ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

a son on Union not given a shot on FVU? I wonder if boys parents vs. girl parents have a different perspective on how to tryout process was handled

welcome to cut throat ECNL. I feel for you. I know two boys who made it, and lets just say the team is going to struggle. You wont have to worry about getting smoked every weekend. Go to an RL team and have lower stress and your kid will still have fun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three clubs/partners with ownership in the new club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

[Anonymous]

I know it's easy for me to say not having a dog in the fight, but weren't the FXU tryouts almost 6-8 weeks ago with decisions made over a month ago at this point? It no doubt sucks and feelings are legitimately hurt after what looks like a poo show, but time to move on and go find a new club that might appreciate your child's skillset and value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sorry ECNL-RL tryouts were weeks later.

MYS ENRL tryouts are still happening...

My point was that MYS RL tryouts were occurring a few weeks after the FVU teams were formed, so MYS wouldn't have been able to offer a spot to former MYS players who didn't make FVU, but they should have at least reached out to those players and told them when tryouts were, that they hoped they would come out and would most likely earn a spot. A little courtesy and personal touch can go a long way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

No, McLean has no ownership in FCV. FCV is an independent club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sorry ECNL-RL tryouts were weeks later.

MYS ENRL tryouts are still happening...

My point was that MYS RL tryouts were occurring a few weeks after the FVU teams were formed, so MYS wouldn't have been able to offer a spot to former MYS players who didn't make FVU, but they should have at least reached out to those players and told them when tryouts were, that they hoped they would come out and would most likely earn a spot. A little courtesy and personal touch can go a long way.

Actually this is commonly done. "You didn't make our ECNL team but you have a guaranteed place on our RL team." Happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

How are the 2012g's looking for next year without SYC?

[Anonymous]

when do the players officially know who is on the team for next season? Is it the start of fall practice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

No, McLean has no ownership in FCV. FCV is an independent club.

Understood, "ownership" was a poor the correct word. But MYS, BRYC, and VSA are all stakeholders with two board members each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

No, McLean has no ownership in FCV. FCV is an independent club.

Understood, "ownership" was a poor word choice. But MYS, BRYC, and VSA are all stakeholders with two board members each.

[Anonymous]

FXU, FVU, Union…what is the consensus on what this new entity will be called? What say you DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are the 2012g's looking for next year without SYC?

The SYC 2012’s that lost to VA Valor? Is that the team with parents and players making commitment announcements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

It was back room dealing and the coaches were out to save themselves. Some coaches won and some lost and moved on. Who the winning coaches chose after the slates were decided was an afterthought.

It is what it is. No different than how the rest of youth soccer works. Administrators and coaches’ highest priorities are their own incomes.

Time to move on and see how the teams work out. Over time, the teams should all be more competitive as one has been removed from the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were great players at union (boys) and Brave (girls) that got dropped, not because they were benching, but mostly how the process was established. All behind doors, not a fair process in my view.

+1. Applies to my player. Didn't think process or outcome was fair.

Applies to our player as well. We aren't sticking around to support MYS, the club we've been with (for the most part) since our college-age player was U6. We didn't expect any special treatment, as we know for a fact some received. We only wanted a fair tryout process and possibly a little loyalty. MYS has not lifted a finger to advocate for its member players over outside players who are not any better.

I think part of the problem is that you still see this as a McLean led team.

No, we understand it's not a Mclean led club - or definitively not on the boys side. However, MYS is one of three teams with ownership in the club. All three of the member clubs should be advocating for their players - when it comes down to choosing between a member player and an outside player who are on equal footing.

It was back room dealing and the coaches were out to save themselves. Some coaches won and some lost and moved on. Who the winning coaches chose after the slates were decided was an afterthought.

It is what it is. No different than how the rest of youth soccer works. Administrators and coaches’ highest priorities are their own incomes.

Time to move on and see how the teams work out. Over time, the teams should all be more competitive as one has been removed from the area.

Yes, it should create more depth and competition with 1 less on the boys side. On the girls side, it's still a dilution over this season and back to the same number of teams previously.

9 "elite" boys programs in the DMV for 24/25 season. 10 for the 23/24 season.
5 ECNL boys with Potomac, FVU, Arlington, NVA, VDA, down from 6.
4 MLS Next Bethesda, Achilles, Alexandria, SYC

8 "elite" programs in the DMV. 7 for 23/24 season, 8 for the 22/23 season.
5 local ECNL girls with VDA, NVA, FVU, Arlington, Bethesda down from 6.
3 GA with FCV, Revolution, SYC, up from 1.