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?

Chico,

I agree that rules should not be overly burdensome in restricting player movement. I also have a little compassion for teams that lose players any time outside of the May/June tryout period. So, I guess I'm caught in two minds here.

Also remember:

What is good for R3PL is not often good for the SCYSA Challenge League.

What is good for CESA....is not always good for the other clubs/teams competing in South Carolina.

Chico: I'm not quite clear on your comment about requiring a player to get a release signature from his home team/club before transferring. I agree whole-heartedly that if a player needs to move, then a team/club needs to sign the release and let them go--they shouldn't hold up the transfer. It's in the best interest of the team/club to take the high road, let 'em go, and move on.

On the other hand, I've seen some situations where a family has not been forthcoming with their intentions, and moved with little or no notification. That's wrong also.

I don't know the entire situation with the above referenced players/club, but I don't believe its appropriate to place any blame at SCYSA's feet for the kids missing two games. Yes, it's an SCYSA rule, but it's some combination of the team(s)/club(s)/family that didn't get it done.

On the matter of the season ending differently for different teams of the same age doesn't seem right either. For example, assuming that CESA 92 Premier wins state cup this spring, why should Tega Cay U14B have to wait until after Regionals to begin to recruit back players they lost last summer while CESA 92 Premier can actually begin to recruit from them and any other U14B team essentially at the conclusion of state cup.

I may be missing something... If a family moves I see no issue with release. On the other hand if a player wants to switch teams, then the current club should investigate why? illegal recruiting, etc.

I have been involved in a player transferring to another club. To me it was simple, I at least pretend to be interested in the development of the player, therefore that should be my consideration. If the current club offering does not provide for the improvement of this player and the new club does, then release is immediate. On the other hand sometimes the issue is related to recruitment of an already rostered player for no reason other than bolstering numbers. If you tell Sallie how wonderful it will be in the new club and she is such a great player, etc. eventually they will believe it. Not saying that release would not happen but at least all fees should be payed to the original club as expenses were incurred (future and present) based on her commitment.

By the way, the above example ... player was released as the opportunity was clearly better than what was available. No making them wait 30 days.

Here is the SCYSA rule on transferring from one team/club to another:

31. TRANSFER – a player who is currently or was previously rostered on an Official Team Roster
requesting and being moved onto the SCYSA Official Team Roster of another team or the return of a
released player to the same roster within the current seasonal year. All requests for transfer must have
the explanation portion of the form properly filled out by the player’s receiving coach, and the transferring
player’s current pass should accompany this transaction. No transferred player may compete with a new
team until he/she receives a new player pass for that team and appears on that team’s roster.
Any player transferring to another club, without their present coach’s signature on the transfer form, will be
required to wait 30 days from the date the transfer form was received by the SCYSA State
Registrar/designee before they can be rostered to another team.
The player’s present coach may approve and sign the transfer form and the player will be released from
their current team and eligible to be rostered to another team immediately upon the completion of the
transfer form by the SCYSA State Registrar/designee.
Any player changing their primary residence by a minimum of 50 miles may request to be transferred to
another team without their present coach’s approval or a 30 day waiting period.

futbol: In my view, the opportunity to play RIIIPL is better for the development of the player, i.e., I agree with you. However, who's to judge what's better in all situations, can Sally jump from a 6th place team in the fall to a 3rd place team across town in the spring and stay in challenge league? Presumably, she'll be playing with better players since they came in 3rd rather than 6th and that would be better for her development. What's to stop players from jumping ship part way in to the season and transferring just before state cup roster freezes, etc.

The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post is that its unreasonable to expect a state level rule to be omniscience, equitable, and fair in every situation. If you were the state register, and the releasing club wasn't willingly releasing a player (if that were the situation), wouldn't you want to know more about the situation?

So while Chico has numerous issues with SCYSA rules, I do not think this one should be put on them. And in the grand scheme, loosing two games (even if they're RIII games) is a short term issue and not that big of a deal for the development of a player considering 8-10 years of soccer they've played thus far and the next 4-5 years they're going to play youth soccer.

BTW, another case that would seem automatice would be if a team folded in your home club and the one across town made, but you need a signed form then also.

If a player/parents want to transfer to another club between seasons..what do you stand to gain as a coach or club by not signing the transfer?

As I see it, the only thing a coach could gain from refusing to sign is the satisfaction of exacting revenge on the player and his/her parents who would have the audacity to leave his/her team.

Great job, coach - you showed them!

Parents pay the registration fee and any costs that deal with training fees and tourney's...nothing comes free for the soccer parent so why penalize them if they choose to take their business elsewhere? This has become a business whether we like it or not

To me it's the same as when some mutual funds charge a fee for when I reallocate my assets. It's my money, if the mutual fund isn't doing well (in my view), I reallocate, taking the short term fee with the belief that there's a long term benefit.

What about the players/parents of the team from which these young men/women are transferring off of? Are they any less important in consideration of "what's best for the player"?My guess is these young men in question would be quality players and most likely some of the better players on the present team--would their team "suffer" on the field as a result?--my guess would be yes. Maybe my definition of "committment" to a specific team is different is I see both fall and spring season (for U-14 and below)as my child's committment to his/her team--if I/they want to make a change--then tryouts are in May.

socdad: What I think chico and CHT are saying, it's their money/their kids and they should have freedom to move around as needed, and that the "SCYSA" 30 day window is not needed, and is unreasonable, if the releasing club refuses to sign the form.

Having seen the situation a few times, letting the player go mid year is probably better for the current team than having him/her bide their time through the spring season (IMO this applies to kids looking for higher competition as well as disgruntled families). That said, if the transfer were to cause a team to fold due to lack of players, then I would hope the transferring parent would take that into consideration.

I too think the commitment should be for both seasons at U-14. What has happened in this scenario? Who are the kids playing for now? As I see it the kids did have the opportunity to change but needed to notify SCYSA within the 30 days then so be it. There is an avenue for them to participate but it just wasn't met. Correct? If you allow unrestricted free agency all bets are off as to what new heights recruiting 14 year old soccer players will reach.

I think the subjects of "a player's commitment to his/her club/team" and "a club/team's commitment to their player" are probably entitled to their own thread(s). In fact, I believe it has been discussed at length before.

