SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Columbia Soccer: How Does It Get Better? *

[I've deleted the original thread; I'm posting this one only so that my mea culpa is public. The rumor that I asked about has been declared false; I don't want to contribute to its propagation.]

SoccerPOP9194/WDC: If you two say that there is no such request, then I'll absolutely not only let it go but also apologize for even raising the issue (as I said I'd do early in the original thread). I know both of your identities; you're absolutely authoritative enough for me. So since you have clearly stated:

WDC: I didn't know anyone made a request to keep a club out of Columbia.
SoccerPOP9194: I have not heard of such a request to keep a club out of Cola other than what has been put on this message board.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. What confused me was a post by Soccer-SC alleging this on another thread (which caused me to create this thread) and then WDC's post on this thread: It is a question of SCYSA bylaws and only they can interpret their own rules. We'll find out soon enough whether CESA can come to Columbia within the rules of SCYSA. In fact we should find out this weekend. I knew who WDC was; I took this as authoritative confirmation of the rumor. I was obviously wrong. I apologize.

I must have misunderstood; given both your responses you're telling me that it's on an unrelated bylaw issue. I was wrong; I again apologize for the misunderstanding -- it is entirely my fault.

>>[Cola Fan] [...] I've known for a while that Chico is a member of the CESA Board.<<

Cola Fan: I said this a few months ago on another thread when Chapindad asked me about it. I left the CESA board months ago (way before any of this) due to an illness in my family. So I am in no way representative of CESA. I have no public first-hand knowledge of any of this. That's why I got on and asked questions.

It was clear from the responses of WDC and SoccerPOP9194 that the rumors elsewhere on this board and floating around parents were wrong and that I misunderstood. I humbly apologize for that. I'm still confused by a lot of this information; but I'm going to take them at their word. I know who they are and they are in positions (although not necessarily the positions you surmise) in which I believe you should be able to trust them.

Chico, your a moron

Can't you tell whats going on?

If you know who SoccerPop9194 and WDC are then you know that their close to CSC & CSC's board. They know about NECSA asking to keep CESA out of Cola but are going to claim they didnt know because their close to CSC not NECSA. WDC already posted he knew about the meeting.

I heard its a done deal that CESA will be kept out of Cola & it doesnt matter what the bylaws say its to protect Cola clubs.

>>[Soccer-SC] Chico, your a moron<<

Mom? Is that you?

>>Can't you tell whats going on?

Actually...no.

>>If you know who SoccerPop9194 and WDC are then you know that their close to CSC & CSC's board. They know about NECSA asking to keep CESA out of Cola but are going to claim they didnt know because their close to CSC not NECSA. WDC already posted he knew about the meeting.<<

If you have documentation, either produce it on this message board or send it to me. Without documentation, I'm not going to be calling anyone a liar.

>>I heard its a done deal that CESA will be kept out of Cola & it doesnt matter what the bylaws say its to protect Cola clubs. <<

I sure hope not. I've read the bylaws, and it would be incredibly difficult to interpret what I perceive as the key sentence to mean that a club is limited by district. The key sentence seems to be Bylaw 321, General Requirements, Section 2: "Each Club shall be a member of the District within whose geographic boundaries it is located." Well of course each club is a member of the district within whose geographic boundaries it is located; that appears to neither implicitly or explicitly limits either where players come from or where teams train.

Get him, Chico. The keyboard is mightier than the insult.

soccer,
Moron? Moron? Don't you know that I am the biggest Moron in this forum? Give credit where credit is due!!

Soccer,

It is almost impossible to take someone on this board calling someone else a moron who has as horrible a grasp of the English language as you appear to have.

Please go back to school or hire a tutor before you return and make a fool of yourself again.

Getting back to Soccer-Sc's original point - what is the status of CESA in Cola?

scotland: I don't know. The only thing I know for sure is that there's no way that the rumors could be true and NECSA (or CSC) has filed a complaint against CESA coming into Columbia. How do I know? It's impossible that people so close to CSC's board would have no knowledge of it during a merger. Merging corporate entities have a duty to disclose all such information or they could be accused of fraudulent mispresentation -- and board members must be made aware of on-going issues as well so that they can fulfill their oversight responsibilities.

Chico,
Several ifs to consider:
Does/Did the CRSA/CESA partnership require SCYSA approval? If so, what process is involved with that? If NECSA/CSC have a protest pending against the partnership, then I would assume that CRSA/CESA would be so apprised. If the NECSA/CSC president is an attorney, then its highly probable that a protest has been filed. If there is such a protest to block the partnership then it would be a tremendous blow to club soccer in Cola. I would also assume that the purpose of such a protest would be to control club soccer in Cola. and where the kids can play. This would be detrimental to the competitive spirit of Cola. area soccer. As much as I have ranted and raved that Cola. needed a merger of area clubs, this possibility of a protest would create a difficult environment among area clubs.
But..that is if there is a protest.

Following signed Ron Tryon President of NECSA to Steve Ballentine President of SCYSA on November 28 2005 in letter,

Having set forth its allegations, NECSA prays unto the SCYSA Board of Directors that it exercise its power to convene a special commission consisting of 5 “wholly unbiased” members and that said commission evaluate the complains alleged herein and thereafter issue a declaration or order that CESA must:

(1) Immediately retract by way of public press release any and all plans to form recreation, academy and/or select teams based in Columbia or anywhere in the Mid-State District;
(2) Immediately cease any and all advertising activity which is currently being run or which is schedule to be run, shown or distributed at State Cup and/or elsewhere which informs or has been designed to inform the public and/or SCYSA players and their parents that CESA is planning to, preparing to or seeking to form recreation, academy and/or select teams or otherwise train youth soccer players in a CESA operated youth soccer program based in Columbia or based anywhere in the Mid-State District or based anywhere outside the Piedmont District for that matter;
(3) Immediately cease any activity seeking to form recreation, academy and/or select teams or otherwise train youth soccer players in a CESA operated youth soccer based in Columbia or based anywhere in the Mid-State District or based anywhere outside the Piedmont District for that matter;
(4) Identify the names of all coaches from Mid-State Clubs with whom CESA’s Co-Executive Directors of Coaching have been in contact with concerning coaching and/or training opportunities within the unauthorized Columbia area CESA program.
(5) Identify the names of all currently registered Mid-State players, and the parents of any such players, who have communicated in writing, in person or by telephone with Andrew Hyslop or to any CESA coach or representative in response to the CESA press release dated November 15, 2005.
(6) Prohibit CESA, its coaches, trainers and it’s and their independent contractors from setting up and conducting soccer training sessions in the Mid-State area as well as in any location outside the Piedmont District on any day other than on a scheduled PMSL, SCSCL or RIII match day on which the team who seeks to train is in fact playing a match in any such league.
(7) Require it’s Academy and Select coaches and its Co-Executive Director’s of Coaching to print, read and sign the SCYSA Code of Ethics/Conduct on an annual basis and submit the same to the SCYSA Registrar prior to issuance of Coaching Cards and DOC Passes each year.
(8) Issue a written apology to the Presidents of all Mid-State District clubs for its unilateral, unauthorized and highly disruptive actions.

I guess not everyone on this board was completly honest in denying the existance of this complaint. Does anyone "truthfully" know the outcome of this request?

Lots of questions:
If this protest was initiated on Nov. 28, then was an 'unbiased' commission convened?
Did they issue a report?
Was a declaration issued?

I would surmise that since SCYSA states in its mission that is a 'non-profit, educational organization' that its members need to be educated and informed about the status of this protest issue.

What were the allegations? There has got to more to it than that? It doesn't seem to me that SCYSA would even give him the time of day based on just this. What is the basis of his request?

