Timbers Stranglehold on OYSA

[Unregistered]

ECNL is way more than $10,000 if you attend all events.

Does that include parent travel?

[Unregistered]

Does that include parent travel?

If I come into a bunch of money, my dds will play ECNL. Think it's the best option right now but. can't afford it.

[Unregistered]

If I come into a bunch of money, my dds will play ECNL. Think it's the best option right now but. can't afford it.

You'll save money playing ECNL. Lower training fees per hour of training than Timbers clubs. And no money wasted playing for ribbons at tourneys in Bend, Medford, etc.

[Unregistered]

If I come into a bunch of money, my dds will play ECNL. Think it's the best option right now but. can't afford it.

It's less than $1,000 per month.

[Unregistered]

I think what the poster was saying is quit acting so small. Your comments are kind of sad for someone defending the "Elite" of ECNL. The TA clubs and other non-ECNL clubs aren't rec. Not at the Premier level. But they are not Elite. There are only 40 girls in any age group that play ECNL in Oregon. They came from all the other clubs, except for some at FCP. The competition for players is a mindset and desire. Who cares if Oregon ECNL teams suck compared to their ECNL peers? You are the best in the state. Act like it.

Winner!

[Unregistered]

Some of this is dumb

Firstly, the Timbers just won the MLS Cup. Why wouldn't they give their GM a raise and a shiny new deal? What does that have to do with Oregon youth soccer? (Yes, I know he also runs Eastside Timbers--but that's a separate gig).

Secondly--Duin's article, while making some good points, is dumb. Rudimentary investigation would show that the club fees for the OYSA leagues barely cover expenses--apparently Duin thinks that a bunch of kids, coaches, parents, and referees can simply show up at a city park and play for free.

And he seems to be upset that MLS is moving towards the development model used in soccer worldwide, rather than the model used by the other major pro sports in the US, in which pro clubs have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development. There are some advantages to how youth leagues are done in basketball/baseball/football (but the questionable practice of fielding competitive leagues involving prepubescent children, long a hallmark of soccer, seems to be afflicting other sports as well).

At any rate--where does the money go? It costs $800 per team to play in Spring League (actually $775 to be exact), for which each team gets 8 games. Per game, thats $200 ($100 from each team involved).

A three-person referee crew at competitive youth level costs about $75 per match. Renting a field for an hour can cost $50-$100 or more, depending on the quality of the pitch. Throw in administrative costs--if the Timbers are making money off of running the youth leagues, it's chump change. There's probably more money to be made in hiking the cost of beer at Providence Park by a nickel or two.

There are legitimate questions as to whether or not the Timbers' Alliance is good for youth soccer in general, the Alliance clubs, or the other clubs in town. Looking at the Premier Green standings for boys U11-U14, there's a Timbers Alliance club presently at the top of each bracket (one for Westside, one for Vancouver, two for Eastside), but the other clubs are right on their heels, and one of the La Amistad clubs might yet surpass Westside BU11 Copa Red. (Apologies for posting results for boys' leagues in this forum).

I did find it interesting that a Seattle club apparently saw fit to complain about the Timbers' Alliance when forming an arrangement with the Flounders--but it's unfortunate they didn't say just what about the TA they objected to.

[Unregistered]

Firstly, the Timbers just won the MLS Cup. Why wouldn't they give their GM a raise and a shiny new deal? What does that have to do with Oregon youth soccer? (Yes, I know he also runs Eastside Timbers--but that's a separate gig).

Secondly--Duin's article, while making some good points, is dumb. Rudimentary investigation would show that the club fees for the OYSA leagues barely cover expenses--apparently Duin thinks that a bunch of kids, coaches, parents, and referees can simply show up at a city park and play for free.

And he seems to be upset that MLS is moving towards the development model used in soccer worldwide, rather than the model used by the other major pro sports in the US, in which pro clubs have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development. There are some advantages to how youth leagues are done in basketball/baseball/football (but the questionable practice of fielding competitive leagues involving prepubescent children, long a hallmark of soccer, seems to be afflicting other sports as well).

