# Followup on Surf e-entry rejection by Presidio



## espola (Jul 30, 2017)

From the posted minutes of the April Presidio meeting --

New Business: 

Team Applications (2003 – 2010 Due April 22nd, 2017): Team applications due by April 22nd, 2017. 

League Applications (Returning Leagues): A motion to approve the league/club applications received to date from returning leagues/clubs was made by 1st Steve Marx with a 2nd provided by Oscar Zamora. The motion was approved by unanimous consent. 

League Applications (Juventus San Diego, Borussia Del Mar, Surf, DPL): 
Each club/league made a presentation to the membership. Juventus San Diego was represented by Ken Weaver. Borussia Del Mar was represented by Tommy Maurer. San Diego Surf was represented by Blair Nichols assisted by Josh Henderson and Jason Ash DPL/DAII was represented by Barry Ritson from LA Premier and Toumi from Albion. 

The results of the vote by ballot are as follows; 
Juventus San Diego approved pending Cal South approval by a 32 - 11 - 2 vote 
Borussia Del Mar approved pending Cal South approval by a 30 - 12 - 2 vote 
San Diego Surf not approved by a 17 – 26 – 2 vote 
DPL/DA II not approved by a 19 – 23 – 2 vote 

A motion to destroy the ballots was made by 1st Ben Leathers with a 2nd provided by Manny Neves. The motion was approved by unanimous consent.


----------



## Striker17 (Jul 30, 2017)

I wonder what rationale they used. Their gaming circuit sucks so it's not for the kids


----------



## coachrefparent (Jul 31, 2017)

Striker17 said:


> I wonder what rationale they used. Their gaming circuit sucks so it's not for the kids


They probably decided they didn't want it to get worse by adding Surf's suckiest teams.


----------



## Monkey (Jul 31, 2017)

espola said:


> From the posted minutes of the April Presidio meeting --
> 
> New Business:
> 
> ...


Funny how Albion sent Toumi.  I guess they realized he is still liked from his homies at CSC and he was their only hope.  If Ginn went it would be DOA.
Of course, Leathers and Neves moved to destroy the ballots.  The two without spines.


----------



## Monkey (Jul 31, 2017)

Why would they let Surf in?  The only way local clubs are making money are by families that don't want to travel.  That is their niche now so why would they let Surf in?  That would just be stupid.


----------



## espola (Jul 31, 2017)

Monkey said:


> Why would they let Surf in?  The only way local clubs are making money are by families that don't want to travel.  That is their niche now so why would they let Surf in?  That would just be stupid.


It wasn't just money.  Many of the club representatives voting at the Presidio meeting remembered what Surf said about the other clubs in Presidio on their way out a few years ago.


----------



## espola (Jul 31, 2017)

Monkey said:


> Funny how Albion sent Toumi.  I guess they realized he is still liked from his homies at CSC and he was their only hope.  If Ginn went it would be DOA.
> Of course, Leathers and Neves moved to destroy the ballots.  The two without spines.


Destroying the ballots is a standard procedure in Roberts Rules of Order.  It requires a majority vote of the members, or an established policy in the bylaws.  It would have been interesting to see who voted which way, but it was not even close, so there was no need to keep the ballots for a possible recount.


----------



## chargerfan (Aug 1, 2017)

Monkey said:


> Funny how Albion sent Toumi.  I guess they realized he is still liked from his homies at CSC and he was their only hope.  If Ginn went it would be DOA.
> Of course, Leathers and Neves moved to destroy the ballots.  The two without spines.


Is Toumi really liked at csc after he left them unceremoniously, taking his teams with him?


----------



## Monkey (Aug 1, 2017)

chargerfan said:


> Is Toumi really liked at csc after he left them unceremoniously, taking his teams with him?


Not well liked by Cords at CSC but is well liked by all his CSC homies that dispersed throughout the county at other clubs during Cords reign of terror. And more than a few of them are now attending Presidio meetings on behalf of their current clubs and voting!


