Print

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

[switch]

Friendlies wouldn't get you a Surf cup bid and they wouldn't get the participation that this league did. That is worth something. This is essentially a 2-state state cup in many age groups and that is worth something. It created cross border play and that is worth something. It allowed use of player and parent friendly innovations such as counting RCL games and that is worth something. Maybe in theory you or vusa or other self-serving "volunteers" could do better, but they haven't. Those are the more relevant facts in my opinion.

Tripleplay ,

Spot on, besides, if it is disclosed that they run the league I believe conflict goes away.

I also heard at tryouts they told the parents that would listen that "they" started a new league and went on to explain the league and what the benifits would be.

As far as the showcase, not a fan of the club letting someone else running a showcase for them, but the statement that the club "makes" team attend is just not true. Many teams over the years have decided it was not for them and did not attend.

And yes, I too have not heard of any team getting into "SURF" because they won a practice game!

Please.  Do you really think State Champs are going to have trouble getting into Surf.  Save the money from NW Champions League fees by playing friendlies and use it to fund the trip down there or, better yet, have NW Champions League disgorge the profits and pay for the winning teams.   The 100,000 could easily be used towards that expense rather than lining the pockets of the corrupt. 

By the way, the lack of a conflict policy does not always prevent corporations from pursuing inviduals who are self-dealing.  Where are Washington Premier folks?  All licking the boots of these same folks, hoping to place their kids on the pre-academy teams.  All 50 kids.  Washington has become like SoCal in terms of the number of "elite" players.  When I was down in Albuquerque, I seemed to have missed all these teams at regionals.  I know -- wrong place to take a swipe at pre-academy teams.

And EW, it is nice to see you admit when you are wrong.  However, maybe you are not as wrong.  You will recall at U15 that Washington premier sent 14 year olds to play as they focused upon pre-academy hocus pocus.

[justaparent]

One item that has not been mentioned is the fact that in the early part of the season when NWCL had NWCL playing weekends (where everyone was playing an NWCL game at a common location) NWCL paid for the fields and the referee's.  It is only the individual games (reschedules, one-off's) that have to be paid by the clubs. 

Not all that money is going to someone's pocket.

However without the transparency that a non-profit can create it is easy to assume that they are just grabbing the money.

I don't like that the league is for-profit because that means that financial's do not need to be disclosed.  But I really don't see a true conflict of interest.

[EWSoccer64]

Just a parent, that is why we are using the figure of $100,000 not the estimated $120,00 plus that the "Fine Upstanding Gentlemen in Charge" have raked in.

One item that has not been mentioned is the fact that in the early part of the season when NWCL had NWCL playing weekends (where everyone was playing an NWCL game at a common location) NWCL paid for the fields and the referee's.  It is only the individual games (reschedules, one-off's) that have to be paid by the clubs. 

Not all that money is going to someone's pocket.

However without the transparency that a non-profit can create it is easy to assume that they are just grabbing the money.

I don't like that the league is for-profit because that means that financial's do not need to be disclosed.  But I really don't see a true conflict of interest.

[Left Foot]

One item that has not been mentioned is the fact that in the early part of the season when NWCL had NWCL playing weekends (where everyone was playing an NWCL game at a common location) NWCL paid for the fields and the referee's.  It is only the individual games (reschedules, one-off's) that have to be paid by the clubs. 

Not all that money is going to someone's pocket.

However without the transparency that a non-profit can create it is easy to assume that they are just grabbing the money.

I don't like that the league is for-profit because that means that financial's do not need to be disclosed.  But I really don't see a true conflict of interest.

Really? A clear conflict of interest exists when an individual or entity acting in a decision making capacity on behalf of one organization, in this case a non-profit, stands to  profit financially or otherwise as an outside entity based upon that decision.

Charlie Dent and Greg Ion act in decision making and consultation roles at WPFC, a non-profit whose mission is to serve kids. FACT!
Charlie Dent and Greg Ion are members of a for-profit league -- NWCL.
WPFC committed the kids on it's teams to pay upwards of $900 a team -- $60 a kid -- to Charlie Dent and Greg Ion's for-profit company. FACT!

[tripleplay]

One item that has not been mentioned is the fact that in the early part of the season when NWCL had NWCL playing weekends (where everyone was playing an NWCL game at a common location) NWCL paid for the fields and the referee's.  It is only the individual games (reschedules, one-off's) that have to be paid by the clubs. 

Not all that money is going to someone's pocket.

However without the transparency that a non-profit can create it is easy to assume that they are just grabbing the money.

I don't like that the league is for-profit because that means that financial's do not need to be disclosed.  But I really don't see a true conflict of interest.

Really? A clear conflict of interest exists when an individual or entity acting in a decision making capacity on behalf of one organization, in this case a non-profit, stands to  profit financially or otherwise as an outside entity based upon that decision.

Charlie Dent and Greg Ion act in decision making and consultation roles at WPFC, a non-profit whose mission is to serve kids. FACT!
Charlie Dent and Greg Ion are members of a for-profit league -- NWCL.
WPFC committed the kids on it's teams to pay upwards of $900 a team -- $60 a kid -- to Charlie Dent and Greg Ion's for-profit company. FACT!

