Hurst66: Close, but not my assessment. To use your analogy.
SSC decides it wants to gain more revenue by being more professional. SSC hires some folks to help them achieve that. These specialists tell them that they need to fundamentally change the way they do business -- and also dress in a manner that reflects the change.
SSC puts it to a vote and fails to gain a super-majority. SSC members voting against it immediately want the specialists to keep working there despite failing to meet the minimum conditions laid for by those specialists -- and lay the defeat of the board at the feet of the specialists who they say should be more ready to compromise (or at least lie better about compromising.)
I think folks should reap what they sow.
P.S. All of this analogy loses the essential reality of the situation and gives it more dignity than it deserves...I think it's more accurate to bellow out "I wanna coach my own kid...I don't want that jerk over there coachin' my kid...I don't wanna go to that stoopid tourney...but I still want ya' to come and work here with us I jus want you to do things the way I want 'em done" and it gets more at the heart of the matter. Of course I could be wrong -- there could have been a core of people who decided that the most important thing about a club providing services to their children was what color they wore and what the name was...but it doesn't pass the "smell" test.
