Tualatin Hills Fields

[Unregistered]

My kid works hard on academics in high school and is on the honor roll. The honor roll is open to everyone, but it requires a certain level of achievement. But your kid doesn't care to achieve, so why can't he be on the honor roll if he wants to? WS and THUSC were paying to use facilities at THPRD before your lid was born. Back when field use wasn't an issue. Most soccer clubs then found school grounds, etc. for free. Special dispensation is the case here, but I severely doubt you would understand.

Love this post. The incoherence of it is just staggering.

[Unregistered]

Nothing and I mean nothing would change the landscape of youth soccer here in PDX more than one of the Metro area clubs going out and buying property and putting up a couple of fields and an indoor facility. You need about 10 acres to build two full size fields and have room for an indoor building and parking. Grass fields cost about $250,000 each properly drained and irrigated and an indoor facility costs about another $500,000. If you can find 10 acres close in you are going to be looking at a minimum of another million for the land.

A few years ago THUSC was considering looking for their own home but after a club wide survey put that at the bottom of the priority list efforts to explore that option stopped.

I would say that the first club to go this route would end up dominating area soccer as both players and coaches would preferr the quality and stability of a club owned facility. You would need to raise about half of that and borrow the rest and hope that the growth of the club memebership could support the interest costs.

However the numbers for the size of the existing clubs just don't pencil when you are looking at annual field costs under $50,000. Which leaves you with park & rec districts (aka tax payers) footing the bill for the development of the infrastructure.

Reminds me of the old Steve Martin comedy bit..... You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes..... First, get a Million Dollars.

Investing that kind of $ in a something like youth soccer in 2012 in PDX seems very very unlikely, hence the dependence on public facilities and the resultant fairness debates that will always be there.

[Unregistered]

Thank you.

Love this post. The incoherence of it is just staggering.

Thank you, I felt that posting something not quite rational would fit right in with the one poster who really, really hates WS.

[Unregistered]

Try to understand. In return for leasing, not for an hour here and there, the grass fields and keeping the THPRD fields at very full use, when not being used by football and lacrosse, both WS and THUSC get low rates on the turf fields. At the same facility, the baseball and softball fields aren't populated by family picnics, but actual competitive teams. Your argument about mature clubs "and then move on" is very ignorant. Move on to where? Incur additional costs for fields so that new clubs can start? Additional costs to players and parents? Is that their job? No. The only thing pathetic here is clearly, you.

The implication here is that any club that could satisfy lease "at full" use criteria should have an equal opportunity to get THPRD fields? Is that right? I expect you will find a way to reason that it must always be the two clubs currently in possession of the leases for one reason or another.

Let's see... so far we have heard

1. Too many clubs, so just don't make new clubs and play for one that already exists, whether you child likes that club or not
2. The tax argument does not apply here
3. The policy is to lease to only two clubs at a time
4. The criteria for selecting clubs to lease to is that they can keep the fields in use all the time for revenue's sake.

What will the next reason be? This is just one phony assertion after another. Please produce the evidence that the full field usage criteria is being used by the board. As far as the two clubs policy goes, that should mean two clubs at a time, not the same two clubs everytime, shouldn't it?

Here's a an idea for a forum thread game: Guess the next reason offered to maintain WS and THUSC control: Here's mine: Any club that wants to use the fields must have certain letters of the alphabet in their acronym. These letters will only be known to the board and current leasing clubs.

[Unregistered]

It's called VOTES

The implication here is that any club that could satisfy lease "at full" use criteria should have an equal opportunity to get THPRD fields? Is that right? I expect you will find a way to reason that it must always be the two clubs currently in possession of the leases for one reason or another.

Let's see... so far we have heard

1. Too many clubs, so just don't make new clubs and play for one that already exists, whether you child likes that club or not
2. The tax argument does not apply here
3. The policy is to lease to only two clubs at a time
4. The criteria for selecting clubs to lease to is that they can keep the fields in use all the time for revenue's sake.

What will the next reason be? This is just one phony assertion after another. Please produce the evidence that the full field usage criteria is being used by the board. As far as the two clubs policy goes, that should mean two clubs at a time, not the same two clubs everytime, shouldn't it?

Here's a an idea for a forum thread game: Guess the next reason offered to maintain WS and THUSC control: Here's mine: Any club that wants to use the fields must have certain letters of the alphabet in their acronym. These letters will only be known to the board and current leasing clubs.

Here is the ONLY reason that matters.....THPRD votes. Either get them to change the policy or STFU!

[Unregistered]

Small $'s Actually

Reminds me of the old Steve Martin comedy bit..... You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes..... First, get a Million Dollars.

Investing that kind of $ in a something like youth soccer in 2012 in PDX seems very very unlikely, hence the dependence on public facilities and the resultant fairness debates that will always be there.

While the total seems big when you divide that by 500 players it's really not that big a number. If each player bought into the club for $2,000 you get the equity required. Since this would be an equity club you would be allowed to sell your membership back to the club to for the going price to new members less a transfer fee so in theory you would be able to recoup a majority of the initiation.

Over time I would expect this club's membership to grow to around 700 so the additional equity would pay down the debt and reduce the annual costs. This club would also have the ability to generate outside income from the use of the indoor facility by other groups and teams for training and tournaments which should be more than enough to offset the operating cost of the building.

[Unregistered]

Straight face?

While the total seems big when you divide that by 500 players it's really not that big a number. If each player bought into the club for $2,000 you get the equity required. Since this would be an equity club you would be allowed to sell your membership back to the club to for the going price to new members less a transfer fee so in theory you would be able to recoup a majority of the initiation.

