Charlie, I think a lot of your post is off-base.
You said "--- this is a complete 180 from their original position. taking clubs over was their game when it started. when some local clubs tried to get ecnl/npl, a certain someone went up the chain at us club to "hound" ecnl reps to prevent it. i would argue they have actively worked to divide and fragment the local soccer community."
You are entitled to your opinion, but this is the first I have heard or seen mentioned that CBSC attempted to take over ANY clubs. Nor have I heard about them attempting to prevent ECNL/NPL from anyone.
CBSC, nor any other club, has to try to prevent ECNL from coming to the Lowcountry, as there isn't a club that meets their desired criteria (history, # of players, and fields). As for the NPL, the only attempted lobbying against a club obtaining NPL that I am aware of was by the only club in the LC to have an NPL slot is alleged to have tried to block another LC club from gaining an NPL slot. That was not CBSC.
You quoted and replied thus:
"We believe in creating and supporting an environment where the contributions and input of each individual club is valued equally, and where clubs work together to provide the best possible soccer opportunities for our players."
--- This was already done with CPL. I am surprised you didn't use the term "like-minded" in the letter. From day one some cbsc supporters (look at this forum) have bashed CPL, yet now you want to work together? Or do you just want to prevent the progress CPL has made?"
Are you serious. What you fail to point out was that the CPL was deliberately created to exclude CBSC. To say otherwise is either patently dishonest or to be completely bereft of the facts. The CPL goes against the spirit of inclusion and support. I have bashed the CPL personally because of its exclusionary practice against 9 year olds from some clubs all so that a few clubs (read adults) could protect their fiduciary self interest.
Additionally, you assume that CSC will apply to be in the CPL. It is not stated. You also assume they would be admitted. No one knows if they would be. Finally, you ignore their statement of continuing to run the Coastal league. Thus IF they did enter the CPL, it would be a fraction of their teams.
BTW, what progress has the CPL made?
Finally, you said:
"--- the club was started to help fulfill a usl requirement for usl pro teams, to sell tickets for the pro team, and to make money. it needed numbers quickly and ssc was first to fall to it. once cbsc realized they were not going to make headway against gps and surf (usamp) they started the CPDL and tried to push a new agenda. the pro club has since separated from them and taken the name away. why is that? because it was bad business."
There was NOT USL requirement to form a club. There still isn't. Only professional division 1 clubs (re: MLS) have that requirement. SSC didn't 'fall' for anything. They were unhappy with the failure to modernize as a club and were bleeding players to GPS. They needed to change and their board decided the CBSC offer was the best of several.
Given that the CPL clubs deliberately excluded them, the CPDL seems less an agenda and more a necessity. The fact they decided to use a game/training format more common in Europe as opposed what we usually see is a choice. Opinions are divided on whether it is a better format.
Last, the pro club separated as a business decision. You can ask Rob Salvatore or Mike Kelleher yourself (I have). They both quoted people that were told by other clubs to not actively support the senior team. It does not matter if that was only a few people. That is the message they heard and Rob made a decision.
Finally, your quotes seem to be about the club but directed at me as though you I might be in an official capacity.
"I am surprised you didn't use the term "like-minded" in the letter" (I didn't write the letter, nor have input)
"Please reexamine why you do what you do." I will try to reflect on that.
I do agree with the motivating factors you cited.
