Ukrainian Black 2006 - Girls

[Guest]

I am a parent at this said club and this thread is polarized from both sides. While I was not present when the discussion was had, I heard it was simply approached as the club wants teams/players exposed to different voices, not a perpetual parent coach. As teams move into transition years, this presents opportunities for teams to work under the leadership of a new voice that may help develop their games different, hopefully for the better, to become well rounded players. Having the same consistent coach year upon year, just because its a parent of a girl on the team is not the best path for long term development. Young players need to be exposed to other voices. That was the who intention of this move, to change things up for these teams. Coaching of other teams within the club was mentioned, but it sounded like he only wanted to coach his kids. I am not sure where "Soccer Reasons" came about, but it was more or less about coaching assignments for the upcoming 2023-2024 season and club management wanting to expose these teams to new voices, which I holey support. Parent coaches can be great, but that should not mean you have a tenured position for the next decade.

makes sense

[Guest]

Players will be exposed to different coaches. Only JN and team can run through the exact tenor guidelines and limits on years with a team. But as a parent, this makes perfect sense to me. The 2013 girls team was being run by two parent coaches including a head coach that had been with them since inception. Moving to 9v9 next season is a perfect opportunity to expose these players to a different coach, different voice, different style. That will make them more well rounded as they progress. So many top tier clubs work off this same model, look at Delco and PF were you are looking at 2yr max tenors with a team, maybe maybe 3, at the young age groups. Older team do tend to have longer tenors from time to time, but not the 7v7 and 9v9 zones.

Has PF ever disrupted 9 year old kids by firing the coach mid year? This decision would make a lot of sense in 3 months. Get a grip and realize these are little kids. Some won’t even be playing in 3 years, some will have gone ECNL anyway, and some will stay and have success. It’ll be a mixed bag but these are kids.

[Guest]

Players will be exposed to different coaches. Only JN and team can run through the exact tenor guidelines and limits on years with a team. But as a parent, this makes perfect sense to me. The 2013 girls team was being run by two parent coaches including a head coach that had been with them since inception. Moving to 9v9 next season is a perfect opportunity to expose these players to a different coach, different voice, different style. That will make them more well rounded as they progress. So many top tier clubs work off this same model, look at Delco and PF were you are looking at 2yr max tenors with a team, maybe maybe 3, at the young age groups. Older team do tend to have longer tenors from time to time, but not the 7v7 and 9v9 zones.

Exactly. At the club level, I am not a fan of parent run teams for this very same reason. They lead to messy divorces when the club wants to expose players to other people/styles to aid in their development. Personally, I love the model of a professional club coach matched with an active parent assistant (more than just a TM, actually engaged in practices\etc). This provides the head coach with a contingency plan for scheduling, which can get messy around tournaments and provides the team some consistency with a parent voice that knows them on the field. Parent head coaches start off well, but egos unfortunately get involved around player selection, playing time, etc. I'll take a paid club coach with a parent assistant any day over a full time Parent coach. If this parent coach was told of a coaching reassignment, the proof in the pudding would be if he would offer his services to help another young team (one without his kids). If the answer is know, you know what you have. Someone only looking out for his kids and their friends, not a team player looking to support the club.

[Guest]

makes sense

It makes sense…IF it is for the future 23/24 season and he is finishing out this year. But the origin of this news in this thread was the firing was effective immediately. And done at an ID clinic to boot? I’m not buying the whole “the teams just need a fresh voice.”

[Guest]

Has PF ever disrupted 9 year old kids by firing the coach mid year? This decision would make a lot of sense in 3 months. Get a grip and realize these are little kids. Some won’t even be playing in 3 years, some will have gone ECNL anyway, and some will stay and have success. It’ll be a mixed bag but these are kids.

If said coach was fired mid-year, then there is more than just soccer reasons. Something else happened and likely was a conduct complaint.

Coaching decisions for next season are well underway. My son just found out who will be assigned to their team next season last week. This is standard to know who will be coaching the team as we move into Spring and tryouts. Often these new coaches start attending practices to ensure a smoother hand-off they following year.

