SCA and OYSA

[Unregistered]

Why not? FC PDX in Hillsboro, GPS in Hillsboro, and XFire in Beaverton.

Crossfire claim to Beaverton c/o THUSC. Only need THUSC because of access to fields.

How about Crossfire in LO?

[Guest]

Anyone hear that Soccer Chance’s alliance with OVF is ending and they are scrambling to find a new alliance/partnership?

[Guest]

Anyone hear that Soccer Chance’s alliance with OVF is ending and they are scrambling to find a new alliance/partnership?

You mean SCA Surf?

[Guest]

Thought that was NW Elite Surf? Soccer Chance needed their partnership with OVF to be in OYSA due to Soccer Chance’s “for-profit” status.

[Guest]

Under the new OYSA leadership, Simon will probably welcome them in with open arms. All they need to do is call him and have private call with him. Just wait they won’t need another club to get in next year.

[Guest]

Probably nothing to see here, but makes for fun spectating 2 months out from tryouts.

[Guest]

Thought that was NW Elite Surf? Soccer Chance needed their partnership with OVF to be in OYSA due to Soccer Chance’s “for-profit” status.

You’re catching on. SCA to NWE umbrella.

[simondate]

Under the new OYSA leadership, Simon will probably welcome them in with open arms. All they need to do is call him and have private call with him. Just wait they won’t need another club to get in next year.

Harsh!
No secret meetings (implied) going on here. I wish it were that exciting thought.
We field a lot of questions about club membership and business status etc. It's pretty transparent really.
Apologies if it hasn't been in the past though.

[Guest]

What’s the latest on “status” on SCA? Are they in or are they out?

[Guest]

Calm down it’s all going to be ok. Now back to your soap box and your PCU scarf.

What’s the latest on “status” on SCA? Are they in or are they out?

[Guest]

What’s the latest on “status” on SCA? Are they in or are they out?

We're they ever 'IN'? LOL

[Guest]

Harsh!
No secret meetings (implied) going on here. I wish it were that exciting thought.
We field a lot of questions about club membership and business status etc. It's pretty transparent really.
Apologies if it hasn't been in the past though.

What's the answer? In or out?

[Guest]

SCA is “in” currently playing under the OVF alliance crest

[Guest]

Simon,

The non-profit requirement needs to be enforced seriously, or abandoned.

There are a lot of clubs, and I won't mention any names here, that are structured as follows:

* A non-profit organization that registers the players with OYSA, collects fees, and is the point-of-contact
* A for-profit entity to which all operations of the club are contracted out to, and who most if not all coaches are actually employees of.
* In many cases, the for-profit entity essentially controls the board of directors of the non-profit organization.

I've no problem, in principle, with for-profit entities being involved. Many of the best training environments are professional youth academies, which are of course ultimately run by for-profit organizations, both the Timbers and Thorns for instance. And this is how it's done worldwide.

But if you are going to limit it to nonprofits, then you gotta crack down, and e.g. require all the coaches to actually be EMPLOYED by the non-profit agency. Outsourcing of operations needs to be banned, if it is the intent of the association that only non-profits should participate. If a club wants to hire a temp to work in the office, that's fine, and so forth. IF a club that owns their own pitch wants to outsource maintenance of the grounds to a landscaping firm, rather than pay a coach to drive a John Deer around, that's fine as well. But the officers, DOC, registrar, and the bulk of the coaching staff need to work for the club, and not some separate entity, if you want the nonprofit requirement to have any meaning.

Pick a side of the road to walk down. Don't walk down the middle.

[Guest]

Simon,

The non-profit requirement needs to be enforced seriously, or abandoned.

There are a lot of clubs, and I won't mention any names here, that are structured as follows:

* A non-profit organization that registers the players with OYSA, collects fees, and is the point-of-contact
* A for-profit entity to which all operations of the club are contracted out to, and who most if not all coaches are actually employees of.
* In many cases, the for-profit entity essentially controls the board of directors of the non-profit organization.

I've no problem, in principle, with for-profit entities being involved. Many of the best training environments are professional youth academies, which are of course ultimately run by for-profit organizations, both the Timbers and Thorns for instance. And this is how it's done worldwide.

But if you are going to limit it to nonprofits, then you gotta crack down, and e.g. require all the coaches to actually be EMPLOYED by the non-profit agency. Outsourcing of operations needs to be banned, if it is the intent of the association that only non-profits should participate. If a club wants to hire a temp to work in the office, that's fine, and so forth. IF a club that owns their own pitch wants to outsource maintenance of the grounds to a landscaping firm, rather than pay a coach to drive a John Deer around, that's fine as well. But the officers, DOC, registrar, and the bulk of the coaching staff need to work for the club, and not some separate entity, if you want the nonprofit requirement to have any meaning.

Pick a side of the road to walk down. Don't walk down the middle.

Wild that you are saying this and not concerned that Non Profit's are huge profiteering rackets. I read on here one is paying 250k to a DOC/Director. Surely that's more of a concern. Not sure how people can call such practice non profit with a straight face.