SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYSA Board Notes

Chico,

I have no dislike of CESA intensely or not. I do not always agree with them but I also don't always agree with my wife and I love her very much. However getting past that....

Several of the DOCs did ask for these changes at one point but it seems something must have happened(That I have no working knowledge) that helped to reinforce the request and get it past the board.

As I stated with no hate or discontent that I agree completely with you on parent rights and will work to try and get the rules repealed as the time presents itself. I only mentioned the DOC at CESA not as slam against CESA but to highlight that this rule was not put into place to protect smaller clubs from the mega clubs. The mega clubs where the first to bring the rule to the table. I do apologize if I was unclear about my statement and left you with a wrong impression, that was not my intention.

I do hope you have a blessed day....

Chapindad: Thanks...I appreciate the detailed response. You weren't the first to note to me that it was a "mega-club" that proposed this to the SCYSA; however, you were the first to do so publicly and thus the first time I could respond without breaking confidentiality. I mentioned biases to get them out of the way early; I for example am strongly biased in favor of clubs offering regional and national level opportunities.

I believe in being loyal not to people or organizations but to concepts and ideas. I am very loyal to the idea of CESA -- offering players the ability to compete from recreation to regional and national level play and to growing the sport from the recreation level up. I am very loyal to the idea of Bridge (although they frustrate the heck out of me in terms of their execution sometimes). I am also loyal to the stated intent of CUFC although their execution worries me probably most of all of the "big three" clubs in the state.

I believe in weighing the balance of what an organization does and choosing to support it (whether it's in speaking, volunteering, financially, etc.) even if there are things it does with which you don't agree. In short, when I hear the term "blind loyalty" I tend to focus on the negative "blind" part.

I understand what you're saying as a parent. To me, it would be okay if CESA (or CUFC, or Bridge, or whatever) would make rules that they wouldn't a transfer without fulfilling financial obligations -- heck, I agree with that part and as a parent think that other parent's should honor in full any and all financial commitments they make. It would also be okay if a club were to make rules for itself that they couldn't transfer guest players in if they guested for some period of time (I think they'd be dumb, but they have a right to be dumb.)

But I don't understand why the SCYSA is in the middle of making these rules. There is a bottom line on all of this -- and that is that very few organizations exist in South Carolina that are actually trying to grow the sport. Creating new rules to restrict what kids do with regard to choice doesn't seem to be the right path to growing the sport.

Now...getting to the one thing I think ***may have*** been dumb on CESA's part...if they actually were the "movers and shakers" behind the guesting rule, then they did not live up to the ideas of CESA as I understand them to be. I've never seen a coach at CESA, from the executive directors down, who got in the way of a kid guesting or for that matter of a kid transferring. I have not a clue as to why CESA would attempt to limit choice in terms of this "guesting rule" -- particularly when the club itself could simply choose not to allow guests or not to allow players to transfer. This one is beyond me. Maybe someone who understands can explain it a bit more. But the bottom line is, regardless of who proposed it whether it was CESA, my spouse, or the Pope -- I disagree with it.

By the way...thanks for this post...I was glad the other day to see you back on the board...

Chico: Did Chapindads latest message make it any clearer for you?

PS: Looks very much like that IM I sent you last Friday!

RoTR: One other comment -- in going back and trying to read intent into your post I think that one of your points may be that I refuse to criticize CESA. I wanted to take this opportunity to do so on another issue.

I think that CESA is making the wrong decision to continue to affiliate its recreation program with the USYSA. I believe that CESA would do better to explore both lower cost, and lower bureaucracy, options ranging from other affiliating organizations to handling these programs itself.

However, until someone comes along and creates a youth soccer club offering regional and national level competition to players and is aggressively trying to grow the sport from its recreation program on up, I'm kind of stuck with supporting CESA or taking my ball and going home. Thus I continue to support the club.

Any questions?

RotR: No...not really. Chapindad did a great job of explaining his points to me; not your points. Chapindad was willing to publicly present and discuss those points.

Just what are your points here? What is it you wish to discuss?

Yes...you (and two others) PM'ed me in the last few days to gleefully note that CESA was "behind" one or more of these rules. Dude...as I noted in my message back to Chapindad...I'm not going to discuss what someone offers in private...and I figured you had your reasons for not raising this in a public forum.

I'm still not going to discuss what you said privately without your raising it publicly regarding either your club's position or any other club's position; however, if you'll raise it publicly I'll be glad to discuss, debate, and analyze the issues. If I can find a logical inconsistency in my position, I'm going to try to understand that and hopefully I'll have the integrity to switch to a consistent position.

My point is radically simple: I am all for holding parents to their financial commitments; however, I am completely against a plethora of rules that limit the choices of players. It doesn't matter who or what advocates the limiting of choice.

So how about it? You don't need to hide on this -- state what it is you wish to discuss without hoping that you can whisper in others ears and they'll do what you want.

Chico: Not sure how you can claim my points were different to Chapindads when you admit you have read my IM.

Also, you have now painted me as anti-CESA with your choice of words. To set the record straight, in my IM I admitted that I supported the changes to #4 & #5, so I guess I am as 'guilty' as CESA! So much for being 'gleeful'!

Looking at posts #80310 and #80343. Instead of accepting Chapindads word, you accuse him of an 'intense dislike of CESA' and doubt the accuracy of his statements by using the word 'apparently'. Don't you consider this strange when you where aware of the facts that Chapindad was simply repeating?

No hiding here Chico ... very few people throughout SCYSA will support your claim, and I am sure that it was more than me that had a good laugh at your final accusation!!

Got to leave this one alone for now! Have a great day!

Someone had a post out there awhiles back about USYSA raising fees and this being a bad thing regarding increasing participation. A sampling of our fees.....


Club fees/Team Fees: $1500
Family tournament travel: $2500
(based on $500 per tournamnet x 5 tournaments)
Super Y $ 500
Lundy Camp $ 650
Additional Summer Training $ 300

$5450.....doesn't include contributions to Club fundraising or soccer related charitable donations. Nor does it include the 1-2 3 v 3 tournaments he'll play in, or indoor, or anything like that. Simply, this is what we spend for our son to play "at the highest level".

Does SCYSA paying an extra $1-2 per player in fees to USYSA really keep anyone out of the mix?

Who comes up with this stuff??

#4 is ridiculous. I can't believe that SCYSA has come up with a way to require yet another signature from somebody. All we are missing is pink carbon copies in triplicate. We complain about not having volunteers; well, this is the very kind of thing that has them throw their hands up and decide they don't have time.

Second, on the transfer part of the rule, here is yet one more rule telling me where my kid cannot chose to play. Way to go guys!

I am rapidly getting to the point that I think we will be better off spending our weekends at pickup games around town. A lot cheaper, less paperwork, more playing time, better competition.

What about this scenario: Before say a coach from a large club was able to take guest players to big tournaments, kinda look over the players and then if that player turned up at tryouts the next year they would then have a pretty good idea of how the new player performed. Without utilizing that player as a guest for a tournament, then all the coach might see of the player is the limited one or two nights at tryouts. Without seeing that player in a real competitive environment the coach might A; not pick the player since they do not know how they are likely to perform; or possibly B; pick the player only to discover later that the player can not cut it with the rest of the team. Lets just say B occurs; Player leaves his first club,where maybe he/she was a star only to join a new club and then the following year he is relegated to a lower team.