Beezer,
You were doing well advocating the benefits of Bridge FA, until your last statement. An attitude of us vs them currently exists, and your statement will only perpetuate it.
From the very beginning, as pointed out by others on this board, Bridge FA was seen as a takeover operation, in lieu of a cooperative effort. There are many reasons for that sentiment, and that is and will be a significant hurdle to overcome. The latest "news" concerning the MP rec department isn't new. There is not a single "soccer" person in the Charleston area that didn't think the best way to compete beyond the state was to combine resources. After all, it was the "soccer" people that originally proposed the idea.
Parents make choices based on perceived benefits. If they don't perceive any additional benefits, which will overcome the negatives, i.e. practice location, then they will not make the choice that you obviously desire.
"Convincing" individual players/parents to make the move serves only short term goals. And if you don't think that's not already happening, in many different directions, then you are either very naive, or just putting your head in the sand.
Rather than spending significant energy trying to convince individual family units, a better approach may be to redirect that energy to building a better product, with some of the ideas that GOAL mentioned. The right product will draw better than individual players. Only then will you truly succeed with one of the original premises, of "cooprerative" efforts between clubs.
That will perpetuate the growth of the club, for the long term. Long term growth is what will provide the better opportunities for the Low Country players, into the future, not just the ones that are currently playing in the competitive environment.
