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

I'm sorry, but did he say picking apart pietras posts? Well, at least he realizes it. I am sure he is missed.

good job chapindad - you got him!!

Nasty,
I like that.

I think I see the trees and the forest on this one.

Futobol,

Sorry, I do have to comment about a couple of things. However, I do have no comment relative to the whole issue, because, it is someone elses issue. But, if you look back at this, Bridge FA was drug into it by other peoples suppositions and interpretations of the decision. That leads to the other need to respond. Like some other posts of mine, this is a one and only, as I won't publicly debate Bridge FA policies or actions with anoymous people that I cannot be certain are members of Bridge FA.

Somewhere in this 14 pages is a couple of posts concerning the Bridge FA 92 Girls Red. Like the 92 Boys Red, this team is a U12 team that the "soccer" people determined were ready to play 11 v 11. When the team was formed, they played in the challenge league fall season. The "soccer" people again evaluated this team after those matches and determined that for the girls development needs, it would be best suited to play U13 Classic in the spring. When this decision was made, the DOS approached the board because some people, ie Greenacres and Coldhardtruth, could somehow question the intent. One of the best thing about the arrangement is dual board members, so both SSC and JIYSC are represented in the board, as would be any club that participated. Since there were no Girls U13 Classic teams fielded by either SSC or JIYSC, playing in the classic division would not put this team in competition with the member clubs.

So while some may want to cast organizational stones, this is a case of player development, and fits within the guidelines that both SSC and JIYSC agreed to.

Sorry to cut it off like this, but this is not currently Bridge FA issue. If someone disagrees with that, there is always the PM route.

>>[Chapindad] Just to clear up one point. Chris Christian resigned AFTER the CESA announcement and never before hand. As team manager I have the dated resignation. Eddie did resign first. I know this doesn't make any difference. Chico always likes the facts exactly right so I wanted to make sure that is clear, because I wouldn't want anyone accusing him of being one sided in his facts.<<

Actually, I really appreciate this (thanks for going off sabatical on this subject). I was told something else (please note, Chapindad, that I'm not saying that you're wrong -- I'm just saying I was told something else.) I'll look into it. If I'm wrong I'll do what I've done before and apologize (unfortunately, it appears that the last time I apologized profusely that I was lied to, but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong and again apologize on another issue). I can promise you it won't be the first time I've been wrong.

The bitterness that oozes out of every post with regard to Chico is palpable but not entirely understandable. You guys won; the SCYSA is doing as you wished. Columbia kids don't appear that they will have a local CESA option.

Chapindad, I really have tried to back off your posts. For example, the other day you said Wando was made up of mostly the MPSC U17G team. It actually isn't (there are more MPSC U16G players on the team than MPSC U17G by a bit less than a 2-to-1 margin), but I thought that no matter how nicely I tried to correct it that you wouldn't appreciate it.

I do like facts. If and when I'm wrong (or one-sided in your parlance) in my understanding of facts, I hope that people will counter with other facts. You've done so above. I'll investigate and if I'm wrong, call out my mistake and issue the apology.

thomaspietras: You and "Big Daddy" seem to be arguing two different things. You're arguing that the SCYSA has the right to create rules. Okay, I don't see anyone arguing. "Big Daddy" seems to be saying that when CESA announced the midlands expansion that there were no bylaws or rules in place concerning limitations on inter-district operation and that in reading the existing bylaws and rules it is not possible to conclude that in the spirit or intent of the bylaws and rules that this was intended. That was what Ron alleged in his complaint. That complaint appears to be invalid. However, it appears that the SCYSA stepped in and created new rules.

To put this more succinctly, the SCYSA decided regardless of its existing bylaws and rules that they wanted to stop CESA from expanding in Columbia so it created the 50% and anti-partnership rules. Can they? It appears that they can...but their "magic bullet" seems to affect more than CESA.

BridgeFA: I hope that you're right and the SCYSA says that you can continue your alliance -- both because I think it's the right thing for Charleston kids and because it would be wonderful grounds for an appeal or a grievance of the partnership decision.

Chico:

I would characterize it more as "suggesting" that SCYSA has the right to create rules, rather than "arguing". I don't know. I don't recall us having a Special Committee meeting during my tenure.

"The bitterness that oozes out of every post with regard to Chico is palpable but not entirely understandable." I agree with you that some of the posts do seem bitter. And some of this from people who don't know you other than from reading (or miss-reading) your posts.

I would respectfully suggest that there is a certain amount of bitterness (my perception) in your posts regarding SCYSA and NECSA.

My opinion is that this goes back to the limitations of this form of communication.

What if Cesa wanted to start an alliance with Columbia clubs to field Challenge teams...Would that be the right thing for Colunbia kids?

BridgeFA.... smiley faces ... joking...
CHT....yes