If that is it...then I was wrong and I apologize!

why is it necessary to get the names of parents and players who have contacted Hyslop? Does Tryon plan to take action against them too? cry me a river

It's funny. Someone is finally coming to unify Columbia and the Old Guard can't stand to let go. Anderson is dealing with a similar situation minus the legal action. Very entertaining stuff, this club soccer.

There are several things that I don't understand about the complaint made by NECSA:

#3 and #6 seem to deal with their not wanting CESA to offer training in Cola but they've been doing that for a long time. Why get upset about it now?

#5 deals with the players and parents who have contacted CESA regarding their press release. If they contacted CESA and not the other way around, isn't this perfectly legal? What's the problem?

Chico's silence is deafening.

Where is Chico?

Crunching numbers. After that legal piece got published I'm sure he's at a loss for words.

I think he and his writers are working on the letter of apology..................NOT!!

I would like to know if this has been resolved by SCYSA. If not, did the CSC board know about it and not inform the voting membership. I sure would like to know if I am signing up for potential legal action. Full disclosure would have been nice.

Can someone sum up all this crap for those of us that can't stand reading all this highfaluting babble..but are still mildly interested?

LEdudeman,
You can't just be 'mildly interested' in this to understand it. But I am sure 'Merger Mayhem' will be out in Cliff notes soon.
And besides..."You Can't Handle The Truth!!!!!!"

..let me clarify.

I follow(or at least it is my understanding)..that CSC/NECSA are challenging the establishment of CESA in Cola(citing some violations of bylaws?).

..but has anything actually happened..has there been a ruling? ..and what exactly are their grievances against CESA(in layman's).

>>[Hurst66] Chico's silence is deafening.<<

>>[greenacres] Where is Chico?<<

I walked in and read all of this late this afternoon. I sent Soccer-SC a long note confirming I was a moron and asking for any and all additional information.

I need to go away and think about this -- but can tell you that my initial reaction is that I just want to take a very long bath.

So..is this all pending on the interpretations of a bylaw? Was it just me or did only half of those complaints have anything to do with opening a club in Cola?

This is just my opinion..but it seems to me that they're just upset someone is putting pressure on them and their "property/territory".

I suppose capitalism is always fun and cool until someone makes something better than you.

I really hope there is some layer here that none of us have seen yet..

Its no biggie LEdudeman. Just a minor conspiracy to have total control of Cola. area soccer for at least the rest of our lifetimes.

Like many posters and lurkers, I've been enjoying this saga. Let me just say that those of us in small markets, where finding 13 players to roster is a challenge in itself, find this mildly amusing. If CESA gets kicked out of Columbia, maybe they can lower their sights a bit and try to capitalize on the "under-served" redneck league.

With all the lurking people here do on GA and NC forums..

I have the sinking feeling GA/NC lurkers are reading all this..and recalling issues they had 20+ years ago.

..

After reading the complaint against CESA, I smell a lawyer. Not that lawyers are bad. There are actually many lawyers involved in Columbia soccer. However, a lawyer would have spent some time drawing up a complaint of this kind. Let's assume that this was a parent/volunteer laywer, and that NECSA wasn't foolish enough to actually hire someone to do this. So there were opportunity costs incurred in the use of this lawyer's time. Forget the merits of the complaint for a minute. From NECSA's perspective, couldn't that lawyer's time have been used better? Say in fundraising, or establishing a scholarship fund?

do we live in america? I hate NECSA. Do some work and get of your butts and coach and you wouldn't have this problem. Quit worrying about shoes and gear and get to coaching and you wouldn't have to worry about it!

[ February 16, 2006, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Kyle Heise ]

Jigga what?

Yo Soze. Dat right. Word up.

I must be missing simething...I still don't know what the actual complaint was...can someone PLEASE tell me? It seems like the only thing posted was what he would like to see done if the allegations were found to be valid. What were the allegations?

For a complaint to be filed there has to be some sort of violation (real or precieved). What was it and what is the basis for it?

Respectfully...yes...I think that you're missing something...

When I read this it appears clear that the allegation is something about CESA's announcement that they were going to expand their Columbia program. [I've asked for more information from Soccer-SC; I haven't heard back yet.]

That isn't in and of itself the most shocking part of all of this -- after all, the allegation was the rumor that I asked about in the thread I deleted. What's the most shocking thing in this is the demand for lists of coaches, players, and parents. In my opinion, as a parent of a child who plays soccer, this goes beyond reprehensible.

SoccerPOP: All previous indications were that you are either on the CSC board or close to it. Did you not know about this complaint?

How come we have not heard from WDC who denied knowledge of it's existance and also seemed to be either on the CSC board or close to it?

This is all very curious.

lawyers, guns, and money...

Is CESA was doing anything wrong, why didn't they stop the training GFC was doing three years ago, and why didn't they stop CESA when the announcement was announced. Or is SCYSA like the SUpreme Court and has to wait for cases to be brought to them. Give me a minute. I'm back. I just threw up in my mouth. Can't believe I made that analogy.

Warren Zevon, Rest In Peace

I don't know Warren but Big Mike was funny. Is Paul Wall wit you? How's ya gril

top rows diamond and the bottoms all gold.

Regulators, ride...

Acres, like you I had heard rumors of a complaint being filed. Unlike, everyone else, I had not heard that it was filed to keep CESA out of Cola. I had heard that it was about an alleged bylaws violation and the complaint was filed to have the bylaws enforced, if it was found that there was a violation.
I had heard that the complaint had to do with a club being bound by its geographic area. If that was found to be true then it stands to reason that no club which was already operating in one geographic area could not operate in another geographic area. As was pointed out earlier in this thread no resonable person could read the bylaws and come to that conclusion.

However, if you read the SCYSA rules they state:

B. AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS (Structure and SCYSA membership requirements)
1. AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION is a club or league that is properly registered with and
recognized by the SCYSA and which pays dues to, and receives benefits or services from, the SCYSA.
a. A CLUB is an organization operating within a specified community or other defined
geographical area that is a member of SCYSA and that has an identifiable membership of at
least one hundred (100) youth soccer players. This organization is in place to carry out
SCYSA’s programs for youth players.

All of rules can be found and downloaded on the SCYSA website.

Now, I consider myself a resonable person and I read that to say "A CLUB is an organization operating within a specified community or other defined geographical area..." and the SCYSA bylaws are very clear on just where the district boundaries are.

To me there is a huge difference between whinning because you don't like what is happening and asking that the rules be enforced. Like it or not rules are rules and everyone has to abide by them no matter if you are the biggest dog on the block or the smallest.

Having said all that, I AM NOT an expert on bylaws or rules so draw your own conclusions on the issue. Ultimately, only SCYSA can make the determination.

I do agree that some of the request are way over the top.

The SCYSA bylaws are likewise clear on what the state of South Carolina is. They are completely blank on what a "specified community" is. Thus, this rule is completely dependent once again on how it is interpreted. If you interpret it based on the SCYSA mission statement (develop, promote, and administer youth soccer) then you want strong clubs serving as many kids as possible.

On the deleted thread, I repeatedly made the point that the SCYSA is an elected body and operates in a political fashion. I got continual flack for this -- folks trying to imply that I was somehow questioning the integrity of the SCYSA. No...association boards operate as an association board. It doesn't mean that the SCYSA is bad -- they just operate as they are constructed. We have a judicial system that operates (at least theoretically, and I believe in the vast majority of the cases) apolitically.

