Sting 02 Higginbothom

Doesn't sound like a bad deal. The players not onboard got releases, everyone else had the opportunity to kill the deal and went along with it. At the end of the season, there will be opportunities for players to split again if they want. I don't think Higg can coach in ECNL and TCU, so by the end of next year does this move even matter much? Girls that are on the squad that are good enough and have the desire to play ECNL will have an opportunity, either at Sting or somewhere else. Texans sound like they will have some work to do for their ECNL team, but does anyone think they will struggle to make a strong squad by u14?

Lot's of interesting chatter on the topic but nothing yet that really gets at the question if the root of the move was a 'push' from Texans or a 'pull' from Sting.

Someone in the know please do tell.

I can't see the Texans, or any club, push a top select team out. That's money to them. They have pushed Higg and he pulled the 02s, but I doubt it. I bet RH just decided to split and the 02s preferred that over going to Scott.

yo#10 why don't you get your facts straight or shut your freaking pie hole. How dare you call the parents a bunch of dogs! Do you really think two families have that much sway with a team? You weren't there when the meeting went down. There wasn't any campaigning going on prior to this event. This was a completely unexpected departure from the norm and there was no hesitation within the parent group about what we'd do. Yes there were players released. I highly doubt battle plans were drawn up to implement this. I think the timing was just there. Two of the players saw decreased playing time hence parents not happy. We are all still scratching our heads on the "why" of the third release. So to accuse two sets of parents in orchestrating this is giving people way more credit than they deserve and insulting the rest of us at the same time. I suppose since you have previously stated that this group wouldn't last a year, it must piss you off to no end that we all stayed together. I don't know what your beef is, whether a previous team member or not, but we saw this as an opportunity to follow a coach our girls like over to a club where we might be able to actually play in an ECNL tourney, without an owner dictating where and when we played based off getting his feelings hurt by another club. It really is just that simple. No nefarious scheming; no back room negotiations. I'm not sure which players you are referring to who are put on a pedestal - my daughter doesn't mention seeing preferential treatment of players. Whether you respond to this or not - I don't give a rats rear. But it sounds like you have a personal issue with these two sets of parents (whomever they may be), but don't insult the rest of us. Our girls are happy; we are happy. Even if one or two did know beforehand - big deal, it still took a 100% YES from the rest of us to move. And I believe there was no hesitation from the crowd. Everybody's happy. It's time to move on; no need to dissect like a cat in a lab. What's done is done.

 

I have girls that play for both Clubs.  My older is an ECNL player.  There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on what ECNL is and what ECNL events and tournaments are for.  Jr ECNL tournaments are strictly to allow clubs who are members in ECNL to participate with their younger teams.  In the end, you will still play the same teams that you have always played, and your competition in Lake Highlands will still be the same in your ECNL conference.

Yes, but we weren't allowed to participate in the upcoming tourney because of a tiff between Hassan and the hosting club. I would say the more experience you get on the field facing your opponents the better.

What? Hassan not getting along with someone??? Shocking!!!

Seriously wrote:yo#10 why don't you get your facts straight or shut your freaking pie hole.  How dare you call the parents a bunch of dogs!  Do you really think two families have that much sway with a team?  You weren't there when the meeting went down.  There wasn't any campaigning going on prior to this event.  This was a completely unexpected departure from the norm and there was no hesitation within the parent group about what we'd do.  Yes there were players released.  I highly doubt battle plans were drawn up to implement this.  I think the timing was just there.  Two of the players saw decreased playing time hence parents not happy.  We are all still scratching our heads on the "why" of  the third release.  So to accuse two sets of parents in orchestrating this is giving people way more credit than they deserve and insulting the rest of us at the same time.  I suppose since you have previously stated that this group wouldn't last a year, it must piss you off to no end that we all stayed together.  I don't know what your beef is, whether a previous team member or not, but we saw this as an opportunity to follow a coach our girls like over to a club where we might be able to actually play in an ECNL tourney, without an owner dictating where and when we played based off getting his feelings hurt by another club.  It really is just that simple.  No nefarious scheming; no back room negotiations.  I'm not sure which players you are referring to who are put on a pedestal - my daughter doesn't mention seeing preferential treatment of players.  Whether you respond to this or not - I don't give a rats rear.  But it sounds like you have a personal issue with these two sets of parents (whomever they may be), but don't insult the rest of us.  Our girls are happy; we are happy.  Even if one or two did know beforehand - big deal, it still took a 100% YES from the rest of us to move.  And I believe there was no hesitation from the crowd.  Everybody's happy.  It's time to move on; no need to dissect like a cat in a lab.  What's done is done.

wow did the mgr/coach alllow you to finally speak?