----------



## Monkey (Aug 1, 2017)

espola said:


> Destroying the ballots is a standard procedure in Roberts Rules of Order.  It requires a majority vote of the members, or an established policy in the bylaws.  It would have been interesting to see who voted which way, but it was not even close, so there was no need to keep the ballots for a possible recount.


They are still weenies!


----------



## mkg68 (Aug 3, 2017)

espola said:


> It wasn't just money.  Many of the club representatives voting at the Presidio meeting remembered what Surf said about the other clubs in Presidio on their way out a few years ago.


And what did they say?


----------



## espola (Aug 3, 2017)

mkg68 said:


> And what did they say?


Presidio did not provide adequate competition for their younger teams.


----------



## chondrichthyes (Aug 3, 2017)

espola said:


> Presidio did not provide adequate competition for their younger teams.


They didn't supply adequate competition, but they supplied most of the talent that surf would poach year after year.


----------



## espola (Aug 3, 2017)

chondrichthyes said:


> They didn't supply adequate competition, but they supplied most of the talent that surf would poach year after year.


They can still recruit San Diego talent, they just won't be able to do it across the field at Presidio games.


----------



## seesnake (Oct 24, 2017)

Are we thinking that Surf will try to gain entry into Presidio/SDDA again for next fall? What are the chances?


----------



## Goforgoal (Oct 24, 2017)

seesnake said:


> Are we thinking that Surf will try to gain entry into Presidio/SDDA again for next fall? What are the chances?


I'd imagine that they'll keep trying until they get what they want. They might be losing some youngers that are on B and C teams that are tired of the travel. I know of one G2008 that came over to my kid's club from Surf this summer and the cost vs. benefit views of the travel for league games was at least a part of the decision. I have a friend that moved his kids to RSF Attack a couple years ago for the same reason.


----------



## Desert619 (Oct 24, 2017)

I wish presidio would let them back in.


----------



## coachrefparent (Oct 24, 2017)

Desert619 said:


> I wish presidio would let them back in.


I'll bite. Why?


----------



## NumberTen (Oct 26, 2017)

I think that the best reason to take them back would be the increased fields for Presidio and more teams at the younger ages.


----------



## espola (Oct 26, 2017)

NumberTen said:


> I think that the best reason to take them back would be the increased fields for Presidio and more teams at the younger ages.


"increased fields" plus "more teams" sounds like a wash.


----------



## NumberTen (Oct 26, 2017)

a lot of the younger teams in Presidio have only 6-8 teams and have to play some teams more than once.  More Surf teams would give a better variety of teams.  Not that playing the same team more than once really hurts.  But usually more variety is better.  And currently Presidio only has access to the Polo fields for the Showcase and tournaments.


----------



## Fact (Oct 26, 2017)

NumberTen said:


> a lot of the younger teams in Presidio have only 6-8 teams and have to play some teams more than once.  More Surf teams would give a better variety of teams.  Not that playing the same team more than once really hurts.  But usually more variety is better.  And currently Presidio only has access to the Polo fields for the Showcase and tournaments.


I likes playing teams twice in league.  It gives a team a chance to see how they have improved.

Presidio does not need the Polo Fields.

More Surf teams=more entitled parents to deal with.  If they don't want to do the drive, they can join another club.  In reality do you think that Surf is the closest club for the majority of the kids on the younger teams and older lower level teams?  Do you think these teams have the best coaches and that is why they bring their kids To Surf?  They bring their kids to Surf for the name brand and if that is what they are  let them travel.


----------



## coachrefparent (Oct 26, 2017)

espola said:


> "increased fields" plus "more teams" sounds like a wash.


Yes, every home team needs to supply a field for the game, so it wouldn't  really net add anything. As for more teams, it will just be their least talented teams. Who's  clamoring for that in Presidio?

As noted above I know lots of families  that have left Surf to the benefit of other Presidio clubs. Why would they want to reverse that?


----------

