Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Development academy and the real money grabbers.

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    League fees and tournament fees? How much does USSF charge you vs ED or ECNL showcase fee's. Video does not cost much why doesn't CFC offer it free.

    Referee fee's?

    League fees , tournament fees and referee fees easily add up to 6-10K per team per year.

    That's not chump change across all teams.
    League and tournament fees are not out of pocket when you run the league and the tournament. You will not see GDAP or DAP teams playing in non-DA tournaments on the company dime. They have to procure fields and schedule and pay refs and do nothing else and i bet they pay refs poorly ..... they aren't magical, top-shelf refs that are different than your local travel league can use.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      You must be choking on all the kool-aid. But since you must be with OW you're accustomed to it
      Choking on a veinless dog is more like it

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        BS academy is still pay for play. In a very big way.
        That’s the silent fundraising for Mickey Soccer park and Micky mansion.

        Comment


          #19
          so the point is that some subsidy is WORSE than none? You guys already have your agendas so pointless discussing. Bottom line is a lot of what the OP says is correct. GDA has flaws but so does ECNL. Just pick a league/club that makes your kid happy based on her ambition. The biggest issue i see in all of this is that there are more leagues than girls who really want to play soccer at a really high level. Its a social endeavor with potential for some college money - a passion for far too few girls and families to sustain a full time commitment (GDA) and ECNL etc.

          The logic that the USSF have ignored is that as you move UP a pyramid, the numbers should get smaller. IF the plan was an elite league, then by definition, it should involve fewer players. If the GDA was a lot smaller and hand selected, no one would complain and all this would go away. The $$ would potentially go further and we could potentially make a real go of development for say 30 clubs.

          As it is now, you need to get over the first hurdle of filling clubs and that has led to some really weak teams. There should be no waivers unless for special circumstances.

          In the NE

          SB-PDA, Fc Stars, 1 CT team, 1 of NYCFC or NYSC, 1 LI team, Penn Fusion, Breakers, Cedar Stars (?) Thats a league with reasonable travel and enough teams to assure some quality.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            so the point is that some subsidy is WORSE than none? You guys already have your agendas so pointless discussing. Bottom line is a lot of what the OP says is correct. GDA has flaws but so does ECNL. Just pick a league/club that makes your kid happy based on her ambition. The biggest issue i see in all of this is that there are more leagues than girls who really want to play soccer at a really high level. Its a social endeavor with potential for some college money - a passion for far too few girls and families to sustain a full time commitment (GDA) and ECNL etc.

            The logic that the USSF have ignored is that as you move UP a pyramid, the numbers should get smaller. IF the plan was an elite league, then by definition, it should involve fewer players. If the GDA was a lot smaller and hand selected, no one would complain and all this would go away. The $$ would potentially go further and we could potentially make a real go of development for say 30 clubs.

            As it is now, you need to get over the first hurdle of filling clubs and that has led to some really weak teams. There should be no waivers unless for special circumstances.

            In the NE

            SB-PDA, Fc Stars, 1 CT team, 1 of NYCFC or NYSC, 1 LI team, Penn Fusion, Breakers, Cedar Stars (?) Thats a league with reasonable travel and enough teams to assure some quality.
            The point actually is that GDA is not cheaper or groundbreaking than any other leagues as it was touted to be ...... even with all of the amazing subsidies that US Soccer is taunting and giving away. It is pandering to the affluent, rich white kids whose parents can afford to pay. Nothing new here from ECNL or other premier leagues. If they are putting so much money behind it then why is it still so expensive here in CT? One might ask BS the same on the boys side. I guess their "rules and regulations" are more like "wishful thinking and really nice suggestions".

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              so the point is that some subsidy is WORSE than none? You guys already have your agendas so pointless discussing. Bottom line is a lot of what the OP says is correct. GDA has flaws but so does ECNL. Just pick a league/club that makes your kid happy based on her ambition. The biggest issue i see in all of this is that there are more leagues than girls who really want to play soccer at a really high level. Its a social endeavor with potential for some college money - a passion for far too few girls and families to sustain a full time commitment (GDA) and ECNL etc.

              The logic that the USSF have ignored is that as you move UP a pyramid, the numbers should get smaller. IF the plan was an elite league, then by definition, it should involve fewer players. If the GDA was a lot smaller and hand selected, no one would complain and all this would go away. The $$ would potentially go further and we could potentially make a real go of development for say 30 clubs.

              As it is now, you need to get over the first hurdle of filling clubs and that has led to some really weak teams. There should be no waivers unless for special circumstances.

