2016 State Cup Table

[Unregistered]

PCU uses Buckman and PCU and Westside have a friendly relationship, sending teams to one another's tournaments for years. I believe that they event co-host a 4-v-4 fundraiser tourney.

Clubs all reach out to find fields when there are issues with fields within their own area. However, the discussion began about State Cup, the size of goals, the size of fields. This is a completely different topic-onus probandi.

PCU does not like Westside. And westside looks down on PCU. It's a dislike/arrogant relationship.

[Unregistered]

PCU does not like Westside. And westside looks down on PCU. It's a dislike/arrogant relationship.

I'm not aware of any particular bad blood between PCU and Westside.

Westside and THUSC, on the other hand...

[Unregistered]

A great way to go bankrupt is to pay exorbitant turf fees.

Actually this is false. Washington timbers are paying for their turf because of how expensive it was to rent turf in Clark county.

They were spending $140,000 each year to rent turf from November-March. When you think about it that is a waste of money. So they saved money for 7 years and built up a $350k cash flow and bought the turf witg cash and financed the installation. Now they take their $140k per year and put it towards something they own.

[Unregistered]

Actually this is false. Washington timbers are paying for their turf because of how expensive it was to rent turf in Clark county.

They were spending $140,000 each year to rent turf from November-March. When you think about it that is a waste of money. So they saved money for 7 years and built up a $350k cash flow and bought the turf witg cash and financed the installation. Now they take their $140k per year and put it towards something they own.

Exactly what I said. Why would you say it's false and then proceed to make an argument that agrees with me? We on the same page bro.

[Unregistered]

Actually this is false. Washington timbers are paying for their turf because of how expensive it was to rent turf in Clark county.

They were spending $140,000 each year to rent turf from November-March. When you think about it that is a waste of money. So they saved money for 7 years and built up a $350k cash flow and bought the turf witg cash and financed the installation. Now they take their $140k per year and put it towards something they own.

Hope they're putting a $100K per year towards replacement costs too. Otherwise you'll be playing on threadbare carpet in 7-8 years.

[Slow Xavi]

So clubs are judged on how many state cup finalists / winners they produce?

Why are clubs not judged on the retention of players, coaches and their development?

"Winning" at gold level is one and only one criteria and honestly it is up to each club's community to decide what is important for them and how to measure.

Achievement of players developed (while difficult to track except over the very long-term), player retention, systematic survey results are great measures! Some challenges in comparing across clubs, unless clubs self-report it and their is some audit of the results. However, for internal goal setting, our club is absolutely using some of these measures.

Tracking "winning" just takes dumping some data into a spreadsheet, so it is relatively easy to compare across clubs. Would never, ever place my kids based only on that criteria.

****Sure sounded like you were holding Westside responsible for providing goals for these games. Which surprised me since you typically don't complain. My point in response was simply to take caution and first do the research to see who is actually responsible for field standards and the appropriate sized goals for the state games. Your complaint should be directed at OYSA and not at any club-which then unfairly becomes a target for some.

For what its worth, my son was a Westside goalie whose team had to go through double OT and full lot of PKs in his U11 year of state cup final and lost when one of his team mates shanked the ball with a full-sized regulation goal on a full-sized field, after an 11 v 11 game. Exciting and sad for the team but life goes on.

I don't want to blow this thing up. Someone had asked if I thought our NEU u12 boys team got hosed on application of the tiebreakers; my answer is no (at first blush I thought maybe FC's team was mistakenly excluded, but think OYSA got it right on further review), but their coaches were not happy about playing a game on Westside provided field with full-sized goals. The fact that it was a close game, where the size of goals mattered, ultimately decided who got out of the first round, and that it was a big dog club (if not THE BIG DOG club), made it a little harder to swallow . . . but thems the breaks.

Agree with you though, I hate it when this forum turns into nothing more than flaming other clubs. Not flaming Westside - just hope in the future when they provide fields for state cups at u11/u12 level, they meet small-sided field standards.

It worked out fine last year using it for the girls finals at U-12. Never heard any complaints from Wash Timbers or CFC. If this is problem than the teams should boycott playing there and say something.
If your paying for something shouldn't it be correct?

I thought they looked small last year, but haven't measured. Maybe someone from PCU can respond as to whether they meet small-sided standards, as they know those fields very well.