Either way, I believe the main question here is the purpose of a 30-day wait period - what is it?

As greengrass mentions, I have seen on occasion where a team would just as soon have the player who doesn't want to be on their team go ahead and leave. I mean, who wants a player and/or their parents who don't want to even be there? I certainly don't.

Of course, I would hope the player leaving would take into consideration the state of the team he/she is leaving, but ultimately, parents have to make the development of their own child their number one priority (IMHO)

>>[Hurst66] Also remember: What is good for R3PL is not often good for the SCYSA Challenge League. What is good for CESA....is not always good for the other clubs/teams competing in South Carolina.<<

Respectfully, I think it's simpler than that. Put the player first. Put the club, and leagues, the locality, affiliating organizations, and all the other stuff a distant second.

>>[greengrass] The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post is that its unreasonable to expect a state level rule to be omniscience, equitable, and fair in every situation. If you were the state register, and the releasing club wasn't willingly releasing a player (if that were the situation), wouldn't you want to know more about the situation?<<

>>[greengrass] To me it's the same as when some mutual funds charge a fee for when I reallocate my assets. It's my money, if the mutual fund isn't doing well (in my view), I reallocate, taking the short term fee with the belief that there's a long term benefit.<<

This is almost a great analogy. Let's make it a bit more applicable to this situation: if a club were to state that players were responsible for all training fees for the season, regardless of transfer requests, and would refuse to allow a player to transfer until all training fees were paid, then this would be a more precise analogy.

I am absolutely on board for clubs doing this if they wish (as long as they publicize it when a player is rostered -- just as a mutual fund must disclose this in a prospectus.) I have no problems with it.

What I have problems with is some arbitrary rule that states that a player is "held" for 30 days unless a coach signs a piece of paper. As "Belligerant" so eloquently put it...

>>[Belligerant] As I see it, the only thing a coach could gain from refusing to sign is the satisfaction of exacting revenge on the player and his/her parents who would have the audacity to leave his/her team.<<

Amen.

>>[socdad] What about the players/parents of the team from which these young men/women are transferring off of? Are they any less important in consideration of "what's best for the player"?<<

>>[Soccer16] I too think the commitment should be for both seasons at U-14. What has happened in this scenario? Who are the kids playing for now? As I see it the kids did have the opportunity to change but needed to notify SCYSA within the 30 days then so be it. There is an avenue for them to participate but it just wasn't met. Correct? If you allow unrestricted free agency all bets are off as to what new heights recruiting 14 year old soccer players will reach.<<

I understand the point of view that the few must suffer for the many -- I just haven't had a lot of empathy for that point of view since understanding what Stalin wrought with that ideology.

Players transfer for many reasons. Families move. Fellow team members don't want to practice, travel, etc. Playing time. Etc.

Should a transferring player be "penalized" for any of this? I argue that they should not...and I argue that having a rejected coach have to sign a piece of paper allowing a transfer is a penalty.

Again...I have absolutely no problems with parents having to pay for an entire season of training even if they have their kid transferred...because when a kid joins a team and then decides to leave it there should be consequences for that.

How many Bridge FA or MPSC kids that are U13/U14 are playing JV with their high school teams this spring? What kind of "duality" between club/HS exists?

As far as I know, there is one player from the Bridge teams who plays JV.

Correction - two players, one from each of those two Bridge FA teams.

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by duality, but if you are asking if BFA players are allowed to play JV, I believe that decision is left up to the coach.

In our family we have a rule, If you start something you finish it. There have been times with all of our children and they play soccer for two different clubs, that things were not going the way they had expected. You finish the season out period. Respect your club,team,and coach. There is no issue if you want to change teams or clubs after the season is over. They have the right to go where they want and feel most comfortable. There is always going to be someone to take their place and the team and club will go on.

Great rule, but it's always nice to have a back-up plan. Especially, if it's not just the child, but the parent who also wants to move.

In this case, the Bridge Team is playing at a higher level, something the Mt. Pleasant team cannot offer at this time.

Hmmmm....if only Mt. Pleasant had joined the alliance, this might not be an issue....

Again, I enjoy not spending the energy on this regularly.

Don't talk about it being about the kids when all I see are parent, coach and club officials in this thread.

Reason for transfer rule is to protect a team that has established its roster, budget and makes plans based on that roster.

And if you do not think that asking players to guest play in a tournament and then somehow that player all of the sudden wants to transfer to the team he 'guested' for , you head is in the clouds, sand, etc. Recruiting pure and simple.

My orignal point about failure of a merger is basic sales :
if your product isn't being bought by your target audience - don't blame the buyer - fix the product.

Swimmer2...I totally agree with the last statement
As far as the transfer rule...so the player sits out for a month and makes the move anyway..Does not help the prior teams budget..I think that if a player moves that the parents should have to pay the fees that are due the prior team so the budget holds up. Maybe that would deter the parents from moving their child..Having to pick up the costs for two teams could be expensive...No players or kids in this thread because their way is paid...no matter who they play for..The only problem I see them having is to sit out a month of soccer...Player development?

It's all CESA's fault! If they didn't take Tega Cay's star players thus causing Tega Cay to bow out of Premier play and therefore by default giving Bridge the opportunity to play Premier we wouldn't be having this discussion. The "evil empire" stikes again.

Really I just wanted to get everyone fired up with those CESA comments! Again, I think CESA was correct in their approach. My understanding of the rule previously posted still allows the transfer to take place just not for 30 days. If Bridge or the players are upset about a couple of games being missed then they should have evaluated that when making their respective decisions.

Are the kids playing for Bridge now? What positions do they play? Are they good enough to be starters?

Do not know for sure...but I think the 30 days are about up. they missed two games last weekend. they will get plenty of soccer having to play both leagues..Do not know what positions they play or whether they will start..Players were picked up due to the low numbers on the team not to stack the team..the coach plays everybody..He is truly about player development

It's Tega Cay's fault for not providing a competitive product that would keep the local kid home. Don't blame CESA for building a better mouse trap.

Gasp.......

Hurst, has Chico hijacked your user id?

Call a spade a spade. Chico and I can debate the pros and cons of premier level soccer and the super clubs that dominate the landscape. I've said before that what is good for the goose might not be good for the gander.

