>>[Belligerant] Shibumi, to put this another way, while you say “Asking Tormey, Hyslop, and Fleming to do your bidding after you've rejected their terms…” makes it sound like Tormey and Hyslop offered a service and gave their terms, and SSC said “We want your help, but not like you want to do it.” <<

Okay...you're hitting on something now...because I perceive this to be the case.

>>I believe SSC approached them and asked for their help in managing the club, NOT “We want your help managing the club, and doing anything else you see fit.” JUST “We want your help managing the club.” And then the two of them come back with, “We’ll help manage the club, but only if you change your name and change your colors.”<<

Okay...since I agree that I perceive that this is also what occurred, I'm getting confused... More on this in the next paragraph.

>>Do those two sound anything alike?<<

Why yes, they do. The only difference I can see is that in the first case you're hypothesizing that SSC came in and foresaw what the price would be and offered (or did not) offer it -- and in the second case SSC came in and said what they wanted and Tormey/Hyslop named a price that the board found acceptable but that a super-minority did not.

I don't think anyone acted in bad faith; I just think that SSC wanted certain services, Tormey/Hyslop named a price (I'm including not just money but name/color/bylaw/etc. changes), and a super-minority decided the price wasn't acceptable. So far, everyone is doing okay.

The only problem I had was the whining by people who didn't vote for it now complaining that Tormey/Hyslop wouldn't do their bidding.

>>Why is it necessary for them to make name and color changes in order to manage the club? It’s not. They have their own reasons for wanting to change the other stuff, and maybe, just maybe, the SSC parents recognized that they would be getting more than they would be paying for (and I don’t necessarily mean that in a good way). I can definitely see where they might be suspicious.<<

Belligerant -- saying "it's not" is not exactly the height of reasoning. I've speculated why it is that they might have wanted this -- those things appear to me to be reasonable (note: not that others should agree with them -- just that they are a rational position.) You're stating that basically the price is too high. I accept the fact that SSC might value the name and color over the services it wanted. In my mind it wouldn't be a rational decision; but even if people chose colors over their children getting the best services I can at least understand it as an emotional decision.

But it's time for SSC to "man-up" and deal with the consequences of its decision rather than whining that the people whose terms you rejected won't do what you want.

>>The board at SSC is telling the membership it’s all about managing the club, while the actions of the “new management” “says” something completely different. <<

Actually, the more I hear about this the more I wonder if the board was actually operating in good faith. I wonder if the board wasn't talking out of both sides of its mouth. But I don't have any evidence of that -- I just wonder -- given what I read.

Absence any evidence, I here's what I think. SSC wanted help and asked Tormey/Hyslop to provide a service. Tormey/Hyslop partially named as a price the changing of the name and colors and more importantly decided to operate it as a professional club (no daddy-ball). A super-minority rejected it.

That's all okay. My point since the beginning of this is that SSC just needs to stop whining about people not helping them and live with the consequences of their decision, i.e., help themselves and don't expect those whose terms they rejected to continue to help.

Look -- if Fleming/Hyslop/Tormey decide to continue to help -- I'm even fine with that. They'll make a decision based on their own reasons. I just find it childish to expect them to work for terms with which they didn't agree.

Belligerant -- what am I missing?