Indeed Coach Chass, your interpretation is largely consistent with what I was told.
You do raise a very good point with regard to hosting State Cup by member clubs.
Your post (rather Chantman's) and potential hosting of a State Cup does help highlight the fundamental grievance some of our members feel with regard to town property.
Using PMSL Presidents Cup as an example. (discounting the fact that it was moved for different reasons)
We saw 64 teams qualify across boys and girls (U15 - U18). That's about 1,000 players with 3-4 games each on public property (reserved for 'private' or reserved use) Swagging ~7,000 hours of individual playing time over two (2) days.Of those teams and players, how many live in Mount Pleasant? One(1) USA/MP team qualified and two(2) Cainhoy Athletic teams for this particular event. So silly example but if we guessed at 50% residency in MP on these three teams, you would be looking at ~25 players with 175 hours total time on the field. A tiny fraction of the overall capacity and all the while the rest of our MP players looking on from the outside never being allowed a single minute, at any point, at any time on fields their parents help fund and support. One full sized field training (fall and spring) would utilize about the same 7,000 hrs. capacity.
I do not use this example to demonstrate how poorly we fared (East of the Cooper) in qualifying for State Cup, rather to help highlight the fundamental equity argument being made in our action. This is not about any objection to hosting State Cups, etc. - Far from it - we love that MP Rec supports soccer so well with wonderful facilities, it is simply asking for equal treatment (yes or no) for our MP players as any other organization (Lacrosse, Football, Ultimate Frisbee, etc.) asking to rent town fields from the recreation department would get (see earlier town recreation minutes from August 3 and a great lacrosse example).
Chantman has a very good question I'm sure the town's attorney will raise (and we have heard before) about individual choice, but to deny that you would then be in an environment without options and that rarely ends well (why antitrust legislation exists). We'll trust the courts (or current council) will make fair and right decisions to explore alternatives that will support the town's charter that includes accessibility to all its constituents. For now the case has been passed to US District (Federal) courts to answer the basic equal treatment question we have asked.
With that, off topic.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.
