Changing Landscapes - Chicagoland

Also, went to look at Hussars in the app just now and noticed Rush are now #5, one 100th of a point above Rockford. Basically the app has shown them tied for a couple weeks, but interesting to see the ranking reversed.

 

I guess anything's possible, but this doesn't seem likely to me. What is the rule about the 2015G team not being allowed to also play in the 2014G bracket, with some, most, or even all of the same girls? In most leagues, typically a player can't play on two teams in the same age bracket. But there's no reason why they also can't play up a year. One obvious issue is if a 2014 kid played on the 2015 team in the 2015 bracket - sounds like people are implying that a 2013 kid played in both.

 

There are also limits on guest players so an entire team can't play in two divisions. Not that I know that happened.

 

I can see this to some extent, if all the girls are officially rostered on the 2015G team, and are "guesting" on the 2014G team. Looks like it would be a limit of 6 or 8 players that could do this, according to IWSL's rules:

But if this were the rule that is being pointed to, in order to cause a forfeit - it would only apply to the 2014G team - and the 2015G team should be allowed to keep all of its wins. Since both teams were disqualified, it seems more likely they both were accused of wrongdoing. All of this is just speculation with no knowledge of what actually happened other than seeing the forfeit results posted.

 

It looks like someone has already separated out the IWSL results from the 2015 team entity. The team without those results will remain #1 in state (30th in nation, while the IWSL results landed 11th). For the 2014 team entity, its only results at all are from IWSL, so once they are removed the team entity will disappear.

 

Presumably Ela Elite are aware of the situation since their IWSL matches are now showing as Hussars forfeits. They were an opponent of Hussars in the Junior Cup too. I wonder whether the issue was also present in that competition and whether Ela will raise it.

 

clarification on the Hussars incident...........it was not an older player playing down as all players are 2015 or younger. It was a player who left ELA to join Hussars prior to the season even starting, but was never formally released. This actually turned into a full-blown ongoing legal matter as a few other players left for other teams (after signing the contract), and had no problem being released. The 2015 Hussars team competing in the 2014 division is legit, but has fallen victim to club rivalries made personal through select coaches, parent drama, and pure envy, to say the least. It's an absolutely crazy situation to see unfold, and I feel bad for those talented girls.

 

That’s what’s wrong with youth soccer in a Nutshell. Trying to prevent a U11 kid from playing at all just because your upset she left the club.

There’s a few clips of that team on YouTube and they look really talented

 

This is a cautionary tale for all parents about club politics and greener grass.

I will assume a very talented 2015 signs her ELA contract in the Spring to play for ELA in 25/26. Something happens, and it is VERY important what that something is, and they decide Hussars is a better place for her to be and have her move to that club even though she has a signed contract with ELA. And then others leave ELA either having to do with the same something talented girl had or because the team wasnt as expected after talented girl left or something unrelated.

Some comments as I have sympathy for both club(s) and player(s)

1. Clubs are running a business and part of that business is having a sense of the players and teams you will have. Which division to play, which coach to assign, which tournaments to sign up for, etc etc. All of those things require some certainty as to players. Contracts, signed by own free will, stipulate that you cant play for another club under the same governing body without release or you will be ineligible. They could go to different team with different governing body (see ECNl vs GA transfers) but not within same grouping. Kids (actually parents) sometimes see greener grass with no real justifiable reason to leave. In these circumstances I sort of feel like a contract is a contract.

2. From a player standpoint, clubs are also occasionally prone to “bait and switch” tactics and what a player signed up for is not necessarily what they are getting which can lead to great frustration. Practices not good, coach misaligned, etc etc or, worse yet, there are actually real problems with something, bullying, verbal abuse, etc. No child should be handcuffed to a situation like this.

3. From the kids left behind, assuming the original girl was a true difference maker, they are frustrated because they wanted to play with good kids and now maybe they are not able to compete at the same level as prior and they start looking around.

4. Hussars should have known this girl was ineligible if she was under contract with ELA so assume there was some miscommunication somewhere about if she was released or not.

What I think is very important is the “reason/rationale” for original kid leaving. If expectations are not being met adequately, I think it is reasonable to address with the DOC and attempt to work out a solution up to and including release. If it is just she wants to play someplace else because they are “better” well I think the club might have a point to ask them to live into obligation for the remainder of the season. The fact that there are legal actions make me think both sides feel justified in their position.

I know absolutely nothing about this specific situation so please take this as generic commentary.

Current parents can clean me up but I think you have a “free pass” to leave in the January window and the club cant keep you as long as you have paid your club fees so this matter should be resolved come Spring.

