>>[swimmer2] I am glad i am no longer part of this issue but the MPSC people definitely feel it was a one sided offer re management and coaching input. Not an alliance but an takeover.<<
>>[Bear] Swimmer, come on now, don't give only pieces of the information.
A board position and a coaching directors position, were both made available to MPSC, in the initial stages, first year, and then again in the second year. That equates to a one sided offer regarding the management and coaching input? <<
Yes, that equates to a one-sided offer from the perspective of MSPC if MPSC believes that it brings much more value to the table than did JIYSC or SSC. It equates to a fair and reasonable offer from the perspective of Bridge if you assume that the value MPSC would bring to the table is less than MPSC seems to perceive its value to be.
At this stage, I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Bridge has staked out its position, as has MPSC. Whichever organization executes the best will "win" in the sense of attracting the best players.
Look -- we could sit around and condemn CFC for not joining CESA, or LCSC and CRSA for not joining CUFC, or whatever. In the end, however, these clubs are offering something that someone wants -- so if their boards decide that "merging" or "allying" or whatever isn't in the best interest of their respective club, and the club can still operate financially successfully, then don't you think that the right thing for these clubs to do is to stop whining about who will and won't join them and instead focus on improving their services so that it's a moot point?
