>>[HappyDaddy] My post referred to the intentions of the parties who crafted the agreement.

It appears that the intention of Andrew and Pearse are that they are only going to help manage if SSC is part of the CESA "brand." That's pretty clear from the FAQs. Makes sense to me; otherwise Andrew and Pearse should resign from CESA and hang up their shingle as independent contractors.

It's also pretty clear that "CESA" can't take over anyone since it's a corporate entity and club mergers across district boundaries (not state boundaries, but district boundaries -- funny, huh?) are next to impossible via a few somewhat recent SCYSA rulings.

What I find absolutely fascinating on this thread are those that line up for and against the change. I like the fact that there's a vote. If I were a member of SSC, the questions I'd ask myself are as follows:
  • If the vote goes through, do I want an environment like CESA available for my child? (This has positives and negatives -- no "social" soccer at the higher levels, instead team formation is a meritocracy -- more practices for the highest levels -- more practices available -- etc.)
  • If the vote doesn't go through, what will happen to SSC?
  • For the parents of elite players, why didn't Bridge work for SSC -- or at least why didn't it work in the opinion of quite a few folks? Also, for the parents of elite players, what is the relationship between CESA and SSC specifically for my child?
  • Who wants the vote to go through and why?
  • Who does not want the vote to go through and why? [As an outside observer, I find this to be the most fascinating question of all.]