Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[but sir?]

All kidding aside, in the meeting it was stated that the state wants to be able to be more agile.  Therefore, a vote would not be held.  This is fine for a corporation, but likely not so good for a non-profit relying on volunteers for the vast majority of the heavy lifting. 
Simple question - how does the state know it is meeting the needs/wishes of it's constituents?  Where is the feedback loop?  It was obvious last night that you had four groups:
1) State guys who were all for their own plan (imagine that)
2) Non-state guys who didn't seem to care
3) Non-state guys who don't like the plan, but figured they had no voice so said nothing
4) Non-state guys who didn't like the plan and thought maybe they had a say, said something (or emailed something to the entire group)

In the end, Dougie and Terrence are God and Goddess, doing what they want.

[Sususudio]

All kidding aside, in the meeting it was stated that the state wants to be able to be more agile.  Therefore, a vote would not be held.  This is fine for a corporation, but likely not so good for a non-profit relying on volunteers for the vast majority of the heavy lifting. 
Simple question - how does the state know it is meeting the needs/wishes of it's constituents?  Where is the feedback loop?  It was obvious last night that you had four groups:
1) State guys who were all for their own plan (imagine that)
2) Non-state guys who didn't seem to care
3) Non-state guys who don't like the plan, but figured they had no voice so said nothing
4) Non-state guys who didn't like the plan and thought maybe they had a say, said something (or emailed something to the entire group)

In the end, Dougie and Terrence are God and Goddess, doing what they want.

I will tell you with confidence that there is almost zero chance that there were any procedural violations.  This was done painstakingly carefully and already took way longer than it should have. 

[EWSoccer64]

Susu,
I would agree with you entirely except for the built in contradictions within the document.  That gives rise to a tiny bit of doubt.   However, this was called the Proposal.   They still have time to wrinkle out any contradictions and ambiguities if they want to.  They may not want to, and leave the issues to be decided later.    Do not think that would invalidate the process, though.

All kidding aside, in the meeting it was stated that the state wants to be able to be more agile.  Therefore, a vote would not be held.  This is fine for a corporation, but likely not so good for a non-profit relying on volunteers for the vast majority of the heavy lifting. 
Simple question - how does the state know it is meeting the needs/wishes of it's constituents?  Where is the feedback loop?  It was obvious last night that you had four groups:
1) State guys who were all for their own plan (imagine that)
2) Non-state guys who didn't seem to care
3) Non-state guys who don't like the plan, but figured they had no voice so said nothing
4) Non-state guys who didn't like the plan and thought maybe they had a say, said something (or emailed something to the entire group)

In the end, Dougie and Terrence are God and Goddess, doing what they want.

I will tell you with confidence that there is almost zero chance that there were any procedural violations.  This was done painstakingly carefully and already took way longer than it should have. 

[but sir?]

Sorry if I implied that state did somehting unethical.  I am just saying they may be missing the true needs or wants of the masses, without a feedback mechanism to even know.  Terry and Doug may hold and excercise too much power, driving their agenda through as quickly as they can.  They may have the best intentions at hear, but the intentions may have some big flaws.
So, put the proposal to a non-binding vote and see where the discension, if any, lies.

[EWSoccer64]

Association mergers and limitations on the number of PDL/RCL clubs from would fall right in with the PDL philosophy and so called "Master Plan". 
The only thing the PDL folks are losing is the freedom from oversight on their PDL-LC, and their ability to operate in secrecy.

The smaller, non-PDL clubs are permanently (de facto, not de jure) being cast into a second class status, without a voice.   They are the ones that most negatively impacted by the Proposal from what I can see.   

The associations being merged in the Puget Sound area is likely not to have much of an impact.   In Eastern Washington, what will end up happening is that the youth rec clubs will become mini-associations in their own right, and the new bigger associations will function more like a miniature district.   It is difficult to see any benefit in it, vis a vis ease of communications or lessening of admin burden.   

If the PDL-LC had behaved better in the past, it is less likely that the rest of the clubs/(and their associations) in the rest of the state would have accepted being poked in the eye just to stomp on the PDL foot.   That is really what it seems like.

All kidding aside, in the meeting it was stated that the state wants to be able to be more agile.  Therefore, a vote would not be held.  This is fine for a corporation, but likely not so good for a non-profit relying on volunteers for the vast majority of the heavy lifting. 
Simple question - how does the state know it is meeting the needs/wishes of it's constituents?  Where is the feedback loop?  It was obvious last night that you had four groups:
1) State guys who were all for their own plan (imagine that)
2) Non-state guys who didn't seem to care
3) Non-state guys who don't like the plan, but figured they had no voice so said nothing
4) Non-state guys who didn't like the plan and thought maybe they had a say, said something (or emailed something to the entire group)

In the end, Dougie and Terrence are God and Goddess, doing what they want.

