All-Star Gym Owners Refusing To Sign Release... Appeal Process?..

[yesucan]

Is there any sort of appeal process regarding worlds athletes and gym owners refusing to sign releases? I am just curious because I have heard of a few instances of owners refusing to sign releases for uummmmm... Lets just say less than honorable reasons... For instance, if a gym closes, shouldn't the lev 5 athletes be released automatically? Or if a team that started as a lev 5, doesn't compete all year, then competes lev 4.. Shouldn't their releases be automatic? Or in that case not even required because they are no longer a worlds team? I feel awful for the athletes losing out on going to worlds because gym owners are being petty. I feel like this whole release thing needs some sort of appeal process to protect the ATHLETES from gym owners. If the GYM falls short on their promises, why should the athlete pay the price?

 

[quitthedrama]

I get why the rule is in place - it isn't fair to a gym to have their best athletes jump ship for a better offer during the season, but there needs to be a rule that protects the athletes as well. Wasn't there an issue with a gym that closed last year and still refused to sign release forms? How is that fair to the athletes?! I agree that there needs to be certain conditions where a release is not required - and a gym closing and/or disbanding their World's team should be included in those conditions. I can't imagine being an athlete who can't attend Worlds because the team they were committed to doesn't exist any more and the owner holds them hostage. Something needs to change!

 

[kristenthegreat]

If the gym closes, absolutely there should be an appeal process. But what if a gym gets bought out mid-season/merger falls apart mid-season? What happens then? Do you go back to your 'home gym?' What if they no longer field a Worlds team? I'm not sure there should/could be an appeal for that. Maybe.

 

[yesucan]

If the gym closes, absolutely there should be an appeal process. But what if a gym gets bought out mid-season/merger falls apart mid-season? What happens then? Do you go back to your 'home gym?' What if they no longer field a Worlds team? I'm not sure there should/could be an appeal for that. Maybe.

I feel that if the gym fails to offer a worlds team for any reason, the athletes should be released. These kids only have a limited number of years to compete at worlds with a senior team. It is not fair to the athletes if the gym fails to produce a worlds team, whether it be due to mergers, closing, available talent, etc... that they lose out on an opportunity to compete at worlds. I completely get that the rule protects the gyms, but there needs to be something out there to protect the athletes as well. These kids work way too hard to have their entire year squashed by a spiteful owner who doesnt want to sign a release when the gym didnt hold up their end of the bargain.

 

[GreatWhite92]

I just read the petition thread and I feel like this is one of those things that would make a good petition.

 

[NEliteSteven]

What if the gym owner refuses to sign the release, and then the gym owner mysteriously goes missing.......?

 

[newcheerdad]

I'm going to go back to the same thing I propose every other time this comes up- a 90 day rule which says that an athlete can request a release from a gym and it is automatically granted after 90 days unless the gym owner has just cause (ie, financial obligations) for not granting it. The onus should not be on the athlete to get the release, but the gym owner to provide an adequate rationale for NOT granting it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[GreenStormLucy]

Can you turn somewhere as an athlete if this happens? In germany, if your old gym refuses to release you, the "cheerleading government" (sorry, don't have a better word for the EP that does our regionals/national competition) will check the reasons of the old gym and help if you want.

Is there a possibility to get help with this for allstar athletes?

 

[yesucan]

Agreed

I'm going to go back to the same thing I propose every other time this comes up- a 90 day rule which says that an athlete can request a release from a gym and it is automatically granted after 90 days unless the gym owner has just cause (ie, financial obligations) for not granting it. The onus should not be on the athlete to get the release, but the gym owner to provide an adequate rationale for NOT granting it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Agreed... And I see that this has come up before. So my question is why is nothing being done/ proposed? I do not have a dog in this fight... yet. But, when I do, I would like to know that my athlete is being protected as much as the gyms. I find it hard to swallow that once she has signed on to a team, that there is absolutely NOTHING that can be done to release her if the owner just chooses not to. The gym is basically just handed a free pass to do whatever they like without any fear of an athlete leaving. That might be just a little too much power for anyone's good.

Also, 90 days? Maybe 30? ... That's plenty of time for an owner to respond IMO...

 

[yojaehs]

Ok I have been on both sides of this coin so I really don't care that much however after recent dealings with this am interesting point was brought to my attention.

Do ALL athletes understand this rule? Should they? Do athletes SIGN something that PROVES they have knowledge of this rule?

My point being if an athlete cheers at a gym that only has a sr 2 team and athlete has a double but loves the gym and enjoys hanging with their friend. Now fast forward a few months, athlete goes to several comps and wants to go to Worlds. This athlete has the skill set to go but gym doesn't want to release in fear of losing more athletes (ill say for example purposes gym also has an IOC5 team but athlete doesn't "fit" that team).

Like I said I've been on both sides of this, I've signed and released, I've had others sign to come to my gym and I've had gyms not sign. After thinking deeper I understand the point of the rule but I think there are some holes. I think it is unfair to require a release when there is no signature to release from.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[OneIntenseMama]

Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing that can be done we went through this last yr. I contacted our USASF Rep for AZ and was told there was nothing that they could do there is no appeal process

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[Mom Jeans]

Just wondering do any gyms put the information about being released in their contract? I've personally haven't seen that and a lot of people don't know about it.

 

[12stepCheermom]

I understand why the release rule is there. I get that people don't want "their" kids competing with other teams, but when 1) that gym doesn't HAVE a lv 5 and an athlete has the opportunity to go with another team, where's the harm in that? Our gym (the year before we had a 5, loaned three kids out for worlds). None of them left our program the next year... And 2) if a kid has already decided they're leaving, or has already left... What's the point of being spiteful? It won't bring them back and all it does is make the gym owners look like jerks... Which IMO does more damage to your image/ability to recruit then just taking the high road and wishing them the best. I saw some of the second on twitter the other day and its the gym getting hammered in "public" opinion.

I guess the counter argument to that is you don't want to set the precedent that people can just ditch to another program for worlds, but I can't get away from the thought that if all is well in your house that shouldn't be a problem anyway. And if it is a problem, you should spend more time worried about your own program than an exiting athlete.

 

[FLTD<3]

I have seen an instance where a really famous cheerleader that is very well know at their gym has been released for a weekend competes with the another gym then goes back to the other gym. It just doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Cheeranswers]

I do understand why the coaches would not want to release an athlete, but as a coach, wouldn't you rather have athletes that are fully committed and WANT to be there? If an athlete is only there because they can't leave do you think they are going to try their 100% best if they're being basically forced? To me it's kind of putting your team at risk for bad performances, and also safety. I'm not saying the athletes would necessarily be spiteful, but you're going to try a lot harder for something you actually want to do