Quote:

It's all interesting to watch as a neutral. The outcome is of no direct consequence to my family. I have to wonder why Tormey and Hyslop couldn't advise SSC on how to do better at what it wants to do, without making it CESA-Charleston. If their motivation is to improve the quality of youth soccer in South Carolina, and at SSC in particular, why does it necessarily have to involve importing the CESA "brand?" There may be perfectly good reasons that it does, they just aren't apparent to me.



I mean this very, very respectfully; but I doubt that almost anyone is really neutral in this. Parents with children that play at CESA, or CUFC, or Bridge, or SSC all have various motivations. I think it's a tad disingenuous to question the motives of others without thinking perhaps a bit more about our own personal motives.

With that said, let's dissect Andrew and Pearse's motivations. My guess is that they believe that they know how to operate a youth soccer club better than anyone else in South Carolina -- not just because of CESA but because of their individual success at SGU and GFC. My further guess is that they believe that there are a number of ways to effect change and that SSC must change to be successful. Finally, my last guess is that they believe that the best and fastest way to effect that change involves more than consultancy but includes operational change and branding.

I have worked as a board member and a consultant to quite a few companies and can tell you that being a brilliant (or not so brilliant, in my own personal case) consultant doesn't translate into true strategic and tactical change -- the only thing that translates into that is executive leadership that is willing to introduce change into organizations in which different results are desired. It's my guess that they know this -- but it's just a guess...