[Unregistered]

"

I don't want to blow this thing up. Someone had asked if I thought our NEU u12 boys team got hosed on application of the tiebreakers; my answer is no (at first blush I thought maybe FC's team was mistakenly excluded, but think OYSA got it right on further review), but their coaches were not happy about playing a game on Westside provided field with full-sized goals. The fact that it was a close game, where the size of goals mattered, ultimately decided who got out of the first round, and that it was a big dog club (if not THE BIG DOG club), made it a little harder to swallow . . . but thems the breaks.

Agree with you though, I hate it when this forum turns into nothing more than flaming other clubs. Not flaming Westside - just hope in the future when they provide fields for state cups at u11/u12 level, they meet small-sided field standards.

I blame Tom A. :)

After all, THUSC and not Westside got to use Powerlines Park as their U11 home field during spring, and Powerlines has a perfectly usable (unless it rains hard, then it's a swamp) 9v9 field available. Westside got stuck with Beaverton HS.

Westside's only solace was beating THUSC when we DID have to play 'em at Powerlines. :)

[Unregistered]

Hope they're putting a $100K per year towards replacement costs too. Otherwise you'll be playing on threadbare carpet in 7-8 years.

$130/year to be exact.

and they are building a 3rd field in August.

[Unregistered]

$130/year to be exact.

and they are building a 3rd field in August.

correction

$130K/year

[Unregistered]

"Winning" at gold level is one and only one criteria and honestly it is up to each club's community to decide what is important for them and how to measure.

Achievement of players developed (while difficult to track except over the very long-term), player retention, systematic survey results are great measures! Some challenges in comparing across clubs, unless clubs self-report it and their is some audit of the results. However, for internal goal setting, our club is absolutely using some of these measures.

Tracking "winning" just takes dumping some data into a spreadsheet, so it is relatively easy to compare across clubs. Would never, ever place my kids based only on that criteria.



I don't want to blow this thing up. Someone had asked if I thought our NEU u12 boys team got hosed on application of the tiebreakers; my answer is no (at first blush I thought maybe FC's team was mistakenly excluded, but think OYSA got it right on further review), but their coaches were not happy about playing a game on Westside provided field with full-sized goals. The fact that it was a close game, where the size of goals mattered, ultimately decided who got out of the first round, and that it was a big dog club (if not THE BIG DOG club), made it a little harder to swallow . . . but thems the breaks.

Agree with you though, I hate it when this forum turns into nothing more than flaming other clubs. Not flaming Westside - just hope in the future when they provide fields for state cups at u11/u12 level, they meet small-sided field standards.



I thought they looked small last year, but haven't measured. Maybe someone from PCU can respond as to whether they meet small-sided standards, as they know those fields very well.

this coming year there will be no exceptions. Clubs must have the correct size goals and field dimensions. If not it will be considered a forfeit.

[Slow Xavi]

correction

$130K/year

How did you come up with the $130k? We are going through a similar exercise right now and wrestling whether capex reserve should be based on 7 or 10 years amortization of original construction cost. Also, are you amortizing entire construction cost, or excluding some of the site prep work (that may not need to be repeated)?

[Unregistered]

$130/year to be exact.

and they are building a 3rd field in August.

Must be some funny accounting going on if they can pay all those "top" coaches, make the huge loan payments to the sharks, and put money away for turf replacement. Maybe that's why the fees have gone through the roof and teams have to pay for turf time on top of that.

[Unregistered]

How did you come up with the $130k? We are going through a similar exercise right now and wrestling whether cap reserve should be based on 7 or 10 years amortization of original construction cost. Also, are you amortizing entire construction cost, or excluding some of the site prep work (that may not need to be repeated)?

The site work, if done properly, will last for several resurfacings. If not, like originally at Liberty, then the resurface will be as expensive as the original installation (minus lighting).

[Slow Xavi]

The site work, if done properly, will last for several resurfacings. If not, like originally at Liberty, then the resurface will be as expensive as the original installation (minus lighting).

Cheers!

[Unregistered]

How did you come up with the $130k? We are going through a similar exercise right now and wrestling whether capex reserve should be based on 7 or 10 years amortization of original construction cost. Also, are you amortizing entire construction cost, or excluding some of the site prep work (that may not need to be repeated)?

7 year.
Amortizing everything.

this does not include Sponsors and Silent money that is constantly coming in.