>>[greengrass] The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post is that its unreasonable to expect a state level rule to be omniscience, equitable, and fair in every situation. If you were the state register, and the releasing club wasn't willingly releasing a player (if that were the situation), wouldn't you want to know more about the situation?<<
>>[greengrass] To me it's the same as when some mutual funds charge a fee for when I reallocate my assets. It's my money, if the mutual fund isn't doing well (in my view), I reallocate, taking the short term fee with the belief that there's a long term benefit.<<
This is almost a great analogy. Let's make it a bit more applicable to this situation: if a club were to state that players were responsible for all training fees for the season, regardless of transfer requests, and would refuse to allow a player to transfer until all training fees were paid, then this would be a more precise analogy.
I am absolutely on board for clubs doing this if they wish (as long as they publicize it when a player is rostered -- just as a mutual fund must disclose this in a prospectus.) I have no problems with it.
What I have problems with is some arbitrary rule that states that a player is "held" for 30 days unless a coach signs a piece of paper. As "Belligerant" so eloquently put it...
>>[Belligerant] As I see it, the only thing a coach could gain from refusing to sign is the satisfaction of exacting revenge on the player and his/her parents who would have the audacity to leave his/her team.<<
Amen.
