HappyDaddy: I swear that I wrote responses to the same statement you quoted three times and deleted each because I thought that it wasn't on point. My reaction was the same as yours.
But I do understand the perspective of the poster. CUFC has focused on offering services across all ages and particularly genders. Bridge has offered some great opportunities for a couple of ages and primarily one gender. If you're lucky enough to be in those ages and genders, then it might appear that Bridge is "the closest thing to a rival that CESA has."
However, from the amazing growth in the select ranks (39 teams!) to the number of teams placed into the final 4, CUFC has in its short lifetime eclipsed Bridge in terms of a viable "CESA rival" when taking into account both genders and all age groups.
P.S. I think you're probably right that it will be re-raised and passed. But at this point I've got to admit that I agree with "pitchparent" -- I'd rather see them walk and SSC live with the consequences. It's a childish view and not one of which I'm proud -- because it's punishing the majority of players and parents for what (from what I can tell) is a combination of a passionate few people who want the old Bridge alliance back and what seems to be from 100+ miles away the worst corporate governance since Enron.