Personally, what I honestly don't understand is why bylaws aren't added to specifically restrict clubs if the majority of the SCYSA membership want it done. Trying to tip-toe around it through some adding caveats to the interpretation of all of this seems as if it will have this tied up in court for years.

Here's a ignorant comment for thought.

Do all organizations in the State follow bylaw 214, Section1 (4)?

4) provide and coordinate opportunities for every player under its jurisdiction to participate in soccer at the developmental, intermediate, and advanced levels;

After a self-imposed exile from this forum, I thought I would weight-in on this issue. KH, I hope this is ok.

First, a disclaimer...I have not been on the SCYSA board since my term expired in August. I am not connected with any club other than my son plays for NECSA and I'm a former NECSA board member (left almost three years ago).

Second, my guess is that I know less about the NECSA/CESA complaint than anyone else around because I have not paid any attention (and don't want to).

Chico wrote: "Personally, what I honestly don't understand is why bylaws aren't added to specifically restrict clubs if the majority of the SCYSA membership want it done. Trying to tip-toe around it through some adding caveats to the interpretation of all of this seems as if it will have this tied up in court for years."

The problem I saw with rules and by-laws at SCYSA is that you just cannot write a rule or by-law that covers everything.

We would write a rule. Some club or coach (and I am not accusing anyone in particular--this applies to lots of clubs and lots of coaches) finds a way to bend the rule, avoid the rule, break the rule. Honestly, sometimes I would think that soccer folks are just a bunch of cheating bast--ds.

So, we would have to deal with it. Re-write the rule, interpret the rule, threaten to sanction the violators, etc. My experience was that the folks on the SCYSA board tried to fairly enforce the rules for the good of the largest number of youth soccer players.

Believe me that it is not an easy job. Anyone that complains about the board should try sitting at the table for two years.

So, Chico, while in theory, I agree with you that the by-laws should be clearly written, etc., it is not that simple in practice.

One final thought...a lot of this discussion is based on speculation. None of you (or me) knows all of the facts. My advice is to wait until more information is public, then you can jump to conclusions and insult each other. [ok, maybe that was harsh--then you can discuss the topic politely].

We are all guilty of excessive speculation regarding this issue and as TP has stated we should wait until all the issues are revealed and hopefully made more clear. This soccer community needs to respect the opinions of all involved, while we all seek what is best for the kids of the Cola. area.....not what is best for one club or the other. However, I must state that the language in the prior posted complaint from CSC/NECSA is not in the best interest of all concerned about soccer in this community.

>>[thomaspietras] [...] Chico wrote: "Personally, what I honestly don't understand is why bylaws aren't added to specifically restrict clubs if the majority of the SCYSA membership want it done. Trying to tip-toe around it through some adding caveats to the interpretation of all of this seems as if it will have this tied up in court for years."

The problem I saw with rules and by-laws at SCYSA is that you just cannot write a rule or by-law that covers everything.

We would write a rule. Some club or coach (and I am not accusing anyone in particular--this applies to lots of clubs and lots of coaches) finds a way to bend the rule, avoid the rule, break the rule. Honestly, sometimes I would think that soccer folks are just a bunch of cheating bast--ds.

So, we would have to deal with it. Re-write the rule, interpret the rule, threaten to sanction the violators, etc. My experience was that the folks on the SCYSA board tried to fairly enforce the rules for the good of the largest number of youth soccer players.

Believe me that it is not an easy job. Anyone that complains about the board should try sitting at the table for two years.

So, Chico, while in theory, I agree with you that the by-laws should be clearly written, etc., it is not that simple in practice.<<

I'm sure with your background you've worked on writing and amending corporate bylaws as have I. No one will ever do it perfectly. No reasonable person expects bylaws to be perfect. And reasonable people can read the best set of bylaws and disagree about the interpretations of spirit and language.

However, when you begin trying to interpret bylaws in such a way as to create new rules and new restrictions from arcane administrative language -- it's time to amend the bylaws. As you state above, sometimes you have to "Re-write the rule." In this case, nothing needs to be rewritten -- if the SCYSA believes it serves its mission to restrict the areas that a club can serve, it simply needs to draft that bylaw and approve it. It isn't complicated theoretically -- while of course it is deeply complicated practically -- so elected bodies tend to attempt to continually stretch existing language so that they don't have to actually go through it.

Why should the SCYSA add this bylaw specifically? Because any decision to restrict competition reeks of a political bias to maintain the status quo -- the same status quo incidentally that elects the SCYSA. Now...it may very well be that no such bias exists within the SCYSA. But the SCYSA needs to clearly explain why a decision restricting inter-club competition in an area serves the SCYSA mission to develop and promote youth soccer. In particular because the SCYSA, according to its board minutes, has seen a loss of several thousand registered players in the last few years. Going through the practical process of having bylaws approved, and taking the further step of requesting comments, puts the debate out into the open. While I would absolutely hate a decision to restrict club competition based on geography, I would absolutely respect that it was the will of the clubs in SC and the SCYSA itself if it were arrived at in this manner.

While I intellectually understand your comment that sometimes you felt that soccer folks were just a bunch of cheating bast--rds, I would point to that fact alone as evidence that there is a severe problem with the SCYSA bylaws and rules. Any time that you find yourself, even for a moment, believing that the membership you serve are a bunch of cheating bast--rds, it's time for you to reassess the system you've imposed that leads you to feel that way.

Stop here for a moment and realize that real import of what you've said. I've never met anyone who believed that the SCYSA was a bunch of cheating bast--ds; and yet your time on the board of the SCYSA led you to sometimes think that about your membership. There's no better evidence that there's something wrong and that the system is deeply flawed when as honorable a person as you has these thoughts.

In terms of the SCYSA itself. What I've found is that only elected bodies themselves expect their organizations to be free from a political structure -- a self-defeating expectation -- but a universal one. The SCYSA consists of people who have sacrificed their time and energy to try to help youth soccer; I've publicly thanked them before and believe that they deserve quite a bit of thanks. But the SCYSA, as you know, has its own peculiar challenges with respect to political influence and is no less immune (and probably quite a bit more) than most elected organizations.

But continually throughout this thread and the thread I deleted (because I was concerned about excess speculation), I've taken pains to note that the SCYSA is not the organization that appears to be at the root of this mess. It is the complaining organization that would apparently rather compete via lawyer-like tactics rather than compete on services to the youth of Columbia.

>>One final thought...a lot of this discussion is based on speculation. None of you (or me) knows all of the facts. My advice is to wait until more information is public, then you can jump to conclusions and insult each other. [ok, maybe that was harsh--then you can discuss the topic politely].<<

There is a lack of transparency to the process that is more than a little troubling. You're asking people to wait to know all of the facts -- specifically how long do you expect people to wait and who is going to be distributing these "facts?" It seems at minimum you want people to wait until the SCYSA makes a decision [if they haven't already] to discuss something that directly impacts their children and the children of Columbia. As someone who actually reads SCYSA board reports when they are available, I can tell you that I don't think the facts of the matter are going to be published there unless there's a drastic change in reporting policy.

I noticed on Hotstat that the CESA U10 team consisting of Columbia kids appeared in the Sandlapper League but was removed a few weeks ago. What happened to it? Of course you don't know; neither do I. I know what the rumor is -- but I have not repeated it on this message board because I didn't believe that anyone would go after a bunch of 9-year old children. What you seem to be advising is that the parents of Columbia children should wait until more information is public while this kind of thing is going on. Respectfully, I doubt you would be advising such patience and sensitivity if it were your child directly affected.

One other note. Discuss the topic politely? Respectfully, compared to what appears to be requested by NECSA this message board has been the model of politeness. I have no doubt that you don't and would never condone the apparent request for lists of children, their parents, and coaches who have made the committed the sin of contacting someone; however, this transcends impolite behavior and appears to be bullying and coercion at its worst, plain and simple.