At any rate--where does the money go? It costs $800 per team to play in Spring League (actually $775 to be exact), for which each team gets 8 games. Per game, thats $200 ($100 from each team involved).

A three-person referee crew at competitive youth level costs about $75 per match. Renting a field for an hour can cost $50-$100 or more, depending on the quality of the pitch. Throw in administrative costs--if the Timbers are making money off of running the youth leagues, it's chump change. There's probably more money to be made in hiking the cost of beer at Providence Park by a nickel or two.

There are legitimate questions as to whether or not the Timbers' Alliance is good for youth soccer in general, the Alliance clubs, or the other clubs in town. Looking at the Premier Green standings for boys U11-U14, there's a Timbers Alliance club presently at the top of each bracket (one for Westside, one for Vancouver, two for Eastside), but the other clubs are right on their heels, and one of the La Amistad clubs might yet surpass Westside BU11 Copa Red. (Apologies for posting results for boys' leagues in this forum).

I did find it interesting that a Seattle club apparently saw fit to complain about the Timbers' Alliance when forming an arrangement with the Flounders--but it's unfortunate they didn't say just what about the TA they objected to.

Except the Timbers don't pay for field rentals. The home clubs provide the fields. All the Timbers do is pay the refs and put a schedule up on a website. They are clearing $100 per game, every game.

[Unregistered]

Firstly, the Timbers just won the MLS Cup. Why wouldn't they give their GM a raise and a shiny new deal? What does that have to do with Oregon youth soccer? (Yes, I know he also runs Eastside Timbers--but that's a separate gig).

Secondly--Duin's article, while making some good points, is dumb. Rudimentary investigation would show that the club fees for the OYSA leagues barely cover expenses--apparently Duin thinks that a bunch of kids, coaches, parents, and referees can simply show up at a city park and play for free.

And he seems to be upset that MLS is moving towards the development model used in soccer worldwide, rather than the model used by the other major pro sports in the US, in which pro clubs have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development. There are some advantages to how youth leagues are done in basketball/baseball/football (but the questionable practice of fielding competitive leagues involving prepubescent children, long a hallmark of soccer, seems to be afflicting other sports as well).

RCL is $1275 for fall
$975 for spring.

Three clubs have been consumed by the Sounders.


At any rate--where does the money go? It costs $800 per team to play in Spring League (actually $775 to be exact), for which each team gets 8 games. Per game, thats $200 ($100 from each team involved).

A three-person referee crew at competitive youth level costs about $75 per match. Renting a field for an hour can cost $50-$100 or more, depending on the quality of the pitch. Throw in administrative costs--if the Timbers are making money off of running the youth leagues, it's chump change. There's probably more money to be made in hiking the cost of beer at Providence Park by a nickel or two.

There are legitimate questions as to whether or not the Timbers' Alliance is good for youth soccer in general, the Alliance clubs, or the other clubs in town. Looking at the Premier Green standings for boys U11-U14, there's a Timbers Alliance club presently at the top of each bracket (one for Westside, one for Vancouver, two for Eastside), but the other clubs are right on their heels, and one of the La Amistad clubs might yet surpass Westside BU11 Copa Red. (Apologies for posting results for boys' leagues in this forum).

I did find it interesting that a Seattle club apparently saw fit to complain about the Timbers' Alliance when forming an arrangement with the Flounders--but it's unfortunate they didn't say just what about the TA they objected to.

RCL fall is $1275
Spring is $975

[Unregistered]

RCL fall is $1275
Spring is $975

Thanks for the info and comparison.

OPL was about the same as OYSA and where did all that money go? Same issues, just OPL tried to work together at first, but the honeymoon ended. Now we have just another split. You have your choice. Do what is best for your kid, but get together with other parents and demand better from your coaches and club or do what we are doing - hs soccer, other sports, no more club and some sanity!

[Slow Xavi]

Firstly, the Timbers just won the MLS Cup. Why wouldn't they give their GM a raise and a shiny new deal? What does that have to do with Oregon youth soccer? (Yes, I know he also runs Eastside Timbers--but that's a separate gig).