Can you substantiate the $60 figure ? In most age groups you were getting two tournaments for that, so even if correct it doesn't sound like a bad deal.

Keep in mind that there were many clubs that sent teams - even those with no ties to NWCL management. So the case that the only reason to send teams to this tournament for personal enrichment is refuted.

Many "non-profit" clubs run tournaments and then require their own teams to play in the tournament - even when the teams could spend their time and money better elsewhere. The money ultimately goes to paying a DoC or other professional staff but those expenses are classified as "wages" rather than "profit". It's a distinction of interest only to the IRS - it makes zero difference to the parents/players what accounting tricks are being employed.

[Socalova]

You guys down south might want to take a look at the OPL and how that is actually organized and run.  Or you might not, that is your business.
But you are correct that there is concern, and now a little bit of awareness, about people abusing their positions for self-enrichment.    That type of activity, when tolerated, tends to contaminate the entire enviroment.

EW, that seems like more of an issue for you all up there.  I don't know the people or personalities.  I will give you my two cents worth.  Since it's the first year, I've been pretty open to it being a trial run with all the hiccups that entails.  The 2X counting games, needs to be a very rare exception--if allowed at all.  Those of you who think that's a problem are right.  It did not happen to the teams I follow.  My somewhat limited exposure, however, has been positive, but the ages I know best are U-15 to U-17 boys. I think for them, it worked pretty well and I'd like to see it continue. Bottom line, when you frame the issue like you do, however, my answer has to be no to the first part, and the soccer community needs to work on the second.  Transparency is crucial.   

This is definitely a concern for Oregon folks as regards OPL.  The way OPL is setup the 8 ORIGINAL MEMBERS take all profits.  This doesn't go to the DOC's individually but it isn't hard to imagine how their clubs might figure out a way of passing it through.  It has been interesting down here because OPL has consistently used the OYSA data available transparently to attack OYSA.  That, while not sharing the same data about their own organization.

[toe_punch]

One item that has not been mentioned is the fact that in the early part of the season when NWCL had NWCL playing weekends (where everyone was playing an NWCL game at a common location) NWCL paid for the fields and the referee's.  It is only the individual games (reschedules, one-off's) that have to be paid by the clubs. 

Not all that money is going to someone's pocket.

However without the transparency that a non-profit can create it is easy to assume that they are just grabbing the money.

I don't like that the league is for-profit because that means that financial's do not need to be disclosed.  But I really don't see a true conflict of interest.

Really? A clear conflict of interest exists when an individual or entity acting in a decision making capacity on behalf of one organization, in this case a non-profit, stands to  profit financially or otherwise as an outside entity based upon that decision.

Charlie Dent and Greg Ion act in decision making and consultation roles at WPFC, a non-profit whose mission is to serve kids. FACT!
Charlie Dent and Greg Ion are members of a for-profit league -- NWCL.
WPFC committed the kids on it's teams to pay upwards of $900 a team -- $60 a kid -- to Charlie Dent and Greg Ion's for-profit company. FACT!

Can you substantiate the $60 figure ? In most age groups you were getting two tournaments for that, so even if correct it doesn't sound like a bad deal.

Keep in mind that there were many clubs that sent teams - even those with no ties to NWCL management. So the case that the only reason to send teams to this tournament for personal enrichment is refuted.

Many "non-profit" clubs run tournaments and then require their own teams to play in the tournament - even when the teams could spend their time and money better elsewhere. The money ultimately goes to paying a DoC or other professional staff but those expenses are classified as "wages" rather than "profit". It's a distinction of interest only to the IRS - it makes zero difference to the parents/players what accounting tricks are being employed.

Yes, it was $60.00 a  player.  I had to write a check to cover the costs.  How is there more cost associated with a roster of 14 players versus 18?

I don't know about the October weekend, but all other games the field and ref costs were borne by the home teams.  And even if they had to pay for the fields on that one weekend, they used far less fields than thei buddies at Crossfire were profiting.  It all seems fairly sketchy?

[toe_punch]

You guys down south might want to take a look at the OPL and how that is actually organized and run.  Or you might not, that is your business.
But you are correct that there is concern, and now a little bit of awareness, about people abusing their positions for self-enrichment.    That type of activity, when tolerated, tends to contaminate the entire enviroment.

EW, that seems like more of an issue for you all up there.  I don't know the people or personalities.  I will give you my two cents worth.  Since it's the first year, I've been pretty open to it being a trial run with all the hiccups that entails.  The 2X counting games, needs to be a very rare exception--if allowed at all.  Those of you who think that's a problem are right.  It did not happen to the teams I follow.  My somewhat limited exposure, however, has been positive, but the ages I know best are U-15 to U-17 boys. I think for them, it worked pretty well and I'd like to see it continue. Bottom line, when you frame the issue like you do, however, my answer has to be no to the first part, and the soccer community needs to work on the second.  Transparency is crucial.   

This is definitely a concern for Oregon folks as regards OPL.  The way OPL is setup the 8 ORIGINAL MEMBERS take all profits.  This doesn't go to the DOC's individually but it isn't hard to imagine how their clubs might figure out a way of passing it through.  It has been interesting down here because OPL has consistently used the OYSA data available transparently to attack OYSA.  That, while not sharing the same data about their own organization.

Socalova, you have some incorrect information.  As for the OPL profits, I have no idea who is actually receiving the profits.  But I can tell you with 100% certainty that the CLUBS are not getting ONE PENNY from the OPL.  Are the DOC's lining their pockets?   You would have to ask one of the 8 DOC's.

[EWSoccer64]

Here is a thought on where the $100,000 or more in profits on the NWCL is going.   We know that the president and the senior DoC of WPFC are the named contacts/managers of the company that runs the NWCL.   Perhaps they are running the company on behalf of WPFC?   And all that money is not sticking to their fingers but is being passed into the coffers of WPFC.   WPFC's debt issues and need for more money are not secrets by any stretch.   So before anyone jumps to the conclusiton that individuals are profitting, perhaps someone in WPFC-land can see if their club is the one that is profiting.   
    Because obviously, the money is going into someone or something's bank account.  One Hundred Grand is a big enough amount of money that even Crossfire would be interested in it!   

[Squash]

Nothing like a night in hotel thanks to the Army and getting to read this on my iPhone. Crossfire is smarter than to point fingers on money matters. The pot should never call the kettle black.... So I have heard.

[Soccer Wonk]

... It has been interesting down here because OPL has consistently used the OYSA data available transparently to attack OYSA.  That, while not sharing the same data about their own organization.

That's a fundamental difference between a mutual benefit nonprofit corporation and a public benefit nonprofit corporation.

If the law in Oregon is similar to the law in Washington, the OPL (OPC, actually) is only required to disclose corporate records on request to one of the eight member clubs. It's clear from the OPC by-laws that those eight clubs, not players and parents, are the members.

If the OYSA is similar to WYS, then all the players and parents have rights as members, and the organization is following the best practices for transparency for a public benefit nonprofit that qualifies for 501c(3) status.

[Soccer Wonk]

Here is a thought on where the $100,000 or more in profits on the NWCL is going.   We know that the president and the senior DoC of WPFC are the named contacts/managers of the company that runs the NWCL.   Perhaps they are running the company on behalf of WPFC?   And all that money is not sticking to their fingers but is being passed into the coffers of WPFC.   WPFC's debt issues and need for more money are not secrets by any stretch.   So before anyone jumps to the conclusiton that individuals are profitting, perhaps someone in WPFC-land can see if their club is the one that is profiting.  
    Because obviously, the money is going into someone or something's bank account.  One Hundred Grand is a big enough amount of money that even Crossfire would be interested in it!  

Here's another thought, EW. There's another thread about the cost of the WPFC showcase that Vision Sports Marketing used to run. Now it sounds like WPFC is running it directly. The cost for the showcase tournament is $159 a player.  So the showcase revenue is quite possibly going to WPFC to pay down the loan.

To replace the lost showcase income, the newly minted monies from the WCDA and NWCL are going to Northwest Champions, LLC.

None of this is provable, but it makes sense, and it fits the pattern of a youth soccer club doing what it can to rectify its balance sheet. Player fees, tournament income, donations/fundraisers and sponsorships are the sources of revenue. If the latter categories dry up in this down economy, one turns to the first two. And the showcase revenue is much less risky as a revenue source for the club. In a lot of respects.

[EWSoccer64]

Here is a thought on where the $100,000 or more in profits on the NWCL is going.   We know that the president and the senior DoC of WPFC are the named contacts/managers of the company that runs the NWCL.   Perhaps they are running the company on behalf of WPFC?   And all that money is not sticking to their fingers but is being passed into the coffers of WPFC.   WPFC's debt issues and need for more money are not secrets by any stretch.   So before anyone jumps to the conclusiton that individuals are profitting, perhaps someone in WPFC-land can see if their club is the one that is profiting.  
    Because obviously, the money is going into someone or something's bank account.  One Hundred Grand is a big enough amount of money that even Crossfire would be interested in it!  

Here's another thought, EW. There's another thread about the cost of the WPFC showcase that Vision Sports Marketing used to run. Now it sounds like WPFC is running it directly. The cost for the showcase tournament is $159 a player.  So the showcase revenue is quite possibly going to WPFC to pay down the loan.

To replace the lost showcase income, the newly minted monies from the WCDA and NWCL are going to Northwest Champions, LLC.

None of this is provable, but it makes sense, and it fits the pattern of a youth soccer club doing what it can to rectify its balance sheet. Player fees, tournament income, donations/fundraisers and sponsorships are the sources of revenue. If the latter categories dry up in this down economy, one turns to the first two. And the showcase revenue is much less risky as a revenue source for the club.

That begs the question of why was there the need to supplement Ion's stated income?  Particularly as multiple sources have stated that he is being eased out.   
Obviously, his contract with the club is confidential.  But to have a guaranteed  extra $100,000 in income in addition to his salary for being a DoC and his salary for coaching seems to be more than a bit exorbriant.  Particularly as the club has been in financial difficulties of a greater or lesser sort.   Giving a DoC his own private six figure earning tournament is not common, and raises ethical concerns in itself.   Taking it away from him may have raised some contractual issues, depending on how dumb the WPFC board was when it gave him his contract.  One can see how a slight of hand approach could be used to sweeten taking away the tournament with a hidden replacement source of income.   But that would simply create more ethical issues.
And no one can seriously believe that these people thought that it would never be discovered and questions asked.

Further, one poster stated that Vision Sports marketing is still running this years showcase.   Of course, the terms were not disclosed.   It may be that Ion's company is still running the tournament, but for a fee rather than being able to keep the proceeds.   

It is obviously time that people in WPFC land start asking questions and that WPFC issue a comprehensive statement on the subject.    At this point, the integrity of the board for the club, the DoC Greg ion, and the President of the Club are all being suspected.   Which is natural given the situation that has been presented.  It is incumbant upon them to clear up the matter, fully and openly.   Silence will be viewed as stonewalling, and lend credence to the scenario that a volunteer President, who is a well respected attorney, is in cahoots with a DoC to fleece the families they are supposed to be caring for.   Further, it will cause others to question the wisdom of being part of their creation, the NWCL.
   There may well be an innocent explanation for all this.  If there is, then no harm and much good will come from presenting it.

[Left Foot]

One item that has not been mentioned is the fact that in the early part of the season when NWCL had NWCL playing weekends (where everyone was playing an NWCL game at a common location) NWCL paid for the fields and the referee's.  It is only the individual games (reschedules, one-off's) that have to be paid by the clubs. 

Not all that money is going to someone's pocket.

However without the transparency that a non-profit can create it is easy to assume that they are just grabbing the money.

I don't like that the league is for-profit because that means that financial's do not need to be disclosed.  But I really don't see a true conflict of interest.

Really? A clear conflict of interest exists when an individual or entity acting in a decision making capacity on behalf of one organization, in this case a non-profit, stands to  profit financially or otherwise as an outside entity based upon that decision.

Charlie Dent and Greg Ion act in decision making and consultation roles at WPFC, a non-profit whose mission is to serve kids. FACT!
Charlie Dent and Greg Ion are members of a for-profit league -- NWCL.
WPFC committed the kids on it's teams to pay upwards of $900 a team -- $60 a kid -- to Charlie Dent and Greg Ion's for-profit company. FACT!

Can you substantiate the $60 figure ? In most age groups you were getting two tournaments for that, so even if correct it doesn't sound like a bad deal.

Keep in mind that there were many clubs that sent teams - even those with no ties to NWCL management. So the case that the only reason to send teams to this tournament for personal enrichment is refuted.

Many "non-profit" clubs run tournaments and then require their own teams to play in the tournament - even when the teams could spend their time and money better elsewhere. The money ultimately goes to paying a DoC or other professional staff but those expenses are classified as "wages" rather than "profit". It's a distinction of interest only to the IRS - it makes zero difference to the parents/players what accounting tricks are being employed.

It is not an accounting trick for a non-profit to operate in such a way as to enrich itself. You obviously don't get the issue or "can't" get the issue because of your own particular bias.

Where the non-profit runs it's own tourney, the income flows to it and the income must be reported and reasonable wages paid. Requiring there own teams to play in the tourney benefit's the club. Requiring your club to play in a league that profits one of your employees and the club president (both of whom are in position to influence the decision -- serves to divert income from the club. And...the frickin' DOC is already being paid by the club!

As for other teams joining the league, that fact has absolutely no impact on whether the WPFC is remiss for allowing it's teams to be committed to a league -- especially one where it's teams don't even get to play all of their games because the games are deemed of so little value -- thereby enriching it's President and DOC. The arrangment would also seem to skirt the requirements that a non-profit pay reasonable wages to it's employees. A BOD could not reasonably agree to pay -- and stay registered as a non-profit -- if they paid a DOC 4 or 5 times the going rate I don't believe.

Finally, you are correct. The IRS would indeed be interested as might the Washington State Attorney General. US Club Soccer may be interested as well. Shoot, maybe a journalist or two might find the growth of for profit enterprises within the framework of non-profits of interest.

Please see the other thread re the PSPL. 

[tripleplay]

Where the non-profit runs it's own tourney, the income flows to it and the income must be reported and reasonable wages paid. Requiring there own teams to play in the tourney benefit's the club. Requiring your club to play in a league that profits one of your employees and the club president (both of whom are in position to influence the decision -- serves to divert income from the club. And...the frickin' DOC is already being paid by the club!

Requiring teams to play in their non-profit tourney doesn't benefit the club - it benefits the wage earners in the club. In both the case I presented and your case the club is forcing its members to spend money to benefit specific insiders, and that is a conflict of interest. The cases are exactly the same. By the way, very few for-profits actually turn a profit and pay dividends to shareholders - they usually pay out their "profits" as wages.

Soccerwonk has made an argument that non-profits are held to a higher standard of governance, which is not true. A "member" of a non-profit is like a "shareholder" of a for-profit. If I go out and buy a share of Microsoft stock, that entitles me to access to an income statement from the company. It does not entitle me to inside information that would allow me to judge whether there is a  conflict of interest in the thousands and thousands of business deals that Microsoft engages in. Similarly, a "member" of a non-profit is entitled to view a generic income statement, but that's it. (Of course, both a for-profit and a non-profit are free to disclose more information if they so choose, but it almost never happens in either sector.) So as a practical matter, the tax-filing status is of no relevance in determining whether an organization spends its money wisely.

I'll concede that I prefer non-profits to for-profits in youth soccer, but there is little to no practical difference.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>>Requiring teams to play in their non-profit tourney doesn't benefit the club - it benefits the wage earners in the club<<<<

Wrong again, 3Play.   Most tournaments run by clubs (which in this state are non-profits) are funraisers for the club, not the wage earners in the club.   The only two private tournaments where the money does not go to the club that I am familiar with are the Blue Mountain Exchange and the WPFC/Greg Ion Showcase, although I have heard that the club is now in control of the latter.   Probably there are a few others around, but they are distincly the minority.  In the rest of the cases, the club benefits in many ways, particularly including the profits, of the tournaments they put on. 

[justaparent]

Most tournaments held a Starfire are for profit (all proceeds go to Starfire) unless it is one of the few where a Club (GRFC or HPFC) is the host.

Also most tournaments run by the clubs that "force" their teams to participate do not charge their own teams. They require their teams to participate to help with the numbers and to attract more clubs to attend. Who wants to attend a tournament where none of the Host teams are participating?  What message would that send?

[tripleplay]

Most tournaments held a Starfire are for profit (all proceeds go to Starfire) unless it is one of the few where a Club (GRFC or HPFC) is the host.

Also most tournaments run by the clubs that "force" their teams to participate do not charge their own teams. They require their teams to participate to help with the numbers and to attract more clubs to attend. Who wants to attend a tournament where none of the Host teams are participating?  What message would that send?

Tournaments I'm familiar with require host teams to pay, as well as supply a large number of volunteer hours. The proceeds theoretically benefit "the club" but in reality they end up being disbursed to the club's employees as wages. The fact that those disbursements are not explicitly labeled "tournament profits" doesn't make it any less a conflict of interest. 

[Futsal]

Most tournaments held a Starfire are for profit (all proceeds go to Starfire) unless it is one of the few where a Club (GRFC or HPFC) is the host.

Also most tournaments run by the clubs that "force" their teams to participate do not charge their own teams. They require their teams to participate to help with the numbers and to attract more clubs to attend. Who wants to attend a tournament where none of the Host teams are participating?  What message would that send?

Starfire Sports is a non-profit organization.

[EWSoccer64]

Most tournaments held a Starfire are for profit (all proceeds go to Starfire) unless it is one of the few where a Club (GRFC or HPFC) is the host.

Also most tournaments run by the clubs that "force" their teams to participate do not charge their own teams. They require their teams to participate to help with the numbers and to attract more clubs to attend. Who wants to attend a tournament where none of the Host teams are participating?  What message would that send?

Tournaments I'm familiar with require host teams to pay, as well as supply a large number of volunteer hours. The proceeds theoretically benefit "the club" but in reality they end up being disbursed to the club's employees as wages. The fact that those disbursements are not explicitly labeled "tournament profits" doesn't make it any less a conflict of interest. 

You need to get out more, 3Play.   
Most tournaments at all but a very few places do not create much in the way of additional employee costs, if any at all.  If at yours they do, it helps explain some of your attitudes......

[goldengoal]

Where the non-profit runs it's own tourney, the income flows to it and the income must be reported and reasonable wages paid. Requiring there own teams to play in the tourney benefit's the club. Requiring your club to play in a league that profits one of your employees and the club president (both of whom are in position to influence the decision -- serves to divert income from the club. And...the frickin' DOC is already being paid by the club!

Requiring teams to play in their non-profit tourney doesn't benefit the club - it benefits the wage earners in the club. In both the case I presented and your case the club is forcing its members to spend money to benefit specific insiders, and that is a conflict of interest. The cases are exactly the same. By the way, very few for-profits actually turn a profit and pay dividends to shareholders - they usually pay out their "profits" as wages.

Soccerwonk has made an argument that non-profits are held to a higher standard of governance, which is not true. A "member" of a non-profit is like a "shareholder" of a for-profit. If I go out and buy a share of Microsoft stock, that entitles me to access to an income statement from the company. It does not entitle me to inside information that would allow me to judge whether there is a  conflict of interest in the thousands and thousands of business deals that Microsoft engages in. Similarly, a "member" of a non-profit is entitled to view a generic income statement, but that's it. (Of course, both a for-profit and a non-profit are free to disclose more information if they so choose, but it almost never happens in either sector.) So as a practical matter, the tax-filing status is of no relevance in determining whether an organization spends its money wisely.

I'll concede that I prefer non-profits to for-profits in youth soccer, but there is little to no practical difference.

I am still on the fence on whether i prefer for profit vs non-profit. On one end we have for profits who have to make money to stay afloat so they have to do well or competition will take over. Non-profits on the other hand are mainly there to help out the kids, but some of the people at the board or even the employees tend to have agendas and lose focus on the reason for their existence, which is that soccer is for the kids and not to make money for their friends. I see it at both small and large clubs and I say the small clubs are where it becomes a greater issue because they tend to give control to 1-2 people and that can be bad long term

[tripleplay]

I am still on the fence on whether i prefer for profit vs non-profit. On one end we have for profits who have to make money to stay afloat so they have to do well or competition will take over. Non-profits on the other hand are mainly there to help out the kids, but some of the people at the board or even the employees tend to have agendas and lose focus on the reason for their existence, which is that soccer is for the kids and not to make money for their friends. I see it at both small and large clubs and I say the small clubs are where it becomes a greater issue because they tend to give control to 1-2 people and that can be bad long term

I was really just responding to Soccerwonk's one-person disinformation campaign. Both non-profits and for-profits tend to function in a way to perpetuate the power of incumbents - at the expense of both "members" and "shareholders" in the two cases. That's just human nature.

Non-profits ostensibly exist to fulfill a public good. It's pretty clear that wys' system of club and league monopolies isn't doing that. It's as if Bill Gates wanted to donate $10 million to a non-profit food bank but was prevented from doing so without first getting the agreement of every other food bank in WA, and then getting Soccerwonk's agreement because he's a self-proclaimed "expert", and then getting my agreement because last year I donated $20 ... WYS should be about advancing soccer - not controlling it.

[Norcalvisitor]

One item that has not been mentioned is the fact that in the early part of the season when NWCL had NWCL playing weekends (where everyone was playing an NWCL game at a common location) NWCL paid for the fields and the referee's.  It is only the individual games (reschedules, one-off's) that have to be paid by the clubs. 

Not all that money is going to someone's pocket.

However without the transparency that a non-profit can create it is easy to assume that they are just grabbing the money.

I don't like that the league is for-profit because that means that financial's do not need to be disclosed.  But I really don't see a true conflict of interest.


This thread is enlightening.  I have been searching for info on WCDA and the LLC behind it.  We are charged $250 per player.  I saw 98 teams on the WCDA website and came up with 98x18kids per roster x $250= $441,000.  But now it seems in Northern cal at least our club is charged 6 times more than yours? 

Can anyone verify your fees, I have the form with $250 for us.

Really? A clear conflict of interest exists when an individual or entity acting in a decision making capacity on behalf of one organization, in this case a non-profit, stands to  profit financially or otherwise as an outside entity based upon that decision.

Charlie Dent and Greg Ion act in decision making and consultation roles at WPFC, a non-profit whose mission is to serve kids. FACT!
Charlie Dent and Greg Ion are members of a for-profit league -- NWCL.
WPFC committed the kids on it's teams to pay upwards of $900 a team -- $60 a kid -- to Charlie Dent and Greg Ion's for-profit company. FACT!

Are Charlie Dent and Greg Ion allowed to direct their kids to a for profit they (I'll assume you are right) run?  And then have the fees quadrupled for teams not in their club?  I'm guessing no, and that there's some published rule (law, maybe)  somewhere about this.

This thread is enlightening.  I have been searching for info on WCDA and the LLC behind it.  We are charged $250 per player.  I saw 98 teams on the WCDA website and came up with 98x18kids per roster x $250= $441,000.  But now it seems in Northern cal at least our club is charged 4 times more than yours? 

Can anyone verify your fees, I have the form with $250 for us.  So I'm wondering if we are being overcharged by WCDA relative to your $60.  Or if our own club DOC, here in NorCal is taking a cut?

Further, the players are already in a playing league when they sign into WCDA, which means they already have a USClub card and insurance paid for.  Even if WCDA somehow needed to get a second card with their name on it, that's $16.  The team already paid for its' fields for the season.  Referees for 5 home games are paid for by the home team, and that money wouldn't go through WCDA. 

I think WCDA provides a website made by Demosphere, game scheduling but not the actual burden of field scheduling (negotiation between home and away teams), and some service that makes it appear they have some college connections.  There are supposed to be scouts at WCDA games, but they should be interested because of WCDA marketing to them that a 2nd tier below Academy would be having matches in their area. 

I have wondered if WCDA was either paying themselves very well, offering incentive $$ to scouts to pay for them to go to games, or kicking back money in the form of scholarships directed to colleges surrounding the WCDA founding clubs and then award their players with scholarship money.  Some coaches work as assistants at local colleges and put in a good word on their club players, that's how that theory came about. 

I'm assuming the $60 figure is from someone with a player in WCDA?

---Looking at Colorado Storm:  http://www.coloradostorm.com/doclib/WCDA%20Handout.pdf  They paid $159 per player and were to get 2-3 Showcase events plus the WCDA finals, does that mean they have the showcase entrance fee paid for by WCDA?  I bet not.  A showcase event can run as much as $1050 in entrance fees, much higher than normal (overcharging by $500?).  The presentation indicates charitable giving, which could support my scholarship theory.  Probably the next to look at is the showcase event funds because they seem to overcharge. 

