Family Flicks


The Virginia Film Festival hosts its second Family Day, featuring budget-friendly $1 tickets to a pair of programs at the Paramount and Saturday's showing of Zula Patrol, an animated film that teaches children about space. Sponsored by The Virginia Discovery Museum, kids ages 1 – 12 can also visit the museum for free from 2:30pm to 5pm. 982-5277.


Numerous other Outdoor Adventure Social Club members submitted feedback about the club to Courteney Stuart. The following web page offers their directly-quoted in-depth view of what OASC members think about the contract and the club in general.

We encountered the copperhead snake (pictured in the article) in a park right in Charlottesville; Charlottesville also hosts black widow spiders, the nearby mountains host timber rattlesnakes ... club members count on and are comforted by their well-trained Leaders to know what to do if someone gets bitten, or if other emergencies arise.

If you have any questions about the club, feel free to click "Contact Us" at or call (434) 760-HIKE.

To be clear, the Charlottesville Sports & Social Club *does* require members to sign a waiver form, but not a contract.

All the waiver form does is waive liability for injuries sustained during the course of play of the sport, and affirms you carry insurance.

We also carry a $1m liability insurance policy, because, hey, you never know. We've had numerous sprained ankles, a broken finger and other minor injuries that will inevitably happen during the course of a sport.

There is no non-compete clause you are required to sign, and we encourage our members to contact others to form scrimmage games / team practices / etc.

We believe this spreads the word about our organization and benefits us, rather than being a hinderance.

For any questions, contact us via the form at or 434-825-9804.

Chad and Matt, Managers of Charlottesville Sports & Social Club and Outdoor Adventure Social Club, respectively, want to let readers know that we applaud each other's organizations and view them as complementary, not competitive. CVSSC is about sports leagues, OASC is about trips into the wilderness. Neither organization's hundreds of members find its documents to sign to be a hindrance; rather everyone focuses their energies on enjoying their memberships and having a great time.

you gotta be kiddin' me..
what a crock.

I don't know what the big deal with this contract is.

(A) OASC takes people out camping in the middle of the woods, takes people skiing, goes kayaking, rafting, etc... I'm sure that's an insurance nightmare. I'm sure Matt pays through the nose for insurance, and I'm sure Matt wouldn't be so fastidious in his member agreement if this were not the case.
(B) Regarding the quote: "forbids members from getting together for any type of outdoor activity that is not club-sponsored."
Like that would even be legal. As a club member I have met people and gone and done lots of stuff with these people (kayaking, hiking, skiing, skydiving, russian roulette, etc). I doubt anyone would have any grounds (just based on my human rights) to hold me to the above quote strictly interpreted.

What this article does not reflect is that the quote in (B) involves something done internal to the OASC member site which mass-emails the club to see if anyone wants to do anything. For reason (A) above, its perfectly reasonable to restrict these messages coming from the club site to purely social things, as opposed to, say, lets go climb mt everest (or even Old Rag).


There's so much ridiculous liability in this society. Matt has bore it all on his shoulders. Should anything ever happen (which it won't cause the club is so well managed) then its *his* ass thats under fire. When half my friends die on my mt everest jaunt, and some hot shot lawyer notices I used the OASC website member social feature, there's a good chance someone's going to try and take a shot at Matt.

The problem with the contract has nothing to do with liability or insurance. 90% of the actual liability is shielded by the partcipation agreement, not the member agreement. It's silly to say that members may not go places outdoors with other members, but the big problem is the non-compete agreement.

The concept that past members must be enjoined from forming any kind of social group for outdoor activities in TWO STATES including locations hundreds of miles from C-ville is ludicrous. It leaves the prospective member, who may not intend to remain indefinitely in our fair "city" but might easily go somewhere else in the state, to wonder whose interests are really in mind here. Does Mr. Rosefsky intend to expand his club to the two states and wish to crowd out potential competition? If the service provided by the club and its leaders is so great, why doesn't that speak for itself, without the need to rein members in?

Oh, and don't hide behind the fear of "hot shot lawyers" when it's clear one of them or a wannabe of the same wrote your horrendously long, complicated, and confusing contract.

the non-compete clause in that contract is completely worthless... laughable....
Matt should have a smart attorney write a smart contract.. to protect himself from looking like an idiot.
Competition is a fact of life.. Do a better job than everyone else and reap the rewards.