It makes one wonder: if club choice is restricted in Columbia, what happens with this list?

Chico/Mark?:

Every time I start on one of these threads, I'm reminded of how imperfect the format is for real discourse. I could pick up the telephone and call you, but then everyone else would not get the benefit of our collective wisdom.

First, I obviously did not take enough time to craft my initial post. Overall, my experience on the SCYSA board was very positive and my opionion of SCYSA members is very high. SOMETIMES, I felt like I was dealing with cheaters. I should have been clearer on this.

Regarding the SCYSA by-laws and rules--they are less than perfect but are the result of years of hard work, as you have noted. SCYSA is constantly looking for volunteers to help with these kinds of things. Would be a good use of your time.

How long do I expect folks to wait for a resolution? I have no idea, since I don't know when the clock started ticking. From the sound of it, this is a messy issue. Messes often take time to clean-up. With this kind of issue there are hearings, appeals, more hearings, etc. All done by volunteers who are also trying to earn livings and live real lives outside of soccer. So yeah, sometimes it takes a long time.

SCYSA and transparancy??--I'll have to agree with you there. Communication is not their strength.

I didn't really care for this comment: "Respectfully, I doubt you would be advising such patience and sensitivity if it were your child directly affected." You obviously don't know me.

Finally, based on what you know, your belief is that the request by NECSA "transcends impolite behavior and appears to be bullying and coercion at its worst, plain and simple." We all make judgments based on the information we have available. However, as I read your post, it seems to me that you are making a judgment about someone's motives and motivation. Unless you have spoken to Ron, I don't think you are in position to make an informed judgement on this. Sure, you can judge a person's motives by their observable actions. You have acknowledged (I think) that you don't know all of the facts. If that is the case, then perhaps assessing motives is premature and it is not "plain and simple".

I don't know the facts either. I do know Ron and the folks at NECSA. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Just thinking about part of my last post.

Sounds like I was being critical of SCYSA over transparancy and communication.

I think I need to add to that--in the interest of fairness.

I DO believe that the board could do a better job of communicating with the the broader soccer community. I said that many times while I was on the board.

However, in fairness to them, the task is enormous, in part because so many people want their questions/problems addressed--NOW.

One board member tracked his e-mails (not counting regular mail, telephone calls and other forms of communication). If I remember correctly, he had over 21,000 in-coming e-mails relating to soccer business during one year.

Again comes down to volunteers trying to serve The Game on a part-time basis. It is not easy.

What better way to judge a person's motives than by their actions. I think we all know the power to rhetoric to persuade or dissuade from reality or true intentions.Don't have to look far to see that.

Chico, I thought your "challenge with respect to political infuence" was interesting. I have some thoughts of my own on this but I'd like to wait to hear your take first.

Be careful with the language boys. I've already been scolded.

SCYSA is not a secret organization, that can operate in secrecy from its member groups. The last time I checked it is composed and funded by member organizations throughout the state. All member clubs are under the umbrella of this organization. Therefore, all member clubs should be seriously involved and informed about this issue. This is not a peripheral issue as are probably 90% of those 21,000 e-mail issues. This is an issue that needs to be openly discussed and decided.....not in this forum of course, but openly among its member groups who deserve to know the facts , who deserve to know the 'allegations' not revealed in the prior posted complaint. All state members need to be concerned with the tactics being employed by one of its fellow member clubs in a blatant attempt to serve, not the kids in this community, but to serve its own best interests. I pray upon the SCYSA board members that you put the interests of the kids in our community first, before you consider the interests of a particular club. Soccer will not grow and prosper in this community if special club interests are allowed to rule over the interests of the kids. It does take a special degree of concern and interest for what is best for the kids who play the game; and not for the club officials who desire that their club be the biggest and only option in the community. I hope the devoted, dedicated board members of SCYSA express their concern for the kids and not for just one club.

Striker:

While I might argue with some of the details of your post, I am in agreement with the overall sentiment.

Let me just say that I'm pretty sure that the SCYSA board will do what they think is in the best interest of youth soccer players. I think that they always try to stay focused on that.

Keep that in mind if and when we find out what their decision is.

If it goes the way you want, it will be easy for you to conclude that they voted in favor of the kids and put the big bad club in its place.

If the decision does not go the way you want, you may conclude that SCYSA doesn't care about the kids and were coerced by the big bad club.

I hope you see the fallacy.

Just a quick question. How many of you have read the minutes that are posted on the SCYSA board? You can learn a lot about all the clubs by what is out there for you to read...

Where are the minutes?

Beat me to it. I've been searching the SCYSA site and don't see the minutes.

In response to "Big Mike"'s question, I can't find the minutes on the new site.

I don't know where Chapindad is coming from on that. Unless he means you can learn a lot about various clubs by going to individual club websites. But I don't think clubs post minutes there either.

>>[thomaspietras] If it goes the way you want, it will be easy for you to conclude that they voted in favor of the kids and put the big bad club in its place.

If the decision does not go the way you want, you may conclude that SCYSA doesn't care about the kids and were coerced by the big bad club.

I hope you see the fallacy.<<

I see the fallacy you note. Do you see the implied tautology in what you're stating that the SCYSA can't make a mistake?

Is it outside of the bounds of all expectations that such a decision might actually be explained and discussed in light of the mission of the SCYSA?

>>Every time I start on one of these threads, I'm reminded of how imperfect the format is for real discourse. I could pick up the telephone and call you, but then everyone else would not get the benefit of our collective wisdom.<<

Multi-way communication is tough -- but rewarding. You have my thanks and gratitude for engaging in the dialogue.

>>First, I obviously did not take enough time to craft my initial post. Overall, my experience on the SCYSA board was very positive and my opionion of SCYSA members is very high. SOMETIMES, I felt like I was dealing with cheaters. I should have been clearer on this.<<

I thought you were. I didn't think you walked around believing that the membership were a bunch of cheaters all of the time. It's the moments you felt that way that are so telling.

Sometimes it's tough to empathize with those sitting across from the table. Imagine how they feel -- they're being accused of something, they have absolutely no power while SCYSA holds all of the power, and it appears new rules and bylaws are being created out of thin air. Tough situation unless they meant to do something wrong. That's why it's important to always be working on your bylaws and not be afraid of making written rulings and communicating them -- there's much less chance that the people that you're ruling on feel like you expected them to read your mind.

>>Regarding the SCYSA by-laws and rules--they are less than perfect but are the result of years of hard work, as you have noted. SCYSA is constantly looking for volunteers to help with these kinds of things. Would be a good use of your time.<<

Unfortunately, quite a while ago I had to drop out of volunteering for a personal issue. When I resolve it, I will absolutely go back and look for the best way I can help South Carolina youth soccer. At this moment, I don't expect that it would be the SCYSA nor would the SCYSA welcome me. However, I'll certainly consider it when I can.

>>How long do I expect folks to wait for a resolution? I have no idea, since I don't know when the clock started ticking. From the sound of it, this is a messy issue. Messes often take time to clean-up. With this kind of issue there are hearings, appeals, more hearings, etc. All done by volunteers who are also trying to earn livings and live real lives outside of soccer. So yeah, sometimes it takes a long time.<<

And in the meantime, because there's an attempt at secrecy, there are increasing numbers of rumors. Now...in my experience...there's two ways to handle rumors about on-going events. One is try to clamp down on all rumors -- didn't work for Nixon, probably won't work here. The second is to be straightforward about what is known and what is going on.