And WCDA membership fees appear to range from $60-$250.  But that is only data from 3 clubs, I found NO other clubs posting info on WCDA other than a stock letter and a link to their website, makes comparing impossible.

What I did find was posted somewhere in this site already, and that Greg Ion runs a marketing company:  Vision Sports Marketing, Inc. in the greater Seattle area.  Since WCDA is doing marketing, there is another, I think previously mentioned, potential self-deal.

And the Las Vegas Showcase is run by a founding club, no less...

Quite a shell game, and they can have closed books on all of this?

[SoccerFlicks]

I am coming late to the conversation with reason - my team is about to participate in some of the situations being discussed.  With that said, it does not mean I support the for profit enterprise any more than I am against a non-profit tactic.

I have spoken to some of the names mentioned in this conversation.  I do not like their limited, generic replies to questions of interest - although such replies do make the speaker seem as though something is hidden or not right, I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon and say THIEF - basically that is what this conversation laments: profiteering in soccer is akin to thievery.  I have to wonder what has lead these people who run for profit business to become generic or limited in the information they provide about their services……. It is truly annoying, but it is because they have ill intent?

By example I wanted to ask all those freaking out about the possibility that an organization connected to youth soccer would make a profit - where do you purchase your kid's uniforms and cleats?  How about the food you use to fuel your kids soccer activity - where is that bought?  Are all these situations that sustain your soccer player connected to non-profit organizations?  I doubt it.

Right now, I can't tell who the "bad guy" is in this:  the folks who are strong enough to form a successful youth soccer business in America or the folks who loudly shun such business ventures because of profiteering?  Is everything youth soccer related supposed to be non-profit?  If so, contact Safeway and Sporthaus and let them know!  The question of who has gotten hurt has not been answered.  I almost want to the say harm has come to the successful business thanks to it being forced into discretion due to the overactive persecutions – but then I am not sure if the successful business folks offering up leagues and showcases are gloating about their profits behind the netting – are they – if so do tell!

[goldengoal]

I am with flicks on this- just because you are non-profit doesn't mean someone isn't making money. There are paid board members, coaches, trainers, etc. that ask to get paid or are paid for their role within the club. I even see this as worse than for profit because they generally dont disclose their detailed expenses to their members. I challenge all the non-profit clubs to display every penny that is paid to board members, coaches and trainers, but most, if not all, will not do it. Heck, I have heard of clubs that pay 1 or 2 people 50-70 % of the money they bring in and their members have no clue. Is that right? who knows

[Norcalvisitor]

I think it is wrong for WCDA, or any youth playing league, to charge players a range of amounts for the same league membership.  $60 in WA, $159 in CO, and $250 in NorCAL.

I personally think no youth league should be allowed to run as a for profit, because the books are closed, you cannot look them up through your state, county, or online www.guidestar.org If you could, you would be able to find what the officers are paid, how much alleged 'charitable giving' took place and to whom.  For WCDA, everything is open to speculation and inuendo...add in a sliding scale membership fee, outrageous showcase entrance fees, and WCDA would be foolish to think no one would want to see what is going on.

Given that USSF has its' own lawsuit from charging about $3mil to an MLS competitor http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704654004575518154070092996.html ...WCDA seems like a small time imitator, and crying to the parent organization, USSF, would get us where?   That's like having chickens cry to the wolf that there's a fox in the coop?

[EWSoccer64]

I am with flicks on this- just because you are non-profit doesn't mean someone isn't making money. There are paid board members, coaches, trainers, etc. that ask to get paid or are paid for their role within the club. I even see this as worse than for profit because they generally dont disclose their detailed expenses to their members. I challenge all the non-profit clubs to display every penny that is paid to board members, coaches and trainers, but most, if not all, will not do it. Heck, I have heard of clubs that pay 1 or 2 people 50-70 % of the money they bring in and their members have no clue. Is that right? who knows

Actually, paid board members are extremely rare.   The only one in the state that I am aware of is Doug Andreason, the WSYSA state President.   As far as I know, no other board members of the state are paid.   I do not believe that Terry Fisher or Director of Coaching/Development White are board members.    I am unaware of any association board members anywhere in the state that are paid for being board members.   If your club has paid members of the board, rather than employees who are also collaterally board members, that is a poor situation that is particular to your club.

One big advantage of non-profits vs for-profits is that non-profits are required to have "open books".   If your non-profit does not allow any member to look at it's books, that is an example of poor governance and illegal activity.

And for soccer flicks, it shoudl be noted that all her examples are goods providers, who operate in a competitive enviroment.  A situation where everyone knows before entering into any transaction that these companies exist to make profits.   

The main question is that of focue.   Non-profits are supposed to focus on providing services to the memebrs.  For-profits have their primary focus being that of making money for the people who run or own it.