But I'm not going to knock CESA for building a highly-competitive program that continues to attract the top players in the state (and surrounding area). Bridge and CUFC are making strides to serve this market as well.

Many factors go into a family's (parent & player) decision to make this type of a commitment. If they are OK with it, and the kid has the talent (not sitting on the bench).....go for it. I've seen kids get into it for the long haul and do very well with the challenging environment. I've seen kids (or families) decide that the commitment is too much and they have returned back to their local club, often times better players than when they left.

To each his own....the opportunity is there. But the CESA commitment is certainly harder on the York County player/family than it is on their counterparts in the Greenville/Spartanburg area.

Good luck to Ricky & David and the CESA 92's.

swimmer, you won't see kids on here (for the most part), because this is BORING to them. They want to play, while the adults want to TALK about playing. If you have your own children, this should not come as a big surprise. If this IS a surprise to you, then maybe your head is also somewhere it should not be.

Like CHT mentioned, thirty days is not really a very long time, and won't help protect anybody's budget. I am thinking there must be another reason, just not sure what.

Players guest for other teams all the time - my son has. Was the coach of the other team trying to lure us over to his team? Who cares? They needed a couple extra players, and it was a great opportunity for my son to play. End of story. Just because a player transfers to a team after guesting with them does not mean there is something sinister going on.

I disagree with you about your merger and sales philosophy, though – at least, as it pertains to soccer clubs. I don’t believe that MPSC not joining the Bridge FA has anything to do with a substandard product. I believe it has everything to do with the egos of several influential people who are able to argue their point well enough to the rest of the decision-makers in Mt. Pleasant, that no move to join is ever taken.

These egos East of the Cooper, for some reason, feel that they are able to provide the best product possible without anyone else’s help. Don’t get me wrong – MPSC has great facilities, great people, and a great program, as long as you aren’t interested in success at the higher levels of soccer. I believe the past couple years prove me out on this point.

If the egos actually wanted to be successful at the higher levels, but do not like the Bridge concept, or even the Bridge administration, then why have they not come up with their own plan? Simple – they don’t really care. They want to provide the best product for the masses. If you want something higher, well, you are just out of luck.

Hurst, sorry, but I have to disagree with you, also. I have absolutely no idea what Tega Cay has or has not done to “build a better mouse trap,” but I believe in numbers. Sure, you will always have some team, somewhere, who is able to succeed against the odds, but in general, your better teams are going to come from areas with larger populations. IF, again for the most part, those larger cities are able to unify, e.g., Greenville/CESA, Raleigh/CASL.

If you are not able to unify the larger cities, then you have only mildly successful programs, e.g., Columbia/CSC/NECSA, Charleston/MPSC/SSC.
(yes, I realize CSC and NECSA combined)

With Charlotte - and its own programs – directly to the North, Tega Cay – with nearby cities Rock Hill and hmmm…..Lancaster? Chester? York? They just are not able to compete.

The Bridge is slowly gaining numbers from the Mt. Pleasant area, but until the higher-ups at MPSC lose their egos, it might forever only be a trickle.

Whew! Sorry about that – got stuck up on my soapbox there for a minute.

As luck would have it, the 30-day waiting period for the two players in question is now a moot point. I take that back – luck had nothing to do with it; the squeaky wheel had everything to do with it. From what I understand, one of the top rung at MPSC finally got sick of being bombarded from all sides regarding the issue and relented. Thanks!

Belligerent,

You are right that having Charlotte to the north is a "draw" for the competitive player. It works for the girls but doesn't work for the boys after U-14 (HS conflict). However, how far does Bridge FA have to spread it's wings before it takes in eight 4A high schools? In a year or two, York County will have seven 4A high schools. Lancaster (4A) is another 30 minutes down Hwy 521. Smack in between Fort Mill and Lancaster is Indian Land, currently a 1A school but ready to explode. The Indian Land school district borders one of the most desireable areas of South Charlotte and they are building houses like crazy. Does this provide enough "quantity" with which to create "quality"? (Is it big enough????)

Also, you are telling swim that Mt. Pleasant's competitive program is dead.....what happenend? Didn't they have an incredibly successful girls team a few years back (I believe they are mostly juniors in college now)? Has that ship sailed for the last time?

Biggest EGO in SC is right in s'ville.

The last two well known, successful girls teams from Mt. P were the (Lady) Ice and the Fury. The girls from the Ice were mostly members of Wando's state championship team in 2004 and are now indeed juniors in college (the team featured Kelly McGinty from CofC, Lou Hudson from Clemson and CofC, Greta Hewitt of Newberry, and others who decided against playing in college). The Fury girls are either seniors in college or just graduated last year.

The Impulse (year younger than Ice) was mildly successful with a bunch of state finalist placings and decent records in Premier League, but never placed first or made it to regionals. I'm not sure about beyond them, but the end of Ice's reign heralded the success of Greenville Futbol Club's U18G team (that at points played both Lindsey and Hailey Beam, I believe) and the Impulse lost players to Andy Grist's Carolina Girls U17 team (featuring Danielle Jordan of CofC, now a sophomore?).

At any rate, those are the last truly successful MPSC girls team that I've heard of or from and all three (Impulse, Ice, and Fury) were originally Hungryneck Soccer Club teams. Any others from younger teams and you have to ask someone else.

Thanks kitten. I couldn't remember the Ice's name. A few years back Mt. Pleasant had another strong girls team, they would be U-15 (HS freshmen) right now. They must have split up....where are those girls at now?

swimmer2....OUCH!!!

They'd be what, 91 or 92?

I can't find even a coach's listing on the MPSC website for either girls' team (or an 89 or 90 girls, for that matter)...I guess there either weren't enough girls or there were, but they all went to play for Bridge or the whole team did. I mostly know all the coaches listed for MPSC and I don't see any missing at the moment.

Anyone else know more than this?

A majority of them played U15 with the Bridge last season. One of the Hilton Head girls from that team played for CESA this past season. The old MPSC team was the Conquest.

Ah, thanks!

On the girl's side - MPSC had U17 team in RIII Premier League that had a rough season and did not win a game or score a goal in league play. I believe they lost some players to CESA during the season.

The Conquest won back to back state championships at U12 and U13 if I am not mistaken and I believe most of them are now with Bridge.

