SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Cesa Voted Down?

What? Why go places with 150+ coaches? If you are that good in a state like South Carolina, you won't necessarily attract attention of D-I coaches. Remember, there are alot of better players then South Carolina's so-called best.

Wow, I guess I overestimated the aspirations of South Carolina players. They are much different then that of players from around the country but, then again, so is the level of play of team and players so your kind of South Carolina logic makes sense of why this state is where it is.

Coach Chass, you seem to understand the situation better (or are able to put it into words better) than most. You did a great job explaining, but there are many who will just never “get it.”

Shibumi, let me ask this question: if you were interviewing someone for a particular job, and you tell them exactly what you want them to do for what you are going to pay them, and they tell you “sure, we'll come in and do that, but oh, by the way, we'll only do it if you change a few other things, like, ummm, your name, and maybe a couple other things,” how do you respond? “Yeah, sure, I’m paying you to do one thing, but since you are the expert, you can do whatever else you feel necessary.” ???

SSC was attempting to hire these two to manage the club, i.e., hire a new DOC, handle day-to-day activities, etc.. They were not hiring them to “brand” the club, or bring new exposure to the club. They wanted them to MANAGE the club. How exactly does changing names and colors of a club help them run more smoothly and efficiently?

I don't even know what this whole thread is about...too long too read. But I think it's stupid not to attend the CASL tournament and whatever the name of that one in Atlanta used to be. CASL plays a lot at the SAS soccer park which is pretty nice (nearly comparable to Disney) but I'm sure they can't schedule every game there with the huge tournament they have. Who cares how good the fields are? CESA should be up there regardless because of the good competition and college recruiting. It's not the shortest drive but it's a good fit for the CESA club.

And with reference to the amount of college players each club places...I'm sure CESA has more overall but they also have for players in general. A ratio would be a better indicator of which club does the best.

Shibumi, to put this another way, while you say “Asking Tormey, Hyslop, and Fleming to do your bidding after you've rejected their terms…” makes it sound like Tormey and Hyslop offered a service and gave their terms, and SSC said “We want your help, but not like you want to do it.”

I believe SSC approached them and asked for their help in managing the club, NOT “We want your help managing the club, and doing anything else you see fit.” JUST “We want your help managing the club.” And then the two of them come back with, “We’ll help manage the club, but only if you change your name and change your colors.”

Do those two sound anything alike? Why is it necessary for them to make name and color changes in order to manage the club? It’s not. They have their own reasons for wanting to change the other stuff, and maybe, just maybe, the SSC parents recognized that they would be getting more than they would be paying for (and I don’t necessarily mean that in a good way). I can definitely see where they might be suspicious. The board at SSC is telling the membership it’s all about managing the club, while the actions of the “new management” “says” something completely different.

Marco Aurelio, I don’t believe the Hammer was slamming Spurrier and Bowden for not having “licenses,” but questioning what having a particular “license” means, and inferring that no one ever asks what kind of license THEY have (because it’s not important – like you say, “the old ball coach has a national championship under his belt...”)

There have been threads on this board about coach licensing plenty of times before. Being in possession of an “A” or “B” license does not guarantee that a person is or will be a great coach. And, not having that same license does not guarantee you won’t be a great coach. There are plenty of terrible A-licensed coaches, and also plenty of awesome coaches who have no license.

Hammer, I’m not sure what you mean by “simply on an awarded basis,” but if you will do a little research into the licensing process, you will realize that there is nothing “simple” about it. Anybody who has earned an “A” license has worked VERY hard to get to that level. Again, it’s not a guarantee, but something else to consider when evaluating a coach.

Just curious, what was the level license this coach had who left a bad taste in your mouth? Again, if you do your research, you should realize that people who were “former college players that have played at a high level” SHOULD be “grandfathered” in as an “E” level coach and possibly even a “D.” My teenage child would have no trouble getting an “E” license. “D” level is a LOT more work, but a fairly intelligent former college player should probably be able to take a verbal test to show his/her competence for gaining it without going through the entire course.

>>[Belligerant] Shibumi, let me ask this question: if you were interviewing someone for a particular job, and you tell them exactly what you want them to do for what you are going to pay them, and they tell you “sure, we'll come in and do that, but oh, by the way, we'll only do it if you change a few other things, like, ummm, your name, and maybe a couple other things,” how do you respond? “Yeah, sure, I’m paying you to do one thing, but since you are the expert, you can do whatever else you feel necessary.” ???<<

First, what would I do? I'd ask the person being hired in why it is that they felt it was necessary to make those changes in order to accomplish what they were being hired to do. If they convinced me, I'd change the name. If they didn't convince me, I'd tell them so and wish them good luck and go on to my next candidate.

Now, what would I not do? I wouldn't tell them "no" and then sit around complaining that they wouldn't do the work anyway.

If you read what I've written, I have no issue with Summerville keeping their name, color, doing daddy-ball, or whatever -- I just have a problem with those getting on and complaining that people are going to "walk away" from SSC. The two parties couldn't agree on terms. Let's move on.

