SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYSA Special Commission Report

"Holy cow. It's not the partnership clause that is in question -- that's what threw me. By the logic of their decision defining the inter-district 50% rule, to be consistent the SCYSA would have to deny rule 201 transfers to other states if they are going to play on teams consisting of 50% or more players from one SC district."

Hmm.....I don't know Chico. You could be right. But you release players to another state, right? Not a team. The team rostering process is independent of the player rostering process, right?

As I understand it, a kid playing out of state first registers in state, then is released to be registered in their playing state. We haven't hit a team yet. How does SCYSA know team makeup? Its been so long since I've seen the player registration paperwork, does it even reference a team?

Big Daddy: Force? A few messages ago I was stating that according to my interpretation of the rules that partnerships (which you describe when you say "approached by Northside" -- see the dictionary definition I posted earlier) were legal between clubs in other states. I didn't see any problems until your posts and Nastradamus's posts; then I understood the parallel. I sure didn't force it; it hit me like a blinding flash of the obvious.

By the way -- did you notice how NECSA complained about coaches being hired and the like and the SCYSA ignored it? Do you want to know why? Because the hiring of coaches at any point in the year is completely legal and protected under SC employment law in the absence of employment contracts -- so creating out of whole cloth a rule about that wasn't possible even though if you note the issue is never mentioned in any SCYSA bylaw, code of ethics, or rule. But let's go further into the "ethical realm" -- the two coaches in the original announcement both resigned and then asked CESA for jobs. How do I know? Because I heard that they both testified, either in written or verbal form, to the SCYSA to just that fact.

In addition, CESA never advertised in local papers.

Bottom line: Wow! What grounds for an appeal/grievance (if an appeal or grievance is possible.)

Big Daddy: An organization such as the SCYSA which is capable of creating out of whole cloth restrictions when there's no basis for them is more than capable of setting such a policy, monitoring what is going on, and disallowing future transfers of offending players.

Do I think it would be right? No. Do I think it would be consistent? Yes.

You've lost me.

5 teams move from a SC Club to a NC club. What parallel are we talking about?

Ok, we agree it wouldn't be right.

Would it be consistent.....I don't know. Actually, in my limited experiences with SCYSA and NCSYA....SCYSA is a lot easier to deal with. Talk to any registrar who has done both....

Big Daddy: 5 teams move from a club in district A of SC to district B of SC. That is illegal because it violates the new 50% rule.

5 teams move from a club in district A in SC to a club in another state. How does the SCYSA explain that allowing this is consistent with the new 50% rule to its governing bodies?

I think you're going to say "because it's another state." But the SCYSA's intent with the 50% rule is to disallow "out of district" behavior. Thus, to be consistent the SCYSA must wherever possible disallow this behavior.

Now, do I think that the SCYSA cares about being consistent? No...I think they had an agenda here. But I think that the SCYSA's governing bodies might care about consistency -- in my looking at USSF appeals, it actually appears that this is a major reason for reversals.

Big Daddy: One last question. Given that we both agree that it would not be right to forbid CSC from training teams consisting of 100% York County players, and given that neither of us can anticipate all aspects of future competition among area clubs, what is the basis of your belief that it was right for the SCYSA to disallow CESA from forming teams consisting of Columbia players?

You can stop arguing now BD. The next time you speak it will be in front of Stevie boy. Thanks for your help.

Chico,

You raise great questions on how ambiguities are intepreted and resolved.

And you nailed my response to you dead on. Scenario A violated the 50% clause of SC. Scenario B was simply releasing players to play in another state, something that happens all the time.

The question here is....does SCYSA impose internal requirements on other states, if SC players are participating. My guess is no. Once released, that player becomes subject to the rules and restrictions of the host state. And if the host state doesn't have a 50% rule....

I'm just guessing tho....

Did someone mention Costra Nostra? Well if my history is right didn't J Edgar Hoover set out to stop them? And didn't ol J Edgar have a lil fetish w/ dressing up as a woman?

So who is J Edgar this time ???? NECSA? SCYSA?