew seems extreme. Granted, his actions did lead to some very serious consequences, to say the least, but when it comes down to it, he stayed out later than he was supposed to and got into a car that he probably should not have entered. Some kind of suspension etc. would be fine, but this would be out of balance in my opinion. And on top of it to exact the punishment in such an underhanded way. Shame on all those involved if this is what’s happening.

      Reply

  40. Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/14 at 12:58 PM

    I think the only conclusion you can draw is that there are three sides to this story: USSF’s, Sochaux’s and the truth.

    Reply

  41. Posted by Jim S on 2010/05/14 at 3:20 PM

    Sad but true. Either way it’s good news for england’s defense. Had to take a little friendly jab George. ;)

    Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/14 at 11:06 PM

      Please. We have many players that don’t make our 30 that would walk into your 23!
      Not that I am taking a jab…

      Reply

  42. Posted by Bob on 2010/05/14 at 7:18 PM

    Interesting comment from LD10 on the exclusion of Davies that was just posted on Ives:

    “It’s an easy thing to say, ‘oh gosh, he should have been there’, but our medical staff and our coaches spend more hours then anyone will ever know evaluating players so if they made the decision that he’s not ready then he’s not ready,” said Donovan. “It’s a bitter pill to swallow, and we love Charlie, no one wants him on the team more than I do, but the reality is that if you’re not ready, this a World Cup and you need to have guys who are ready.”

    Reply

    • Posted by GeorgeCross on 2010/05/14 at 11:08 PM

      Please see all prior GeorgeCross’ comment.

      Reply

      • Posted by Bob on 2010/05/15 at 6:14 AM

        Correct George! I just wish BB had said this exact same thing on Tuesday then there would have been no unnecessary speculation from fans and no public outrage by CD9. But, yes, you nailed it from the beginning.

        Reply

  43. Posted by Bob on 2010/05/15 at 6:56 PM

    Thanks for the update Matthew. It does explain alot about Sochaux’s interest here as they are paying the full tab for Davies’ accident.

    Reply

  44. Posted by CJ on 2010/05/16 at 6:53 AM

    I read the FIFA regulations in regards to the 30… it specifically says that if a player from the 30 is injured prior to the naming of the 23 that the player (with an appeal to FIFA) can be replaced by a healthy player. Thus, a player can be included into the 30 making them eligible for the 23… Why didn’t the USSF acknowledge this? To quell speculation? They have to know this…

    Reply

    • Posted by CJ on 2010/05/16 at 6:56 AM

      Take that back.. read it wrong. That’s in regards to replacing a guy on the 23 “Final List” from the 30.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 254 other followers

%d bloggers like this: