Lopsided split? Not really.

[Unregistered]

I can't speak for what is scary to you…Perhaps you still worry about boogymen in your closet, but I can assure you the Timbers organization

1) is a professional organization not the puppet of one individual,

2) is a service provider to OYSA.

If you are scared of one person having control over an organization I would think you would run from any OPL club…

Again it isn't my issue what you chose to fear.

There is so much wrong with this.

1) Timbers are not run professionally. See how they treat interns and go meet GW.

2) Timbers are a service provider only because that is how they are justifying their profit from the OYSA.

No one person ran the OPL. There was a committee of 8 clubs who had equal say and votes. Clubs outside the 8 were welcome to participate. Only 1 club did (EMFC).

The OYSA is now a puppet of GW and the Timbers.

[Unregistered]

There is so much wrong with this.

1) Timbers are not run professionally. See how they treat interns and go meet GW.

2) Timbers are a service provider only because that is how they are justifying their profit from the OYSA.

No one person ran the OPL. There was a committee of 8 clubs who had equal say and votes. Clubs outside the 8 were welcome to participate. Only 1 club did (EMFC).

The OYSA is now a puppet of GW and the Timbers.

OPL CLUBS are typically run by their DOC, if there is a board it is the DOC's puppet, check THUSC as an example if you need clarification.

The OPL board meetings were a joke, it was 8 folks in a room barely large enough to get their swollen heads through the door.

If other clubs were welcome to participate why did only one? More likely OPL is now trying to whitewash their governance model, because how can they complain about OYSA being exclusionary if they were exactly the same thing? (This whitewashing has long been an OPL strategy)

So help explain one thing, on one hand OPL supporters keep talking about how democratic and open they were, yet then when trying to show an example of GW's evil intentions they use how he ran OPL with an iron fist...

So which one is it?

[Unregistered]

There is so much wrong with this.

1) Timbers are not run professionally. See how they treat interns and go meet GW.

You are taking one news story and using that as a basis for the organization not being professionally run. In my opinion, the Timbers operated their intern program no differently than most corporate entities do. At the end of the day they are all interested in their bottom line. The one intern in the newspaper was not the Timbers first or only intern, and we can only assume that this case does not represent the opinion of all Timbers interns.

GW is not evil and if you have actually met him then you would recognize his extreme passion for the advancement of the game. Like many DOCs and coaches he may appear egotistical and he sometimes makes decisions that are not appreciated by all. It is an impossibility to please all people all the time.

Personally, since this is all about a sport, I would prefer my child to have affiliation with a professional sports team that has the resources to run programs that provide potential to advance the athlete in their sport. I have not seen anything remotely close with OPL.

2) Timbers are a service provider only because that is how they are justifying their profit from the OYSA.

Every contractor or consultant is a service provider and must justify their profit.

The Timbers have been contracted to run competitive soccer for the state. OYSA contracted them under the assumption that a professional sports organization (that has success on both their men's and women's side) has more insight into development and advancement of the sport. It is very true that Timbers will have to justify their value to OYSA in order to keep the contract. In this example, the Timbers are not running OYSA, they are reporting to OYSA.

No one person ran the OPL. There was a committee of 8 clubs who had equal say and votes. Clubs outside the 8 were welcome to participate. Only 1 club did (EMFC).

The committee of 8 clubs was not set up as a transparent board with member oversight. How can you oversee yourself? Where is the transparency? How do other clubs gain input? I don't even know how to address this with facts because the notion is beyond absurd!!!!

The OYSA is now a puppet of GW and the Timbers.

Flawed logic:
-GW is part of the Timbers organization
-OYSA has contracted the Timbers for a service and
- Therefore OYSA is now a puppet of GW

Actual logic:
- GW works for the Timbers
- Timbers are contracting to OYSA
- Therefore the Timbers and GW report to OYSA.

On a side note, I have known GW for many years and have not always been happy with the way he ran his club. My issues with GW centered around my perception that he was willing to sacrifice the girl's side of the ESUFC program in order to fund the boys side.

Under the Timbers/OYSA contract this hurdle is now gone. The Timbers have demonstrated as much of a commitment to the feminine side of soccer as any organization anywhere. Winning a national title was nice too!

This is a huge step in the right direction for our female youth and it isn't to the detriment of our male youth.

The OPL has nothing even close to offer the young female soccer player in the state (even though the OPL is concentrated primarily on the girl's side). The OPL has absolutely NOTHING to offer the young male soccer player.

I do not believe it is because they don't want to, rather they do not have the resources to accomplish much. The Timbers do.

I truly believe that we should all give this a chance because it has so much more potential than anything that has presented itself in Oregon to date.

I am excited about this new direction and am hopeful that the remaining OPL clubs will get on board and be a part of the driver to provide a defined path for advancement for both girl's and boy's soccer in Oregon!!!