[soccer45girls]

I have a question with regard to the proposal....I read the documents listed on the forum that there will no longer be 'competitive' soccer for ages up to, but not including, 14. Did I read this accurately?
I also understood from the proposal docs that players would be rotated through the varying teams so there is no one dominate team or teams. Does this apply to all players under 14, or is this for rec players? Am I understanding this correctly? Or did I completely miss the boat on this one?   Lots of reading there, so I want to make sure I was looking at the right info.    

[ThatJustHappened]

Does anyone have a copy of 'The Plan, for Dummies' that I can borrow??  I'm starting to get so confused!

So, I'd like to have some more understanding of what happens with association mergers.  For example, take District 3...with the exception of Tacome-Pierce County, none of the associations meet the 4,000 member minimum.  Do some of these associations merge, and if so, who is the RCL club when associations merge with multiple PDL clubs?  Will announcements be out soon with what will happen in these areas?

Additionally, is it true that I read that Dev teams are no longer going to be a part of the RCLs?  Will there be anything for these kids anymore?

[EWSoccer64]

To answer part of your questions -

The best proposal that I have heard so far was that when there is more than 1 RCL club in an association, the Club Presidents get locked in a room without water or food until they come to an agreement.    Yes, I am serious.

Actually what is likely to happen is that the association will select which club will be the RCL. 

And yes, the sub-4,000 associations will merge, willingly or at gun point.   

Does anyone have a copy of 'The Plan, for Dummies' that I can borrow??  I'm starting to get so confused!

So, I'd like to have some more understanding of what happens with association mergers.  For example, take District 3...with the exception of Tacome-Pierce County, none of the associations meet the 4,000 member minimum.  Do some of these associations merge, and if so, who is the RCL club when associations merge with multiple PDL clubs?  Will announcements be out soon with what will happen in these areas?

Additionally, is it true that I read that Dev teams are no longer going to be a part of the RCLs?  Will there be anything for these kids anymore?

[MJB]

 So, if I understand this, a non RCL team can play there way into the RCL league based on merit/CAP, is that correct?

[Doodlebug]

If you want to see a copy of one of the versions of the proposal/plan, hop back up to the first post in this conversation. 2Cents figured out how to post it.

[EWSoccer64]

Doodlebug,
I did not see any substantive change from the version posted here and the later, version 3, did you?   Anyone else?

[MJB]

If you want to see a copy of one of the versions of the proposal/plan, hop back up to the first post in this conversation. 2Cents figured out how to post it.

 I've read it, here is the language; 

Aligning to the concept of seamless soccer, allow high-performing club select/ developmental teams to be placed in the Regional Club league brackets. This placement would need to be based on either CAPS or finish in State Cups. (NOTE –to enable this but also ensure adherence to rules/ development, approach is to have these teams “sponsored” by their association Regional Club and the local association)

 I'm just looking for some confirmation

[Doodlebug]

EW - at the risk of causing my tongue physical pain to say this - I agree with you. I don't see any substantive changes. 

The change I do remember that was in a prior version was a table listing which clubs would be the designated RCL club for each association. I bet it got eliminated in the version shared with the associations because the list would probably have generated controversy in multiple locations.

It will be interesting to see how tonight's telecon goes with the clubs.

[Firedog]

Additionally, is it true that I read that Dev teams are no longer going to be a part of the RCLs?  Will there be anything for these kids anymore?

Under the State plan, they participate in Acadamy w/no formal teams.  Or, they play PSPL with Spring league starting March 13th for U-9's and U-10's.  I saw a tryout notice for one club on February 20th and 21st.

[EWSoccer64]

So, if I understand this, a non RCL team can play there way into the RCL league based on merit/CAP, is that correct?

In theory, yes, there is a path in the PLAN for that to happen.   But it must become "affiliated" with another club, one in the RCL, to do so.  
So a 3 Rivers team could play in the RCL based on merit if it affiliated with the Sun City Strikers.  

In other RCLs, I can see this being a major problem, with issues of control, looting of players (transferring the top players off the team and onto the RCL "A" team, money, and such).

Fortunately, Sun City is run by a group of people right now that are reasonable and smart.  And Sun City understands it has its own problems with numbers.   Unless someone starts a major turf and control war - which is totally not neccessary in this situation - I can see 3Rivers and Sun City working well together and at least one Tri-Cities team playing under the RCL in each age group.   All it takes is for people to be reasonable.

[Left Foot]

So, if I understand this, a non RCL team can play there way into the RCL league based on merit/CAP, is that correct?

In theory, yes, there is a path in the PLAN for that to happen.   But it must become "affiliated" with another club, one in the RCL, to do so.  
So a 3 Rivers team could play in the RCL based on merit if it affiliated with the Sun City Strikers.  

In other RCLs, I can see this being a major problem, with issues of control, looting of players (transferring the top players off the team and onto the RCL "A" team, money, and such).

