Discussion in 'San Diego/Presidio' started by sdklutz, Apr 30, 2018.
What was the vote tally?
Will be interesting to see the vote when the Presidio minutes are published. Last year Surf was rejected, 17-26-2 with the ballots being destroyed. So much for transparency.
While Surf certainly dug their own hole, it is in the best interest of all the young players in the county (Surf and non-Surf) to allow Surf to play locally.
Surf's lower teams aren't having the same success keeping kids at the club - this will serve their recruiting machine well.
Lower teams should travel less. With more teams in the county, there should be less travel for everyone. Not that adding Surf to Presidio has much of an effect on top level teams, but even top level teams should only travel when it makes sense.
It is sick that the Presidio DOC simpletons let them in after rejecting them last year. What is the difference between last year and this year that warranted a change in voting? I am not saying that they should not have been allowed in last year although they did deserve it based on their superiority comments. But what changed? Is it the use of the Polo Fields, that they have been punished enough or that most DOCs have small brains that cannot remember what happened last week? And why because one club had a loser coach involved they were told not to even bother applying for Presidio?
Lower level and younger teams should travel less, you are right. But those players should play at a local club that did not pull all their teams out of Presidio at the last minute under the guise that Presidio was weak. In reality they pulled all teams because they did not like the new player and coach poaching rules of Presidio.
And if it is good for lower level teams, why even vote on whether to allow a club in Presidio? Why not let them all in? The answer is that DOCs do not care about kids, they care about $ (keeping their territory) and getting revenge on other coaches they do not like.
Extended the B2004 try outs to the olders this month. They can't fill the second "NPL" team in that age group.
Gotta love competition.
I agree with what you are saying, but the facts are that last year a bunch of kids traveled for soccer when they could have played more locally. While what Surf did when the pulled out of Presidio was BS, there are plenty of other DOC's that spout plenty of BS as well. In my opinion it is in the best interest of the younger players in the county that Surf be allowed back into Presidio.
Can you answer my second paragraph?
There are some common sense requirements for being admitted to Presidio that Surf easily satisfies, while many of the startups do not.
It appears that some think that Presidio teams will benefit from playing against Surf's lower level teams in League play. Let that sink in a while.
Perhaps some have forgotten (or did not know) how Surf bullied the league and their opponents off the field.
I didn't forget anything about how Surf has bullied the league and their opponents. That does not change the fact that a bunch of little kids are not to blame for any of it. Should Presidio never let Surf back in?
What are those common sense requirements? My argument is why vote at all for clubs/coaches in good standing (i.e. are
current on all their fees to Presidio).
You start on a good point but then lose me. How exactly did Surf bully the league and opponents?
The little kids don't have to play for Surf.
And that is the point. After they made there exit from Presidio, families of younger kids and lower division players started to stay at other clubs. This is the only reason that they want back in.$$$$
Should Presidio never let Surf back in?