[Unregistered]

You are taking one news story and using that as a basis for the organization not being professionally run. In my opinion, the Timbers operated their intern program no differently than most corporate entities do. At the end of the day they are all interested in their bottom line. The one intern in the newspaper was not the Timbers first or only intern, and we can only assume that this case does not represent the opinion of all Timbers interns.

GW is not evil and if you have actually met him then you would recognize his extreme passion for the advancement of the game. Like many DOCs and coaches he may appear egotistical and he sometimes makes decisions that are not appreciated by all. It is an impossibility to please all people all the time.

Personally, since this is all about a sport, I would prefer my child to have affiliation with a professional sports team that has the resources to run programs that provide potential to advance the athlete in their sport. I have not seen anything remotely close with OPL.


Every contractor or consultant is a service provider and must justify their profit.

The Timbers have been contracted to run competitive soccer for the state. OYSA contracted them under the assumption that a professional sports organization (that has success on both their men's and women's side) has more insight into development and advancement of the sport. It is very true that Timbers will have to justify their value to OYSA in order to keep the contract. In this example, the Timbers are not running OYSA, they are reporting to OYSA.



The committee of 8 clubs was not set up as a transparent board with member oversight. How can you oversee yourself? Where is the transparency? How do other clubs gain input? I don't even know how to address this with facts because the notion is beyond absurd!!!!



Flawed logic:
-GW is part of the Timbers organization
-OYSA has contracted the Timbers for a service and
- Therefore OYSA is now a puppet of GW

Actual logic:
- GW works for the Timbers
- Timbers are contracting to OYSA
- Therefore the Timbers and GW report to OYSA.

On a side note, I have known GW for many years and have not always been happy with the way he ran his club. My issues with GW centered around my perception that he was willing to sacrifice the girl's side of the ESUFC program in order to fund the boys side.

Under the Timbers/OYSA contract this hurdle is now gone. The Timbers have demonstrated as much of a commitment to the feminine side of soccer as any organization anywhere. Winning a national title was nice too!

This is a huge step in the right direction for our female youth and it isn't to the detriment of our male youth.

The OPL has nothing even close to offer the young female soccer player in the state (even though the OPL is concentrated primarily on the girl's side). The OPL has absolutely NOTHING to offer the young male soccer player.

I do not believe it is because they don't want to, rather they do not have the resources to accomplish much. The Timbers do.

I truly believe that we should all give this a chance because it has so much more potential than anything that has presented itself in Oregon to date.

I am excited about this new direction and am hopeful that the remaining OPL clubs will get on board and be a part of the driver to provide a defined path for advancement for both girl's and boy's soccer in Oregon!!!

Well said!

[Unregistered]

You people have no idea. GW made an ass of himself demanding money from the OPL for services the Timbers never provided. He came back wanting MORE money from the OPL who refused. GW then went forced the new split in competitive soccer so he can now milk the OYSA and youth soccer.

This all circles back to money. You jokers can make up all the excuses you want. The reality is that this comes down to money and control.

[Unregistered]

You people have no idea. GW made an ass of himself demanding money from the OPL for services the Timbers never provided. He came back wanting MORE money from the OPL who refused. GW then went forced the new split in competitive soccer so he can now milk the OYSA and youth soccer.

This all circles back to money. You jokers can make up all the excuses you want. The reality is that this comes down to money and control.

Money and Control huh? And where do you think OPL came from? It was formed out of a desire for money and control. Much of what we have access to in terms of goods and services in the United States was developed out of a desire for money and sometimes control. Capitalism is alive and well and after all we are the forefathers.

If the OPL was paying money for a service from the Timbers and they have the business acumen to run an organization then the professional thing to do would be to make it contractual. If it was contractual then there would be no demanding this or that. It is what it is, and you can fight it out in court. If it wasn't contractual, then it is likely rumor. The Timbers and their senior management did not get where they are by extorting small potatoes money from youth organizations. Sadly, you are falling for it.

Excuses are accusations or presumptions derived from fiction. There is nothing fictional about what has been said about Timbers or GW. These are simply facts. Fear is one of the oldest tactics on earth for obtaining buy in. There is nothing to lose by going OYSA. Give it a try and you might realize that it isn't so bad.

[Unregistered]

You people have no idea. GW made an ass of himself demanding money from the OPL for services the Timbers never provided. He came back wanting MORE money from the OPL who refused. GW then went forced the new split in competitive soccer so he can now milk the OYSA and youth soccer.

This all circles back to money. You jokers can make up all the excuses you want. The reality is that this comes down to money and control.

Do you have actual documentation of GW demanding money from the OPL for services the Timbers never provided?

Did you hear this from Talking-Soccer or from a credible source?

Do you have actual documentation of him coming back and demanding MORE money from OPL (even meeting minutes)?