>>SCYSA and transparancy??--I'll have to agree with you there. Communication is not their strength.<<

I see you wrote a post modifying this statement after issuing such a "scathing" criticism. I'll address this subject more in that one.

>>I didn't really care for this comment: "Respectfully, I doubt you would be advising such patience and sensitivity if it were your child directly affected." You obviously don't know me.<<

I'm sorry if it offended you; and yet I do believe it. I believe that if your child were put on a team by one club, then that team was listed in Hotstat, then the team suddenly disappeared -- you'd want to know a lot more information immediately.

Does this in any way lessen my immense respect for you? Absolutely not. What little I know of you, and what little I've interacted with you, you truly seem like an honorable person.

I'm now interested in this for a selfish reason as well as a larger concern about soccer. For years, long before CESA, my kid has trained in Columbia with CESA. If those requests are granted, she will no longer be able to. With all due respect -- I'm not going to sit around and wait on a ruling before I speak out -- I think it's wrong for anyone to try to not let my kid practice with anyone anywhere she wants.

If it were your kid and you didn't have a relatioship with the people at NECSA or the SCYSA, I respectfully think your position on this might shift at least a little bit closer to mine.

>>Finally, based on what you know, your belief is that the request by NECSA "transcends impolite behavior and appears to be bullying and coercion at its worst, plain and simple." We all make judgments based on the information we have available. However, as I read your post, it seems to me that you are making a judgment about someone's motives and motivation.<<

I am absolutely making a judgement about someone's motives and motivation if the post earlier in this thread is valid. I am careful in my language; that's why you see things like "what appears to be requested by NECSA." I am judging that it appears that someone put the narrow financial interest of his club ahead of the children of Columbia. I am also judging that it appears that someone appears possibly vindictive -- not only against a competitive club, but against children, parents, and coaches. Finally, I am judging that if this information is valid, and if CSC board members didn't know about it, then that would constitute -- well, something not very good. My guess is that CSC board members absolutely knew about all of this; it would be suicide if they didn't.

What I've noticed is that very few people (if any) want to debate the specifics. I understand your position -- don't talk about it, don't think about it, until it's decided and maybe someone lets you know what's going on.

>>Unless you have spoken to Ron, I don't think you are in position to make an informed judgement on this. Sure, you can judge a person's motives by their observable actions. You have acknowledged [I think] that you don't know all of the facts. If that is the case, then perhaps assessing motives is premature and it is not "plain and simple".<<

Making judgements with incomplete information is a fact of life. This is particularly true with respect to SC Club soccer since the information is incredibly difficult to get. However, to establish my bona fides with regard to this, when I am wrong I will publicly state I am wrong and will go to great lengths to make that clear. What began this thread was a public apology, in fact several public apologies, in which I stated that I wasn't going to be a part of publicizing a rumor. Well...someone published an apparent reference giving dates and actions proving that I believed people much too quickly.

I don't know the facts either. I do know Ron and the folks at NECSA. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.<<

I understand your reaction; it's human nature to be loyal to people you know and like. But at the same time I guess that's what disappoints me the most. I understand your loyalty to your former board members. Heck...I think that the folks at CESA are great too.

However, I can promise you that if NECSA were trying to expand into Greenville and CESA wrote this, that I would be taking the same position I am today except against CESA. I believe in loyalty to an idea first [in this case, best helping all of the children of Columbia] and to people I like second.

>>Just thinking about part of my last post.

Sounds like I was being critical of SCYSA over transparancy and communication.

I think I need to add to that--in the interest of fairness.

I DO believe that the board could do a better job of communicating with the the broader soccer community. I said that many times while I was on the board.

However, in fairness to them, the task is enormous, in part because so many people want their questions/problems addressed--NOW.

One board member tracked his e-mails (not counting regular mail, telephone calls and other forms of communication). If I remember correctly, he had over 21,000 in-coming e-mails relating to soccer business during one year.

Again comes down to volunteers trying to serve The Game on a part-time basis. It is not easy.<<

I don't really have any problem with the SCYSA. In my mind, it's an elected association serving the perceived needs of the majority of the club it serves. I thought it was disappointing when the North-South game almost foundered and the SCYSA missed a golden opportunity to step in for the good of its mission statement; but one of its members did and at least to date no one has written a complaint to the SCYSA claiming that violated a bylaw.

I do understand the difficulty of trying to cope with 58 e-mail's a day as a volunteer. And yet from my time volunteering I found I was getting about half that number. What I found early on in youth soccer was the same I found in the corporate world -- the best way to reduce the number of e-mail's claiming to need urgent response was to (a) proactively communicate to my consituents and (b) design structures that allowed others to help. I also made a decision that if I couldn't find the time to effectively communicate as well as do my other jobs, I'd need to step down. That's what I did.

As you know, the SCYSA is not a small organization; it had [from memory] revenues in its last reporting period of $600K+ (note: I'm still investigating how revenues increased very healthily over the last few years while registered membership decreased -- but it sounds like an excellent financial organization.) If the organization is too overwhelmed to communicate effectively, and it believes that it needs to do a better job at communicating, I would guess that it has sufficient cash flow to at least partially remedy the situation.

If I could offer one suggestion to the SCYSA, it would be not just communicating but spending a lot more time communicating about its mission. Again, I believe elected associations typically do an okay job serving those that elect them -- what I don't see (and it could be there, just hidden) is much work being done to develop and promote youth soccer.

I understand why people don't want to "wait" until the information becomes public. They feel it may be too late to say anything by then. Let me give a personal analogy. I went to an expulsion hearing in January. Fours students were caught drinking on a field trip. At the hearing, three students had attorneys. The school district had an attorney present but he did not talk with me at any time before the hearing. I had to write a statement of what happened before I attended. I did this while still trying to teach my classes, cover my other duties, etc., all while the students got to sit at home and talk with their legal counsel. At the hearing, one attorney actually tried to claim that since the trip was sponsored by the YMCA, it wasn't a school function and therefore they broke no school rules. Because I didn't have the luxury of counsel before hand, I didn't even think to send in the District Parent Permission forms. Nothing new could be added at the hearing. Luckily, I said the coreect things when questioned and all 4 were expelled. But it could have been different. I think that is why I, and a lot of others, want to know things NOW.

In addition, I think a big can of worms could be open to the interpretation of the bylaws if CESA is kept out of Columbia. As I posted on page 3, what happens when this bylaw is challenged?

Do all organizations in the State follow bylaw 214, Section1 (4)?

4) provide and coordinate opportunities for every player under its jurisdiction to participate in soccer at the developmental, intermediate, and advanced levels;

Case in point, not to pick on CRSA, but their website says they are serving the children of a certain part of Columbia, not their whole jurisdiction. What about Bridge? Are they offering opportunities at every level? How about every club in the state? Do they offer programs for handicapped children, whether they are deaf, blind, amputated, etc.?

Food for thought.

No time to respond to everything, but a few thougts:

"Tautology"--what a good word (no sarcasm intended).

Actually, I was not trying to say that SCYSA can't make mistakes. I know that they do make mistakes. I was on the minority side of votes quite often. Sometimes all alone. (And it is certainly possible, but not probable that I was on the majority side of some mistakes).

What I was trying to say (apparently not very well) was that you might not agree with a decision and that the decision might be wrong (for you or your child or your club), but you should be careful about questioning the motivation for the decision or concluding that there was a lack of care.

Intersting, Chico, that you said you would not be welcome at SCYSA. There must be an interesting story behind this comment. Probably not appropriate for a public forum like this, but you have certainly piqued my curiosity.

Regarding the team that was on Hotstat and now is not--I assume the parents called the coach/club to find out what happened. Does anyone know what the response was?

