SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Bridge and Summerville Soccer Club - Why now???

My position on this subject can be quite confusing at times..
I have a child in both programs.I try to look at things both ways so I come off as pro this and pro that...
What I want to happen is the people that are involved in this to sit down and come up with some solution that will please almost everyone...We need to keep the Bridge program at SSC to keep up with the other clubs in the state and at the same time build a strong classic program..Don't look at today...look at where the clubs will be years down the road

My position is maybe just as confused. I have children playing at SSC, and none at Bridge, although we have considered that option. I've felt at times that my kids were helped by the presence of that program, and hurt by it.

Ultimately, I think that expanded choices are good for kids. The Bridge provides that. It's that simple.

However, the resentment expressed by the current proposal should come as no surprise under the circumstances of these clubs' arrangements. First, there is always resentment of "elites". That was the case when challenge teams were fielded at SSC. As it is, though, the we against them attitude is further reinforced.

Second, no information is available, at least to the interested but casual observer, as to what SSC "gets" out of the deal. Parents without kids in the Bridge program are unlikely to fully account for the value of the options the Bridge gives to kids. The costs seem obvious- fields given up (without the parallel recognition that many of those kids are SSC-based, and the fields would be lost to challenge teams if they were part of SSC), a reduction in prestige due to not fielding challenge teams, a loss of income, etc.

Third, a shared DOC along with a totally opaque governance structure for the Bridge (is there one?), leaves parents questioning the balance of decision-making. I think that folks at least need to understand if there is any leadership at the Bridge other than the DOC. If so, how is it chosen, how is it structured, etc?

Fourth, the perception that the Bridge is not playing "fair", since they are not abiding by the original agreement between the clubs, and SSC is.

Fifth, the girls program at SSC has been on the wane for a number of years. Cause? who knows, but the Bridge hasn't helped matters there, and is a source of irritation for parents of SSC girls over u-11.

Having said all that, it is a little disturbing that the SSC Board would ask for a club-wide vote without a significant education effort. My hope is that rational LEADERS will heal this rift. The Bridge should be good for kids in the lowcountry; we just need to ensure that the "elite" program is seen as supporting all levels of youth soccer in the lowcountry. It currently is not seen that way.

What do the players think? We've had similar situations in Aiken with "elite" teams that have come and picked up some of our home-grown talent over the years. For those guys it worked out mostly, but I can see where problems arise.

>>[Rocket] Fifth, the girls program at SSC has been on the wane for a number of years. Cause? who knows, but the Bridge hasn't helped matters there, and is a source of irritation for parents of SSC girls over u-11.<<

Amen and good point. Over and over and over and over again in South Carolina it's been obvious that in most clubs the girls take a back seat.

GFC was an exception to that and I've been very pleased with CESA's focus on the girls side [note: I'm not criticizing SGU in this respect; I don't live in Greenville and my kid joined GFC because it tended to go out of its way to support players not from Greenville.] I was incredibly disappointed with Bridge initially on this; however, to be fair they seemed to do quite well at that tournament -- so maybe there is an increase in focus there. In Columbia, while I was never impressed with NECSA I thought that CSC had a good focus on the girls side with Heather Frederick, Chris Christian, and others coaching; I thought that it was a good initial sign that in the merged CUFC that the older girls age groups have Phil Savitz [a DOC], Chris Fryland [Lexington HS, A-licensed coach], and others coaching the elite teams over there.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're an optimist, it seems like Bridge, CUFC, and a few other clubs are doing a better job of getting their act together and putting the girls side of their program "in the front seat."

Rocket,

Keep in mind, I'm no longer affiliated with Bridge FA, but was.

You have brought up 5 different points.

Your first point concerning the "elite" being an issue when SSC fielded challenge teams is true. Expanding on your thought a little, also part of the issue was the issue of "non-Summerville" players on the challenge teams, which leads to a somewhat exclusive group. Trust me as someone that transferred into SSC, this exclusiveness issue is very large. There were many battles with the board about this aspect, and other areas suffered. So as long as Challenge level play was at SSC, it would be this way. I'm going to also go back to this one further down the page.