So what are the options for girls in Mt. Pleasant? From scanning Hotstat et, al it seems like there are only one or two challenge-level girls teams in the entire club.

92 and 93 Bridge teams are loaded with Mt Pleasant girls....so start with the 94 and 95 teams..those would be your next groups to watch

I still feel that a merger between all Charleston area clubs would be the best solution...Not just challenge but classic and one recreation program as well.

I know Mt. Pleasant has a very promising group of young girls in the U10 Academy group who'll age up to whatever system is in place for U11 top tier teams. As long as the club doesn't aggravate the parents any more than it already has some of them, MPSC should field one or two very good teams in the '96 age group. The '95 age group wasn't ever very impressive, if I remember correctly. Many still had problems with some of the rudimentary skills even as they aged into select, so I'd imagine that the club of choice for that age group might be Bridge, if it shows better promise.

Otherwise, I don't know much else.

CUSC..Andy does an excellent job working with girls

Hurst, I don’t believe I said that “Mt. Pleasant's competitive program is dead.” If it came across that way, I apologize. Comparing the success of Mt. Pleasant’s more competitive teams against CESA (and the rest of the state) now versus the success they had several years ago, I am thinking you will see a clear downturn. Yes, they may have a successful team thrown in there on occasion, but I don’t believe you will see their name in the win columns nearly as often as in the past.

And, I think you might have misunderstood me a tad regarding populations. Being a 4-A school, while that may qualify you as having a certain number of students, certainly does not mean that you will have a strong soccer program. Examples: Stratford, Berkeley (I think), Ft. Dorchester, etc. Also, Blythewood is one of the quickest growing areas in SC, but I don’t ever remember reading anything about an up-and-coming soccer program there. I was talking more about large metropolitan areas – Atlanta, Raleigh, Greenville, etc.

And, swimmer, you may be absolutely correct about the biggest ego in SC being currently located in Summerville, but at least that ego has a vision and is actually DOING something constructive towards making this area more competitive with the CESA's of the world.

I wish I could say the same about certain persons in Mt. Pleasant.

It's not an ego if an individual has a strong vision towards bettering development and the situation down in the Lowcountry.

The ego down in the Lowcountry preventing a working relationship between Bridge FA and Mt. Pleasant seems to be the non-soccer decision maker(s) at the MPRD, who make all soccer decisons for it's figurehead club, MPSC, and it's figurehead DOC.

For those not familiar with the structure down in Mt. Pleasant: RD is Recreation Dept. and SC is Soccer Club and, yes, the non-soccer "rec" administrator(s) make most of the soccer decisions, including to not discuss, negotiate or even consider any relationship with Bridge FA.

So down in the Lowcountry, who has the ego? A driven soccer coach who has developed many youth players, clubs and programs? Or a non-soccer Recreation Dept. administrator(s) with not one soccer interest to benefit youth soccer players and their development?

Looks like CESA is in good shape vs. the one area of the State that could organize and compete if they got their ducks in a row.

The question is how long is it going to be before CESA starts offering training here in the lowcountry...more and more players are making that move to the evil empire..

With some of the local animosity between players, parents, and coaches of MPSC and BFA, I wouldn't be surprised if CESA came in and did well if only by providing a club that wasn't involved in the "cat fight," so to speak.

Kitten...you hit the nail on the head..Players and parents are going to look for something different or new...and if we can't all come together then you can count on CESA helping us out and giving the disgruntled another choice..
They pick up more players each season so why not hire some soccer professionals and find a location to practice and add to the evil red empire

Those would be the requirements: local coaches and fields to play on. I don't doubt that they could find enough good coaches as, at least at MPSC, a lot of good coaches have been turned off by the management of the club (including myself) and would be more than happy to pick up again. The question would be where to play more than anything. Otherwise, the CESA reputation over MPSC and BFA would be an instant draw as something "new" and established, to a degree.

Why not in the heart of the lowcountry..North Charleston..a close drive for everyone and no established club in that area other than a few individuals who are trying to start a club there..I agree that soccer professionals would make themselves available like those who work in the CESA-Columbia program..

It would take some getting used to in regards to having to drive a little further--it was always nice to get to practice in a maximum of ten minutes back when I played--North Charleston seems like a good place as long as decent fields can be kept up. It also has the added benefit of not being associated with any club in particular and thus wouldn't carry any hard feelings from any side.

I was just picking a central location that is untapped by any other soccer club...N Charleston is baseball country..I grew up there..The rec departments offer soccer but the kids move on or quit by teenage years..I think some time and effort in this area of the lowcountry could prove to pay off for the soccer community as a whole..

>>[swimmer2] Don't talk about it being about the kids when all I see are parent, coach and club officials in this thread.<<

There should be acronyms and even awards given out when the same logical fallacy is repeated often enough on this message board. Swimmer2 -- it may very well be that "it being about the kids" is wrong; however, whether or not adolescents participate in the discussion is hardly a measure of the validity of the argument.

>>Reason for transfer rule is to protect a team that has established its roster, budget and makes plans based on that roster.<<

Then make it against the rules to transfer, period. Or create a financial penalty for transferring. But creating a rule that states that you have to get the coach you're leaving to sign a piece of paper or you sit out for 30 days is nothing short of stupid.

>>And if you do not think that asking players to guest play in a tournament and then somehow that player all of the sudden wants to transfer to the team he 'guested' for , you head is in the clouds, sand, etc. Recruiting pure and simple.<<

I'm not sure where your head is; but there's no doubt that a club allowing a player to guest isn't completely altruistic -- clubs do things for selfish reasons just as players (and parents) do. The point is to increase the range of choices rather than build a set of arbitrary and capriciously interpreted rules that forbid choice. Because the more you forbid choice, the less that a service provider (whether that is a coach, a club, or whatever) has to worry about providing the absolutely best service possible.

>>My orignal point about failure of a merger is basic sales :
if your product isn't being bought by your target audience - don't blame the buyer - fix the product.<<

Couldn't agree more.

>>[Beezer] It's not an ego if an individual has a strong vision towards bettering development and the situation down in the Lowcountry.<<

Huh? Let me understand your position here -- it's not an "ego thing" if the person has what are basically good intentions? Here's what I intepret you as saying: it's not an ego thing if I [Beezer] agrees with them. Okay...

