Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14
#105929 05/29/08 01:08 AM
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
G
Griff16 Offline OP
throw in
OP Offline
throw in
G
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 80
Is it true that the general membership voted Cesa out of SSC? What does this mean and what now?

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
O
throw in
Offline
throw in
O
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
The Bylaws and Constitution changes failed to obtain a 2/3 supermajority vote of the SSC members present by six votes.

Several ironies:

1) The Bylaws changes (governing issues) would have likely passed with 90%+ of the vote. The SSC Board forced an up or down vote on ALL changes which means SSC will continue to be governed by an unwieldy 13 member board despite the fact that the vast vast majority of members wanted to streamline club government.

2.) The Constitution changes (name and colors) would have very likely passed if CESA would have compromised on the proposed color change as it did compromise on the proposed name change. CESA-Summerville retaining blue over red would have won. CESA would not bend on the color red for marketing reasons (i.e., "branding").

3.) When the meeting started, more than 2/3 of the members present appeared to support the changes. I myself was leaning in the direction of voting yes despite misgivings about the Board forcing an up or down vote on all the changes. Then, a few folks asked some very pertinent questions that the Board members clearly had not contemplated. When the Board members looked startled and even a bit confused, Andrew Hyslop decided to start talking. Several members told me after the vote that it was Hyslop's condescending tone that actually caused them to change their mind to a "no" vote.

Notwithstanding the clumsy, ham-handedness of the whole process (and the heavy-handedness of forcing one up or down vote), all of the changes would have very very likely passed if someone else from CESA (Pearse Tormey or Andrew Fleming) had been the voice and face of CESA at the meeting. Suffice to say that Hyslop is no diplomat.

One of the things the Board revealed at the meeting is that CESA can back out of the 3 year management contract for any reason on 72 hours notice. If Tormey and Hyslop want to stay, the can run SSC for 3 years absent malfeasance or insubordination. If they want to pull up stakes, they can do it this weekend.

Last edited by oldskoolpinewood; 05/29/08 02:11 AM.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
C
hat-trick
Offline
hat-trick
C
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
closer outcome than I thought it would be

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
O
throw in
Offline
throw in
O
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
As I said, it could have passed with just an inch of compromise and an ounce of diplomacy.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
C
hat-trick
Offline
hat-trick
C
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
Did anybody volunteer for one of the thirteen board positions? Let me guess...no

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
O
throw in
Offline
throw in
O
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
Quote:

Did anybody volunteer for one of the thirteen board positions? Let me guess...no




I think they had at least one new volunteer come forward and should have several members (including at least one absent from the meeting) come forward in the coming days. The more salient point is that anyone with any experience in business knows that a 13 member board is unnecessary if not counterproductive. A corporate board (whether for-profit or non) should set policy, donate (or raise) substantial sums of money, hire an administrator in which it has confidence and then GET OUT OF THE WAY. The idea that you should have volunteer board members in charge of day to day operations is patently absurd. The Bylaws addressing these governance issues are hopelessly outdated and needed changes would have easily passed if the membership had been given the opportunity to vote on them separately.

As I understand it, the entire SSC budget is less than 250k and registration and tryout/training fees make up a whopping 90% of the revenue stream. Only 3% of revenue comes from sponsorships and another 4% from tournaments/field rentals. That is not a model for long-term viability.

The management contract with CESA is one attempt to modernize the club. The Bylaws changes are necessary with or without CESA. The Constitution changes were unneccesary "hot-button" issues pushed by CESA for fuzzy-headed "branding" reasons. With or without CESA, SSC needs to make the bylaws changes to streamline governance of the club and it needs to dramatically improve and modernize its revenue stream to allow it to hire a capable administrator and D.O.C. With those changes in place, a bright enterprising young soccer person with the talent of a Andrew Fleming or maybe a SSC alum like a Will Plexico could cut CESA out of the loop and make a very nice living in Summerville.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
C
hat-trick
Offline
hat-trick
C
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
Maybe he likes working for CESA..Maybe the name alone would bring successful tournaments intead of cancellations due to lack of interest..Maybe SSC teams would get into some of those tournaments that they get turned away from..I believe only 129 members showed up and the vote was decided by six votes..If the room was full of newer members then there is a trend that change is going to come sooner or later..It's just the way things are today..New members are not going to be interested in SSC's history.They will want more for their money and make some history of their own..A third of the membership voted and things will move on from here..As long as people voted..that's all you can ask for

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
O
throw in
Offline
throw in
O
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
Quote:

..I believe only 129 members showed up and the vote was decided by six votes..If the room was full of newer members then there is a trend that change is going to come sooner or later..It's just the way things are today..New members are not going to be interested in SSC's history.They will want more for their money and make some history of their own..A third of the membership voted and things will move on from here..As long as people voted..that's all you can ask for




I suspect you and I agree on more than we disagree. I imagine 129 members is a lot for a SSC membership meeting. I cannot say for sure because I had never been to one. Here's the thing: I was never notified of a membership meeting before this one. I re-joined SSC after I moved back to Summerville in 2000. I have two children who have graduated out of micro. One has now graduated from rec. In years passed, I coached 4 seasons at SSC (2 as an assistant, 2 as an hc). I have never before been notified of a membership meeting, I have never been asked for any input of any kind, I have never been asked for so much as a $100.00 contribution to SSC.