If all parties are happy-current team, ones who left and new club , who cares. I realize Teaxans have taken a hit but at least in new unifroms you wont be a walking billboard for money given to Texans that you will never see. I think the money they make from WINDOWS will cover half a season of a team leaving.

This is actually refreshing. Looks to me like a team (players/parents) that stuck together and took a bit of control over their girls destiny. Hard to believe they got everyone to go. That's rare given most control seems to be in the hands of clubs/coaches in this region. Who know's why it went down the way it did. Most all of the posts on this forum are from outsiders looking in and that usually guarantees only parts of the truth.

I guess the move could also help in replenishing the team's numbers. Given the player pass rule, he could make the team stronger.

Also, what is the rule about 60% that says something like, "If you don't have 60% of your team intact by the end of the season, you lose your bye? With lowered numbers, this could be tricky.

Someone please refresh me on that rule.

Seriously wrote:Yes, but we weren't allowed to participate in the upcoming tourney because of a tiff between Hassan and the hosting club. I would say the more experience you get on the field facing your opponents the better.

Wow, times have really changed......  

So, the whole team packs and go with their Coach to another CLUB because they were not allowed to play in a tournament?   U12?

Who is the genius (IT IS ALWAYS ONE PERSON) who stood up in the meeting and say....."Hey, what if we go to a different Club. We should be able to play in this tourney!" .....and the rest went ........Yeaahhh, let's do that!!!    

Someone somewhere said something about someone knowing what they were doing, and someone else just went along for a ride......  

But at the end of the day, if ALL are happy (mostly parents, dds don't care much) then that is good for the team chemistry.......at least until there is another tourney.

Hi Pele98 - It wasn't just one tourney but a pattern over the course of a year...multiple opportunities to attend tournaments but shut down for one reason or another.  And a myriad of other things.  Besides we wanted to stay with the coach and Sting seems to offer more for a girls team instead of taking a back seat to the boys' program. You could say it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Which is it? ONE person in ONE meeting proposing to jump to another club or a well planned tactical move that started with the release of 3 players 3+ months ago and culminated in a club change 3+ months later.
This was, and has been, a top D1 team for some time. I assume the parents have some sense. I doubt Pele98's scenario is how it went down.

as an outsider to the 02s I was just looking at the sting 02 group in LH standings. Without an infusion of talent sting was going to have a rough time moving into ecnl next year, so this is a very sound decision for the club. Higg has been out of favor at txns for a few yrs and this will give him new life. It also helps position him back into the ntx scene if the tcu gig doesn't work out - I haven't heard anything but who knows..

Seriously, the coach announced at a team meeting that he would be leaving. We as a GROUP decided TOGETHER at the meeting to follow him to the new club - the fact that we like RH and there wasn't a DT coach we preferred to be handed off to - the decision was very easy. No machinations; no plotting. You guys are putting way too much into this. We see great things with this team and the parent group is good.

There was a (97) top 4 LH team that moved from Txns to Sting a few yrs ago as well, so it does happen, and I think Kenny took the 91 Texans to Sting when he left. Its not uncommon for a coach to move his team to a new club when he changes colors. So if RH was going to leave then this is not a big deal. And we don't have to worry, both clubs will continue to print money.

Coach&Ref wrote:I guess the move could also help in replenishing the team's numbers. Given the player pass rule, he could make the team stronger.

Also, what is the rule about 60% that says something like, "If you don't have 60% of your team intact by the end of the season, you lose your bye? With lowered numbers, this could be tricky.

Someone please refresh me on that rule.

Assuming that they submitted all of the name change paperwork to their home association prior to Feb. 1st, the rule you are thinking of shouldn't come into play in this case.