[Guest]

Exactly. At the club level, I am not a fan of parent run teams for this very same reason. They lead to messy divorces when the club wants to expose players to other people/styles to aid in their development. Personally, I love the model of a professional club coach matched with an active parent assistant (more than just a TM, actually engaged in practices\etc). This provides the head coach with a contingency plan for scheduling, which can get messy around tournaments and provides the team some consistency with a parent voice that knows them on the field. Parent head coaches start off well, but egos unfortunately get involved around player selection, playing time, etc. I'll take a paid club coach with a parent assistant any day over a full time Parent coach. If this parent coach was told of a coaching reassignment, the proof in the pudding would be if he would offer his services to help another young team (one without his kids). If the answer is know, you know what you have. Someone only looking out for his kids and their friends, not a team player looking to support the club.

As someone who has done it for decades, the choice not to take on teams other than the one your kids are on is more about time and resources. If I have different game times and/or locations then my kids there is a tremendous amount of coordination that needs to occur to get them to and fro. It has nothing to do with ego or looking out for a select few

[Guest]

EA was probably told he won't be coaching one of his kid's teams, or maybe all of them, and didn't like that so he decided to bail now so that he can go to a club that will let him coach his kids before tryouts happen

[Guest]

As someone who has done it for decades, the choice not to take on teams other than the one your kids are on is more about time and resources. If I have different game times and/or locations then my kids there is a tremendous amount of coordination that needs to occur to get them to and fro. It has nothing to do with ego or looking out for a select few

Was soccer your full-time job?

[Guest]

EA was probably told he won't be coaching one of his kid's teams, or maybe all of them, and didn't like that so he decided to bail now so that he can go to a club that will let him coach his kids before tryouts happen

BINGO! But buyer beware this will just happen again in another 2yrs when the club says its tome for a new coach to be placed with one of his kids teams.

[Guest]

Rush or FC Bucks makes a ton of sense, close to his training compound. Already trains many of those kids privately. FC Bucks has the ECNL badge, and well we will see how this LVU\Rush partnership plays out. My money is on one of those two.

[Guest]

First move was to hire a parent coach but then a week later get rid of a parent coach on their best team team any age under 11. POLITICS! Couple parents calling the shots.

Here is the original comment regarding the situation. Doesn’t sound like “soccer reasons” to me…

[Guest]

While I agree with new voices why would JN not just play nice and keep one of his most successful teams at the club. In fairness EA probably saw the fact that BS has had the 09/10 group for years and I doubt is giving it up. This club is a mess with the amount of turnover and it shows a lack of leadership. I know my kids coach there is also leaving and going to tell the club in a couple weeks

[Guest]

Rush or FC Bucks makes a ton of sense, close to his training compound. Already trains many of those kids privately. FC Bucks has the ECNL badge, and well we will see how this LVU\Rush partnership plays out. My money is on one of those two.

I am fine with a coach offering external training to club players (not the ones he directly coaches on a club team). But would not touch a coach that is heavily vested in private training and expanding franchises. Screams conflict of interest to me.

[Guest]

EA was probably told he won't be coaching one of his kid's teams, or maybe all of them, and didn't like that so he decided to bail now so that he can go to a club that will let him coach his kids before tryouts happen

I agree, this is most likely how it played out. It was not a mob hit at ID day. It was a coaching assignment discussion about next season that he did not like and walked. The proof will be if his kids stay at the club. Moving to a lower level program would not make sense. Yes, he could coach them, but why take them out of the GA track for Rock League or CLS play?

[Guest]

I agree, this is most likely how it played out. It was not a mob hit at ID day. It was a coaching assignment discussion about next season that he did not like and walked. The proof will be if his kids stay at the club. Moving to a lower level program would not make sense. Yes, he could coach them, but why take them out of the GA track for Rock League or CLS play?

Incorrect. This would make sense but it’s as ugly as it seems. The new coach was there and ran the ID day. Not an accident.