Do you know how the mechanics of GW milking the OYSA and youth soccer will work?
Were you ever concerned that OPL did not provide the same level of service (excluded ODP, TopSoccer etc) but did not lower the fees?

How much are you guesstimating the milking would cost you personally if your child were to play in the OYSA league?

I am seriously interested in what you are hearing, what your sources are and so forth as I am not hearing it anywhere but here on this board.

I am interested in facts and would definitely be interested in these facts.

[Slow Xavi]

Republishing the OPL's take on this subject below from here.

I've never seen an official Timbers response to this, but if someone has please post. It would be interesting for DOCs or league presidents who were in the meetings during the summer to offer their take on this board as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of what the OPL is saying below. . If there are folks that were in the room(s) and feel comfortable posting who they are and their perspective, might assist in the dialogue.


The second issue is based on a fundamental difference in principle with respect to the costs of youth soccer. Every dollar paid by clubs and players to the OPL is used on behalf of those clubs and players. And the OPL has requested that the Timbers make the same commitment. Again the Timbers have refused. Their real interest in running youth soccer in Oregon and southwest Washington is continuing to tax every player to help pay for their costs of running and operating their academy teams. This means the majority of youth soccer families (like you) will be unknowingly subsidizing the costs of the 50 elite youth boys soccer players selected to the Timbers U18 and U16 academy teams. While some elite player subsidy is inevitable, we are fundamentally opposed to taxing our membership to pay for the Timbers academy coaching salaries and academy team travel costs.

This fundamental difference in principle is a major cause of the current divide between the organizations. Last year, the OPL indeed agreed to pay $60,000 (annually) of your registration fees to the Timbers, who would use these dollars to help pay for their academy coaching salaries. The Timbers promised in return to provide a comprehensive youth competitive and recreational coaching training curriculum, made available to all OPL member clubs. At the time this exchange seemed reasonable. However the training never materialized, and the $60,000 evolved into a pure subsidy of the Timbers two academy teams. In July of 2013, the OPL notified the Timbers of the interest to re-negotiate a partnership, and the intent to respectfully opt out of the $60,000 annual subsidy.

[Unregistered]

Republishing the OPL's take on this subject below from here.

I've never seen an official Timbers response to this, but if someone has please post. It would be interesting for DOCs or league presidents who were in the meetings during the summer to offer their take on this board as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of what the OPL is saying below. . If there are folks that were in the room(s) and feel comfortable posting who they are and their perspective, might assist in the dialogue.


The second issue is based on a fundamental difference in principle with respect to the costs of youth soccer. Every dollar paid by clubs and players to the OPL is used on behalf of those clubs and players. And the OPL has requested that the Timbers make the same commitment. Again the Timbers have refused. Their real interest in running youth soccer in Oregon and southwest Washington is continuing to tax every player to help pay for their costs of running and operating their academy teams. This means the majority of youth soccer families (like you) will be unknowingly subsidizing the costs of the 50 elite youth boys soccer players selected to the Timbers U18 and U16 academy teams. While some elite player subsidy is inevitable, we are fundamentally opposed to taxing our membership to pay for the Timbers academy coaching salaries and academy team travel costs.

This fundamental difference in principle is a major cause of the current divide between the organizations. Last year, the OPL indeed agreed to pay $60,000 (annually) of your registration fees to the Timbers, who would use these dollars to help pay for their academy coaching salaries. The Timbers promised in return to provide a comprehensive youth competitive and recreational coaching training curriculum, made available to all OPL member clubs. At the time this exchange seemed reasonable. However the training never materialized, and the $60,000 evolved into a pure subsidy of the Timbers two academy teams. In July of 2013, the OPL notified the Timbers of the interest to re-negotiate a partnership, and the intent to respectfully opt out of the $60,000 annual subsidy.

I have no inside info... but if they truly are using the money they are "taxing" to support their academy program isn't that also putting the money back into youth soccer? Its just putting it back into a part of youth soccer that the OPL board didn't want to support.

Personally I want to see how OPL has put money back into youth soccer. In all honesty I haven't seen one thing they have done to put money back into youth soccer. Some please point me to some things they have done in the last 5 years? Outside of using the money for leagues (which is what about half the money per team is used for) where does the rest of the money go? I haven't seen any coaching education from the OPL, I haven't seen anything from them to support youth soccer with the left over money.

[Unregistered]

Thanks Slow_Xavi for posting this. I do find this interesting and it appears very damaging on the surface! Even so, I have a few comments.

1. Why would any professional organization shell out $60k for a product without a contract with stated deliverables? It seems somewhat irresponsible.

2. If the organization is that lean where did they get $60k?

3. If they can afford to give a fee reduction this year while having fewer revenues then why were the fees that high to begin with?