Secondly--Duin's article, while making some good points, is dumb. Rudimentary investigation would show that the club fees for the OYSA leagues barely cover expenses--apparently Duin thinks that a bunch of kids, coaches, parents, and referees can simply show up at a city park and play for free.

And he seems to be upset that MLS is moving towards the development model used in soccer worldwide, rather than the model used by the other major pro sports in the US, in which pro clubs have nothing whatsoever to do with youth development. There are some advantages to how youth leagues are done in basketball/baseball/football (but the questionable practice of fielding competitive leagues involving prepubescent children, long a hallmark of soccer, seems to be afflicting other sports as well).

At any rate--where does the money go? It costs $800 per team to play in Spring League (actually $775 to be exact), for which each team gets 8 games. Per game, thats $200 ($100 from each team involved).

A three-person referee crew at competitive youth level costs about $75 per match. Renting a field for an hour can cost $50-$100 or more, depending on the quality of the pitch. Throw in administrative costs--if the Timbers are making money off of running the youth leagues, it's chump change. There's probably more money to be made in hiking the cost of beer at Providence Park by a nickel or two.

There are legitimate questions as to whether or not the Timbers' Alliance is good for youth soccer in general, the Alliance clubs, or the other clubs in town. Looking at the Premier Green standings for boys U11-U14, there's a Timbers Alliance club presently at the top of each bracket (one for Westside, one for Vancouver, two for Eastside), but the other clubs are right on their heels, and one of the La Amistad clubs might yet surpass Westside BU11 Copa Red. (Apologies for posting results for boys' leagues in this forum).

I did find it interesting that a Seattle club apparently saw fit to complain about the Timbers' Alliance when forming an arrangement with the Flounders--but it's unfortunate they didn't say just what about the TA they objected to.

GW has earned a raise - with the Timbers and Thorns 1st team success over the last couple of years, he's earned it. Many people complained when Merritt named him GM in 2011, there are still folks in the Army who will never like him (there are some old newspaper quotes I was not a fan of), and he may have needed to grow into the job; but after 5 years a NWSL and MLS championship, MP's trust seems to be well placed.

Press release on his promotion specifically mention the innovative partnership with OYSA - plenty of people don't see it as a good thing, but apparently the Timbers do.

Aspects of Duin article complaining about academy don't resonate with me personally; if Timbers are offering a largely free academy they should have broad latitude to do what they want. Wish they weren't charging for tryouts, but again leave to families to make the academy v. HS choice.

The league stuff . . . my limited interactions with Smith have been positive, but I don't understand how the Timbers are not making a good chunk of change off of the league. Our fees are higher in OYSA than they were in OPL. People complained OPL was running at a surplus at a lower cost - how is this not a profit center for the Timbers? Add in president's cup and state cup. Also, not really sure this has anything to do with European style academies; think the Timbers see it as a good way to make money, build their brand, and recruit kids for the academy (but see conflicts below).

Don't have an issue with a for profit making money; just how this went down - to OPL back to OYSA to pay the Timbers tax . . . maybe OYSA can provide some oversight with respect to what those league and state cup fees should be.

Throw in the non-stop marketing of Timbers at OYSA - on their website, using our email addresses for promotion, setting tryout dates for OYSA so as to support the Timbers Academy, non-stop recruiting at OYSA for Timbers Academy (separately how the Timbers market their pyramid with the Alliance at its base, at the same time they are administering leagues and cups for most competitive teams in the state) . . . hope OYSA really thinks about both the real and apparent conflicts. Not sure the Timbers care - they seem to be able to do anything they want in this town at the moment.

Alliance - was interesting that folks at PacWest specifically called out the Timbers Alliance and said we know about it and don't want to be that. However, they didn't explain . . . will leave it to boards of the respective timbers' alliance clubs to figure out what is right for their clubs.

