RotR: No...not really. Chapindad did a great job of explaining his points to me; not your points. Chapindad was willing to publicly present and discuss those points.
Just what are your points here? What is it you wish to discuss?
Yes...you (and two others) PM'ed me in the last few days to gleefully note that CESA was "behind" one or more of these rules. Dude...as I noted in my message back to Chapindad...I'm not going to discuss what someone offers in private...and I figured you had your reasons for not raising this in a public forum.
I'm still not going to discuss what you said privately without your raising it publicly regarding either your club's position or any other club's position; however, if you'll raise it publicly I'll be glad to discuss, debate, and analyze the issues. If I can find a logical inconsistency in my position, I'm going to try to understand that and hopefully I'll have the integrity to switch to a consistent position.
My point is radically simple: I am all for holding parents to their financial commitments; however, I am completely against a plethora of rules that limit the choices of players. It doesn't matter who or what advocates the limiting of choice.
So how about it? You don't need to hide on this -- state what it is you wish to discuss without hoping that you can whisper in others ears and they'll do what you want.