Chico, I understand your point about straight-forward communication in order to deal with rumors. Easy to say they should come out and talk about it, but if the process is not complete, what can they say that will not just fuel more speculation and rumor? It can be a tough judgment regarding when to go public.

>>[thomaspietras] [...] Actually, I was not trying to say that SCYSA can't make mistakes. I know that they do make mistakes. I was on the minority side of votes quite often. Sometimes all alone. (And it is certainly possible, but not probable that I was on the majority side of some mistakes).

What I was trying to say (apparently not very well) was that you might not agree with a decision and that the decision might be wrong (for you or your child or your club), but you should be careful about questioning the motivation for the decision or concluding that there was a lack of care.<<

Thanks again for engaging in this dialogue -- I honestly really appreciate the chance to understand other positions.

I actually did not mean to imply that you were saying that the SCYSA couldn't make mistakes; I'm sorry if I gave that impression. All I was noting was that if someone wasn't careful and ascribed any reasoned objection to a decision to bias, then that might lead to a situation in which there was no basis for questioning decisions.

>>Intersting, Chico, that you said you would not be welcome at SCYSA. There must be an interesting story behind this comment. Probably not appropriate for a public forum like this, but you have certainly piqued my curiosity.<<

In my very, very few interactions with selected members of the SCYSA, I have found these selected members to be...I'll try to put this politely...less than tolerant of opinions not their own. You were actually copied on one very small incident quite a while ago. In addition, it appears somewhat rare that someone who is not a relative of an existing member joins the SCYSA. I fear I lack the pedigree.

>>[...] Chico, I understand your point about straight-forward communication in order to deal with rumors. Easy to say they should come out and talk about it, but if the process is not complete, what can they say that will not just fuel more speculation and rumor? It can be a tough judgment regarding when to go public.<<

I do understand what you are saying and I certainly empathize that it's a tough thing to do; however in order to avoid rampant and out of control rumors it is my opinion that you actually have to manage limited releases of information with the promise (and subsequent delivery) of additional information whenever it is possible.

But in my opinion that's not the crux of all of this. Here's my prediction. If the SCYSA ever does rule on this [I think that they either have or will] and subsequently publicly release information concerning this, they will not explain their reasoning by quoting bylaws or rules. Instead, They will reference any vague bylaws possible with the word "district" in it and they will out of whole cloth create a ruling. They may even go for the brass ring and create rules that don't exist by stating the converse -- that because a bylaw doesn't say anything about allowing something it's not allowed. A far-fetched example of this: because the bylaws don't say anything about web sites, clubs are herefore prohibited from having web sites.

I would bet a lot of money on one thing. Any decision that the SCYSA makes will never reference their mission of administering, developing, and promoting youth soccer. Again, I think that you are an honorable and well-meant person. But in the last few years I've seen SCYSA registered membership declining and I have seen absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that foremost in the minds of the "inner-circle", or even second-most, is a driving passion for delivering on the SCYSA mission.

With regard to bylaws, I predict that they will completely ignore the bylaw that kdlsc posted earlier: Bylaw 214, Section1 (4): provide and coordinate opportunities for every player under its jurisdiction to participate in soccer at the developmental, intermediate, and advanced levels.

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. I'd be absolutely amazed if I have to apologize.

I've sat around and lurked for years. I got an
account and posted because I can't believe what
CSC is doing. I don't expect much from NECSA but
I sure expected more from CSC. Does the board
believe that all these emails your doing aren't spreading to us

I read Eddies resgination letter to the board
and coaches. Nothing about family issues but
something about differences. But instead of
being honest you says its something about
family. Eddies to much of a nice guy to call
you out so you know your safe

I know about you having a mom send Eddie a letter
asking what he was doing next and Eddie replying
with a big if and CSC sending that to try to
penalize Eddie for unethical recruiting.
Thats low-gutter low. I've read what CSC wrote,
looked at the letters, and cant believe that
just becuase he went to a club you hate that you would try to ruin him. Shame

The camels back broke when someone sent me the
NECSA complaint trying to keep CESA out of
Columbia and told me that CSC backed. I never
even thought about my kid going to CESA in

Columbia. But financial reasons are what that
lawyer said and now hes trying to justify it as
something not in any rule and I hear the SCYAS hates anything changing so much that theyl go long so all the couples agree. Explain how a big
succesful club coming to Columbia hurts my kid.
It doesnt - the merged club doesnt want to
compete. Your screwing my kids over for your selfish to protect this new club. Shame

You dont think that the coahces know what is
going on. And while most parents may not care
there
are some that are out raged

If theres any alternative my kids wont be at CSC
or whatever the d*mned merged club is next year

oh by the way sp9149s wife is on csc board & wdc is on csc board with chapindad. sp9149 & wdc lied straight to your face & I got attacked on this board hahaha

Soccer-sc, get your facts straight...my wife is in NO WAY affiliated with the CSC board.
To bad you REALLY have no clue what you are talking about.

I guess I'd still like to know why CESA training in Cola has suddenly become an issue since I believe it has been going on for several years, even pre-CESA.
And I still want to know the reason NECSA/CSC or SCYSA would need to know the names of people who contacted CESA. What is the problem? And what will happen to the people who did contact CESA - possible blackballing? I cannot believe that more people are not upset about this issue alone.

Soccer-SC at least I don't hide behind a handle, like yourself. SHAME....

Scotland, I have to agree with you on the name issue....way over the top!

I still want to know EXACTLY what the allegations/complaint was that was sent to SCYSA.

Just wondering about the question I posted on Friday about the team that was on Hoststat and then was not...

Does anyone know what the explanation wasfrom the coach/club?

Does nobody know or is it such a stupid question that nobody wants to answer?

Interesting developments in the Midlands area to say the least. Don't trust WDC as far as you can throw him. The same goes for RT and TM. I went through this with some of the same people in the mid-90s and it's no different today.

How much was SCYSA paid for them to look after NECSA on this issue? Greased palms and wallets to say the least!

On 2/17/06, in response to one of my posts, Chico said: "I'm sorry if it offended you; and yet I do believe it. I believe that if your child were put on a team by one club, then that team was listed in Hotstat, then the team suddenly disappeared -- you'd want to know a lot more information immediately."

My purpose with THIS post is not to "argue" with Chico. We have different opions as to what I would or would not do. Can't be resolved in this forum.

Chico's post was in the context of the discussion of the NECSA complaint against CESA. Not sure if this is what Chico intended, but the way I read it, there was an implication that the team disappearing from Hotstat was a result of NECSA's complaint.

I was curious about this and posted a question, trying to find out why the team was removed from Hotstat.

I've received a confidential reply (from what I understand is an involved parent) to my question. Let me qualify this by saying that I don't know the person who responded and don't know, first-hand, the facts.

What I was told was that this team was a U12 CESA team that had previously registered with SCYSA as a CSC team to play in the Fall and Spring. Apparently SCYSA decided that there was a violation of rules regarding how teams switch clubs. I was told that this SCYSA decision was not related to the NECSA claim issue.

If you know the facts to be different, perhaps you could share what you know.

thomaspietras: From Hotstat, it was a U10 team enrolled in the Sandlapper League that has vanished from Hotstat. I know of no Columbia-based CESA U12 team that was ever on Hotstat -- nor am I aware of any CESA U12 team based in Columbia that ever was even attempted to be formed. Because of the data we are trying to keep, we have semi-automated "spiders" that run out and get this kind of thing in an automated fashion -- that's how the U10 team being created and then vanishing came to my attention.