>>The ego down in the Lowcountry preventing a working relationship between Bridge FA and Mt. Pleasant seems to be the non-soccer decision maker(s) at the MPRD, who make all soccer decisons for it's figurehead club, MPSC, and it's figurehead DOC.

For those not familiar with the structure down in Mt. Pleasant: RD is Recreation Dept. and SC is Soccer Club and, yes, the non-soccer "rec" administrator(s) make most of the soccer decisions, including to not discuss, negotiate or even consider any relationship with Bridge FA.<<

Then quit whining and create a great club with great services and draw all the kids you want to Bridge.

>>So down in the Lowcountry, who has the ego? A driven soccer coach who has developed many youth players, clubs and programs? Or a non-soccer Recreation Dept. administrator(s) with not one soccer interest to benefit youth soccer players and their development?<<

Again...for your own sake...quit whining and work on providing better services at Bridge.

>>Looks like CESA is in good shape vs. the one area of the State that could organize and compete if they got their ducks in a row.<<

Hey...I think the folks in Columbia, and particularly CUFC, might strongly disagree with you on that -- and given the results of the Fall challenge cup, they'd have a right to.

Actually, considering the bad history between individuals and clubs in the Lowcountry, the Bridge FA has done a great job considering it's been such a short time.

The number of posts on various topics, on this website, talking about CESA and then Bridge FA as the State's top clubs is a great testament to Bridge FA and that alot of other people agree they're doing something right so far.

Again, it's only been a year and a half with alot of team and individual accolades.

Maybe a new opportunity for BFA to consider, central location?

New place to play on the Wando
Recreation complex planned for Daniel Island
Charleston Post & Courier Wednesday, February 21, 2007

"A real estate company and the city of Charleston are rolling out plans to develop a major waterfront recreation area on Daniel Island that would include a large marina, boat ramp, community fishing pier and five athletic fields."

"The site, which runs two miles along the Wando River on either side of the Mark Clark Expressway...A city-maintained recreational area with three baseball fields, two soccer fields and room for a gymnasium."

http://www.charleston.net/assets/webPage...bDate=2/21/2007

Or, build some new fields with this resource!!! I see Summerville has used this resource in the past (you can look up previous grantees on their website by state).

US Soccer Foundation
http://www.ussoccerfoundation.org/site/c.gpLPJQOpHkE/b.879945/k.A80B/Grants_Overview.htm
Grants Overview

About the Grants Process
At the core of the Foundation is its annual grant making program. Starting in 1995, almost $20 million dollars in cash, equipment, and services have been awarded to more than 380 grantees in all 50 states. Our grantees represent the entire spectrum of soccer communities from the small rural club to the U.S. Soccer Federation, the National Governing Body for the sport of soccer in the United States. The Foundation’s impact on soccer through the annual grants program has been significant…and continues to grow.



Focus and Objectives
For the 2007 grant cycle, the following focus has been established to guide the Foundation’s funding decisions:

For 2007, the Foundation will award Grants exclusively to projects and programs that develop players, coaches, and referees in economically disadvantaged urban areas. This year we are focusing on approximately 340 "urban areas" that include populations of 100,000 or more.

The one exception to this exclusive focus is the Foundation's All Conditions Fields (ACF) Grants. ACF Grants support the construction of state-of-the-art synthetic grass soccer fields and will continue to be available to projects serving all types of communities, though the highest priority will be given to projects serving players in economically disadvantaged urban areas.

What happened to the North Charleston idea (proposed earlier) and why wouldn't the coaches at Charleston Southern get behind this?

Hurst, CSU is up around Goose Creek, that's only about 4 miles closer to Charleston than Summerville. I think the idea is that you need a central location. There is a large amount of land available from Daniel Island northward off of Clements Ferry Rd. Charleston Battery has a new Practice field on Daniel Island that BFA already uses, add these two new resources on DI, plus add another field or two off Clements Ferry and now you have something central to Summerville, James Island and Mt Pleasant...closer proximity to the coast so you may even draw from the North Hwy 17 crowd.

I didn't even think of Daniel Island, but it's definitely much more convenient than North Charleston and would probably draw many more people.

In response to other emails about the Bridge FA/Mt. Pleasant topic.

Word from those-in-the-know out of the Lowcountry is that after a series of meetings and negotiations between presidents and DOCs (from Bridge FA, Summerville, Mt. Pleasant, Charleston United and James Island) in the last few weeks, all sides agreed to the Bridge FA concept and structure for Challenge and Premier teams in the Lowcountry.

However, the Mt. Pleasant Rec. Dept said "no" to it's soccer coordinator, the MPSC president and the MPSC DOC. Don't know if that decision effects Charleston United as well??

So, Bridge FA growth will continue without Mt. P Rec. Dept. support and will roll with it's upcoming field expansion as well as addition of teams, programs and coaching staff.

Still, a bunch of good players, current and in-the-making, that are part of programs that can't offer them the level they need due to lack of coaches and other top players.

Can you provide additional information?
+++What are BFA's field expansion plans? [key issue in drawing upon the 'good players' to commit additional time and resources]

Any truth to the rumor that the Wando Head Coach is leaving BFA to coach the Mt P U15's next year?

FYI, I can understand the Mt P position given that there are several hundred micro youths at the fields on some nights. However, I think a Lowcountry Alliance at Challenge/Premier is the only way to go. Recreation ( and Classic ) should be left to the local clubs only...no exceptions.
Thanks Much

This is such a shame. Get soccer out of the hands of politicians and they might just move forward in the lowcountry.

I don't know specific details on the fields except an identified location should be online in the near future. And, I don't know anything about Bridge FA/Mt. Pleasant coaching plans or anything relating to the Wando coach.

I agree about the no exceptions on levels below Challenge and Premier: the clubs should control all ages of those levels below Challenge and hand off the top U11/U12 players to the Bridge FA for Challenge and Premier development.

It would seem to be a win-win situation. The DOCs worried about their job status/income still run their programs and get paid (since most have few to no Challenge/Premier level teams anyway) and the Bridge FA runs all the Challenge and Premier teams. The club DOCs could still coach a Bridge FA team to have input and involvement in the alliance. It seemed like a good setup for all.