Maybe the non-compete clause is too much as its currently specified. Maybe it does more harm than good for Matt (especially now). Nevertheless when I joined, I saw that clause before I signed and realized what I was agreeing too. I didn't think I'd ever care to start an outdoors club, and I wanted the benefits of being in an outdoor club member, so I joined up.

I guess if I wanted to ever do my own thing, I wouldn't have joined the club.

The truth is that the club is a business that Matt really doesn't make much money on. He works full time to make it what it is with no reward. He's most likely understandable paranoid that somebody will join the club and start recruiting people away. It would be easy enough for someone to do. It would also be potentially very cutthroat and disastrous for the club from a business perspective. So in the end it really doesn't bother me that he keeps the clause in there to keep the club healthy.

Yes, mean lawyers suck, and so do cowardly people who throw out hurtful comments and accusations without having the courage to identify themselves, such as the mystery person who submitted the comment that got this whole article started, and the people who wrote comments above using fake names.

Rich DiStefano summarized this best:
"If someone doesn't like the rules they can politely not join the club. They don't have to be vindictive. Nobody is making them join the club. It's like anything else. If you don't like it you don't have to participate. We have several hundred members who have no problem with any of the agreements for membership".

Its the weekend, people. Move on. Go enjoy the outdoors or the company of your friends.

Frankly, "fake", it is none of your business who I am, and with the kind of rabid cult-like loyalty and ad hominem attacks expressed in the club members' rebuttals, as well as the litigious attitude demonstrated by the contract, I am perfectly happy remaining anonymous.

Nothing I have said about the club's contract is false. Rather, it is the club members who perpetuate misperceptions. These types of contracts are not standard practice and I challenge the club to find a single example of such a contract in another city or town for an outdoor activities club (not a country club or another type of institution).

I would also like the club members to think long and hard about their hostile attitude towards free speech in a public forum. It is apparently not just my anonymity that rankles the club -- one member wrote that it "appears out of alignment... that, rather than privately deciding this group was not for him/her, one disgruntled nay-sayer opted to wage an unprovoked public attack". Freedom of association and of speech are our first freedoms, some of the most cherished in our society, and you are now disrespecting both, the former through your contract and the latter through your attitude towards criticism.

Finally, it is dishonest for the club to sell non-refundable gift certificates to be given to people who have not yet read or agreed to the contract. That's just flat out unethical, and I challenge you to stop the practice or make the certificates refundable (no, I don't own any).

I see your point Mean Lawyers. If someone wants to try out the club, or is given a free trial membership (gift certificate) they should either (a) not be tied to the baggage of a member contract or (b) be allowed to refund the gift certificates. B sounds reasonable. Or maybe the whole concept of gift certificates doesn't mesh well with the OASC contract at all.

But again, in the final analysis none of the contract stuff bothers me. people who join can read the thing and know what they're getting into. For me the benefits from joining and participating in the club have far outweighed any desire to take on the venture of starting my own outdoors organizaiton. Its up to each potential member to make that decision. I take it most people probably could care less and join up.

Also, if I ever did have the desire to organize my own outings, I would just do it within the club as a club leader.

I read this article yesterday, and I had to assume it was a joke. Sadly it seems not to be. Although it does seem to agree with a lot of what I have heard about that organization.

There is no way that this could be considered enforceable. The no outside social activities is so vague that it would effectively eliminate everything. From going bowling with a friend from the club, to taking your girlfriend (if you are both members) to visit your parents for Thanksgiving, to doing effectively anything with anyone you know from that club. As for the non compete clause...well trying to enforce a non compete clause for a social club across two states just isn't going to happen. Especially if it's a for profit organization, which this appears to be (or at least the website doesn't say otherwise).

There are a few other points. By the way this seems to be written, members who joined the Sports and Social Club together would be in violation of their contract. Mr. Day may want to read that again, and consider it in light of his post. Secondly, I can't find anything on the website showing the contract. This seems a little odd. As for not wanting competeing clubs to come in, well Charlottesville Young Professionals was in existance long before Matt Rosefsky showed up. I don't see him suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to compete against them. Finally, I have to wonder if any lawyer was used in drawing this up. It would be hard to believe that any trained lawyer would have thought this contract valid.

The most ironc point is by having these clauses designed to protect the club from legal action, he has almost guaranteed it will be sued at some point.


CvilleDon -- I think you may have something a little confused between the two clubs.

The Charlottesville Sports & Social Club does not have a contract, only a waiver form for liability purposes. We encourage our members to hold team practices, scrimmages, build team web sites which we link to, etc. We have a lawyer on retainer who reviewed our liability form, which is the only document we require participants to sign.