4. On the link provided there is another complaint about recruiting which rubbed me entirely wrong as two of the remaining OPL clubs aggressively recruited my daughter and one of them did something somewhat crummy. I can't help but think " are you freaking kidding me? "

5. If they were being screwed so badly by the Timbers should not the club members be informed long before now? What else have they not informed us about?

It would be interesting to hear more of the story but due to the private nature of OPL business this may never be possible.

In my opinion OPL should have taken decisive action long before now as they pretty much cratered. I want for my kids and all soccer kids more rather than less opportunity and am willing to pay an extra 5-10 bucks per year.

[Unregistered]

Thanks Slow_Xavi for posting this. I do find this interesting and it appears very damaging on the surface! Even so, I have a few comments.

1. Why would any professional organization shell out $60k for a product without a contract with stated deliverables? It seems somewhat irresponsible.

2. If the organization is that lean where did they get $60k?

3. If they can afford to give a fee reduction this year while having fewer revenues then why were the fees that high to begin with?

4. On the link provided there is another complaint about recruiting which rubbed me entirely wrong as two of the remaining OPL clubs aggressively recruited my daughter and one of them did something somewhat crummy. I can't help but think " are you freaking kidding me? "

5. If they were being screwed so badly by the Timbers should not the club members be informed long before now? What else have they not informed us about?

It would be interesting to hear more of the story but due to the private nature of OPL business this may never be possible.

In my opinion OPL should have taken decisive action long before now as they pretty much cratered. I want for my kids and all soccer kids more rather than less opportunity and am willing to pay an extra 5-10 bucks per year.

Probably the biggest point you make is the timing. i have talked to coaching friends on both sides of this split and asked if they new anything about the claims in this letter before it was sent out, and all of them said this is the first they are hearing of it. It doesn't mean the letter isn't true by any means, but if it was such a big deal why was it so hush hush until now. The fact they are doing it now makes it look like nothing more than a publicity stunt to try and bash the OYSA/Timbers because they are worried.

[Unregistered]

Probably the biggest point you make is the timing. i have talked to coaching friends on both sides of this split and asked if they new anything about the claims in this letter before it was sent out, and all of them said this is the first they are hearing of it. It doesn't mean the letter isn't true by any means, but if it was such a big deal why was it so hush hush until now. The fact they are doing it now makes it look like nothing more than a publicity stunt to try and bash the OYSA/Timbers because they are worried.

I disagree. Why couldn't it be that they were trying to keep a good relationship in hopes of coming to an agreement? This isn't Job's talking about Microsoft here, there was a chance that they could (and still maybe will) work together in the future.

[Unregistered]

Thanks Slow_Xavi for posting this. I do find this interesting and it appears very damaging on the surface! Even so, I have a few comments.

1. Why would any professional organization shell out $60k for a product without a contract with stated deliverables? It seems somewhat irresponsible.

2. If the organization is that lean where did they get $60k?

3. If they can afford to give a fee reduction this year while having fewer revenues then why were the fees that high to begin with?

4. On the link provided there is another complaint about recruiting which rubbed me entirely wrong as two of the remaining OPL clubs aggressively recruited my daughter and one of them did something somewhat crummy. I can't help but think " are you freaking kidding me? "

5. If they were being screwed so badly by the Timbers should not the club members be informed long before now? What else have they not informed us about?

It would be interesting to hear more of the story but due to the private nature of OPL business this may never be possible.

In my opinion OPL should have taken decisive action long before now as they pretty much cratered. I want for my kids and all soccer kids more rather than less opportunity and am willing to pay an extra 5-10 bucks per year.

There was a contract with stated deliverables. The Timbers failed to meet their deliverables. Unbelievably they actually came back and asked for MORE.

You are right in that the OPL should have taken action sooner and that their inaction contributed to this split. You must also recognize how WST and EST led the original move to the OPL then led the switch back so they were and are complicit in what the Timbers and GW were doing.

[Unregistered]

Probably the biggest point you make is the timing. i have talked to coaching friends on both sides of this split and asked if they new anything about the claims in this letter before it was sent out, and all of them said this is the first they are hearing of it. It doesn't mean the letter isn't true by any means, but if it was such a big deal why was it so hush hush until now. The fact they are doing it now makes it look like nothing more than a publicity stunt to try and bash the OYSA/Timbers because they are worried.

Because the OPL was essentially paying off the Timbers to leave them alone. The contract never made any sense and never really benefited the OPL. Should the OPL have done this? No. But they did.

When the OPL put their foot down and refused, the Timbers went to a bankrupt OYSA and bailed them out, knowing they could manipulate local soccer through the TA clubs. The Timbers force teams back to OYSA which they are now essentially controlling and getting the money they wanted from the OPL.

[Unregistered]

I would still like an answer from someone who supports the OPL. In the last 5 years what exactly has the OPL done to help improve youth soccer with the extra money?