'INCOME' - I think most of the club or rec dept income comes from the micro/rec/classic initiatives. Club Coaches would be forgoing minimal income by turning the challenge and premier levels over to BFA.

'STATUS' - This is the sticking point [on behalf of the club's perspective] that prevents the alliance. The Club's DOC will not make the decision - the players/families will. The players will only make this decision when 1) BFA obtains "CENTRALLY LOCATED" fields of good quality and 2) MPSC can no longer field a competitive Challenge/Premier team.
MPSC's 2006/2007 team's:
U17 was competitive in CLASSIC not CHALLENGE
U16 was not competitive at CHALLENGE
U15 is PREMIER
U14 is competitive at CHALLENGE
U13 is competitive at CHALLENGE

MPSC's rising U15s and below will make up competitive STATE CHALLENGE teams but are not strong enough to compete at the PREMIER level. The goal of the Alliance is to BUILD lowcountry teams that could showcase the best talent we have to offer and compete at the REGION Level, and of course, that's what aspiring CHALLENGE players want, right?
So, it really doesn't matter what the MPSC DOC or any other Club DOC says or does, IT'S UP TO THE PLAYER/PARENT TO JOIN THE ALLIANCE! That said, BFA must offer significant incentives to draw upon the individuals [not force a cooperation between clubs]. The incentives are: 1) better coaching, 2) central location, location, location, 3) better facilities, and 4) better opportunities (e.g. programs that expose players to college recruiting). BFA currently offers better coaching than most clubs, location is not good, facilities are adequate, minimal (local) recruiting exposure. Address these four issues and BFA will draw the best players in the region and you won't need an Alliance!

Good points! It's just a shame all the clubs can't endorse the Bridge FA so parents and players don't have to make that "tough choice" but, you're right, they need to now.

The Bridge FA does have better coaching/players/teams but the facilities are adequate enough to not sacrifice development. Youngsters in other countries grow up playing on anything they can! Development is the word all these clubs use but very few are willingly to assist and make sacrifices in doing it.

As far as central location, agreed, it would be ideal. But, a 25-35 minute, one-way commute is minimal compared to the drive top players in the top clubs around the country make 3-4 times per week. The Lowcountry, and South Carolina, have to realize that putting alot of good players together with a good coach doesn't happen next door. A minimal drive to Summerville, Daniel Island or James Island isn't a big sacrifice.

The Bridge FA is only a year and a half old and has done some things the Lowcountry hasn't achieved. It looks like it will have to succeed a more cut-throat way by "convincing" parents and players to join or, in simple terms, recruit.

Beezer,

You were doing well advocating the benefits of Bridge FA, until your last statement. An attitude of us vs them currently exists, and your statement will only perpetuate it.

From the very beginning, as pointed out by others on this board, Bridge FA was seen as a takeover operation, in lieu of a cooperative effort. There are many reasons for that sentiment, and that is and will be a significant hurdle to overcome. The latest "news" concerning the MP rec department isn't new. There is not a single "soccer" person in the Charleston area that didn't think the best way to compete beyond the state was to combine resources. After all, it was the "soccer" people that originally proposed the idea.

Parents make choices based on perceived benefits. If they don't perceive any additional benefits, which will overcome the negatives, i.e. practice location, then they will not make the choice that you obviously desire.

"Convincing" individual players/parents to make the move serves only short term goals. And if you don't think that's not already happening, in many different directions, then you are either very naive, or just putting your head in the sand.

Rather than spending significant energy trying to convince individual family units, a better approach may be to redirect that energy to building a better product, with some of the ideas that GOAL mentioned. The right product will draw better than individual players. Only then will you truly succeed with one of the original premises, of "cooprerative" efforts between clubs.

That will perpetuate the growth of the club, for the long term. Long term growth is what will provide the better opportunities for the Low Country players, into the future, not just the ones that are currently playing in the competitive environment.

These "building a better product" and "improving services" statements are mindboggling. Look at what the club has done in its short history! They've 1) gotten the best coaches 2) have most of the best players 3) have numerous Premier teams and SCYSA/US Club titles and 4) have three nice places to train in Summerville, James Island and Daniel Island.

It's not utopia where a Manchester Meadows complex will pop up immediately for the club in the exact central location for every player. Is there room to grow at the Bridge FA? Of course.

But Bridge FA is by far good enough that a player looking for a higher level and more opportunity would benefit more then staying in a place offering a lower level on a picturesque facility. Who cares what you're playing on, and where, if the ones around you and coaching you are sub-standard.

I'm not perpetuating anything but stating the fact that everyone tries to hide and pretend doesn't happen. Because clubs object and say "they don't need it," the best players that are members of clubs who oppose the Bridge FA will be recruited because 1) that's what they deserve for development and 2) that's what is best for the elite club that is trying to improve it's "service." Because if the team is better and results ate better then the service is deemed better. Simple fact of perception in youth soccer.

Try to act the right way, first, which the Bridge tried and then act the needed way, second, which I'm sure the Bridge will do now. The takeover chat is absurd considering the concessions the club offered in structure, coaching, team formation, programs, etc.

Again, if they have good fields and have the top coaches and have most of the top players, then what "products" and "services" are people looking for?

So building a Manchester Meadows complex in a growing area, where you have good players and good coaches....is the ANSWER!?!?

Man I wish it was just that easy.

The rising U15's currently have 6 varsity and 8 jv players at Wando. Some of these girls are BFA Challenge and some are MPSC classic.

Beezer,

Opinions are often derived from an individual's perception of a certain course of events. On one hand you talk about if the team is better and results are better then the service is deemed better, and even offer it as a simple "fact" of perception. Then you dismiss the perception of a takeover as being absurd. While I too don't necesarily agree with that perception, I fully understand how it was derived, to include the statements made and actions that cause(d) it to be so.

I've often heard that you're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. Good luck to you trying to advance Bridge FA under the status quo.

Rumor is that Bridge has been loosing players (U14 Girls), some coaches are looking at possible "better offers' for the fall and there one team is going to jump to another club (MP)in the fall. It seems as though things are falling off "the bridge".