On the contray. It may not have been clear, but my point was about the post you and Matt did together. From what has been described the OASC contract prohibits its members from any and all social activity that is overnight or that involves exertion beyond walking with other members. There is nothing that I have seen stating that this would only apply to hikes or such activities; on the contray, it seems to be worded so broadly that it could involve anything done with any other member. What your club does (and I approve heartily of your organization) would seem to fall within those paramaters. (For that matter, so would two members of OASC going to the gym together, or a jog, or vacation, or... well almost anything) In other words, while you may have stated that the two clubs are complimentary, by the contract OASC has it would be impossible to be a member of OASC and then be a member of CSSC if any other member of OASC played on any team.

A liability waiver is standard. Reasonable and necessary even. But this goes far beyond that, and I seriously doubt it could be enforced at all.

It also raises a significant question. Is OASC a non profit, or a for profit business. Nothing I have seen suggests either.



Thanks for clarifying your point for me. I certainly see what you are saying, that by definition, playing a sport would exceed the "exertion beyond walking" requirement.

Obviously that's up for Matt to decide on what conditions to enforce his agreement form, though I certainly would hope that he would never go after anyone for participating in one of our sports, or any other activity.


Well that's the concern. The wording is so vague as to literally mean almost anything. Now perhaps his contract clearly states exactly what that is supposed to mean, but apparently not from what he's said. It appears that he, and he alone, decides about that.

And should he chose to enforce it against someone, but then in the same situation to not enforce it against someone else he could easily open himself up to charges of discrimination.



Something else you may want to consider. If you were a member of OASC before beginning your own Sports and Leisure Club, then you would have signed this contract. If that was the case then at any time Matt could choose to sue you for breach of contract. And there is a possibility he would win.



Thanks for the concern, but I had never even met Matt, nor anyone else in the Outdoor Social club, prior to starting up the CVSSC.

I've belonged to several outdoor organizations over the years (PATC, Sierra Club, AMC)and had been seriously considering joining OASC to supplement my outdoor interests (I mean, man or woman does not live by hikng alone). Guess that won't be happening anytime soon. I have never and will never join an organization that seeks to restrict my choice of outdoor activities or companions that falls outside regular club activities. Many of my most cherished memories are of informal outdoor get togethers with friends made through these clubs. I cannot imagine anyone telling me that I am in violation of a contract because I choose to go off on an outdoor adventure with companions I have made through the Club. This just seems to fly in the face of the stated purpose of the club, that of meting new people with similar interests and making new friendships. This who thing is just too Big Brotherish or my taste.

You have the right to free expression- BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY
the following recieved from- oh,wait- i'm not ever supposed to "mention" them. oh well. they sent these:

May 14, 2008 8:45 PM
Please stop putting up the flyer / please have whoever is putting up the flyer to stop doing so. Please take down the flyer wherever it has been put up.
Please do not make use of Matt Rosefsky's likeness, and please do not make any mention or parody of Outdoor Adventure Social Club. Please pass this on to anyone involved with the flyer mentioned above.
If you have any questions, please email
Thank you.

Wrong Way to Advertise
Hello, this is a message from Matt Rosefsky who is pictured on the "Outdoor Adventure Social ..." flyer which has pull-off tabs advertising your myspace page and your May 24th show.
Please stop putting up the flyer / please have whoever is putting up the flyer to stop doing so. Please take down the flyer wherever it has been put up.
Please do not make use of Matt Rosefsky's likeness, and please do not make any mention or parody of Outdoor Adventure Social Club. Please pass this on to anyone involved with the flyer mentioned above.
If you have any questions, please email
Thank you.
-end of message-

and i was just trying to have my own outdoor adventure...! my response:

just can't help feeling compelled to point out that one of the sure-fire hallmarks of a cult is an inability to laugh at oneself, as well as a fanatical dedication to suppressing anything that is in any way critical of said organization.

that being said, we hope you appreciate that Mr. Rosefsky's likeness (which apparently was mistaken for a stock photo)has been removed, and any flyers up around town with his likeness will be taken down as soon as humanly possible.

that is to say, flyers other than your own.

and if we may offer some unsolicited advice- which we believe anyone in the PR departments of Nike, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, or any other heavily-advertised company will tell you- the best response to being parodied is to ignore it, and even accept it as free advertising for your own business.

thank you and have a great day.