Point 2, I'll chalk that up mostly to an opinion with no right or wrong. I counter the what does SSC get out of it as being the start of demonstration of the exclusiveness, and further ego driven of a minority of people at the club. There are people that are still upset and holding a grudge because there was a particular team that was not allowed to play challenge last year. However, the loss of income, is just not correct. To fully understand you must understand the workings of the clubs finances. Let's deal with SSC Classic fees, since that's the player group that is "lost". There are 3 types of fees parents pay, registration, training fees, and team fees. Team fees are based on what tournaments your team goes to and does not go into the clubs finances. Training fees, are collected by the team manager and due to some recent board happenings, I'm not sure where they go. Suffice it to say those fees pay for only the coaches, nothing with club operations. So the registration fees are the only fees that go into the club. Out of your childs registration fees you have SCYSA registration, league registrations, and referee fees, and maybe some other fixed costs associated with actually playing. Money comes in, money goes out, no "income". Here's what people seem to forget, the money that is left after fixed costs for SSC or JIYSC players, goes back to the clubs.

Now, here's the current rub, and people are squalking about this field rental fee. There was a very complex spreadsheet that was developed to track this to the player level. Trying to get that through the SSC board proved too difficult. In an SSC board meeting it was agreed that the $7,000 (which is slightly above what the spreadsheet showed) was fair and reasonable to account for this registration money, but it's the field rental fee. But now, some of these same people are questioning it.

Third point, governance. There is a board of directors at Bridge FA, similar to SSC. In fact last year board members of Bridge FA, were also board members of SSC. It was structured this way so that it could be a process of evolution between the groups. Well there hasn't been much evolution, and now there are no dual board members, and now you have an SSC membership vote. Some of the board members are used to having people "wait them out", and you know I think that is some of what is going on here. To get back to your question, the Bridge FA board is elected from Bridge FA membership, and SSC and JIYSC still have seats, although non-voting. Much of this at one time was posted on the SSC web page. The Bridge FA web page had a significant amount of information about it also. Somewhere, the "evolutionary" nature has been lost and it's an us vs them, black and white document.

The fourth point. Perception is reality. Media spin is media spin. There were no surprises in any of this. It's easier to advance an agenda when people don't know and aren't told that. In your case, as is probably the case of many, you see it as not fair. I would too, if I didn't know that the items now being pushed out to the membership, weren't first discussed and understood with the full board. However, there's a couple that just can't seem to let it go.

Your fifth point. Well, I would argue that the Bridge has done a significant amount to help the SSC girls program. The entire time the SSC board was struggling with the competitive issue, they also had to attempt to account for the girls program. The solution that many felt was needed was a director specifically focused on the girls. Unfortunately the board didn't have the finances to do it. Bridge FA came and provided a solution that would allow SSC to shuffle finances and hire a separate girls director, which it did last year.

So from the SSC perspective, Bridge provided a different organization to deal with the challenge program, the ability to hire a girls director, don't lose any money, and all they have to do is work with them and allow them to rent the fields.

To me, doesn't match the picture some are painting.

Chico,
Also, Dick Hiller coaches the Columbia United U16 Elite. Dick has an NSCAA Premier license which is equivalent to the USSF A license. Joe Eberlin (U15 Girls Elite) and Adrian Pinasco (U14GE) have B licenses. So all of the Columbia United Girls Elite teams have coaches with B or higher credentials, while the boys Elite teams have 3 B and 3 C licensed coaches. A very similiar situation exists for the girls' Challenge coaches with 4 C's and 1 D while the boys Challenge coaches have 3 C and 3 D licenses. I'd say the emphasis on girls' teams at Columbia United is pretty good, at least when it comes to coaching assignments.

Columbia United FC Coaching Assignments

Coach P: Agreed...thanks for this [I don't have the intimate knowledge of CUFC to name the coaches -- so this is great -- thanks!] and just so that there's absolutely no confusion, I went back and highlighted the summary to the post in red. (Also, I wanted to use the col or feature of posting that I'd never used before!)

I am sorry Bear to hear you are out at BFA. I think BFA has helped soccer at SSC and in the area. I have a child at ssc and coach for ssc and I have no problems with Bridge It is tought right now with fields but that is only for a few more weeks. I hope both sides can work this out and move forward. I will attend the next meeting and express myself, I wanted to attend last meeting but could not make it due to family reasons. BFA needs to continue and I hope they do not have to move on to JI but that may be the case. How much would SSC lose out if BFA moved to JI and stayed away from SSC? Is this and option?

Bear - see PM

sdsoccermom - how are things on the other side of the US??