P.S. For someone who wouldn't ask about rumors or discuss them until after it was decided if it were your own kid, you're sure pursuing this one for a team on which you don't know any of the kids! Actually, thank you -- I'd like to see this one answered as well.

Cola Fan: I honestly do not believe that there is graft or corruption in the SCYSA.

What I believe is that the SCYSA represents the collective will of the majority of their electors. And because the majority of their electors will tend toward the status quo, I believe that elected association bodies such as the SCYSA likewise tend toward the status quo. Thus my expectation regarding any decision would be that it would be weighted heavily toward either keeping the existing situation in stasis (i.e., preventing CESA from expanding its Columbia operations) or lean even more radically toward increasing parity within South Carolina soccer.

Chico,
You obliquely addressed the question I posed of you last week. Allow me to take it one step more. First, I do appreciate all the thankless work SCYSA does, and I don't say this obligtorily.

I suspect that SCYSA is so heavily influenced because they are not true "soccer" people. In trying to draw a logical parallel, if I were on a board that governs, say, law or medicine, I know I would be certainly suspect to overtures by influential people as I would have to defer to them through my lack of knowledge on the subject.I have no idea why the State Director of Coaching does not have a vote on soccer matters on the board. I'm sure there are some fallacies with this argument that I'll be appraised of shortly.

Nastradamus:

Not yelling...just discussing my viewpoint.

I'm not sure what you consider a "true soccer" person, so not sure this will be helpful.

Without addressing each person on the SCYSA board, let me just say that I consider them as a group to be "true soccer people".

Some played in their youth; most came up in soccer with their kids.

There are folks who have played, coached and/or were referees at the recreation and classic levels.

I think most of the board members came up through local club oranizations (as volunteers or as board members).

At least three of the SCYSA board members also serve on USYSA committees.

State Director of Coaching does not vote because he is not an elected member of the board. Rather, he is appointed by the board. That having been said, I will tell you that Van is a very active participant in the meetings and is very influential in the discussions.

thomaspietras: After reading the decision, you have to admit, I nailed it when I said:

But in my opinion that's not the crux of all of this. Here's my prediction. If the SCYSA ever does rule on this [I think that they either have or will] and subsequently publicly release information concerning this, they will not explain their reasoning by quoting bylaws or rules. Instead, They will reference any vague bylaws possible with the word "district" in it and they will out of whole cloth create a ruling. They may even go for the brass ring and create rules that don't exist by stating the converse -- that because a bylaw doesn't say anything about allowing something it's not allowed. A far-fetched example of this: because the bylaws don't say anything about web sites, clubs are herefore prohibited from having web sites.

I would bet a lot of money on one thing. Any decision that the SCYSA makes will never reference their mission of administering, developing, and promoting youth soccer. Again, I think that you are an honorable and well-meant person. But in the last few years I've seen SCYSA registered membership declining and I have seen absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that foremost in the minds of the "inner-circle", or even second-most, is a driving passion for delivering on the SCYSA mission.

With regard to bylaws, I predict that they will completely ignore the bylaw that kdlsc posted earlier: Bylaw 214, Section1 (4): provide and coordinate opportunities for every player under its jurisdiction to participate in soccer at the developmental, intermediate, and advanced levels.

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize. I'd be absolutely amazed if I have to apologize.

I guess the silver lining is that I don't have to apologize.

If the board were true soccer people, the decision made would not have been.Rhetorical questions are really a low blow but I think this board deserves all the can get.

Someone told me they saw the board doing Coerver but I never believed it.

I also know that Van has very little authority with this board regardless of what you say.

And another thing. What are the qualifications for being on the board?

1. being a jack ass
2. being shrt minded w/ no long term goals
3. Married to one of the above
4. TO have no CLUE on how to enhance soccer in SC
5. To look good in SCORE apperal(which we know you must be a dumbass to wear)

i hear you verbal

Nastradamus--I didn't say Van had "authority". I said he has "influence". Do you need for me to explain the difference?

Chico--You were correct. Wish I could explain what happened, but I could only speculate.

Seems to me that the ball is in "ya'll's" court. If enough of you are unhappy, then you will find ways to effect change. You will get yourself elected to the board and either reverse the interpretation of by-laws or change the by-laws.

You can either "put-up or shut-up". Complaining on this board does not accomplish much.

well, discussion on the board does bring out some interesting points, and flush out some opinions. Thomaspietras you left out a third option "vote with your feet" and join an organization that's worried about playing soccer instead of market protection.

Sorry. Thanks for the edification.I think I have it now.

I do think I want to be on the board though. Who's single?

thomaspietras: I am surprised and disappointed in your position. You've been writing quite a bit about unfounded rumors and speculation; now that you now have tremendously more information you are unwilling to provide either commentary or analysis beyond "put-up or shut-up." I expected more.

Then again, you're in a pretty untenable position. It's difficult to defend the SCYSA -- the decision was clearly not made in the interest of its mission. It's incredibly difficult to defend Ron Tryon -- the term "reprehensible" is too kind for asking for lists of players, parents, and coaches who have contacted an "enemy" club. It's almost impossible to defend CSC board members who have gotten on this message board and lied.

Each of us has to decide where to spend our time volunteering. I can't think of a bigger waste of my time than volunteering at the SCYSA. Why would I want to help an organization that has shown absolutely no concern for its mission and which sees losses of 1000-3000 registered players as an issue of no great concern -- let alone the fact that positive growth isn't occurring as no great concern?

When I'm able to volunteer again, it will be with an organization that actually wants to better serve the children of South Carolina.

thomaspietras: The more I read my last post to you concerning the SCYSA, the more that I thought I owed it to you to be as clear as possible. Thus, rather than simply politely responding to an earlier post of yours; I should have responded precisely what I actually thought. Your post was in response to my statement from memory that the SCYSA had reported it lost 3000 members in the last two years and my question as to what the SCYSA was doing to develop and promote youth soccer in South Carolina.

>>[thomaspietras] The 3000 number you cite seems high to me. I'm not saying you are wrong, just seems high to me. My recollection is that we had about 19,500 registerd players in 2003 and were down to 18,000 to 18,500 in 2005.

My feeling was that the decrease was something to pay attention to, but not something to get overly excited about.<<

I guess I wonder what you were getting excited about. If you're going to develop and promote soccer, then it would seem that the best overall metric would be your registered player count. Whether it's down 1500 or 3000, the real problem is that it's not going up, right?

>>While I was on the board, did we do things to try to increase the number of young people playing and enjoying soccer? Sure. Did we do things to try to develop and promote youth soccer in SC? Sure.<<

>>In a lot of different ways, we tried to make soccer avialable to more kids and tried to make the experience better (the better the experience, the better the retention). A sample (just what comes to mind, without referring back to notes, minutes, etc.), in no particular order:

1. Working with interested clubs to try to increase the number of clubs offering Top Soccer (for handicapped kids).<<

This is no doubt extremely praiseworthy. I think that CESA had 15-20 players in TopSoccer. The question isn't whether this is a worthy effort (because it is), the question is to what degree this impacts the topline number. I wouldn't expect very much.

>>2. Working to create more well-run leagues so that smaller and/or rural clubs would have access to good leagues.<<

It would be interesting to understand policy decisions concerning trying to penetrate rural areas versus urban areas. Was there a decision that top line growth would be impacted more by penetrating rural areas? If so, how did that affect top line growth?

>>3. Efforts over the past five years to improve classic-level play by putting the premier/challenge/classic levels in place (more structured than earlier, I believe).<<

This certainly benefits select players. But if I were trying to increase top line growth I'd probably focus first on recreation. In any case, did you see a dramatic effect in top line growth from this?

