|
|
Post by vbman100 on Apr 1, 2015 7:47:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 1, 2015 7:50:02 GMT -5
I read this a couple of times and I keep thinking that this is a bad April Fools joke. Or hoping so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Apr 1, 2015 7:56:26 GMT -5
I guess they didn't think out who suing over playing time would impact her chances of being recruited.
What coach would talk to her now. I wouldn't even let her walk on.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Apr 1, 2015 8:00:11 GMT -5
I can't believe how stupid the region is being. If the club is fine with the kid going elsewhere, the kid has met whatever financial responsibilities with the existing club, why not sign off on it? I would also add that while I think the family is nuts to go to this extent, clubs say anything they can at tryouts to get kids, make promises, and when those promises arent fulfilled, parents are going to be mad, and they should. Under promise, over deliver!
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 1, 2015 8:02:57 GMT -5
I can't believe how stupid the region is being. You've clearly never dealt with CHRVA. |
|
|
|
Post by pancakesandgators on Apr 1, 2015 8:43:49 GMT -5
It'd be interesting to know if she was just benched without any playing time whatsoever or if she just isn't a starter but still gets to see the court here and there.
The whole lawsuit is pretty ridiculous. I actually agree with the region. If someone lets this girl join another team, tons of other girls who don't receive their wanted playing time could be switching clubs. It turns club volleyball into a free agency market.
This girl may have shot herself in the foot if she wants to play any college ball. I am sure a college coach is just licking his or her chops to recruit a kid whose family is suing a volleyball region because their DD isn't getting the superstar role and treatment they think she deserves.
|
|
|
|
Post by vballguy2001 on Apr 1, 2015 9:09:06 GMT -5
The other instances also shock me. 40 million dollar lawsuit for getting cut from his high school track team. 40 million??? I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on this, cause my HS Basketball coach has it coming from what he did to me 21 years ago  . (sarcasm) Good to know that this is where athletics is going. Good luck finding a college scholarship now! Maybe in the future the daughter can sue her parents for ruining her chances of a college scholarship, by pursuing this course of action. |
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 1, 2015 9:17:24 GMT -5
The other instances also shock me. 40 million dollar lawsuit for getting cut from his high school track team. 40 million??? I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on this, cause my HS Basketball coach has it coming from what he did to me 21 years ago . (sarcasm) Good to know that this is where athletics is going. Good luck finding a college scholarship now! Maybe in the future the daughter can sue her parents for ruining her chances of a college scholarship, by pursuing this course of action. Better yet. Confronting the parents a few years from now on Dr. Phil or Maury Povich. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Apr 1, 2015 9:23:13 GMT -5
It seems to me that if a player wants to go and a team agrees to let her go, that she should be allowed to go. Is the contract between the team and player, or the player and the region?
|
|
|
|
Post by spikeattack on Apr 1, 2015 9:29:55 GMT -5
Sounds like Chantilly Jrs. did not have a solid grievance policy in place. Normally this kind of grievance would be discussed with the club director. In turn, the club director should have known that the coach may have given this child and her parents bad advice in finding another team to play for. Don't know anything about Chantilly Jr's, but I know the big clubs in that area such as VA Elite, Fredicksburg Jrs, and even Metro VBC would have a good policy in place to deal with these issues. The bottom line is that both sides did not handle this very well for different reasons.
As for college, she will be able to play somewhere. She may not get a scholarship but there are schools out there that would love to have if she does have the skill set and would consider to take her as a project.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 9:39:36 GMT -5
I can't believe how stupid the region is being. If the club is fine with the kid going elsewhere, the kid has met whatever financial responsibilities with the existing club, why not sign off on it? I would also add that while I think the family is nuts to go to this extent, clubs say anything they can at tryouts to get kids, make promises, and when those promises arent fulfilled, parents are going to be mad, and they should. Under promise, over deliver! +1 I'd like to know what the club said/promised in order to get the kid to play for them. Not what it is said they said--but the reality. Parents are paying big money for a service. With other businesses, if a customer pays $2000+ and doesn't get what they want, they take it to court...this is not any different. This is not about sport--it's about business. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 1, 2015 9:41:58 GMT -5
The take away is that club directors should focus on tightening up the contracts they use. A judge very rarely will make a ruling that requires one or the other party to a contract to continue with the contract if they don't want to (i.e., it's rare to require "specific performance" which would require the player to continue to practice/play with a team, or to force a club to "start" a player).
Club directors prefer to deal directly with the players (and rightfully so), but a club contract is actually between the club and the parents because minors are not legally capable of entering into contracts (except emancipated or married minors).
|
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Apr 1, 2015 9:43:45 GMT -5
I am not sure about the other regions, but the regions I have been associated with have a steadfast policy of not allowing transfers after the roster is set, i.e. after the player has played a match for that club. The idea is to prevent poaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 1, 2015 9:57:21 GMT -5
It seems to me that if a player wants to go and a team agrees to let her go, that she should be allowed to go. Is the contract between the team and player, or the player and the region? I agree. Frankly, it seems to me like the parents are correct here. Things didn't work out as they hoped on the first team they tried, but they should be allowed to try another club. If no other club will have her, well that's one thing. But the region won't let her transfer just because they don't want to deal with the hassle, and that's a problem. The idea that they are suing over playing time is misleading. They are suing because the region won't let her transfer to another team that has already agreed to accept her. It makes me wonder if her first team really just wants her locked in as a practice player and a source of income. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 1, 2015 10:00:19 GMT -5
I am not sure about the other regions, but the regions I have been associated with have a steadfast policy of not allowing transfers after the roster is set, i.e. after the player has played a match for that club. The idea is to prevent poaching. That's as bad as the NCAA transfer rules, IMO. In fact, worse, because at least the NCAA transfer rules only apply when the team is paying the player (with a scholarship). Here the player is paying the team, and she still isn't allowed to leave? |
|
. (sarcasm)