SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Disgruntled..something to chew on

I was reading the President's meeting that took place on Jan.9th on the scys website.One of the topics that fell under rules..
1.Adhere to the present rule which requires new clubs must have a minimum of 100 players to form a club..otherwise new clubs will continue to form with disgruntled parents and coaches and just a few players being recruited from existing clubs..
Who decides who is disgruntled and who is not?

If you are the disgruntled owner of a Toyota, shouldn't you have the option of purchasing a vehicle from another automobile company?

Thank you!!
I live in an area where there are five or six clubs within a 30 mile radius but there are probably only two clubs that field teams in my child's age group..
I am not crazy about having alot of clubs with only a limited amount of members but I also don't want soccer to become monopolized where my child has no choice in where she plays..
Again who gets to decide who is disgruntled?
Maybe it's an issue for some that have no choice because the closest club is an hour away..If my child decided to play somewhere else next season..Does that make her disgruntled?

It is probably rooted in "good intentions", but there is a reason the smaller "clubs" pop up; travel distance, players/parents feel jilted by not making the big club's elite team, do not feel the coaching is up to snuff, etceteras, etceteras. Many of these are the same regardless of club size.

The smaller clubs will still exist as they just pay a bigger club to register their players/teams and then they will handle uniforms, coaches, bonds, and the rest. Just do not have a "home" field to play league games. Bigger clubs make a tidy sum for just registering and the smaller clubs still have their teams, logos, and independence.

CHT... I'm trying unsuccessfully to find the SCYSA meeting minutes to which you're referring. Can you provide a link?

My understanding was that clubs of less than 100 can register with SCYSA, but it required a vote of the Board for annual provisional status. And, as a club of less than 100 the club would not get a vote. From page 111 of the 2009 SCYSA Admin Handbook found at the SCYSA website...

--------------------------------------
"(3) A "Club" is an organization that is a member of SC Youth Soccer and that has an identifiable membership of at
least one hundred (100) youth soccer players within a territory determined by the SC Youth Soccer Board of Directors.
This organization is in place to carry out SC Youth Soccer’s programs for youth players. Groups seeking membership in SC Youth Soccer and fulfilling all other requirements for same but having fewer than one hundred (100) youth players may be granted annual provisional status for a seasonal year by a majority vote of the Board of Directors but will not be eligible to vote at any annual general meeting until such a time as its player membership equals at least one hundred (100) players."
--------------------------------------

What you seem to have found sounds like an effort to block registration of clubs of less than 100 players even though the administration manual includes provisions for those smaller clubs.

HA, found it. Right there on the front page.

Well, the current rules provide an opportunity for registration of clubs of less than 100 players... but it requires a Board vote. So, who would want to influence a Board vote away from allowing registration of a new club?

On another note (maybe?), the meeting didn't seem to have a very strong attendance by member organizations. I see only 6 clubs were represented by attendees... CASA, CESA, CFC, CUFC, MPSC and CSSC.

Good successful companies welcome the competition...it makes them stronger. Paranoid companies stifle the competition.

Glad you guys picked up on this comment on SCYSA website. Rest assured I did and sent in a comment questioning said remarks instantly. Clearly touched a nerve having opened a new club in 2009 (actually incorporated in 2008)

I was pleased with the way SCYSA handled our application and the welcome we got. They (or we) did not know how many kids we would register and allowed the provisional status. In the end we topped 110 in our first season and will probably reach 150 in the spring. Without that ability to grant provisional entry, I can think of at least 50 kids who would not be kicking a ball in the spring. Shame on whoever uttered that comment or as DeltaDog puts it...
"who would want to influence a Board vote away from allowing registration of a new club?"

For the record, I would not describe our founding folks as disgruntled.

Sure would be nice to know who brought this Rule 1 up? I just don't like the tone of that president's report. The way I see it is pretty clear. The posts above are spot on, some of the big boys are paranoid and they are losing business. I hope the state association stands up for itself. The State Cup Tournament for U10-U12 for $150 costs 1/3 of the big boy club's tournaments and you don't have to book hotels rooms through their booking agent. The big clubs are also trying to get their hooks into the ODP program - imagine how much it will cost once the "profesionals" get control of that.

This rule is nothing new. If they stick to this, there are going to be some clubs definitely affected by this and some more disgruntled parents