>>4. Efforts to improve communication--new website and moving away from the paper newsletter to an e-newsletter (this has not been implemented yet, I don't think).<<

This sounds wonderful and it would seem like the e-newsletter alone would save a lot of money -- but how does this impact top line growth? In other words, how many new players are expected to register due to these initiatives?

>>5. Continued involvement in exchange programs, like the one with German girls teams. If I remember correctly, boys and girls teams will be exchanged in 2006.<<

I'd be amazed if this had much of an impact on your top line growth, did it?

>>6. Adoption of small-sided games to improve training and ensure that kids have more touches.<<

I personally like the small-sided games; but does this increase or decrease the number of registered players?

>>7. Not sure where this issue stands, but there was discussion of setting standards for coach certifications--either recommending or mandating licensing at certain levels.<<

How will this impact top line growth with respect to new and returning registered players?

>>8. Worked with The Plex to ensure that quality, safe in-door soccer is available in the Midlands.<<

I'm not sure what this means -- what specifically did the SCYSA and Plex do together? What is the expected incremental increase in the midlands of registered players from this initiative?

>>9. A lot of effort to make more referee clinics available and generally to ensure that there were more, better qualified referees available for our youth games (ok, ok, keep the wise-cracks to yourselfs--referees are easy targets--until you get a patch and step into the center of a U18boys match, you have no right to make comments).<<

Is there an expected increase in registered players from this (I guess through increased retention numbers?)

>>10. The registrars/administators bending over backwards to get player cards to kids,so they can play.<<

This would seem to fall under the "administer" part of the mission. Is there a theory on increased number of registered players from this activity?

>>11. I know that there are some BIG things being discussed that I am not at liberty to reveal.<<

What type of thing is kept secret from the SCYSA membership?

>>I'm afraid I am inadequate to the task. I know I am leaving a lot of things out. Please don't read the above and think "Is that all they are doing?"<<

It's not that. What I wonder isn't is that all the SCYSA is doing, what I wonder is what the top line registered player growth goals are, how much each of these initiatives contribute to that growth, and then what the expenses are on a per-activity basis so that a cost per incremental added player can be computed.

>>I am sure that there are additional things that could be done. I'm also sure some of the folks who will read this post have ideas and will be asking, "Why doesn't SCYSA do xxxx" [fill in the blank]. See my earlier posts about volunteers. If more folks would step-up to help, contribute time and money, more things could be done.<<

Before I would ever contribute time and money, I'd want to understand whether the SCYSA is serious about their mission. At this point, all indications to me are that the SCYSA is not serious.

>>I hope this answers the question.<<

I appreciate the attempt, and I understand your answer, but it doesn't get me any closer to understanding whether the SCYSA even has top line registered player growth goals and whether there is any understanding of the top activities contributing to those growth goals and what that contribution and related cost is.

Let me give a concrete example. If I wanted to increase the top line registered player numbers, I would first look at recreation since it's the base of the foundation with what should be the most number of players. Then I'd try to understand which person at the SCYSA was responsible for recreation and try to figure out what his top line goal was; if that top line goal didn't reconcile to the overall SCYSA goals, then I'd have to reconcile the two goals. To be honest, I don't know who the SCYSA recreation director is and I don't understand her/his role. But that's where I'd start.

Is the SCYSA doing anything remotely similar to setting goals for the top line growth and then allocating spending for funding that can be directly tied to aggregate segments of that top line growth?

Chico:

Regarding your 9pm post

Sorry you are disappointed that I did not provide commentary or analysis. I was not there for the meetings and did not hear the conversation. As a result, I don't feel that I have any insight to give that would be anything beyond speculation.

As for being in an untenable position, I don't see it that way. It is not my job to defend SCYSA, NECSA or CSC. What I have tried to do is provide insight into their actions when I felt I could in order to improve the "conversation" on this forum. Besides, opinions regarding the various parties are already pretty well entrenched.

Finally, in saying "put up or shut up" I was saying almost exactly what you said in response. Each of us has to decide what we are going to do next. Are we going to give up on SCYSA (ie: when we volunteer we are going to find another place to do it) or are we going to get more involved in SCYSA and work for change? That really is the bottom line any way you look at it. We may have said it differently, but I think we actually agree on this.

Regarding your post from 10:38

I knew that I was not doing a great job at answering your question. I said so in my post.

Not sure what to tell you. I look at the list I put together (knowing that there is more) and consider this along with all of the adminstrative things (registration, fund raising, tournaments, background checks, etc.) that the SCYSA board has to do and think they are doing a good job. Could be better (as could most organizations) but they are doing a good job.

You look at the same list and think they are not doing well at all.

So, where do we go from here?

Nastradamus:

"Who's single". Very funny.

I've not been a fan of the "couples" thing on the board myself. I think it becomes a perception problem (which it obviously is).

However, after spending a good bit of time with the couples, I came to realize that each of them individually cares a lot about soccer in SC and works very hard to make things better.

You would be hard pressed to find replacements who would be willing to spend the amount of time that these folks do. I certainly was not.

Until the name "Bieber" is removed from the SCYSA Board, then problems will always exist.

thomaspietras: Re: where do we go from here? Probably no where...but as I've said a couple of times, I deeply appreciate your time and energy discussing this and I've learned from reading your posts. In closing [on my end], I did want to clarify several points.

>>Sorry you are disappointed that I did not provide commentary or analysis. I was not there for the meetings and did not hear the conversation. As a result, I don't feel that I have any insight to give that would be anything beyond speculation.<<

I didn't realize that the documents weren't enough. I do understand your policy now.

>>As for being in an untenable position, I don't see it that way. It is not my job to defend SCYSA, NECSA or CSC. What I have tried to do is provide insight into their actions when I felt I could in order to improve the "conversation" on this forum. Besides, opinions regarding the various parties are already pretty well entrenched.<<

I'll admit to you that I find the actions of the person who wrote the complaint reprehensible, particularly asking for lists of children, parents, and coaches. I'm still searching for a reason that would be done that would prove me wrong.

When I walk away from all of this, here's my best possible interpretation of all of this. Ron wrote a complaint based on his legal training and threw everything possible against the wall to see what would stick. He asked for everything he could think of for the same reason. He believed that by asking for more than he would get, he was more likely to get something. Finally, he sought to maximally protect his club from any external competition as would any corporation.

The trouble is that this wasn't a legal proceeding and that we're talking about charitable organizations. So the best interpretation I can come up with is that he just lost his bearings.

>>Finally, in saying "put up or shut up" I was saying almost exactly what you said in response. Each of us has to decide what we are going to do next. Are we going to give up on SCYSA (ie: when we volunteer we are going to find another place to do it) or are we going to get more involved in SCYSA and work for change? That really is the bottom line any way you look at it. We may have said it differently, but I think we actually agree on this.<<

Actually, there is another option: to work in South Carolina toward more viable alternatives to the SCYSA. I guess at this time that's where I'd tend to put my efforts. Now, if the SCYSA somehow decided to get serious about their bottom-line results reflecting their mission, then I'd reconsider.

>>I knew that I was not doing a great job at answering your question. I said so in my post.

Not sure what to tell you. I look at the list I put together (knowing that there is more) and consider this along with all of the adminstrative things (registration, fund raising, tournaments, background checks, etc.) that the SCYSA board has to do and think they are doing a good job. Could be better (as could most organizations) but they are doing a good job.

You look at the same list and think they are not doing well at all.<<

Actually, I look at the results and think that they are not doing well at all. I look at the list and honestly wonder how it ties into the top line results. I honestly don't know.

Again...thanks for your time on this.

My pleasure.