Over time I would expect this club's membership to grow to around 700 so the additional equity would pay down the debt and reduce the annual costs. This club would also have the ability to generate outside income from the use of the indoor facility by other groups and teams for training and tournaments which should be more than enough to offset the operating cost of the building.

Do you really expect anyone to be dumb enough to accept your premise of cost and club player size? Please, at least try to be rational, not ridiculous. By the way, know any, ANY, 10 acre sites closer than Liberty to Portland for fields, parking, other facilities, etc. that could be used for a new field complex?

[Unregistered]

Access to the fields must be the reason that Aloha doesn't have any decent teams. If only they had access to a these fields, they could put out a decent team.

[Unregistered]

And ...

Access to the fields must be the reason that Aloha doesn't have any decent teams. If only they had access to a these fields, they could put out a decent team.

And it makes a certain DOC disgustingly fat and reverse role model for athletes.

[Unregistered]

The implication here is that any club that could satisfy lease "at full" use criteria should have an equal opportunity to get THPRD fields? Is that right? I expect you will find a way to reason that it must always be the two clubs currently in possession of the leases for one reason or another.

Let's see... so far we have heard

1. Too many clubs, so just don't make new clubs and play for one that already exists, whether you child likes that club or not
2. The tax argument does not apply here
3. The policy is to lease to only two clubs at a time
4. The criteria for selecting clubs to lease to is that they can keep the fields in use all the time for revenue's sake.

What will the next reason be? This is just one phony assertion after another. Please produce the evidence that the full field usage criteria is being used by the board. As far as the two clubs policy goes, that should mean two clubs at a time, not the same two clubs everytime, shouldn't it?

Here's a an idea for a forum thread game: Guess the next reason offered to maintain WS and THUSC control: Here's mine: Any club that wants to use the fields must have certain letters of the alphabet in their acronym. These letters will only be known to the board and current leasing clubs.

It is very ridiculous. Very similar to the OPC deciding which clubs are "premiere". Anyway soccer in Oregon. Just goes on and on. But focusing on TH, everyone really needs to put aside the egos and work together.

[Unregistered]

Here is the ONLY reason that matters.....THPRD votes. Either get them to change the policy or STFU!

That's really the message, isn't it. It always has been and it always will be: "STFU". ASll these other excuses are such a farce. Next time spare us the phony explanations and just start with "Shut the f up". It will save us all time.

[Unregistered]

The message should be "Build more fields." If there are these thousands of youth who don't have a place to play, then it appears that the field supply is too low. More people using the available fields doesn't solve anything. Building more fields is the answer. BSC is small little soccer club, but they have a nice situation for fields. Why can't Aloha find a school where they can rent the fields exclusively? Are there no schools around that will provide this to them? Seems like what they should have done in the first place when they were forming their club - secure a place to practice first.

[Unregistered]

Vanity or Concern

That's really the message, isn't it. It always has been and it always will be: "STFU". ASll these other excuses are such a farce. Next time spare us the phony explanations and just start with "Shut the f up". It will save us all time.

No the POINT is that we have been suffering through 5 pages of the same BMW posts and despite having been told by numerous different posters what you need to do about it all you can do is keep the thread alive by WHINING about fairness.

Well either get the votes or an attorney because you will not change a F'n thing bitching to this soccer blog.

Or are you just lonely and love reading your own writing

Either way get the votes are STFU because nobody cares to hear it for the 40th time!

[Unregistered]

No the POINT is that we have been suffering through 5 pages of the same BMW posts and despite having been told by numerous different posters what you need to do about it all you can do is keep the thread alive by WHINING about fairness.

Well either get the votes or an attorney because you will not change a F'n thing bitching to this soccer blog.

Or are you just lonely and love reading your own writing

Either way get the votes are STFU because nobody cares to hear it for the 40th time!

Just thinking over your comment here:
Get the votes
STFU
Nobody cares to hear it for the 40th time

Well, if it is about getting the votes, wouldn't somebody in this situation need to campaign? Isn't this free campaigning (even if it is negatively against a person as opposed to for a person)? Isn't campaigning about getting the word out to voters through as many outlets as possible?

It would seem the person is doing exactly what is needed to for voting purposes. So maybe you should STFU?

[Unregistered]

Rational #'s for Soccer facility

Do you really expect anyone to be dumb enough to accept your premise of cost and club player size? Please, at least try to be rational, not ridiculous. By the way, know any, ANY, 10 acre sites closer than Liberty to Portland for fields, parking, other facilities, etc. that could be used for a new field complex?

Grass Field costs: 80 yds X 110 yds = 79,200 sf X $3.0 = $237,000
Shared Field Lighting: $40,000
Indoor Playturf: 80 ft X 220 ft = 17,600 X $4.5 installed = $79,200
8" Subsurface gravel: 635 cu yds X $40 yd placed = 25,400
Steel Structure: 100 X 240 = 24,000 sf X $20 sf= $480,000
Interior Lighting: $20,000
Restrooms: $15,000
Parking: 50 vehicles X 220 sf = 11,000 sf X 10 sf = 110,000
Permits & Design: 10% = $100,000
Total: $1,343,600

That leaves the cost of land which would run between $1.0 - 1.5 million for ag land.

Member numbers: 8 age groups times 18 players per team times 2 teams per age group times 2 sexes = 576! If a club had its own facility this would be a realistic estimate.

The revised total would be between $2.4 - $3.0 million but using the equity concept the initiation fee would only jump requirement for membership to $2,400 - 3,000.

Still a reasonable number is you consider that you would get a significant portion back and your annual club fees would be lower than other clubs due to the income generation potential of the indoor facility!