I know that I have not posted as much this year as in recent years, but this got my attention.....
>>[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.<<
Obviously, the people who agree with this statement live in a world where there is no winner or loser and no one is concerned about results. Picture this.... your team is a mid-level team in whatever league you play in. As your season progresses, you have ups and downs. Around midseason, it is obvious that the championship is out of reach. Your creative midfielder and star forward come to you, the coach, and say they want to transfer to the #1 team in the league whose only weaknesses are these two positions. You as the coach sign the transfer allowing the players to leave immediately. Two weeks later, the #1 team, with your former players, beats you 4-0 and your former players shine. Was it better for you to let the players go or more detrimental to the kids who are sticking it out with you?!? What did you and the parents teach the kids who you let go?-- that when times get tough, it is ok to run.
People love to talk about "what is best for the player" until what is best for the player comes back to beat your team and hurt the performance of your player/child. What if you are the parent of the GKer and the former player scores 3 goals on your child. Are you still concerned about what is best for that kid who jumped ship midseason? Heck no, you are mad at the coach who let the kid go soon enough to hurt your team!
I'm a coach, and I want what's best for players, but why should coaches bow to parents and players who want to jump midseason? After our season is over or in between seasons- here's your release, best of luck. In the middle of our season- no way i'm letting you go to another team simply b/c our season may not be going the way you and your parents want.