[goldengoal]

I am with flicks on this- just because you are non-profit doesn't mean someone isn't making money. There are paid board members, coaches, trainers, etc. that ask to get paid or are paid for their role within the club. I even see this as worse than for profit because they generally dont disclose their detailed expenses to their members. I challenge all the non-profit clubs to display every penny that is paid to board members, coaches and trainers, but most, if not all, will not do it. Heck, I have heard of clubs that pay 1 or 2 people 50-70 % of the money they bring in and their members have no clue. Is that right? who knows

Actually, paid board members are extremely rare.   The only one in the state that I am aware of is Doug Andreason, the WSYSA state President.   As far as I know, no other board members of the state are paid.   I do not believe that Terry Fisher or Director of Coaching/Development White are board members.    I am unaware of any association board members anywhere in the state that are paid for being board members.   If your club has paid members of the board, rather than employees who are also collaterally board members, that is a poor situation that is particular to your club.

One big advantage of non-profits vs for-profits is that non-profits are required to have "open books".   If your non-profit does not allow any member to look at it's books, that is an example of poor governance and illegal activity.

And for soccer flicks, it shoudl be noted that all her examples are goods providers, who operate in a competitive enviroment.  A situation where everyone knows before entering into any transaction that these companies exist to make profits.   

The main question is that of focue.   Non-profits are supposed to focus on providing services to the memebrs.  For-profits have their primary focus being that of making money for the people who run or own it.

It is not a matter of "allowing it", but having it for the public to see- rarely does this happen and members are generally afraid to ask. happens a lot

[tripleplay]

One big advantage of non-profits vs for-profits is that non-profits are required to have "open books".   

For-profits are required to produce financial statements for shareholders. Non-profits are required to produce financial statements for members. The rules are symmetric. Rarely do non-profits or for-profits display more openness than required.

It's true that soccer club board members are rarely paid a salary. They usually receive in-kind payment (coach the team they want to, get their kid on the right team, steer a few thousand to their brother's business ...) There is no free lunch.

[Norcalvisitor]

Here is a thought on where the $100,000 or more in profits on the NWCL is going.   We know that the president and the senior DoC of WPFC are the named contacts/managers of the company that runs the NWCL.   Perhaps they are running the company on behalf of WPFC?   And all that money is not sticking to their fingers but is being passed into the coffers of WPFC.   WPFC's debt issues and need for more money are not secrets by any stretch.   So before anyone jumps to the conclusiton that individuals are profitting, perhaps someone in WPFC-land can see if their club is the one that is profiting.  
    Because obviously, the money is going into someone or something's bank account.  One Hundred Grand is a big enough amount of money that even Crossfire would be interested in it!  

Here's another thought, EW. There's another thread about the cost of the WPFC showcase that Vision Sports Marketing used to run. Now it sounds like WPFC is running it directly. The cost for the showcase tournament is $159 a player.  So the showcase revenue is quite possibly going to WPFC to pay down the loan.

To replace the lost showcase income, the newly minted monies from the WCDA and NWCL are going to Northwest Champions, LLC.

None of this is provable, but it makes sense, and it fits the pattern of a youth soccer club doing what it can to rectify its balance sheet. Player fees, tournament income, donations/fundraisers and sponsorships are the sources of revenue. If the latter categories dry up in this down economy, one turns to the first two. And the showcase revenue is much less risky as a revenue source for the club.

That begs the question of why was there the need to supplement Ion's stated income?  Particularly as multiple sources have stated that he is being eased out.   
Obviously, his contract with the club is confidential.  But to have a guaranteed  extra $100,000 in income in addition to his salary for being a DoC and his salary for coaching seems to be more than a bit exorbriant.  Particularly as the club has been in financial difficulties of a greater or lesser sort.   Giving a DoC his own private six figure earning tournament is not common, and raises ethical concerns in itself.   Taking it away from him may have raised some contractual issues, depending on how dumb the WPFC board was when it gave him his contract.  One can see how a slight of hand approach could be used to sweeten taking away the tournament with a hidden replacement source of income.   But that would simply create more ethical issues.
And no one can seriously believe that these people thought that it would never be discovered and questions asked.

Further, one poster stated that Vision Sports marketing is still running this years showcase.   Of course, the terms were not disclosed.   It may be that Ion's company is still running the tournament, but for a fee rather than being able to keep the proceeds.   

It is obviously time that people in WPFC land start asking questions and that WPFC issue a comprehensive statement on the subject.    At this point, the integrity of the board for the club, the DoC Greg ion, and the President of the Club are all being suspected.   Which is natural given the situation that has been presented.  It is incumbant upon them to clear up the matter, fully and openly.   Silence will be viewed as stonewalling, and lend credence to the scenario that a volunteer President, who is a well respected attorney, is in cahoots with a DoC to fleece the families they are supposed to be caring for.   Further, it will cause others to question the wisdom of being part of their creation, the NWCL.
   There may well be an innocent explanation for all this.  If there is, then no harm and much good will come from presenting it.

It seems there's  a trail that goes:  Founding WCDA member club dues (ranging from $60-$250/per player) to WCDA...Showcases (with extra high entrance fees) connected to WCDA (run by a WCDA founding club like Vegas)...showcase put on by Ion (Vision Marketing)...to WCDA which is Northwest Champions LLC = Ion

Is this a racket or does it just look like one?