SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Any updates from SCYSA weekend in Columbia?

202677 - You said it well!!!

I'm not sure this was the fault of the entire board. Appears to be a "conspiracy" of a select few behaving unethically.

Illegal? Probably not. Unethical - absolutely!!

Great example for our youth to follow!!!!!

My heads spinning trying to follow all of this and it is indeed an odd series of events. Anyway a few titbits from the President's meeting on Saturday that included the 'Presidential vote' and was due to conclude at 2pm on 7th.

Prior to Prez' meeting, there was a little excitement regarding the re-election of Coastal Commissioner as special meeting was called to vote on this role with very short notice. Objections were raised and noted for the record on this process. The truth is this was a necessary event since quorom wasn't established at our earlier coastal meeting in April where we should have voted on this (I find it very sad our district presidents failed to show in numbers earlier in the summer). All a moot point really as we didn't have more than one candidate at either the original annual coastal meeting or special meeting anyway. Incumbent running again; gets the nod.

Other than that, meeting went much as last year with mainly administrative updates. There was a lively debate about insurance coverage (lack of) for unaffiliated play, and why the somewhat restrictive nature assigned to affiliated. Of course the two sides stated their cases: risk exposure vs. playing opportunity, but in my mind the issue is a much larger one. Frankly I'm not so worried about whether one of our teams can freely play a US Club squad from neighboring state or a High School JV team from Goose Creek in a scrimmage. I can see where affiliated play serves a business function for SCYSA to limit these types of activities and I have no idea whether that has any bearing on the current standard on 'affiliation' (and by association insurance) but accept this as a viable argument. What I do know is that 'kids will be kids', and 'coaches will be enthusiastic' so I see a real danger (risk exposure) where registered teams and players get together for a (self directed) scrimmage with rec team or group of kids NOT registered under SCYSA or anyone else for that matter. In this case, play is 'unaffiliated' and we are at risk (and could happen today). Club administration can not watch everyone 100% of the time so I favor any move or change to increase coverage and cover to protect all play for our players/teams/volunteers/clubs. Of course I say that without looking at what that means to rates and is why at minimum we should investigate further before ruling in or out.

I will say that I would rather pay extra for this than pad coffers in bank for future SCYSA owned/operated fields. During Treasurer report, I questioned fund reserves (as they seemed high for a nonprofit) and these are for future field development? I have a tough time in accepting that these are necessary (in Columbia or anywhere else for that matter) but I suspect I am in the minority. Fees are being paid, and money raised on behalf of youth soccer throughout the state, at every age group, and at every level and I just don't see the benefit to little Susie, aged 4 joining our club to have some fun, play sharks and minnows, and get some fresh air. If we need more fields, I would argue that they are on the grass roots/local level and this money could be directed to outfits like Walterboro for example that just managed to fund their own through hard work and passion. Well done Matt Hooker from WSC on his well deserved Parent of the Year award for his tireless efforts (with friends) building a large soccer complex in Colleton Couty.

Heavens, the EPL or MLS doesn't even own its own fields to my knowledge, and there seems to be plenty around that could host the championships we have in place today. If congestion is the issue in central district, see my other post about pushing lower level classic back to districts. Easy. Problem solved and frees up about 350K to spend on services directed at increasing availability and quality of soccer to everyone. Another idea would be to play group and round matches at local clubs (home or neutral team) and only host the final at a prestige arena like College or Professional Stadium and pay a reasonable fee to host the championship game (Think FA Cup). To be clear, I'm not saying we don't need more soccer fields, we do. I would just rather see them distributed throughout the state, managed locally, and available to as many kids as possible at every level.

Anyway that is all I've got for you from the weekend (and my color/bias added).

I can't speak for the SCYSA board meeting that followed the Presidents Meeting as I was long gone, so you'll just have to wait for the official minutes I guess for that insight.

Do the bylaws provide for any sort of recall?

Seems like the ethical thing to do would be for the board to request that the midstate hold a "special" election and let the clubs decide who they want to be the commissioner and represent them on the board. If they elect Fred than everything is above board. Seems like Fred would want to do this to remove the dark clouds that are hanging over his head.

Cainhoy,

Your summary of the meeting brings back memories. Essentially, same leadership, same "lively discussion" points. Not too hard to see a connection there.