This just underscores how important it is to do your diligence about a club before you sign on the dotted line.

As a PP stated, this is nuts for girls that are 9/10 years old but that seems to be the world we live in now.

 

It seems like the club is treating the contract like a non-compete agreement, the club might be entitled to the remainder of costs from the parents, but preventing the kid from playing from another team, is unconscionable.

 

I hear you. The alternative might not be any better however.

If kids can just drop a club for any reason I think it might create chaos. In this world where parents get mad when Susie only plays 60min instead of 70min or played wing instead of striker or of a multitude of other asinine reasons you might see kids moving to multiple teams within a season. And that would not be good for anyone.

Quite frankly this situation seems to be an anomaly as most clubs will release kids when requested. For what reason ELA didnt, I have no idea.

 

Not to be that guy, but they don't look like they're that sophisticated (websites a mess teams playing multi-age grounds because of lack of players), which is probably why the issue arose. Couldn't they have appealed to IWSL if the player didn't get a timely release?

 

I dunno. I have never, ever, ever, heard of a kid not being able to get their card from a club if they have paid the club what they owed. On the other hand, I have also heard of many instances where clubs will give the card back, even if the full contract hasn't been paid out. If the club is getting butt-hurt because their star is leaving, and tries to hang on to the card even if they have already been paid - all the parents need to do is complain to the sanctioning body, and escalate it quickly from there if there isn't immediate relief. They will get the card.

However - if the parents try and break the contract by just leaving, ask for the card, and tell the club they aren't going to fulfill their financial contract - I can certainly see the club telling them to pound sand. The relationship is already ruined, why not hold out for the few thousand. If the parents play hardball - they will lose. In this case, it sounds like it caused the new team to forfeit an entire season.

 

I'm not sure. In youth basketball, even in the highest leagues, there is no card that ties a kid exclusively to that team/club for a season. The top kids end up playing on 3 or 4 teams, some from different clubs, concurrently, without much issue other than scheduling. They typically can't play within the same age group/level at the same tournament, but other than that anything goes.

 

This is exactly what the Hussars did, and what ELA is complaining about. From the parents' side, all fees were paid, so there is no reason why the player should not have been released. Hussars rostered her on the boys side and guest played her on the IWSL side.

I guess what annoys me in this scenario (Speaking as a coach and a parent) is that all this transpired well before the Fall season started. Prior to any season starting (Late June-Beginning of Aug), if a family changes their mind and no longer wishes to be part of my club, I will immediately remove them from the team.... no hard feelings. Playing hardball and making a family pay $$$ only creates animosity and toxicity around the team, especially at the younger ages. The grass isn't always greener on the other side, and each parent who leaves on good terms is a positive review for my club. We all know the craziness of May tryout timelines and the 48hr timeline nonsense we push on parents.

 

It sure sounds like this is where much of the disagreement seems to be located. The first part of that phrase is doing an awful lot of work. It implies that from the club's side, all agreed-upon fees were in fact not paid. Both sides could certainly believe they are in the right - but if the club was in fact in the wrong, it seems IWSL, the state federation, or even US Soccer would not only put pressure on the club to do the right thing, but they'd ultimately make sure the kid was given the card back as soon as they were informed of the particulars of the situation. If it went all season with the club refusing to give back the card and continuing to expect to be paid - it seems that the parents were hoping that the club would just drop it and forgive what they owed. If IWSL eventually decided to invalidate all of the new team's wins, it sure seems like they believe the team was knowingly playing a kid that was unable to obtain a valid player card - which means the kid is also playing without the league having any insurance coverage for her.

Agreed - this is how many (most?) clubs tend to operate, even if/when contracts have already been signed. It's not worth the animosity to fully enforce them, as the club doesn't want to force a player to be there if they no longer want to be there - and the incremental $ from one player may not be enough to make up for the reputational hit to the club if the leaving player is both unhappy about it and loud enough about it.

 

I know nothing about this, but I find the story as told surprising and wonder whether the parents may have left out a detail in passing along their side of it. It’s hard for me to understand everyone being up in arms on Ela’s behalf unless there was a bit more to it. What is this about a boycott? Hussars seem to have played a full season and two tournaments.

 

So Hussars had a group of 10 yos playing 25 games this fall? Something is still missing from this story.

 

Does that mean Hussars forfeit their presidents cup win as well?

 

Should come with a disclaimer to watch on mute. Also the ref is wild. Giving motions to signal fouls and booked a 10 year old for diving.

 

I watched the video. Call me jaded, but nothing looked out of the ordinary. It isn't how I behave--I sit in my chair and mutter to my wife now and again--but what's in the video is pretty par for the course.