OK, Let's talk Services [IN A PARENT'S PRIORITY ORDER/PERSPECTIVE]:
1) COACHES - Hands down, Bridge's coaching staff is the best in the lowcountry, MPSC is 2nd best.
2) FACILITIES - adequate [MPSC is the best], and I don't think anyone would argue either point.
3) LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION - you here this in marketing, Summerville is NOT a 35 minute drive from MT P at 4-5pm for a practice in Summerville. It's an hour and one half drive to and 40 minutes back. Daniel Island or off of Clemments Ferry Rd is the ONLY Central location. {AND YES SUMMERVILLE IS BETTER THAN AN 8 HOUR ROUNDTRIP COMMUTE TO GREENVILLE DURING SCHOOL, I KNOW} BEEZER - BFA has a policy that the TEAM will practice were MOST of the players are from - this is a question mark in my mind as a parent, lets ROTATE HEY I'M OPEN TO THAT, but Summerville every session from MT P is ABSURD AND NOTHING LESS.
4) PROGRAMS - Recruiting programs, hey in the US of A the next step IS college. I want my son(s) seen. BFA NEEDS a tournament that attracts college scouts. NO lowcountry club offers this, ONLY CESA.

I WANT BRIDGE FA to succeed, it IS the ONLY way to compete at regionals. PARENTS, do not look at BFA as a club, IT IS still a CONCEPT. If it dies, your kids will only be recognized in South Carolina and not BEYOND!

For completeness sake, I should post one other item:
Fall 2006 Bridge FA Competitiveness:
U17: Not Competitive at PREMIER
U16: GOLD; Competitive at PREMIER
RED; Competitive at CHALLENGE
U15: Competitive at CHALLENGE
U14: Not Competitive at PREMIER, Competitive at CHALLENGE

IF THE GOAL IS COMPETITIVE AT REGIONALS, THEN THE ONLY SUCCESS IN THE LOWCOUNTRY IS THE U16 GOLD TEAM AND ALSO FIELDING A COMPETITIVE U16 STATE CHALLENGE TEAM {RED}.

THE LOWCOUNTRY ALLIANCE OF U16S ARE THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL GROUP.

To be competitive at Premier....meaning winning at least half your games would take a statewide team at most age groups and genders..Not to say that CESA has not had some success in the past but when you step to Premier it's a whole different animal...When you make a rule that the practices will be held by where the majority of the team is from...You will find that people will manipulate the system to keep practices close to themselves...If you are a part of a lowcountry team, then your practices should take place at different venues for fairness to the team as a whole..
The U16 red team is competitve in the state league but has failed to make state cup the last two years

Interesting to see the various views on a matter. Amazing!

Bear, thanks for wishing me luck!! But, I'm not in a power position to impact the Bridge FA. Just a fan of the club and its ideas.

CHT makes a great point at defining competitive and it taking a statewide team to be truly successful. Granted, there will always be exceptions for those wanting to list one-off teams. But, great point!

A Lowcountry club that has had success like the Bridge FA, thus far, IS successful....for Lowcountry standards the way the landscape is at the moment. The U16 boys have been a little extra special, no doubt.

Remember folks, this is South Carolina and like CHT alluded to, being truly "competitive" is a "whole different animal!"

Goal, not sure how you came about your statement that the Bridge U-14s are not competitive at Premier. Granted, they haven't won any games yet, BUT they have only played two. Both of those games, they were missing four players, and the goalkeeper was playing in the field. Because of an injury, several other players were rotated in goal over the weekend.

So, I think it's just a little early to make a sweeping statement like that. At LEAST give them a chance!

Belligerent, I didn't realize, but why was a PREMIER team missing 4 players?

>>[GOAL!!!} For completeness sake, I should post one other item:
Fall 2006 Bridge FA Competitiveness:
U17: Not Competitive at PREMIER
U16: GOLD; Competitive at PREMIER
RED; Competitive at CHALLENGE
U15: Competitive at CHALLENGE
U14: Not Competitive at PREMIER, Competitive at CHALLENGE

IF THE GOAL IS COMPETITIVE AT REGIONALS, THEN THE ONLY SUCCESS IN THE LOWCOUNTRY IS THE U16 GOLD TEAM AND ALSO FIELDING A COMPETITIVE U16 STATE CHALLENGE TEAM {RED}.

THE LOWCOUNTRY ALLIANCE OF U16S ARE THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL GROUP. <<

Are there any girls teams at Bridge?

Goal, I was mostly trying to point out that the Bridge U14 Boys have only played two games in the Premier League - not quite enough, in mind, to make a sweeping statement as to their success (or lack thereof).

The fact that they were missing four players is a long story; and a moot point now.

I know that I have not posted as much this year as in recent years, but this got my attention.....

>>[Belligerant] As I see it, the only thing a coach could gain from refusing to sign is the satisfaction of exacting revenge on the player and his/her parents who would have the audacity to leave his/her team.<<

Obviously, the people who agree with this statement live in a world where there is no winner or loser and no one is concerned about results. Picture this.... your team is a mid-level team in whatever league you play in. As your season progresses, you have ups and downs. Around midseason, it is obvious that the championship is out of reach. Your creative midfielder and star forward come to you, the coach, and say they want to transfer to the #1 team in the league whose only weaknesses are these two positions. You as the coach sign the transfer allowing the players to leave immediately. Two weeks later, the #1 team, with your former players, beats you 4-0 and your former players shine. Was it better for you to let the players go or more detrimental to the kids who are sticking it out with you?!? What did you and the parents teach the kids who you let go?-- that when times get tough, it is ok to run.

People love to talk about "what is best for the player" until what is best for the player comes back to beat your team and hurt the performance of your player/child. What if you are the parent of the GKer and the former player scores 3 goals on your child. Are you still concerned about what is best for that kid who jumped ship midseason? Heck no, you are mad at the coach who let the kid go soon enough to hurt your team!

I'm a coach, and I want what's best for players, but why should coaches bow to parents and players who want to jump midseason? After our season is over or in between seasons- here's your release, best of luck. In the middle of our season- no way i'm letting you go to another team simply b/c our season may not be going the way you and your parents want.

Belligerent, I saw your team lost to CESA PREMIER, was your team at full strength yesterday, did you have your starting goalkeeper? I still don't understand how a State PREMIER team doesn't have all it's players full commitment since playing at the PREMIER level is the ultimate goal of most CHALLENGE (& Classic) players. I guess I should ask, was this a commitment issue? If so, I think those players & families involved should reconsider their choices in life and the effect they have on others.

