|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,147
brace
|
brace
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,147 |
im sorry oldpdiddy but i thought somewhere in your post you made light to being bored of looking at union troops and yall started a bloody 4 year war for no reason.i assumed that meant someone in summerville.i must of been mistaken.you must of did a bad job because them yanks are still here.
you are right that cesa may of not worked but it seems the summerville way is not working or you would not be at this point.
i work for shaw industries.when they buy out something they may or may not leave managment in place but no matter who is left in charge you start doing it the shaw way.
maybe that is why warren buffet has billions.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 158
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 158 |
So, if CESA were to let Summerville keep its colors, and simply add a "CESA" before SSC would that solve the whole thing? Maybe CESA should suck it up and let the colonies have their own colors. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Or is there more to it??
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 558
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 558 |
Quote:
i work for shaw industries.when they buy out something they may or may not leave managment in place but no matter who is left in charge you start doing it the shaw way.
maybe that is why warren buffet has billions.
I guess I missed something here. Did CESA make an offer to "buy out" SSC? If so, I understand your point. However, if SSC approached CESA seeking management support services then SSC would be the customer in the relationship. Given a vendor/customer relationship I might expect SSC to be just as hesitant of accepting a CESA "branding" as a customer of Shaw Industries would be of changing its letterhead to include the Shaw logo just because it is a customer.
Couple of notes to unrelated posts... I've never known anything of Jedburg that would justify changing "Jed" to "Jet", all cadets are not and were not Charlestonians, and Summerville was already incorporated before any shelling of Charleston began... at least before the shelling referred to.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
LaGrazie: My guess is that there's more to it. Traditionally, trying to move from a typical soccer club model to a professional model tends to have the most problems around issues such as parents wanting to coach their own children, parents wanting more control over coaching selection (vetoing certain coaches who might have cut their child in the past, etc.), parents wanting more control over tournaments attended, parents/coaches wanting to train less than is required at the higher levels of a professional club (twice a week versus three times a week or more), etc. As in the normal corporate world, issues associated with corporate-level branding are typically symptomatic of a deeper root cause -- the desire for the existing culture to stay the same and yet somehow magically the results to differ.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,147
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,147 |
Quote:
Quote:
i work for shaw industries.when they buy out something they may or may not leave managment in place but no matter who is left in charge you start doing it the shaw way.
maybe that is why warren buffet has billions.
I guess I missed something here. Did CESA make an offer to "buy out" SSC? If so, I understand your point. However, if SSC approached CESA seeking management support services then SSC would be the customer in the relationship. Given a vendor/customer relationship I might expect SSC to be just as hesitant of accepting a CESA "branding" as a customer of Shaw Industries would be of changing its letterhead to include the Shaw logo just because it is a customer.
Couple of notes to unrelated posts... I've never known anything of Jedburg that would justify changing "Jed" to "Jet", all cadets are not and were not Charlestonians, and Summerville was already incorporated before any shelling of Charleston began... at least before the shelling referred to.
deltadog my shaw reference was made in response to the statment that why not let cesa take over at ssc but basically leave the constitution in place for a year.there are only a few occasions where i have seen shaw take over a company and not give it the shaw name.(branding as you call it)on those few occasions the reason for letting those companys keep their name was because they were good enough to stand on their own.seems ssc is starting to have a problem on doing that or they would not of seeked out cesa.do you really think that ssc was looking for managment support.it seems some at ssc wanted a buy out.
as far as jedburg or jetburg i do not know.i do not send my brother any letters since we have cell phones these days but thanks for pointing it out.
you will have to get with oldpinedudet on the civil war history lesson.i really do not care who was the correct idiot that started the war.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Marcus Aurelius] do you really think that ssc was looking for managment support.it seems some at ssc wanted a buy out.<<
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." [Shakespeare]
"You can't have your cake and eat it to." [My Mom]
You've hit the nail on the head. The human condition is to want something without paying the price necessary to obtain it.
P.S. [Holy freakin' cow -- I really like your new screen name.]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Sounds to me like CESA wanted to change the dress code to business attire, while the folks in Summerville ultimately decided to remain business casual. 
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Hurst66: Close, but not my assessment. To use your analogy.
SSC decides it wants to gain more revenue by being more professional. SSC hires some folks to help them achieve that. These specialists tell them that they need to fundamentally change the way they do business -- and also dress in a manner that reflects the change.
