|
Post by bigfan on Apr 2, 2015 11:03:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 2, 2015 11:08:38 GMT -5
I like how WaPo calls them "the Juniors" as if Juniors is the mascot and not the name of the club.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Apr 2, 2015 11:25:02 GMT -5
The original article on the OP is from the Washington Post. It's the same article and on two different websites.
|
|
|
Post by vballarfan on Apr 2, 2015 12:13:44 GMT -5
I guess I don't see the reasoning of not allowing teams to stack talent at the end of a season, especially in areas like VA where its not like they are all of the sudden going to put one extra girl on a team and go win the open national championship. I see club as an opportunity for kids to develop and get better. Clubs probably see a great risk in their best kids leaving them - maybe its a big risk to allow teams to combine in good areas, etc, but from a rural volleyball parent's perspective - if this is about helping kids get better and see their full potential - kids will get most notice for their potential on the biggest stage possible playing the best competition at qualifiers and nationals. In rural areas, if that means a region sends an all star team to Nationals with kids that are driving great distances at the end of the regular season to practice with the best other kids for that exposure- why not let them? AAU essentially does allow that, USAV does not.
as far as the suit - I don't think that is a good use of time or resources or a good example for your child. Hey honey, we know you are good enough, its not your fault - we will sue so you can go play on a team that appreciates your talent. nah - just pick a better club the next year and have your daughter work harder in the meantime, get her some lessons, etc. If she is good enough - she will still get her chance to show colleges what she can do.
|
|
|
Post by coachwpassion on Apr 2, 2015 12:43:27 GMT -5
She was on CBS morning show this am. Explained in detail is was because region would not let her transfer clubs with the approval of Chantilly Jrs. While I understand rules are in place to prevent poaching if both player and club agree, why does the region care. It would be one thing if the current club said no and thought there was an ethical violation. Every region has an ethical board which meets and goes over questionable practices. While the law suit idea seems far fetched I would be hard pressed to understand why a region board would have a problem if both parties agree. Why not let her play for Old Dominion then...further drive but then it prevents in-region poaching.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on Apr 2, 2015 12:55:40 GMT -5
Beware of unattended consequences of allowing open transfers. Players on middling and poor teams will likely see their best players leaving and causing the team to fold. Players on better teams could see their playing time dramatically change when a new player comes in. Players that are playing Club for fun would most likely see more uncertainty in their playing status with open transfers.
The current system stinks for many players, but the remedy could make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by vballarfan on Apr 2, 2015 14:19:13 GMT -5
Beware of unattended consequences of allowing open transfers. Players on middling and poor teams will likely see their best players leaving and causing the team to fold. Players on better teams could see their playing time dramatically change when a new player comes in. Players that are playing Club for fun would most likely see more uncertainty in their playing status with open transfers. The current system stinks for many players, but the remedy could make things worse. this makes sense. I am looking at from the perspective of a kid that has a chance to play at a high level in college and we aren't in an area that has teams that can really showcase her talent/potential.
Its not as big an issue as I had feared cause she likes the schools that know her the best anyway. I suppose if she joined another team and took someone's playing time and I was that kid's parent - I'd probably have to sue the club!?!
|
|
|
Post by smb4 on Apr 2, 2015 14:41:02 GMT -5
Haha A LOT. Litigation is costly for the most part. A general practice would be for an attorney to offer the parent a litigation plan and an estimate of time. The ultimate cost will be calculated by how expensive a particular attorney is. Ball park figure? Do I agree before to give lets say a 30% cut of what I receive in damages? Lets say I lose and have hired a lawyer to do what is currently happening. Are we talking $20,000................less or a lot more that I owe said lawyer? The cost can vary greatly. Some attorneys take civil cases on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they win. The agreement between attorney and client would spell out what percentage of the award they would receive (33% is pretty common). They get a high percentage because they are taking a significant risk. (If they lose, they get nothing.) If the case is not taken on a contingency basis, then the client would typically pay hourly attorney fees ($150 per hour is on the low end). Even if the attorney takes the case on contingency, there are other expenses associated with the suit, e.g., fees for court reporters who provide an official record of depositions, expert witness fees, court fees, etc.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 2, 2015 15:21:28 GMT -5
Even if the attorney takes the case on contingency, there are other expenses associated with the suit, e.g., fees for court reporters who provide an official record of depositions, expert witness fees, court fees, etc. The parents are paying alot of money for this foolishness. What college coach would want this young lady on his team after all this?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 15:27:46 GMT -5
Ball park figure? Do I agree before to give lets say a 30% cut of what I receive in damages? Lets say I lose and have hired a lawyer to do what is currently happening. Are we talking $20,000................less or a lot more that I owe said lawyer? The cost can vary greatly. Some attorneys take civil cases on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they win. The agreement between attorney and client would spell out what percentage of the award they would receive (33% is pretty common). They get a high percentage because they are taking a significant risk. (If they lose, they get nothing.) If the case is not taken on a contingency basis, then the client would typically pay hourly attorney fees ($150 per hour is on the low end). Even if the attorney takes the case on contingency, there are other expenses associated with the suit, e.g., fees for court reporters who provide an official record of depositions, expert witness fees, court fees, etc. If the parents were asking for monetary damages, an attorney might take it on contingency. They are suing for the right to transfer. Asking for punitive damages in addition would be a real stretch. It seems like these parents have too much time and money on their hands.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2015 17:39:51 GMT -5
The cost can vary greatly. Some attorneys take civil cases on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they win. The agreement between attorney and client would spell out what percentage of the award they would receive (33% is pretty common). They get a high percentage because they are taking a significant risk. (If they lose, they get nothing.) If the case is not taken on a contingency basis, then the client would typically pay hourly attorney fees ($150 per hour is on the low end). Even if the attorney takes the case on contingency, there are other expenses associated with the suit, e.g., fees for court reporters who provide an official record of depositions, expert witness fees, court fees, etc. If the parents were asking for monetary damages, an attorney might take it on contingency. They are suing for the right to transfer. Asking for punitive damages in addition would be a real stretch. It seems like these parents have too much time and money on their hands. Well, if they had a little less time and money, DD would be playing volleyball in somebody's backyard instead of with a club. It's strange that people associated with an industry that relies on parents spending time and money on their kids would complain about parents who are willing to spend time and money on their kids.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 17:40:06 GMT -5
Only in the context of a temporary injunction. It makes no sense for a judge to rule that they don't have "authority" to issue a temporary injunction. Judges have broad authority to issue temporary injunctions. Finally read the article (long day/week). Without actually seeing the opinion, I think the issue is done and the case will either be dismissed or "disposed" of through summary judgement. The family will still be able to appeal the lower court's decision, but it'll be an uphill battle. This is pure speculation, but I believe from the few snippets in the article of the judge's order that this is a "standing" issue. A court cannot intervene in a matter between parties without a plaintiff having standing to bring suit. It's a threshold matter, so it doesn't involve the actual merits of the plaintiff's complaint. Every party that brings a lawsuit must show standing, whether they are in a state or federal court. Further, standing must exist throughout the duration of the suit almost without exception. To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff has to demonstrate 3 things: injury-in-fact (this is likely not in dispute--she's injured by being precluded from playing and from losing potential recruiting opportunities), causation, and redressability (most likely not in dispute--injunctive relief instructing CHRVA to allow the transfer would redress her injury). I think the stickler is causation. The athlete would have to show a direct link flowing from the actions of the region that caused her injury. A good attorney would mostly likely win this argument for the region every time, establishing that the injury--not playing--was not caused by their bylaws, but rather that it was caused by her decision to leave her original team. There is a connection to her inability to redress her injury and the actions of the region, but that's just not how causation works. I could be wrong, but this is my general impression. I could take a more definitive stance if I had the judge's order to read.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 17:54:25 GMT -5
It makes no sense for a judge to rule that they don't have "authority" to issue a temporary injunction. Judges have broad authority to issue temporary injunctions. Finally read the article (long day/week). Without actually seeing the opinion, I think the issue is done and the case will either be dismissed or "disposed" of through summary judgement. The family will still be able to appeal the lower court's decision, but it'll be an uphill battle. This is pure speculation, but I believe from the few snippets in the article of the judge's order that this is a "standing" issue. A court cannot intervene in a matter between parties without a plaintiff having standing to bring suit. It's a threshold matter, so it doesn't involve the actual merits of the plaintiff's complaint. Every party that brings a lawsuit must show standing, whether they are in a state or federal court. Further, standing must exist throughout the duration of the suit almost without exception. To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff has to demonstrate 3 things: injury-in-fact (this is likely not in dispute--she's injured by being precluded from playing and from losing potential recruiting opportunities), causation, and redressability (most likely not in dispute--injunctive relief instructing CHRVA to allow the transfer would redress her injury). I think the stickler is causation. The athlete would have to show a direct link flowing from the actions of the region that caused her injury. A good attorney would mostly likely win this argument for the region every time, establishing that the injury--not playing--was not caused by their bylaws, but rather that it was caused by her decision to leave her original team. There is a connection to her inability to redress her injury and the actions of the region, but that's just not how causation works. I could be wrong, but this is my general impression. I could take a more definitive stance if I had the judge's order to read. That's a lot to read into based simply on this article. A simpler explanation is that since the action requested in the temporary injunction is the same as the claim in the lawsuit--to force the region to allow a transfer, the judge's determination that he had no legal authority to order the injunction means that they could not prevail in the lawsuit either because the issues are one and the same.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 18:05:56 GMT -5
Finally read the article (long day/week). Without actually seeing the opinion, I think the issue is done and the case will either be dismissed or "disposed" of through summary judgement. The family will still be able to appeal the lower court's decision, but it'll be an uphill battle. This is pure speculation, but I believe from the few snippets in the article of the judge's order that this is a "standing" issue. A court cannot intervene in a matter between parties without a plaintiff having standing to bring suit. It's a threshold matter, so it doesn't involve the actual merits of the plaintiff's complaint. Every party that brings a lawsuit must show standing, whether they are in a state or federal court. Further, standing must exist throughout the duration of the suit almost without exception. To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff has to demonstrate 3 things: injury-in-fact (this is likely not in dispute--she's injured by being precluded from playing and from losing potential recruiting opportunities), causation, and redressability (most likely not in dispute--injunctive relief instructing CHRVA to allow the transfer would redress her injury). I think the stickler is causation. The athlete would have to show a direct link flowing from the actions of the region that caused her injury. A good attorney would mostly likely win this argument for the region every time, establishing that the injury--not playing--was not caused by their bylaws, but rather that it was caused by her decision to leave her original team. There is a connection to her inability to redress her injury and the actions of the region, but that's just not how causation works. I could be wrong, but this is my general impression. I could take a more definitive stance if I had the judge's order to read. That's a lot to read into based simply on this article. A simpler explanation is that since the action requested in the temporary injunction is the same as the claim in the lawsuit--to force the region to allow a transfer, the judge's determination that he had no legal authority to order the injunction means that they could not prevail in the lawsuit either because the issues are one and the same. I don't think so, it jumped out right at me. That may be a simpler explanation, but it's not at all rooted in legal principles. That said, I have no problem with you believing it. Edit: for what it's worth, the elements required for a temporary injunction are not at all the "same issues" as prevailing on the merits of their lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 18:38:01 GMT -5
That's a lot to read into based simply on this article. A simpler explanation is that since the action requested in the temporary injunction is the same as the claim in the lawsuit--to force the region to allow a transfer, the judge's determination that he had no legal authority to order the injunction means that they could not prevail in the lawsuit either because the issues are one and the same. I don't think so, it jumped out right at me. That may be a simpler explanation, but it's not at all rooted in legal principles. That said, I have no problem with you believing it. Edit: for what it's worth, the elements required for a temporary injunction are not at all the "same issues" as prevailing on the merits of their lawsuit. I agree that generally they are not, but in this case, they are the same. Generally, an injunction preserves the status quo or prevents irreparable harm. Had the judge granted the injunction in this case, he would have delivered the same result being requested in the lawsuit.
|
|