Clear enough?

>>[Belligerant] Shibumi, to put this another way, while you say “Asking Tormey, Hyslop, and Fleming to do your bidding after you've rejected their terms…” makes it sound like Tormey and Hyslop offered a service and gave their terms, and SSC said “We want your help, but not like you want to do it.” <<

Okay...you're hitting on something now...because I perceive this to be the case.

>>I believe SSC approached them and asked for their help in managing the club, NOT “We want your help managing the club, and doing anything else you see fit.” JUST “We want your help managing the club.” And then the two of them come back with, “We’ll help manage the club, but only if you change your name and change your colors.”<<

Okay...since I agree that I perceive that this is also what occurred, I'm getting confused... More on this in the next paragraph.

>>Do those two sound anything alike?<<

Why yes, they do. The only difference I can see is that in the first case you're hypothesizing that SSC came in and foresaw what the price would be and offered (or did not) offer it -- and in the second case SSC came in and said what they wanted and Tormey/Hyslop named a price that the board found acceptable but that a super-minority did not.

I don't think anyone acted in bad faith; I just think that SSC wanted certain services, Tormey/Hyslop named a price (I'm including not just money but name/color/bylaw/etc. changes), and a super-minority decided the price wasn't acceptable. So far, everyone is doing okay.

The only problem I had was the whining by people who didn't vote for it now complaining that Tormey/Hyslop wouldn't do their bidding.

>>Why is it necessary for them to make name and color changes in order to manage the club? It’s not. They have their own reasons for wanting to change the other stuff, and maybe, just maybe, the SSC parents recognized that they would be getting more than they would be paying for (and I don’t necessarily mean that in a good way). I can definitely see where they might be suspicious.<<

Belligerant -- saying "it's not" is not exactly the height of reasoning. I've speculated why it is that they might have wanted this -- those things appear to me to be reasonable (note: not that others should agree with them -- just that they are a rational position.) You're stating that basically the price is too high. I accept the fact that SSC might value the name and color over the services it wanted. In my mind it wouldn't be a rational decision; but even if people chose colors over their children getting the best services I can at least understand it as an emotional decision.

But it's time for SSC to "man-up" and deal with the consequences of its decision rather than whining that the people whose terms you rejected won't do what you want.

>>The board at SSC is telling the membership it’s all about managing the club, while the actions of the “new management” “says” something completely different. <<

Actually, the more I hear about this the more I wonder if the board was actually operating in good faith. I wonder if the board wasn't talking out of both sides of its mouth. But I don't have any evidence of that -- I just wonder -- given what I read.

Absence any evidence, I here's what I think. SSC wanted help and asked Tormey/Hyslop to provide a service. Tormey/Hyslop partially named as a price the changing of the name and colors and more importantly decided to operate it as a professional club (no daddy-ball). A super-minority rejected it.

That's all okay. My point since the beginning of this is that SSC just needs to stop whining about people not helping them and live with the consequences of their decision, i.e., help themselves and don't expect those whose terms they rejected to continue to help.

Look -- if Fleming/Hyslop/Tormey decide to continue to help -- I'm even fine with that. They'll make a decision based on their own reasons. I just find it childish to expect them to work for terms with which they didn't agree.

Belligerant -- what am I missing?

Shibumi, if you’re saying that “The only problem I had was the whining by people who didn't vote for it now complaining that Tormey/Hyslop wouldn't do their bidding,” then I don’t think we disagree.

But, I don’t see all that whining by SSC people that you mention. I see a lot of people slamming the SSC membership for voting one way or the other, I see a lot of people heralding the mighty CESA and calling the SSC voters lots of names, I see a lot of people asking why we (the lowcountry) can’t all just get along, but I don’t see a bunch of whining.

Again, from the outside looking in, it comes down to a question (which I can't answer) of whether SSC approached Hyslop and Tormey in the capacity of having proven business professionals take on the job of guiding and managing Summerville Soccer Club and helping them adopt the "CESA model," or whether the intent was for SSC to actually become a part (annex? territory? colony?) of CESA and be controlled by CESA. There is a pretty large difference between these options, and there seems to be a good deal of confusion about which of these scenarios was supposed to happen. I get the sense that many of the SSC folks were expecting Option A, while the CESA folks were expecting Option B, which would explain the uniform change and "rebranding."

Something tells me when cultures out on the fringes started trading with the East India Trading Company on the promise of heretofore unseen goods, services, and quality of life, they really didn't think they were volunteering to become a part of the British Empire either, but a few trading posts and platoons of soldiers later, they were wondering exactly how they suddenly came under British rule of law. As history tells it, the benevolent practice of "bringing light into the dark places of the world" tended to work out more to the benefit of the light-bringers than it did for the newly enlightened.

Now, I'm not drawing a direct comparison between the two entities...I'm just saying it's understandable if people think they have reason to get straight answers before handing over control to folks who are known for a "successful business model." Once a bit of control is given up, it opens a door for more, so I think people are wise to ask for answers to ALL of their questions before handing over the keys to the kingdom.