Glad my club is independent, but it is possible I just have problems with authority. :D

[Unregistered]

GW has earned a raise - with the Timbers and Thorns 1st team success over the last couple of years, he's earned it. Many people complained when Merritt named him GM in 2011, there are still folks in the Army who will never like him (there are some old newspaper quotes I was not a fan of), and he may have needed to grow into the job; but after 5 years a NWSL and MLS championship, MP's trust seems to be well placed.

Press release on his promotion specifically mention the innovative partnership with OYSA - plenty of people don't see it as a good thing, but apparently the Timbers do.

Aspects of Duin article complaining about academy don't resonate with me personally; if Timbers are offering a largely free academy they should have broad latitude to do what they want. Wish they weren't charging for tryouts, but again leave to families to make the academy v. HS choice.

The league stuff . . . my limited interactions with Smith have been positive, but I don't understand how the Timbers are not making a good chunk of change off of the league. Our fees are higher in OYSA than they were in OPL. People complained OPL was running at a surplus - how is this not a profit center for the Timbers? Add in president's cup and state cup. Also, not really sure this has anything to do with European style academies; think the Timbers see it as a good way to make money, build their brand, and recruit kids for the academy (but see conflicts below).

Don't have an issue with a for profit making money; just how this went down - to OPL back to OYSA to pay the Timbers tax . . . maybe OYSA can provide some oversight with respect to what those league and state cup fees should be.

Throw in the non-stop marketing of Timbers at OYSA - on their website, using our email addresses for promotion, setting tryout dates for OYSA so as to support the Timbers Academy, non-stop recruiting at OYSA for Timbers Academy (separately how the Timbers market their pyramid with the Alliance at its base, at the same time they are administering leagues and cups for most competitive teams in the state) . . . hope OYSA really thinks about both the real and apparent conflicts. Not sure the Timbers care - they seem to be able to do anything they want in this town at the moment.

Alliance - was interesting that folks at PacWest specifically called out the Timbers Alliance and said we know about it and don't want to be that. However, they didn't explain . . . will leave it to boards of the respective timbers' alliance clubs to figure out what is right for their clubs.

Glad my club is independent, but it is possible I just have problems with authority. :D

I agree with you. I will say that the Timbers support more programs than OPL ever did. As an example, ODP, TopSoccer and so forth. OPL paid for the league and kept the rest for themselves. We are affiliated with a once OPL team however I felt it was somewhat inadequate when they split.

[Unregistered]

I agree with you. I will say that the Timbers support more programs than OPL ever did. As an example, ODP, TopSoccer and so forth. OPL paid for the league and kept the rest for themselves. We are affiliated with a once OPL team however I felt it was somewhat inadequate when they split.

Timbers don't support TOP Soccer, that OYSA by itself. ODP is a shell of it's former self. OPL had it's PDP/iD2 program that was free for players. Timbers are making a killing running the leagues in Oregon. Don't kid yourself.

[Unregistered]

Timbers don't support TOP Soccer, that OYSA by itself. ODP is a shell of it's former self. OPL had it's PDP/iD2 program that was free for players. Timbers are making a killing running the leagues in Oregon. Don't kid yourself.

I think the Timbers have donated money to TOPSoccer through their community fund a few times. ODP is a shell of its former self in all states. DA and ECNL have made it obsolete.

[Unregistered]

Timbers don't support TOP Soccer, that OYSA by itself. ODP is a shell of it's former self. OPL had it's PDP/iD2 program that was free for players. Timbers are making a killing running the leagues in Oregon. Don't kid yourself.

I am speaking to when OPL split off. Not now and at the time ODP was what Oregon had. We are very familiar with it and the rate hike that ensued after OPL stop paying any share. My child at the time played at the region level and made the national pool. Once OPL pulled out it was outrageously expensive. Of course, compared to the what we are paying now for ECNL with much worse level of play on our team ODP was much better.

[Unregistered]

RCL fall is $1275
Spring is $975

Very similar costs/game. Generally, the going rate for competitive leagues/tourneys seem to be about $100 per game per club, or thereabouts. If there's money to be made off of hosting soccer tournaments--it's not a lot.