              In the NE

              SB-PDA, Fc Stars, 1 CT team, 1 of NYCFC or NYSC, 1 LI team, Penn Fusion, Breakers, Cedar Stars (?) Thats a league with reasonable travel and enough teams to assure some quality.
              that's my primary beef - it's not elite. In fact it's gigantic when you consider who USSF really cares about and what little good it does for those truly elite players (if you're NT material but the rest of your team or competition is anything but, how does that make you a better player?). After ten years on the boys side you'd think they would get that. I hold little hope that it will make a significant impact to soccer. In the meantime the environment is more chaotic than ever and players are caught in the middle. They needed too many clubs and players to fill openings and the difference in quality top to bottom is stark, much more so than in other leagues. The fact that USSF does things like make us all change to calendar year, yet now lets younger players actually play DOWN shows they are very much a "Do as I say, not as I do" organization. With so little credibility it makes it difficult to get behind it.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                that's my primary beef - it's not elite. In fact it's gigantic when you consider who USSF really cares about and what little good it does for those truly elite players (if you're NT material but the rest of your team or competition is anything but, how does that make you a better player?). After ten years on the boys side you'd think they would get that. I hold little hope that it will make a significant impact to soccer. In the meantime the environment is more chaotic than ever and players are caught in the middle. They needed too many clubs and players to fill openings and the difference in quality top to bottom is stark, much more so than in other leagues. The fact that USSF does things like make us all change to calendar year, yet now lets younger players actually play DOWN shows they are very much a "Do as I say, not as I do" organization. With so little credibility it makes it difficult to get behind it.
                I noticed the playing down thing too on the boys side and thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Again, US soccer mandates such great and groundbreaking rules and stipulations and then does not adhere to them in their own small realm. They really need to get their heads out of their @$$es and think before they put this garbage out. They are losing what little credibility they have left .... which isn't much in my book. They are scrambling to find something that works and they aren't doing a very good job .... and now they are taking another huge bite on the girls side hoping it will clear their clogged throat and give them clarity. GIVE ME A BREAK!

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  that's my primary beef - it's not elite. In fact it's gigantic when you consider who USSF really cares about and what little good it does for those truly elite players (if you're NT material but the rest of your team or competition is anything but, how does that make you a better player?). After ten years on the boys side you'd think they would get that. I hold little hope that it will make a significant impact to soccer. In the meantime the environment is more chaotic than ever and players are caught in the middle. They needed too many clubs and players to fill openings and the difference in quality top to bottom is stark, much more so than in other leagues. The fact that USSF does things like make us all change to calendar year, yet now lets younger players actually play DOWN shows they are very much a "Do as I say, not as I do" organization. With so little credibility it makes it difficult to get behind it.

                  Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.....


                  So tell us, Mr. Critic, what would you have them do?

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.....


                    So tell us, Mr. Critic, what would you have them do?
                    How about something different or get out of the game altogether. IT AINT WORKING!

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      How about something different or get out of the game altogether. IT AINT WORKING!

                      Thanks for the deep thought put into solving this problem.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Bitch, Bitch, Bitch.....


                        So tell us, Mr. Critic, what would you have them do?
                        Since the op complained that it's too big and not elite enough there's a place to start. I would add USSF put more $ towards significant scholarships, not just tokens, to take the financial burden off clubs. Get rid of some of the cra! clubs too

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Since the op complained that it's too big and not elite enough there's a place to start. I would add USSF put more $ towards significant scholarships, not just tokens, to take the financial burden off clubs. Get rid of some of the cra! clubs too
                          How then would you make it smaller? What is the appropriate size, considering the size of the country, for this program? How do you make it "elite enough"? What specific changes are you suggesting to move in that direction? What is the criteria you are using to make this decision?

                          How will the USSF fund this proposed increase in scholarships? What would be an acceptable thresh hold for you?

                          How do you determine a "cra! club"? What would be the process you use to make this determination? How would your replace a cra! club that sits in any specific region?


                          I'm fascinated to hear how you will solve this.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            Since the op complained that it's too big and not elite enough there's a place to start. I would add USSF put more $ towards significant scholarships, not just tokens, to take the financial burden off clubs. Get rid of some of the cra! clubs too
                            Okay... what will clubs do with that extra money once the burden has been lifted? Silent fundraising for field while raiding operation budget. Which leads to things like cramming too many team on one field. Or further covering the expenses of your parallel private for profit gold mine.

                            If the easy money goes away maybe will lose some good coaches but also thing we will weed out those who are here for the easy money.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              Okay... what will clubs do with that extra money once the burden has been lifted? Silent fundraising for field while raiding operation budget. Which leads to things like cramming too many team on one field. Or further covering the expenses of your parallel private for profit gold mine.

                              If the easy money goes away maybe will lose some good coaches but also thing we will weed out those who are here for the easy money.

                              Again, where do the funds come from that will lift the burden? Will the USSF simply print money?

                              Comment


                                #30
                                We are poor. Are there any scholarships out there so my daughter can play at a higher level?

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X