Parents on SSC teams I have coached have included lawyers, doctors, financial advisors, bankers, CPAs, CEOs of manufacturing companies, major building contractors, etc. etc. To my knowledge, none of these parents have been asked by SSC to contribute in anyway except to pay registration fees, pay training fees, and either volunteer in the concession stand or pay $50.00 to avoid being scheduled to work in the concession stand (Pretty sure they all paid the $50.00 - who wouldn't?). The all-hands-on-deck parent volunteer approach served SSC well when I was first a member in the 1980s. Times have changed. Its long passed time to modernize club governance and revenue stream. The management contract with CESA was an initial attempt to do just that. The CESA folks can always honor the contract, go back to work full steam in the morning and re-submit their "branding" proposals again in December or next year. Or they can walk away from their contractual obligations over six votes and red jerseys. Regardless of the choices of two people in Greenville, SSC will prosper if it streamlines governance and improves and modernizes its revenue stream to hire full-time, on-site personnel to administer its programs and directs its coaches.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
O
throw in
Offline
throw in
O
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
Quote:

Maybe he likes working for CESA..




I am sure Mr. Fleming very much likes working for CESA. CESA is by all accounts a fine organization that serves Greenville well. Fleming is bright, energetic, and talented. More importantly, Fleming is not a sap. If CESA were to walk away from SSC and SSC were to offer Fleming every dime he would have made as DOC of CESA-Summerville plus 50% of the money that would have gone to Tormey and Hyslop as "consulting fees", Andrew Fleming (like anyone else in their right mind)is on board running day to day operations at SSC. It doesn't matter how much he may like working for CESA, he is not a sap. If CESA were to pony up more money to keep Fleming, SSC could hire a young energetic SSC alum like Will Plexico who happens to be a current CESA-Columbia coach.

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
S
coach
Offline
coach
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
>>Or they can walk away from their contractual obligations over six votes and red jerseys.<<

This is fascinating. There are "contractual obligations" that will be "walked away from"?

Despite all of the rhetoric, isn't this a situation in which SSC asked TH (Tormey/Hyslop) for help, TH set conditions and SSC decided it didn't like those conditions. Now TH can certainly "walk away" from SSC because SSC failed to meet those conditions, but there are no "contractual obligations" anyone is walking away from -- there is simply a failure by two parties to reach terms.

It's obvious that you see TH and even Flemming as relative "cogs" in the sense that if they walk, then you just get others to do the job. While I may strongly disagree that this is the way you successfully operate this business, I respect your beliefs that you can get go out and get a young energetic person to achieve all of your goals. It's clear that while most of those present at this SSC meeting don't believe in the philosophy of what you're saying, enough do so that the potential deal has been scuttled.

So I'm hoping that TH and Flemming do "walk away" cleanly from this. SSC has voted and needs to move on in a direction that you (and others) believe to be a better one for the club -- one that honors the rich history of SSC in terms of its name and colors. I understand that there may be hope that TH (and Fleming) may decided to work for less than the terms they set forth. I quite often hope that my doctor will come to my house for appointments and work for half his rate -- but I of course understand and respect the fact that if I don't follow his terms I can't expect to get treated -- likewise I'd hope that the folks at SSC would understand that if they didn't decide to abide by the terms set forth, that those who set those terms are under no conceivable obligation to continue to provide services.

The only folks I feel even a little sorry for are the kids that will not get better services because there were people who prioritized those behind honoring this rich history. But this is the reason I always say competition is good -- because Bridge is out there (as are other clubs.) Heck -- SSC might be able to by itself turn on a dime and by itself change the downward direction of the club and by itself offer these superior services. I sincerely hope that it does. It's now time for all of the folks at SSC who agree with you to in addition to typing on message boards also spend the thousands and thousands of hours it's going to take to make this happen -- not just in terms of the fun things but in terms of the grinding day-to-day labor associated with marketing, fundraising, tournament organization, and the countless other things that so few clubs ever do well. I sincerely wish you the best in this endeavor.

Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 13 14

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.126s Queries: 35 (0.030s) Memory: 3.2131 MB (Peak: 3.5872 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 00:34:48 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS