|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 13:19:37 GMT -5
Okay but that's what I'm wondering. Were her hands tied by the City of Denver? What if they say "These are the rules" and she plays the hero and goes against them? Where is Colorado Crossroads next year? Is there a fine line between small business tyrant and small business owner? It's all well and good for us (well some of you) to throw around the POS label but it's not YOUR business on the line. Maybe she could have made a different call and maybe she couldn't. I definitely agree that there may have been better ways to go about it. Especially when it's captured on camera and put on the news. If her hands were tied by the city of Denver, then the intelligent thing would be to tell everyone that and shift the blame. The fact that she didn't do that is what leads people to believe it was her call to make. If her hands were tied by anyone, she did a terrible job on the PR for the whole situation by not expressing that to the national media yet. Hands may have been tied by the protocols approved ... Then bound by those contractually agreed upon. COVID protocols have been the bane of everyone's existence... Is an insurer willing to make an "in the moment call" on what could clearly be seen as a "no brainier"? Is one party going to convince another party to waive a COVID protocol on the fly? Lots of moving parts here not being accounted for... Yet. If lawyers are involved all this will come out...
|
|
|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 13:20:39 GMT -5
How many humans rights, or ethical issues, is Kay about to get sued for? USAV really dropped the ball on this saying they don't have association with this tourney and are encouraging Kay to reverse the decision. If she holds her ground she truly is a giant POS and deserves everything that comes to her. If people wanted too make a stand they should stop attending this tourney, and if USAV wanted to save face they should threaten to pull the umbrella insurance and no longer market it as one of their national qualifiers. I want to say I can't believe this is a thing in 2021, but I am not surprised by the decisions so many broken brained people are making currently. The part that is frustrating to me is that she had every chance to make it go away easily. The whole thing started when the coach was denied entry on Saturday, she could have made it all go away anytime between then and Sunday, but no. Was the coach denied entry or was the infant?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 17, 2021 13:23:21 GMT -5
The part that is frustrating to me is that she had every chance to make it go away easily. The whole thing started when the coach was denied entry on Saturday, she could have made it all go away anytime between then and Sunday, but no. Was the coach denied entry or was the infant? The infant. Coach was told she could attend without the child.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 13:29:41 GMT -5
Was the coach denied entry or was the infant? The infant. Coach was told she could attend without the child. Ok... So per the previous post coach "sneaks" baby in... And is told that she will be trespassed if the infant isn't removed? Then the coach is told the infant will not be allowed in the venue again (without ramification toward the club)?
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on May 17, 2021 13:32:10 GMT -5
Was the coach denied entry or was the infant? The infant. Coach was told she could attend without the child. Here stands the issue for me, it is an f'ing infant, not a young child, an infant. A young child you ask another parent you trust or another coach who is off during your match to hang with them outside and go for a walk or get some ice cream. WTF did Kay expect her to do with an infant? I obviously don't know this woman's situation but I would be willing to bet if she had her infant with her at a tourney there was a pretty solid reason, or multiple of them. Kay has some sort of contact, or building super, that she can communicate with during the event seeing as she does not operate the facility. It could have been really easy to get in touch with them and explain the situation, or be very apologetic and pass the blame off so she didn't get caught in a firestorm that could potentially not be her fault if she made contact with that person. I have a hard time believing that happened because why would you not just say here is what they said when I asked, instead she woke up and chose chaos. She deserves to have her leadership and integrity questioned for all that its worth.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 13:39:13 GMT -5
The infant. Coach was told she could attend without the child. Here stands the issue for me, it is an f'ing infant, not a young child, an infant. A young child you ask another parent you trust or another coach who is off during your match to hang with them outside and go for a walk or get some ice cream. WTF did Kay expect her to do with an infant? I obviously don't know this woman's situation but I would be willing to bet if she had her infant with her at a tourney there was a pretty solid reason, or multiple of them. Kay has some sort of contact, or building super, that she can communicate with during the event seeing as she does not operate the facility. It could have been really easy to get in touch with them and explain the situation, or be very apologetic and pass the blame off so she didn't get caught in a firestorm that could potentially not be her fault if she made contact with that person. I have a hard time believing that happened because why would you not just say here is what they said when I asked, instead she woke up and chose chaos. She deserves to have her leadership and integrity questioned for all that its worth. It's my understanding that the father was at the event also (albeit w their two other children)
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on May 17, 2021 13:41:35 GMT -5
Here stands the issue for me, it is an f'ing infant, not a young child, an infant. A young child you ask another parent you trust or another coach who is off during your match to hang with them outside and go for a walk or get some ice cream. WTF did Kay expect her to do with an infant? I obviously don't know this woman's situation but I would be willing to bet if she had her infant with her at a tourney there was a pretty solid reason, or multiple of them. Kay has some sort of contact, or building super, that she can communicate with during the event seeing as she does not operate the facility. It could have been really easy to get in touch with them and explain the situation, or be very apologetic and pass the blame off so she didn't get caught in a firestorm that could potentially not be her fault if she made contact with that person. I have a hard time believing that happened because why would you not just say here is what they said when I asked, instead she woke up and chose chaos. She deserves to have her leadership and integrity questioned for all that its worth. It's my understanding that the father was at the event also (albeit w their two other children) This is where it gets messy, the other two children that were there, are they players, are they under 16? Because, if they are not players and under 16 Kay just opened up a whole can of worms for herself because I would be willing to bet there is a great number of siblings that were there under 16 as well.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 13:45:31 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the father was at the event also (albeit w their two other children) This is where it gets messy, the other two children that were there, are they players, are they under 16? Because, if they are not players and under 16 Kay just opened up a whole can of worms for herself because I would be willing to bet there is a great number of siblings that were there under 16 as well. It's my understanding he traveled to the event... But was not at the venue... And I absolutely agree that if there were already u16 spectators in the venue with approved registration then there is no wiggle room here... With 1 spectator per athlete it's tough to hide extra bodies... So they should have stood out!
|
|
|
Post by steven2913 on May 17, 2021 13:54:07 GMT -5
It's my understanding from a friend of mine that was there that there was another event (dance or cheer) going on in the convention center in a different hall and they had no age restrictions. That said, I don't see how it could be some kind of city/state policy, it falls only on Crossroads. If you want to not allow her in the tournament (inside the hall) that's one thing, but not allowing in the building when there's other events going on in the same building with no restrictions? So wrong. Would love for this qualifier to just go away.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on May 17, 2021 13:56:50 GMT -5
This is where it gets messy, the other two children that were there, are they players, are they under 16? Because, if they are not players and under 16 Kay just opened up a whole can of worms for herself because I would be willing to bet there is a great number of siblings that were there under 16 as well. It's my understanding he traveled to the event... But was not at the venue... And I absolutely agree that if there were already u16 spectators in the venue with approved registration then there is no wiggle room here... With 1 spectator per athlete it's tough to hide extra bodies... So they should have stood out! Every single person on this forum that has been to a Qualifier knows how many siblings are there, let alone the fact it was an all under 16 tourney. Either Kay did not have the foresight to see how bad she was going to make the situation or just did not care, regardless it still calls for her leadership and ethics to be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on May 17, 2021 13:59:07 GMT -5
It's my understanding from a friend of mine that was there that there was another event (dance or cheer) going on in the convention center in a different hall and they had no age restrictions. That said, I don't see how it could be some kind of city/state policy, it falls only on Crossroads. If you want to not allow her in the tournament (inside the hall) that's one thing, but not allowing in the building when there's other events going on in the same building with no restrictions? So wrong. Would love for this qualifier to just go away. Honest question? If USAV decides that the mess this tourney has created the last two years is not worth it and no longer covers the insurance or provides bid allocations from it, do they lose any revenue, funding, etc. from completely and totally distancing themselves?
|
|
|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 14:01:48 GMT -5
It's my understanding he traveled to the event... But was not at the venue... And I absolutely agree that if there were already u16 spectators in the venue with approved registration then there is no wiggle room here... With 1 spectator per athlete it's tough to hide extra bodies... So they should have stood out! Every single person on this forum that has been to a Qualifier knows how many siblings are there, let alone the fact it was an all under 16 tourney. Either Kay did not have the foresight to see how bad she was going to make the situation or just did not care, regardless it still calls for her leadership and ethics to be questioned. And I think we can all agree that given the option Kay would have taken money to allow all of those siblings in? So why didn't she... And for me... There in lies the issue... What is it that kept Kay from either a) taking the $$ and it's buissness as usual or b) making an exception for situations like this.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 14:02:53 GMT -5
It's my understanding from a friend of mine that was there that there was another event (dance or cheer) going on in the convention center in a different hall and they had no age restrictions. That said, I don't see how it could be some kind of city/state policy, it falls only on Crossroads. If you want to not allow her in the tournament (inside the hall) that's one thing, but not allowing in the building when there's other events going on in the same building with no restrictions? So wrong. Would love for this qualifier to just go away. Honest question? If USAV decides that the mess this tourney has created the last two years is not worth it and no longer covers the insurance or provides bid allocations from it, do they lose any revenue, funding, etc. from completely and totally distancing themselves? Let's be honest... The last two years USAV hasn't been the shining example of NOT creating messes... I offer HP as an example
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on May 17, 2021 14:04:52 GMT -5
Every single person on this forum that has been to a Qualifier knows how many siblings are there, let alone the fact it was an all under 16 tourney. Either Kay did not have the foresight to see how bad she was going to make the situation or just did not care, regardless it still calls for her leadership and ethics to be questioned. And I think we can all agree that given the option Kay would have taken money to allow all of those siblings in? So why didn't she... And for me... There in lies the issue... What is it that kept Kay from either a) taking the $$ and it's buissness as usual or b) making an exception for situations like this. That is the answer I am curious about, are there other situations of children older than toddler/infant and younger than 16, that had entry paid for and were in attendance watching their siblings? Or are there other families that can corroborate that their children (older than toddler younger than 16) denied entry?
|
|
|
Post by sevb on May 17, 2021 14:07:58 GMT -5
It's my understanding from a friend of mine that was there that there was another event (dance or cheer) going on in the convention center in a different hall and they had no age restrictions. That said, I don't see how it could be some kind of city/state policy, it falls only on Crossroads. If you want to not allow her in the tournament (inside the hall) that's one thing, but not allowing in the building when there's other events going on in the same building with no restrictions? So wrong. Would love for this qualifier to just go away. Honest question? If USAV decides that the mess this tourney has created the last two years is not worth it and no longer covers the insurance or provides bid allocations from it, do they lose any revenue, funding, etc. from completely and totally distancing themselves? But more to the point... In the past USAV has pulled and reallocated NQ status... So it's not out of the realm of possibility. But at this point Xroads hasn't broken any USAV protocols or rules... Lots of bad press for sure... I don't know how long/under what conditions NQ events are given. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... But USAV athletes/members are covered under the USAV insurance umbrella to an extent. Are sanctioned events covered top to bottom under that policy as well?? Of that I'm unclear. Spectators are not covered... So it would seem that any venue would require some type of additional insurance...
|
|