KCM,

Until Fred cares about something/someone other than Fred, he will not be able to remove the dark clouds that follow him by his actions.

202677,

The only thing that is keeping the clubs from going somewhere else is the clubs, when they have to consider difference in services, competition requirements/benefits, regional/national competitions, and the increased costs associated with it. Several clubs in the state dual register their players, (or used to anyway), SCYS and US Club. Also makes the insurance pretty much a moot point, if you can get past the increased operating costs that are necessary to do it. If I remember correctly, it was about an additional $15 per player, that you actually registered.

why would the scysa bylaws allow for an "end around" like this? most boards have term limits to prevent "lifers" for hanging around forever. to be dynamic/progressive boards can't have members hanging out too long. schsl probably has the same situation.

A couple of things:

Insurance:

Cainhoy, that has been a hot topic for a very long time. US Club especially gets very pissy about the rule and has taken it to US Soccer on several occasions. The problem is not in SCYSA, but in the insurance company. Insurance companies like to know there risks before they right a policy and the only way they can know their risks, is if they insure everyone on the field. They are the ones that require the risk management papers and documentation, because they want to have a little control over what risks are being taken with the people they are insuring. When you add in another unknown group then you add in an unknown risk that the insurance can not control. Now the coach is being allow to control the risk for the insurance company and not the insurance company. And while I doubt you would ever expose your team to any risks, there are some overly enthusiastic coaches that would. SCYSA does give the option of a club to purchase their own insurance for the games that the SCYSA insurance will not cover but most clubs find it to be a hassle and just do not bother. You could also get parents to sign a waiver for those games if you feel it is a must play game. You can also check with the President of SCYSA but I believe if both teams are covered by insurance then you may be okay, the key word being "may". SCYSA likes to error on the side of the kids protection.


Money:

SCYSA runs a break even or loss on the registration of players each year and ODP. They make some of their money on sponsorships, leagues, and the state tournaments. That 350k has been being stocked piled over a lot of years. That is not a one or two year profit. That is 10-15 years of working to save every cent they can. A long time a long SCYSA almost went belly up because of piss poor money management. Some of the older ones like Bob and Fred where elected to at the time to clean up the financial mess that was left for them. So they are very cautious about just throwing money around, sometimes I personally think a little too cautious. But then would I rather have people in charge that are too cautious or bankrupting things.

The field issue has been a problem for a long time. Nothing like having a coastal team and a CESA team meet in Columbia on a CUFC field to cause conflicts. Especially when you have a year like a few years ago when CESA and CUFC where pissing all over each other. Including trying to ban each other from using their fields if they wheren't playing each other. You can not leave it to the clubs to work out, trust me. So that was when SCYS decided it was time to look into purchase land for fields, so that SCYS can try and stay out of the crossfire between the clubs. Also the clubs have been less willing to hold the state cups and had tried using it as leverage against SCYS. There was a coastal club that was suppose to hold the cup and they elected a new board and the new board presient did not like the SCYS president. So the coastal club waited to the last second and tried to cancel the cup to screw SCYS and the entire state. Luckly, there was another coastal club that stepped in and everything worked out. There is a lot of history to why things are the way they are.

Board members:

Fred is a good guy and good for the board. He is very black and white on the issues and I can assure you that he knows those by-laws by chapter and verse. He does not allow emotion to effect his vote or decisions. I have seen him hate voting a certain way on emotion but still vote the other way because that was the way the rules where written. And then turn around and help get the rule changed so that it made sense for the members. He knows a lot of the history of the club and why rules where put into place. I have thought a rule was stupid and then have Fred explain to me why it was there and the person that caused the rule to be put into place. He is like me in that he can come across arrogant but like me it is because he is just a smart a$$ at heart. And that humor while funny doesn't always come across very well when people are angry at you. Fred is an asset to the board.

Board:

I keep seeing this statement about the same old board members. Maybe my count is wrong but I think there are on three truly old ones left. There has been an almost complete turn over on the board in members and positions. If you are complaining, then run for a seat. As Cainhoy pointed out, they had one person for the Coastal District commissioner to run and most districts do not have a vice commissioner. I run my mouth a lot but I at least ran and served of the board for several years.

Well, from my interactions with Mr. Pringles, you have one thing correct, "Fred is an ass ..." - no need to finish that sentence. Thanks for your insight but a refresher in English and syntax might be appropriate!