Fortunately, Sun City is run by a group of people right now that are reasonable and smart.  And Sun City understands it has its own problems with numbers.   Unless someone starts a major turf and control war - which is totally not neccessary in this situation - I can see 3Rivers and Sun City working well together and at least one Tri-Cities team playing under the RCL in each age group.   All it takes is for people to be reasonable.

But only after U-14 right? According to one version of the proposal

"Clarifying U15 and above:
o   Aligning to the concept of seamless soccer, allow high-performing club select/ developmental teams to be placed in the Regional Club league brackets. This placement would need to be based on either CAPS or finish in State Cups. (NOTE –to enable this but also ensure adherence to rules/ development, approach is to have these teams “sponsored” by their association Regional Club and the local association)
Similarly, move lower performing Regional Club B teams (and potentially some A teams) to the Open league "

[Firedog]

So, if I understand this, a non RCL team can play there way into the RCL league based on merit/CAP, is that correct?

In theory, yes, there is a path in the PLAN for that to happen.   But it must become "affiliated" with another club, one in the RCL, to do so.  

The current proposal says "sponsored" by their association Regional Club and local association.

[EWSoccer64]

Firedog, Good Catch.

That brings up a very interesting point.  What is the difference between affiliated and sponsored?   Does anyone know? 
Most likely this will have to be worked out by the RCL sub committee and then by the local RCLs themselves on a case by case basis.

Firedog - thank you for pointing this out.   The difference between two words that have similar but different meanings can alter an entire situation, as you recognize.   Do you have any ideas on this will or could work out?

So, if I understand this, a non RCL team can play there way into the RCL league based on merit/CAP, is that correct?

In theory, yes, there is a path in the PLAN for that to happen.   But it must become "affiliated" with another club, one in the RCL, to do so.  

The current proposal says "sponsored" by their association Regional Club and local association.

[Doodlebug]

It would be quite helpful to have a more detailed transition plan as a companion to the proposal/plan. The challenges are so often in the details, even with the best and most open of proposals.

[EWSoccer64]

Lefty,

The younger ages mandate 3/2 teams per age group from each RCL.   In the scenario I wrote, it would be entirely possible to have one or two of those teams come from the Tri-Cities to complement the two or one that Yakima is able to form from its own resources.   Whether or not these teams were affiliated, sponsored, attached or integral could all be worked out by rational people.

So, if I understand this, a non RCL team can play there way into the RCL league based on merit/CAP, is that correct?

In theory, yes, there is a path in the PLAN for that to happen.   But it must become "affiliated" with another club, one in the RCL, to do so.  
So a 3 Rivers team could play in the RCL based on merit if it affiliated with the Sun City Strikers.  

In other RCLs, I can see this being a major problem, with issues of control, looting of players (transferring the top players off the team and onto the RCL "A" team, money, and such).

Fortunately, Sun City is run by a group of people right now that are reasonable and smart.  And Sun City understands it has its own problems with numbers.   Unless someone starts a major turf and control war - which is totally not neccessary in this situation - I can see 3Rivers and Sun City working well together and at least one Tri-Cities team playing under the RCL in each age group.   All it takes is for people to be reasonable.

But only after U-14 right? According to one version of the proposal

"Clarifying U15 and above:
o   Aligning to the concept of seamless soccer, allow high-performing club select/ developmental teams to be placed in the Regional Club league brackets. This placement would need to be based on either CAPS or finish in State Cups. (NOTE –to enable this but also ensure adherence to rules/ development, approach is to have these teams “sponsored” by their association Regional Club and the local association)
Similarly, move lower performing Regional Club B teams (and potentially some A teams) to the Open league "

[EWSoccer64]

It would be quite helpful to have a more detailed transition plan as a companion to the proposal/plan. The challenges are so often in the details, even with the best and most open of proposals.

Betcha a dollar that there is a committee to work on just very thing.

[Doodlebug]

Oh dear.....ANOTHER committee?  Just shoot me.....

[Left Foot]

I saw that. But the language I've quoted from the version of the proposal implies that teams not in a RCL won't be eligible to enter RCL league brackets until after U-14. Probably reading it wrong since this would seem to be rather unfair.

[EWSoccer64]

I saw that. But the language I've quoted from the version of the proposal implies that teams not in a RCL won't be eligible to enter RCL league brackets until after U-14. Probably reading it wrong since this would seem to be rather unfair.

You read it the way I do, Lefty.

That is why I allowed for a different method to be used for the younger teams.   

[ponyup101]

I am as usual confused.  Under your scenario with 3 rivers and Sun City, could a 3 Rivers U-12 team play under Sun City in the RL.  And if they could would that mean wearing the Sun City uniforms and the whole works? (club fees ect.)