If the name change happened prior to Feb. 1, then Sting is now the current owner of any bye associated with that team.

The rule you are thinking of is an LHGCL rule and basically states that if 75% of the players from a previous year's roster (as of the April 1st official NTSSA roster) all sign together with a new club/team in July, then the new club/team get's the LHGCL bye. Otherwise the bye remains with the previous club, even if they have 0 players from the previous year's roster.

Had the name change taken place after Feb. 1st, then if <75% of the Higgy roster as of 4/1/14 didn't sign together this July, then the bye actually would've gone back to Texans. However, as a former DOC at Texans, I'm putting my money on it that RH knew exactly what the dates were and made sure that all of the paperwork was signed and submitted by Feb. 1, so the bye is now owned by Sting.

What I don't understand is the 3 releases.  If the club knew these players would be released so the bye would go to Sting, then it never happens.  Otherwise, the team stays at Texans because it's not 100%.  I would think the coach helped get the releases for say team chemistry then bam...we are gone too.  I have no dog in the fight but I am just trying to piece together common sense. From the outside looking in, it would appear that Texans got duped.

MiddleClass wrote:What I don't understand is the 3 releases.  If the club knew these players would be released so the bye would go to Sting, then it never happens.  Otherwise, the team stays at Texans because it's not 100%.  I would think the coach helped get the releases for say team chemistry then bam...we are gone too.  I have no dog in the fight but I am just trying to piece together common sense.  From the outside looking in, it would appear that Texans got duped.  

Easy...  There's no club, or even DOC signature on a player release.  The only signature required on the player release is the coach.  If the coach releases a player against the wishes of his/her employer, then that's between the club and the coach to work out.  Whether the releases happened before or after the team name change occurred, as long as RH was listed as the official coach on the NTSSA roster, then he, and he alone has the power to sign a release.

If the release paperwork was filed prior to the name change paperwork, then the released player's parents' signatures weren't required on the team name change. Or, the parents' could've signed the team name change paperwork, and the releases could've been filed after the name change took place. Either way, it's kosher, and I'm pretty sure all of this was kept big time on the DL so Hassan/Ahmed wouldn't find out about it and try to find a way to maneuver around it (trust me, I have personal experience on that front...)

I don't know much but what I do know is about the three releases . Being opposing teams we know when girls leave, I think 2 families left on their own - just not a great fit , either with coach or other players.last One left to play futsal but when that didn't pan out , asked for release. I don't see it as conspiracy theory.

Makes perfect sense since the coach only signs the paperwork. Leave in a blaze of glory!

MiddleClass wrote:Makes perfect sense since the coach only signs the paperwork.  Leave in a blaze of glory!  

...and by the way... getting an NTSSA player release, whether to competitive or to rec, does NOT release the player/family from their financial commitments to the original club that they signed with.

Technically, the original club could come after the family for any unpaid dues if there was a financial agreement signed at the beginning of the year (I know with both Texans and Sting that such agreements are signed), i.e. via small claims court.

That's why in a lot of cases, coaches won't sign a competitive release unless the family has already paid all of their dues for the entire year.

In just about all cases, the club won't pursue to get the funds owed to them through the legal system because it costs more in time than it's really worth, and/or it's not worth the club risking the bad pub that such a move would likely generate.

I don't think it really matters how they left or why...If the parents and coach aren't happy with the way texans are conducting buisness, then leave and do what's right for your kids.


It's no secret Hassan despises the girl's side of Texans, so i don't feel sorry for the guy i think it's just Karma... kuddo's to the parents that had the gut's to leave on what they believed in.

DrSoccer wrote:There was a (97) top 4 LH team that moved from Txns to Sting a few yrs ago as well, so it does happen, and I think Kenny took the 91 Texans to Sting when he left. Its not uncommon for a coach to move his team to a new club when he changes colors. So if RH was going to leave then this is not a big deal. And we don't have to worry, both clubs will continue to print money.

Typically these moves do not occur mid season correct. So what this team did was BIG-i mean in a good way. Hassan needs to pull his head out and realize the girls side carries the boys side. So pay attention to what makes you money.