SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP BFA & MPSC

I'm starting a new thread to keep issues with MPSC and SSC apart.

I would love to see MPSC and BFA workin out their issue, as well as SSC. My concerns are that if we don't CESA will continue to dominate the state.

Considering the demographics of this thread - readers may be interested to hear that Comcast digital cable is finally going to offer Fox Soccer Channel. If you have digital cable, for another $5/month - you can get FSC, 3 Fox College sports channels, GOL TV and NBA TV. Seems like they are raising overall pricing as well to say thank you for our loyalty! All this effective March 1st. Good news for us lowcountry soccer fans who have Comcast.

Tell them Cole sent you.

I am glad i am no longer part of this issue but the MPSC people definitely feel it was a one sided offer re management and coaching input. Not an alliance but an takeover.

Swimmer, come on now, don't give only pieces of the information.

A board position and a coaching directors position, were both made available to MPSC, in the initial stages, first year, and then again in the second year. That equates to a one sided offer regarding the management and coaching input?

You guys are talking way over my head.

BFADAD..They are discussing the terms of the agreement to join the alliance and what positions they would fill..
If you are not aware of these conditions...then it would make no sense to you.

What is happening in the low country? If this is true; it is a shame that politics is preventing kids from playing soccer. I heard that MPSC refused to sign the transfer for two players that joined BFA in order to play in the premier league with the U-14 boys.
Two talented kids would miss out on the two games of the season, all because of politics, what a shame.
This is why CESA would continue to dominate. Congrats to Andrew and Tommy for coming together. My kids have somewhere competitive to play. Go Greenville

I tend to disagree. I believe you short change the kids who played the entire fall season on both teams. The BFA kids who will receive less playing time now and the MPSC whose skill level, talent and team capatability will now suffer. I thought the so called transfer window comes once challange cup ended in May. I don't necessarily know the rules on that one. Secondly, I believe if this were to happen the league would be even more watered down. I think CESA also watered down the league with their off season but in my mind acceptable transfer of former Tega Cay players.

Soccer16: I'm not sure what you disagree about in "soccerislife"'s post, so I'll try to assume very little here.

There is no "transfer window" after the championship of a particular age and gender bracket. The way to think about this is that once that championship occurs, the kids no longer are associated with that team or club (unless they win a state championship, in which case they are associated with the team and club until they lose regionals, lose nationals, or win nationals). After all, this isn't indentured servitude -- these children are not associated for life with a team and club.

What "soccerislife" is talking about is a relatively new requirement by the SCYSA that kids who transfer during a season get the approval via signature of the club from which they are transferring. Failing to get that signature results in the child being penalized via a delay in when they can be rostered on the team to which they are transferring. I'm hard on the SCYSA; but this is yet another example of a rule that hurts players and only helps clubs, i.e., it is yet again another example of the SCYSA attempting to transfer power from players to the club. Not surprising, given that the SCYSA is paid by clubs and not by players -- but yet again a disheartening move by an organization that seems to repeatedly take an "anti-player/anti-choice" position.

Regarding the "watering down" of the league, I assume you're referring to the "challenge league" and not RIIIPL-East. You're right -- better players choosing better teams tends to make the challenge league weaker when those teams compete in RIIIPL-East. Of course, it makes the RIIIPL-East league stronger, and helps South Carolina field better teams in RIIIPL-East. What's the old saying -- God does not give with two hands?

Then again, I think all of this is simpler if you take the point of view of what's best for the children involved. Respectfully, I think the last sentence of your post reveals a mindset that is somewhat anti-player. A child transferring clubs is doing so because the child (or the parent) wants something different from what her or his club is offering. It could be more challenge, it could be a different social setting, etc. Clubs don't "transfer" players between seasons -- and from a player point of view "clubs" never transfer players -- players make a decision to transfer for their own set of reasons.

Every time that the SCYSA, or a club, or any other organization makes it more difficult for a player to exercise his or her choice, it adds a burden to that player. Now -- is some regulation probably right? Of course, after all, you want to balance the good and harm done to both the transferring player and the players on teams from and to which the player is transferring. But the continued progression of attenuating choice for players is a step in the wrong direction, and hints to a rottenness at the core foundation of some of our affiliating organizations which profess to be focused first and foremost on what's best for the player.

>>[swimmer2] I am glad i am no longer part of this issue but the MPSC people definitely feel it was a one sided offer re management and coaching input. Not an alliance but an takeover.<<

>>[Bear] Swimmer, come on now, don't give only pieces of the information.

A board position and a coaching directors position, were both made available to MPSC, in the initial stages, first year, and then again in the second year. That equates to a one sided offer regarding the management and coaching input? <<

Yes, that equates to a one-sided offer from the perspective of MSPC if MPSC believes that it brings much more value to the table than did JIYSC or SSC. It equates to a fair and reasonable offer from the perspective of Bridge if you assume that the value MPSC would bring to the table is less than MPSC seems to perceive its value to be.

At this stage, I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Bridge has staked out its position, as has MPSC. Whichever organization executes the best will "win" in the sense of attracting the best players.

Look -- we could sit around and condemn CFC for not joining CESA, or LCSC and CRSA for not joining CUFC, or whatever. In the end, however, these clubs are offering something that someone wants -- so if their boards decide that "merging" or "allying" or whatever isn't in the best interest of their respective club, and the club can still operate financially successfully, then don't you think that the right thing for these clubs to do is to stop whining about who will and won't join them and instead focus on improving their services so that it's a moot point?