Lopsided split? Not really.

[Unregistered]

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.

I completely agree. I have no problem being taxed 5-$10 if I know it is going back into the academy. At least it's going back into youth programs and not into the OPL black hole. I'm sure the Timbers are using other income to also pay for the academies. This is a great thing that more closely resembles what top soccer countries do. Top talent plays for free. To me, the top players should pay less. This also allows top talent that may not otherwise play, the same opportunities. It also gives younger kids more incentive to put the work in and try to become an elite player. Next year, they will likely add U14 Academy to the mix. This is another opportunity for top talent to keep playing the game that they maybe otherwise couldn't afford, increasing participation of top talent. Down the road (years), as soccer in this country grows and maybe more resembles top soccer countries, and income streams grow with it, maybe the 'tax' goes away. But for now, it doesn't really bother me. At least I know that my 10 bucks is going back into youth soccer, and in turn, is making soccer stronger in this country by keeping the best in the game.

[Slow Xavi]

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.
***
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? "
****

I will let others with firsthand knowledge speak to your other points - my only thought (on timing) is that the OPL did not realize quickly that they were in a fight for their life against an organization with substantial PR/Marketing apparatus, with a vision for the youth soccer market in Oregon, and the OPL thought they could rekindle the relationship . . . BUT THAT IS PURE SPECULATION.

On your point #4, in a thread a few weeks ago I quoted the OPL recruiting piece and regretted it afterwards . . . Speaking from firsthand direct experience, I have been privy to allegations of recruiting made by an OPL club against a TA club in a completely inappropriate forum (where the TA club had no real opportunity to meaningfully respond). I knew folks on both sides of it, so stayed out of it. I can't speak to the accuracy of recruiting claims, but certainly don't want to be the one making (or repeating) those claims and will let the other threads address that issue.

[Unregistered]

I will let others with firsthand knowledge speak to your other points - my only thought (on timing) is that the OPL did not realize quickly that they were in a fight for their life against an organization with substantial PR/Marketing apparatus, with a vision for the youth soccer market in Oregon, and the OPL thought they could rekindle the relationship . . . BUT THAT IS PURE SPECULATION.

On your point #4, in a thread a few weeks ago I quoted the OPL recruiting piece and regretted it afterwards . . . Speaking from firsthand direct experience, I have been privy to allegations of recruiting made by an OPL club against a TA club in a completely inappropriate forum (where the TA club had no real opportunity to meaningfully respond). I knew folks on both sides of it, so stayed out of it. I can't speak to the accuracy of recruiting claims, but certainly don't want to be the one making (or repeating) those claims and will let the other threads address that issue.

The funny thing about recruiting, is it happens on both sides of the divide. Anyone that says it doesn't is fooling themselves. However, to say that the Timbers themselves will help recruit is just as foolish to me. Honestly how many kids are going to have direct contact with the timbers organization? Outside of boys in the academy (and possibly girls if that program starts) no other players will have contact with Timbers. It will still be the same recruiting issues we face now.

[Unregistered]

I completely agree. I have no problem being taxed 5-$10 if I know it is going back into the academy. At least it's going back into youth programs and not into the OPL black hole. I'm sure the Timbers are using other income to also pay for the academies. This is a great thing that more closely resembles what top soccer countries do. Top talent plays for free. To me, the top players should pay less. This also allows top talent that may not otherwise play, the same opportunities. It also gives younger kids more incentive to put the work in and try to become an elite player. Next year, they will likely add U14 Academy to the mix. This is another opportunity for top talent to keep playing the game that they maybe otherwise couldn't afford, increasing participation of top talent. Down the road (years), as soccer in this country grows and maybe more resembles top soccer countries, and income streams grow with it, maybe the 'tax' goes away. But for now, it doesn't really bother me. At least I know that my 10 bucks is going back into youth soccer, and in turn, is making soccer stronger in this country by keeping the best in the game.

Why do you want to pay a tax to subsidize something that the Timbers are obligated by MLS rules to provide? That's not promoting youth soccer, that's promoting the Timbers bottom line. All you know is that the Timbers were able to charge everybody else for something that they were obligated to provide. For all you know that money was spent on airline tickets or warm ups for academy players. That was the point of the OPL's position. The money that OPL provided to the Timbers was supposed to benefit those who weren't part of the academy and the Timbers put the money toward the academy instead. Now the Timbers don't need the OPL because they can just impose a greater "tax" through OYSA. It's a business and what the Timbers are doing makes good business sense but that's really where it begins and ends. People should stop imputing feel good motives about promoting youth soccer, or providing more opportunities for kids etc. as support for what has happened. If Timbers were getting the money they wanted from OPL, there's no reason to believe that the alliance clubs would have shifted back to OYSA. With respect to recruiting, the Timbers don't really have an interest in individual player recruiting, they do have an interest in recruiting clubs to join OYSA and growing the numbers of OYSA registered players because that's good business. More players equals more registration fees and the marginal cost of registering additional clubs, teams, players is very low.

[Unregistered]

Why do you want to pay a tax to subsidize something that the Timbers are obligated by MLS rules to provide? That's not promoting youth soccer, that's promoting the Timbers bottom line. All you know is that the Timbers were able to charge everybody else for something that they were obligated to provide. For all you know that money was spent on airline tickets or warm ups for academy players. That was the point of the OPL's position. The money that OPL provided to the Timbers was supposed to benefit those who weren't part of the academy and the Timbers put the money toward the academy instead. Now the Timbers don't need the OPL because they can just impose a greater "tax" through OYSA. It's a business and what the Timbers are doing makes good business sense but that's really where it begins and ends. People should stop imputing feel good motives about promoting youth soccer, or providing more opportunities for kids etc. as support for what has happened. If Timbers were getting the money they wanted from OPL, there's no reason to believe that the alliance clubs would have shifted back to OYSA. With respect to recruiting, the Timbers don't really have an interest in individual player recruiting, they do have an interest in recruiting clubs to join OYSA and growing the numbers of OYSA registered players because that's good business. More players equals more registration fees and the marginal cost of registering additional clubs, teams, players is very low.

Fine, whatever. But you, nor anyone else has answered the question posed by another poster:

In the last 5 years what exactly has the OPL done to help improve youth soccer with the extra money?

I would rather put $5 or $10 towards the academy then into the OPL black hole, likely benefitting the chosen few.

[Unregistered]

Fine, whatever. But you, nor anyone else has answered the question posed by another poster:

In the last 5 years what exactly has the OPL done to help improve youth soccer with the extra money?

I would rather put $5 or $10 towards the academy then into the OPL black hole, likely benefitting the chosen few.

They clearly made a poor choice giving $60 grand to the Timbers to improve youth soccer through the clinics. That's a try and fail. Perhaps not paying OYSA kept your team fees from going up as much or got your coach a raise? Don't know and don't really care. Apparently you're happy with just giving the Timbers the money directly which will result in the same "improvement" as last year's $60,000. You clearly have a bone to pick with all or some OPC members without taking the time to appreciate that the primary leaders of OPL are the same folks you're now happy to support at OYSA.

[Unregistered]

They clearly made a poor choice giving $60 grand to the Timbers to improve youth soccer through the clinics. That's a try and fail. Perhaps not paying OYSA kept your team fees from going up as much or got your coach a raise? Don't know and don't really care. Apparently you're happy with just giving the Timbers the money directly which will result in the same "improvement" as last year's $60,000. You clearly have a bone to pick with all or some OPC members without taking the time to appreciate that the primary leaders of OPL are the same folks you're now happy to support at OYSA.

I can say for a fact none of the extra money went to pay coaches more money. That is really funny actually.

So the only thing in the last 5 years the OPL has to show for money spent to improve youth soccer was a "mistake" they made by paying 60K to the timbers for 1 year? What about the other 4 years? The fact is I haven't seen any coaching education done by the OPL, I haven't seen any extra Youth programs or anything. Its amazing that once they are about to fold they all of a sudden have the money to do one of these programs. Where was this the last 5 years?

[Unregistered]

They clearly made a poor choice giving $60 grand to the Timbers to improve youth soccer through the clinics. That's a try and fail. Perhaps not paying OYSA kept your team fees from going up as much or got your coach a raise? Don't know and don't really care. Apparently you're happy with just giving the Timbers the money directly which will result in the same "improvement" as last year's $60,000. You clearly have a bone to pick with all or some OPC members without taking the time to appreciate that the primary leaders of OPL are the same folks you're now happy to support at OYSA.

Since its formation there has not been one visionary action towards furthering higher opportunity for the high level soccer athlete under the OPL. If we are going to have so called "competitive soccer" that prepares athletes for the next level (as is stated on every club's vision as well as the OPL) then we should actually have a path and a higher level. I am all for supporting these types of programs so that the truly motivated or gifted or some combination therein can play irrespective of whether their parents can shell out tens of thousands of dollars each year. Under the OPL the cost to participate in available higher level programs (ie ODP) skyrocketed to the point it was no longer worth it. For my child we opted out of Oregon soccer/ODP and went out of state for ECNL, which by the way is a fraction of the cost we were paying with a more consistent higher level of play.

So, my willingness to pay the Timbers is rooted in an actual plan with opportunity for both genders and all socioeconomic groups. This is with my full understanding that there are two individuals who were involved with the OPL and are now involved with the Timbers. At the end of the day I will put my money on a professional soccer organization over a select group of club heads.

[Unregistered]

I can say for a fact none of the extra money went to pay coaches more money. That is really funny actually.

So the only thing in the last 5 years the OPL has to show for money spent to improve youth soccer was a "mistake" they made by paying 60K to the timbers for 1 year? What about the other 4 years? The fact is I haven't seen any coaching education done by the OPL, I haven't seen any extra Youth programs or anything. Its amazing that once they are about to fold they all of a sudden have the money to do one of these programs. Where was this the last 5 years?

The point is that you want to give your money to the same crew that conned the OPL out of $60K and that makes no sense. At least at the top level there was no material difference between when OYSA ran leagues and when OPL did. It doesn't really matter who runs leagues. However, all you want to do is complain because somehow you think OYSA was better, or it's sunshine, rainbows and unicorns under one big unified youth soccer tent. It's clear you don't like OPL even to the point where you want to give your money to a millionaire because at least it won't be OPL. That's fine. Just don't try to rationalize it as something that will actually benefit the average youth soccer player or that players experience. It won't. It's a business deal.

[Unregistered]

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.

If the OPL has a valid contract with the Timbers with stated deliverable then perhaps they should be in contract mediation rather than posting unsubstantiated complaints on their website. It would seem that they would have had a much better chance of actually accomplishing via this route than a basic a smear campaign. Perhaps they had the vision and where unable to execute. I could care less because at the end of the day it didn't work.

[Unregistered]

The point is that you want to give your money to the same crew that conned the OPL out of $60K and that makes no sense. At least at the top level there was no material difference between when OYSA ran leagues and when OPL did. It doesn't really matter who runs leagues. However, all you want to do is complain because somehow you think OYSA was better, or it's sunshine, rainbows and unicorns under one big unified youth soccer tent. It's clear you don't like OPL even to the point where you want to give your money to a millionaire because at least it won't be OPL. That's fine. Just don't try to rationalize it as something that will actually benefit the average youth soccer player or that players experience. It won't. It's a business deal.

It isn't about the "average" youth soccer player as much as it is about an actual higher level that simply does not exist today. I am not complaining as I finally believe there is a plan to provide a higher level of service. Personally I am happy with the change but wish that others could put aside their fears and try to give the vision a chance. It beats coming on this forum and complaining about how crappy Oregon soccer is compared to others!!!

[Unregistered]

The point is that you want to give your money to the same crew that conned the OPL out of $60K and that makes no sense. At least at the top level there was no material difference between when OYSA ran leagues and when OPL did. It doesn't really matter who runs leagues. However, all you want to do is complain because somehow you think OYSA was better, or it's sunshine, rainbows and unicorns under one big unified youth soccer tent. It's clear you don't like OPL even to the point where you want to give your money to a millionaire because at least it won't be OPL. That's fine. Just don't try to rationalize it as something that will actually benefit the average youth soccer player or that players experience. It won't. It's a business deal.

I am not convinced that the OPL was conned out of $60K. Don't get me wrong, I am certain that some sort of misunderstanding occurred and that the Timbers were in a better position than the OPL to understand and execute a legally binding agreement. To me that comes down to basic contract law and if in fact the OPL was duped then I hope that they will pursue legal remedy as that is not okay.

Here is where I divert from your line of thinking. Understanding that most of the players are the same, I would rather have a professional organization behind the competitive soccer tract than a group of talented coaches who don't really have the resources to pull it off. In order to provide a meaningful path for advancement there needs to be a connection to a higher level of play. I am willing to pay a little more for that. Like another poster said, all players are benefited by the existence of a path for advancement. It lends purpose to the entire competitive soccer experience. I like many who have voiced support for OYSA see more future in this methodology than simply promoting a pay for play geared only to the average soccer player.

[Unregistered]

I am not convinced that the OPL was conned out of $60K. Don't get me wrong, I am certain that some sort of misunderstanding occurred and that the Timbers were in a better position than the OPL to understand and execute a legally binding agreement. To me that comes down to basic contract law and if in fact the OPL was duped then I hope that they will pursue legal remedy as that is not okay.

Here is where I divert from your line of thinking. Understanding that most of the players are the same, I would rather have a professional organization behind the competitive soccer tract than a group of talented coaches who don't really have the resources to pull it off. In order to provide a meaningful path for advancement there needs to be a connection to a higher level of play. I am willing to pay a little more for that. Like another poster said, all players are benefited by the existence of a path for advancement. It lends purpose to the entire competitive soccer experience. I like many who have voiced support for OYSA see more future in this methodology than simply promoting a pay for play geared only to the average soccer player.

Why would OPL give Timbers $60,000 to defray the costs of something that the Timbers were already obligated to fund? They didn't and wouldn't.

The path for advancement is more about marketing than anything else. Players benefit from a good team and coaching environment, but it mostly comes down to individual talent and drive. Without extraordinary commitment by the player it's probably not going to happen.

What all these players would really benefit from is a whole lot more unstructured play. The worst part of all of this to me is that parents get so caught up in the structure that they lose sight of the fact that it's a game and needs to be fun to promote the skill and creativity necessary to be a top player. They still need coaching, but playing for fun (by that I mean playing all the time, not just when there is practice or at some private training session) is a more likely common denominator for top play than structure, plans and power point presentations.

Compare it to basketball. There's a time for lay up drills and going through plays and defensive sets, but the very best players are usually those that were always on the playground with a ball in hand--playing.

[Unregistered]

Why would OPL give Timbers $60,000 to defray the costs of something that the Timbers were already obligated to fund? They didn't and wouldn't.

The path for advancement is more about marketing than anything else. Players benefit from a good team and coaching environment, but it mostly comes down to individual talent and drive. Without extraordinary commitment by the player it's probably not going to happen.

What all these players would really benefit from is a whole lot more unstructured play. The worst part of all of this to me is that parents get so caught up in the structure that they lose sight of the fact that it's a game and needs to be fun to promote the skill and creativity necessary to be a top player. They still need coaching, but playing for fun (by that I mean playing all the time, not just when there is practice or at some private training session) is a more likely common denominator for top play than structure, plans and power point presentations.

Compare it to basketball. There's a time for lay up drills and going through plays and defensive sets, but the very best players are usually those that were always on the playground with a ball in hand--playing.

You are operating under the assumption that playing in a Timbers led structure is not fun. I don't see why it wouldn't be since the kids are on the same teams with the same coaches. Where I see the benefit is as the higher level. I am speaking from first hand experience when I say that at some point the higher level player does not have as much fun playing with primarily average players. It is a problem. The higher level player needs a path. They thrive on challenge and playing with and against the best that they can. To them this is fun. So, we don't disagree.

Currently there is NOTHING in place in the state of Oregon for the higher level player if they happen to be a girl. This is where I see benefit to having a Timbers structure with a path for those who are so inclined. My dream is a academy program that is affordable for those who qualify irrespective of their gender.

[Unregistered]

Why would OPL give Timbers $60,000 to defray the costs of something that the Timbers were already obligated to fund? They didn't and wouldn't.

The path for advancement is more about marketing than anything else. Players benefit from a good team and coaching environment, but it mostly comes down to individual talent and drive. Without extraordinary commitment by the player it's probably not going to happen.

What all these players would really benefit from is a whole lot more unstructured play. The worst part of all of this to me is that parents get so caught up in the structure that they lose sight of the fact that it's a game and needs to be fun to promote the skill and creativity necessary to be a top player. They still need coaching, but playing for fun (by that I mean playing all the time, not just when there is practice or at some private training session) is a more likely common denominator for top play than structure, plans and power point presentations.

Compare it to basketball. There's a time for lay up drills and going through plays and defensive sets, but the very best players are usually those that were always on the playground with a ball in hand--playing.

I have to step in a give my thoughts because this whole thing is skewed and upside down...
People are on here giving their thoughts and they derive from the garbage that is posted on this site........................

The Portland Timbers wanted to originally, through the OPL make some changes. The changes that are being executed through OYSA were the same ones offered to OPL. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand who pushed back within the OPL when this occurred. The Timbers are not making this sh!t up as they go and have no real interest in making money....they make tons of money from other avenues.....youth soccer is pennies on the balance sheet. Everything that you are seeing is coming down from the higher ranks....beyond MLS.....what you are seeing is a European model coming out of the ground.
Is it the right thing? I'm not sure...our country has followed the failed Health Care of European Countries so I'm not convince 100%...but it is what it is so get in line. I read that 50% of the MLS clubs are doing this as of right now and more are moving in that direction this coming year.....

Bottomline is that the OPL was offered the same thing that OYSA is happily taking...
and that's fine.....OPL contingents get to have what they want...this is why we live in such a great country...you have a choice...just don't come back on here later and b!tch that OYSA is stealing players or creating problems...

I've been around changes like this all of my life...what is happening is for the better of Oregon soccer and for soccer in the U.S.

DEAL WITH IT!