>>[TVOR] [...] Was it better for you to let the players go or more detrimental to the kids who are sticking it out with you?!? What did you and the parents teach the kids who you let go?-- that when times get tough, it is ok to run.<<

It was better for you to "let" the kid go. I use the quotes because I think the heart of this issue is the theory that a coach "lets" a child leave. Of course, this isn't the case; under the current system the coach penalizes a child for 30 days by refusing to sign -- but can do nothing about the child transferring eventually. Just as the coach can do nothing about the child leaving the team.

>>People love to talk about "what is best for the player" until what is best for the player comes back to beat your team and hurt the performance of your player/child. What if you are the parent of the GKer and the former player scores 3 goals on your child. Are you still concerned about what is best for that kid who jumped ship midseason? Heck no, you are mad at the coach who let the kid go soon enough to hurt your team!<<

Actually, if I'm the parent of the GK, I want to understand how she/he can do a better job. As a parent, my primary concern isn't the team; it's helping my child achieve her or his objectives.

>>I'm a coach, and I want what's best for players, but why should coaches bow to parents and players who want to jump midseason? After our season is over or in between seasons- here's your release, best of luck. In the middle of our season- no way i'm letting you go to another team simply b/c our season may not be going the way you and your parents want.<<

Respectfully, I think it's the attitude you display here that makes this such a capricious and arbitrary rule. If the SCYSA wants to forbid any and all transfers (which they do after a certain point in the season in any case), then so be it. Not very smart; but I understand. If the SCYSA wants to mandate a 30-day waiting period after a transfer before games can be played, again, so be it. But to ask a coach to decide whether to sign a piece of paper that will penalize the child for her/his desire to leave that coach does nothing but put the child, the coach, and the parents in a bad situation.

TVoR, since Chico answered before I had a chance to, and probably did a better job anyway, I'll just say "Yeah...what HE said!"
(sorry - that was the most mature thing I could come up with at the moment)

But, I would also like to add what I have stated before - if I were the coach of a team, and a player/parent came up to me and said they wanted to go to another team; unless there was just some kind of misunderstanding that could easily be remedied, I would prefer that child/parent leave immediately. I, personally, do not want a player on my team who does not want to be there.

Simple as that - if you want to be on my team and are willing to work hard and make a commitment to the team, we’re glad to have you. But, if you don’t really want to be here, well, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Goal, as a matter of fact, we were NOT full strength yesterday – we were missing four players, and our keeper was one of them. I do not believe we have commitment issues – the first two games were, like I said, a long story (that was discussed in the beginning of this thread a little) for two players, and two players were hurt. The game yesterday, well, it was just one of those things – IT happens. Hopefully, we will be back to full strength minus one (broken/fractured pieces/parts) next weekend, and then have that one back soon after.

As things go, over the years, this team has been very fortunate regarding injuries. Maybe it just caught up to us this year.

My point was this... i am not going to allow a player to transfer to a team that could possibly hurt my team just b/c my team may not be doing as well as he had hoped or if it's a playing time issue. I would also not allow that player to train with my team. If you as a player are not willing to stick it out through the tough times with the team you were selected to (and presumably chose) then why should I as the coach be willing to make it easy for you to go to a different team? Ahhh, b/c I am supposed to be most concerned with player development. Well, if that is the case, parents have to be ready to hear that answer when the player who left our team becomes the top weapon on the team who knocks us out of the playoffs... "I'm sorry parents that our former player, Joe Q. Soccer, scored 2 goals and ended our season, but I signed the papers to allow him to transfer in time to play in this game b/c I am most concerned about his development as a player."

As a coach, I do not want a player on my team who does not want to be there, but I'm also not going to let that player easily go to a team where he may affect the players who are honoring their commitment. If it's 30 days, then fine. It gives my team 30 days to practice without that player before we have to face him. If the player is leaving b/c of a legitimate physical move (parents moving from Charleston to Greenville, etc), then I understand, and I would sign the paperwork. But what about the player who wants to leave a Greenville based team to join a Charleston, Charlotte or Atlanta based club?

My thoughts are reserved for the 15+ age groups where most top teams should probably be results driven. At the 14 and below ages, coaches AND parents should be concerned with player development. But in my experience, it is the parent of a simply bad 17 year old player who says, "you are too concerned with results and not with player development." And it's the parent of the talented 12 year old who says, "you are too concerned with developing players and not concerned enough with results."

If you believe that every coach should automatically sign the transfer papers, then you should be the one to tell the kids sticking it out with the team, that the papers were signed "b/c we are more concerned about that one player's development than we are about succeeding as a team." If a coach of a 15+ team tells their team this, then they lose most of their credibility b/c the kids will see it as the coach being more concerned about one player instead of team success.

No one wants people to focus on individuals and we try to teach kids this... just look at the penalties for celebrating a goal. However, now we are concerned about the success of one player over the team? Yes, the team may be better off without that player on the team, but we are probably not better off with him on a team we play in the near future.

That player and his parents have made a choice to leave my team and join a new one. I am going to do what i think is best for my current players, and I would expect the parents of a 15+ year old team to expect the same.

Okay, Voice...listen up - there was NO chance the transferring players would be playing against the team they were leaving anywhere near the 30 days. Absolutely none. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

The two teams are scheduled to play each other the first of April. Hmmm….let me check my calendar again…yes, it appears that would be somewhere around 90 DAYS after this whole thing started.

Since you made the comment about seasons - this was after the Fall season, or in-between the Fall and the Spring season, whichever way you prefer to put it.

You say “My thoughts are reserved for the 15+ age groups.” So, why are you even discussing this? We are discussing U14 Boys - make up your mind.

For a moment, forget anything about player development vs team development. You have just stated to everyone that you, as a coach, would get into a pissing match with a 14-year-old. Is one of the two of you not supposed to be an adult?

Lastly, I want to thank you. I believe that anyone reading your incoherent, paranoid rantings above will see how you have completely contradicted yourself, and proven that you, yourself wish only to punish, or should I say, exact revenge on the player and his/her parents who would have the audacity to leave his/her team.