|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 1, 2015 10:02:08 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. It's not the team blocking it, but the region. And the region has many good reasons for not allowing in-season transfers. Now, the player's family may not have been actively aware of the region's regulations, but I'd bet there is a clause in the contract with the club that binds both to USAV and Chesapeake Region rulemaking.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 1, 2015 10:06:10 GMT -5
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. It's not the team blocking it, but the region. And the region has many good reasons for not allowing in-season transfers. Now, the player's family may not have been actively aware of the region's regulations, but I'd bet there is a clause in the contract with the club that binds both to USAV and Chesapeake Region rulemaking. Well, that's what the court is for, I guess: resolving contract disputes.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Apr 1, 2015 10:11:25 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. If the team she's on agrees to let her transfer, is that poaching? I can see the idea that the competition might be compromised a little by moving players around mid season, but the parents are paying in sweat and treasure to give their kids the best chance possible to play. That outweighs the other issues in my book.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 1, 2015 10:18:41 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? I had that same thought initially, too, but even though they derive their authority from USAV, legally speaking the regional organizations and its members are private entities and have legal latitude to determine their membership and rules much like private country clubs and the Boy Scouts.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 1, 2015 10:21:05 GMT -5
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? I had that same thought initially, too, but even though they derive their authority from USAV, legally speaking the regional organizations and its members are private entities and have legal latitude to determine their membership and rules much like private country clubs and the Boy Scouts. I wasn't speaking of legal rights, I was speaking of moral behavior. But I guess the courts will rule on what is legal and what is not.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Apr 1, 2015 10:52:59 GMT -5
This is a great opportunity to correct the issue moving forward for both player/parent, clubs, and Region.
Make the rule: Players may transfer up until a certain point in the season, assigned date / halfway point, etc., if:
1. Current team/club allows the player to transfer - This gives team/club protection of losing best players by poaching, but they can agree if a player is just not good enough to ever see the court and could play at another club, is unhappy, parents are a pain, etc.
2. Player / parents have options if they are unhappy with play-time, or feel they are not getting what they are paying for.
3. Region may institute an in-season transfer processing charge of $200-$250 if a player requests a transfer so the Region can make money in the process of having to deal with occasional headaches (and at the end of the day it is a business). The charge to transfer will also discourage some players from transferring for frivolous reasons.
4. A team may only accept one transfer player during a season and this will prevent the possibility of club collusion to share players for Qualifiers and Nationals, and a team may not accept a player if they have 10 or more players so the transfer player does not push another player out.
This may not be perfect, but it does give each party an option and to do the right thing in each individual scenario that may come up.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 1, 2015 11:00:59 GMT -5
I read this a couple of times and I keep thinking that this is a bad April Fools joke. Or hoping so. This player would be a great recruit for some programs.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 1, 2015 11:02:49 GMT -5
This may not be perfect, but it does give each party an option and to do the right thing in each individual scenario that may come up. real simple solution.......give money back to family. Release player from everything.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 1, 2015 11:05:10 GMT -5
“This young lady has nowhere to play,” argued her attorney, Robert Cunningham.
Two questions about said player. Does she need coaching and can she pass?
|
|
|
Post by ja on Apr 1, 2015 11:05:25 GMT -5
Why not to give her real ease letter and just let her go? I had situation like this, when girl did not fit in and I just let her go.
|
|
|
Post by s0uthie on Apr 1, 2015 11:11:14 GMT -5
She can transfer with no penalties at the end of the club season, along with thousands of other dissatisfied parent for slights real and imagined.
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Apr 1, 2015 11:14:51 GMT -5
It sounds like she may not be that great, which makes the situation interesting. She was on her JV team last year as a soph (at least that is what it seemed like from the article). If the parents think this is killing her chances of being recruited and getting a scholarship, I doubt it. I found some of the quotes interesting - college skills and guaranteed the starting spot.
If she transfers to a different club now, how much playing time will she get there? How do the parents know? What about the kids/setter on that team she goes to? Can they transfer out of that club to go play somewhere?
Then at the end of May, when some clubs are not going to nationals, can I transfer out of my club and go to another club that is?
|
|
|
Post by shawnc on Apr 1, 2015 11:48:41 GMT -5
She can transfer with no penalties at the end of the club season, along with thousands of other dissatisfied parent for slights real and imagined. +1000
|
|
|
Post by knowitall on Apr 1, 2015 11:59:45 GMT -5
This is a great opportunity to correct the issue moving forward for both player/parent, clubs, and Region. Make the rule: Players may transfer up until a certain point in the season, assigned date / halfway point, etc., if: 1. Current team/club allows the player to transfer - This gives team/club protection of losing best players by poaching, but they can agree if a player is just not good enough to ever see the court and could play at another club, is unhappy, parents are a pain, etc. 2. Player / parents have options if they are unhappy with play-time, or feel they are not getting what they are paying for. 3. Region may institute an in-season transfer processing charge of $200-$250 if a player requests a transfer so the Region can make money in the process of having to deal with occasional headaches (and at the end of the day it is a business). The charge to transfer will also discourage some players from transferring for frivolous reasons. 4. A team may only accept one transfer player during a season and this will prevent the possibility of club collusion to share players for Qualifiers and Nationals, and a team may not accept a player if they have 10 or more players so the transfer player does not push another player out. This may not be perfect, but it does give each party an option and to do the right thing in each individual scenario that may come up. You bring up a very good point, that I didn't even think of. If regions allow kids to transfer freely, with or without the original club's approval, then I think you would see some teams trying to poach a player or two for Nationals. I believe in our region there is a date in which you can no longer transfer. As stated earlier, I believe that there are stipulations, such as the original club agrees and the player has not played in a tournament. I think the only exception is if the club has folded.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Apr 1, 2015 16:34:36 GMT -5
So, who runs the region? The clubs?
It would be in their self-interest to see that parents are stuck to iron-clad "pay-or-sit" contracts.
|
|