SSC puts it to a vote and fails to gain a super-majority. SSC members voting against it immediately want the specialists to keep working there despite failing to meet the minimum conditions laid for by those specialists -- and lay the defeat of the board at the feet of the specialists who they say should be more ready to compromise (or at least lie better about compromising.)
I think folks should reap what they sow.
P.S. All of this analogy loses the essential reality of the situation and gives it more dignity than it deserves...I think it's more accurate to bellow out "I wanna coach my own kid...I don't want that jerk over there coachin' my kid...I don't wanna go to that stoopid tourney...but I still want ya' to come and work here with us I jus want you to do things the way I want 'em done" and it gets more at the heart of the matter. Of course I could be wrong -- there could have been a core of people who decided that the most important thing about a club providing services to their children was what color they wore and what the name was...but it doesn't pass the "smell" test.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404 |
From reading your posts on this subject (and on CESA in general), it seems to me that there is really no secret to what CESA (or Tormey/Hyslop, to the extent there's a distinction in this context), would bring to SSC. The "CESA way" isn't mysterious and it isn't like they've mastered cold fusion or invented a perpetual motion machine. If I have it right, what they would bring to SSC is a more professional structure, characterized by a couple of particular elements:
1. Soccer program is run from the top - by employee directors who eliminate or minimize unwanted and counterproductive parental interference.
2. Training improvements based on better coaches conducting more frequent and more productive sessions, modeled after the CESA-Greenville methods.
3?
Additionally, I suppose part of what they would bring is the reputation for success that they have earned in G'ville, with the presumed attendant allure to SSC players who might have drifted elsewhere and might return "home."
If SSC's membership understands what it would be getting with the "CESA way," and wants that, how difficult would it be to replicate on its own?
As I type this it occurs to me that the fundamental question I'm asking can be distilled to: How important are the CESA brand and the involvement of Tormey and Hyslop to SSC's attaining its presumed goals?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 51 |
Quote:
Quote:
i work for shaw industries.when they buy out something they may or may not leave managment in place but no matter who is left in charge you start doing it the shaw way.
maybe that is why warren buffet has billions.
I guess I missed something here. Did CESA make an offer to "buy out" SSC? If so, I understand your point. However, if SSC approached CESA seeking management support services then SSC would be the customer in the relationship. Given a vendor/customer relationship I might expect SSC to be just as hesitant of accepting a CESA "branding" as a customer of Shaw Industries would be of changing its letterhead to include the Shaw logo just because it is a customer.
You missed nothing, Delta Dog. You have it right.
CESA was never invited to "buy out" SSC. No merger between CESA and SSC was ever proposed. First, SCYSA would never recognize a merger between CESA and SSC. Second, a number of legal issues (to include the long-term property lease with Dorchester County) prevent anyone but SSC from governing the youth soccer club operating at the SSC fields.
SSC was in the process of hiring a DOC when Messrs. Hyslop and Tormey proposed a management contract whereby the two of them would be responsible for day-to-day operations at the club (to include placing and managing a DOC) under the direction of SSC. A 3 year management contract was negotiated and entered into. As part of the contract, Hyslop and Tormey wanted to be able to place the CESA "brand" on SSC teams. This proposed "brand-name change" required a 2/3 vote to change the SSC Constitution. 81 SSC members approved the changes, 48 did not. The vote failed by 6 votes.
Apparently, the management contract allows Hyslop and Tormey to walk away with 72 hours notice. Speculation is that they may exercise that option at this time because "only" 62.8% of SSC members approved their request to use the CESA brand. The irony is that if Hyslop and Tormey do walk away their actions will reinforce the argument that a Constitution change was too drastic for a 3 year management agreement. If Hyslop and Tormey didn't re-up after 3 years or opted out at some point during the 3 years (or if SSC terminated the agreement for whatever reason), then another Constitution change would be required. All over a d/b/a name and a jersey color.
Regardless of where any SSC member comes down on Hyslop, Tormey, CESA, or red jerseys, there was never an invitation for CESA to "buy out" SSC nor was there ever an attempt to "merge" SSC with CESA. There was an attempt to hire Hyslop and Tormey as club managers and it appeared for a time that attempt was successful. At most, it could be argued that Hyslop and Tormey wanted to be hired as managers at SSC only if they could utilize a brand-name that might lead people to believe there was somehow a buy-out or merger. Again, this controversy is and was always about marketing and not about soccer.
|
|
|
|