[EWSoccer64]

I am as usual confused.  Under your scenario with 3 rivers and Sun City, could a 3 Rivers U-12 team play under Sun City in the RL.  And if they could would that mean wearing the Sun City uniforms and the whole works? (club fees ect.)

Uniforms more likely than fees.  But it is all to be negoiated between Sun City and 3Rivers, under this hypothetical scenario.     But it seems to be eminently doable as long as as everyone, pardon the expression, does not drop their pants to see whose is bigger.......

[Left Foot]

Metz, the problem then becomes attempts to form an oligarchy and undertake a restraint of free trade, ala the PDL. 

The more I read this proposal the more I agree with 3play. Get the state out of the organization of leagues and let the free market determine. There's way too many calendars and rules and job protection and holes and TBD's in this proposal. After watching the state totally screw the pooch on the current GHS league I fear what sort of schedules they would provide and what sort of costs they would charge if they ran everything from A-Z.

10 game seasons with a cup done by mid December? GHS seasons TBD, allowing a limited number of entrants into state cup without providing alternative tournaments for others to enter....

This is not the right approach to take. The state should stop trying to run leagues and instead just administer the state cups and the state calendar. I don't care if the districts or associations or private individuals decide to organize and run the leagues but they should be independent of the state. Let the customer decide not dictate from above.

That is just what the proposal does. Probably worth a good $50 a month in additional coaching fees to play on the new, state endorsed Regional Club. Cannot imagine the state blatently handing money to these folks by endorsing specific clubs in this manner. Do I think the folks in the large club are evil? No. And it is ok to marry self interest with the competition to provide superior services. However, the value of these services should be related to the quality of the services themselves, not the endorsement of the WSYSA Youth Soccer Crack authority....

[EWSoccer64]

Lefty, what the bleep are you talking about?
Why would there be any increase in coaching fees?
The RCL is just your much beloved PDL with even more power, since it now also controls the state open leagues, and has the same cast of characters (minues one) and so is just as restrictive and exclusive as ever.   So where's the love?
>>>>That is just what the proposal does. Probably worth a good $50 a month in additional coaching fees to play on the new, state endorsed Regional Club. Cannot imagine the state blatently handing money to these folks by endorsing specific clubs in this manner. Do I think the folks in the large club are evil? No. And it is ok to marry self interest with the competition to provide superior services. However, the value of these services should be related to the quality of the services themselves, not the endorsement of the WSYSA Youth Soccer Crack authority....<<<<

[EWSoccer64]

There are several letters being sent out by various clubs and associations at the moment.
Everyone should ask their association and club presidents to see these things.

The last time I saw so much BS was when I drove by the giant feedlots in Sunnyside.    Seriously folks, most of these letters would lose 90% of their content if you kept in only true facts.

If these people, which sometimes are entire boards signing the letters, really believed in the tripe they are authoring, then youth soccer in this state is in a far sadder situation than I ever thought.    Remember how the Soviet Politburo began making irrational decisions and their ecomomy was collapsing?   The upper levels of Soviet government were passing reports around that were totally false, the higher the level of the report, the less fact content there was in it.  In computer terms, think "Garbage In - Garbage Out".   

No matter what side, if any, any of you are supporting in the current debate, I feel sure that all of you (except perhaps 3Play) will absolutely appalled at what is being written.     Ask your people to show you the letters!!!!

[Firedog]

Firedog, Good Catch.

That brings up a very interesting point.  What is the difference between affiliated and sponsored?   Does anyone know?  
Most likely this will have to be worked out by the RCL sub committee and then by the local RCLs themselves on a case by case basis.

Firedog - thank you for pointing this out.   The difference between two words that have similar but different meanings can alter an entire situation, as you recognize.   Do you have any ideas on this will or could work out?

So, if I understand this, a non RCL team can play there way into the RCL league based on merit/CAP, is that correct?

In theory, yes, there is a path in the PLAN for that to happen.   But it must become "affiliated" with another club, one in the RCL, to do so.  

The current proposal says "sponsored" by their association Regional Club and local association.

I do.  But, you first have to begin with a belief that most of the people involved want to do the right thing.  There are a lot of volunteers who have spent a lot of time and effort to produce this plan.  Are there compromises?  Absolutely.  Does everyone agree with the development objectives by age group?  Obviously not.  So, if you're reading this and now assume I'm playing the guitar by the campfire singing Kumbaya, skip the rest.  That's ok by me.

The charter for the Regional Club is granted by the State which means those clubs that have it will be pretty motivated to keep it and make nice with the State as required (the charter can be taken away).  Sponsorship of teams outside the Regional clubs is to come from the Regional Club and the local association.  If the State and the local association recognize the merits of team(s) outside the Regional Club, the Regional Club will be encouraged to also recognize the need for sponsorship.  Sponsorship to me would allow those teams to wear the uniform of their club and in no way affiliate with the Regional Club sponsor.