Green & CHT,
Your comment shows your lack of understanding of both what the "spirit" of what the alliance really was meant to be, and the financial model. (I'm not intentionally singling you out, there are probably many that don't understand it. If you go back a couple of years and find some of the very early posts, I think you'll see it explained.)
Bridge FA was designed to offer the top tier player opportunities to train and play with all other area top tier players. If that means that there is a group of area players ready to play 11v11 at U12, then they should be afforded that opportunity.
Unfortunately with the USYSA and SCYSA small sided play, they can't do that unless they play U13. In the first year there were some that were ready at U12 to play U13 challenge, which they did. There was a team that played U13 Challenge in the fall season, which they were not ready for, so in the spring they played U13 Classic. In the second year there again was a group of area players ready to play 11v11, but not ready for U13 Challenge, so they played U13 Classic. These decisions were made by the soccer professionals trusted with the training and placement of teams, not the parents on the board. Bridge did overstep with the development of academy teams, but, since agreed that the academy programs were best run by the local clubs. However, in the "spirit" of what Bridge FA is, it is still felt that there is a place for an area wide team of U12 players to play 11v11. Unfortunately, the only viable option is either U13 Challenge or Classic.
Some have pointed to the not competing with the local club. Honestly, I can see both sides of this one, but, to me, if there is a Bridge team playing up, that's not in direct competition with the local club. I've come to that conclusion as a competing for players. Meaning, if there is a SSC player playing on a U13 Classic team, playing against a U12 Bridge team, the Bridge team is not trying to undermine the local club, by pulling players.
If there are SSC players playing at Bridge, it simply doesn't "directly take funds from SSC".
There are fees which any club pays for a player to play, what I'll call fixed costs, SCYSA registration, league fees, referee fees, etc. SSC and Bridge collect registration fees. SSC and Bridge both pay these fixed costs. In the initial agreement it was decided that fees would be tracked at the player level. Meaning, if a SSC player moves to Bridge, any money remaining after the fixed costs for that player to play in a SCYSA sanctioned league, was reimbursed to the alliance member club. That player was going to be tracked from the time they moved to Bridge until either they aged out or left. During the first year of Bridge this was tracked in a spreadsheet. When it became time to determine the amount to reimburse SSC, the SSC board decided it would be best to negotiate an annual fixed field rental fee. It should be noted, the initial field usage agreement was what the spreadsheet total was based on the number of SSC players that moved to Bridge. So in year 1 there was no loss of operating funds to SSC.
This field rental fee was then held for year two. It was understood that no longer would it be tracked on a per player basis. The fee was held because there was not a marked increase in SSC players moving to Bridge. In year two both Bridge and SSC experienced growth in players.
I don't know what SSC based the requested field rental increase on, but it quite simply doesn't fit the financial model. However, SSC expended resources to make some capital improvements, and maybe they are looking for a cost sharing of those improvements. It would have been prudent to discuss those improvements with Bridge prior to proceeding, and maybe they did and I don't know, if the intent was to seek cost sharing, otherwise, it comes off as a back charging move.
I've said before, I am no longer involved with either SSC or Bridge. Further, I'm not a Summerville native, but rather a transient person that moved into the area, which is key to later discussion. However, during my initial involvement with SSC there were two major points that were continually discussed, and one that wasn't really discussed, the SSC board always had to be mindful of.
1) There were members of the SSC board that were deeply concerned with moving to very competitive teams, as it seemed to require players from outside of Summerville, and it was perceived to take away from community club. The first team with this was the SSC Sporting as U14s, now rising U18. There were players from outside the area, and the team won the State Cup, defeating then St. Giles for the first time in the State Cup in that age group. The SSC board at that time was more concerned with keeping it the "Summerville" Soccer Club, and there probably still is that sentiment to a degree.
2) The SSC board was concerned with the apparent demise and lack of consideration for the Girls program. It was felt by many, me included that perhaps the best way to address this would be to hire a dedicated person to act as the "Girls Director". However, unfortunately the SSC board was never able to come up with a financial model that would allow bringing another person on staff. Further, it was felt that the board position of Classic Coordinator could assist with those duties.
3) The undiscussed one was always the DOC. People felt that he was responsible not only for the successes but the perceived failures. However, the SSC board could never really figure out a way to draft a contract to take action with. An attempt was made, but didn't go anywhere. I was the chair of this committee, but this committee was developed when two board members had issues with their own children, and I perceived it to be more of a witchhunt than developing a road ahead, so I made the choice not to very actively pursue it.
Now in the initial concept of Bridge, these three points were very key in the development.
1) No longer would SSC be concerned with the highly competitive teams, and outside players. This would allow SSC to focus on the community teams and programs.
2) With the formation of Bridge, some of the SSC DOCs duties were then at Bridge and therefore salary room freed up for the hiring of a girls director. It should be noted that it probably wasn't the director some wanted, but, focused attention would be a good thing.
3) The DOC was still the DOC. Probably the point that is the hardest for some to understand. It was intially felt that the DOC being involved with both clubs would be a good thing, but it has transpired for some reason into an us vs them mentality by some at SSC.
So within these points, Bridge seemed to be a very good thing for SSC.
However, what it meant was that SSC would not field Challenge teams. So I disagree with the true concern being "continually fielding "classic" teams", but rather, not fielding Challenge teams. With the development of the Regional and National competitions at the Classic level, it was thought that SSC could pursue those and the recognition associated with it. But apparently, there are still some that want competitive Challenge teams at SSC, which the board before really didn't want. Like many things, it goes in cycles.
I became involved with the leadership, like many people, out of particular interest for my child. I knew that if I could positively impact the landscape for my child, other children would benefit from that involvement. I left my leadership role, at the request of my child, and further at his request, I will not assume another leadership role while he is playing.
I probably should not have become involved in this discussion at all, and some will think I've "aired the dirty laundry", but in the end, believe it or not, I still have concern for the low country soccer players. However, one comment that is routinely aired is there is little to no communication. Further, it's been hard to let go because I was so deeply involved. This brings about finality for me.
Bridge FA is good for the low country top tier player, and the local clubs can be good at supporting the community. Hopefully the current leadership can keep that in mind as they move forward, and get into alliance and away from us vs them.
