LMVSC town hall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are those financial numbers correct? Where can I find them to verify? If this is true there's just no way we (as a club) will be able to last next year.

DS is in the younger age groups; there's just no chance. We're going to end up aging out.

It’s public information from IRS filings for nonprofits.

McLean 990
https://pp-990.s3.amazonaws.com/08_2020_prefixes_74-81/800015698_201906_990_2020081417236749.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA266MJEJYTM5WAG5Y%2F20210309%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20210309T143204Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=d78cfe6833a1ea185d124986940ab7b4cf6e64e76377ed5e1de34628fe23a303

LMVSC 990
https://pp-990.s3.amazonaws.com/09_2020_prefixes_52-56/541450490_201912_990_2020092917337145.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA266MJEJYTM5WAG5Y%2F20210309%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20210309T143616Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=760d4840d1059ad95fd5c2671d9812c29f334907cbfb64f4c48c22eb68a3e3c1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are those financial numbers correct? Where can I find them to verify? If this is true there's just no way we (as a club) will be able to last next year.

DS is in the younger age groups; there's just no chance. We're going to end up aging out.

It's ridiculous that those that do the bulk of the work make 1/3 of what LB makes. On top of that, she coaches a team. What other ED also coaches? How can a TD make so little that they have to take on additional teams to make a good salary. A TD should be able to supervise the day to day of the club but seems inefficient if they are also tasked with training their teams. Very hard to make it to other training sessions if they have to be on the field themselves. To respond to the PP we have seen LC at a couple of our games before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are those financial numbers correct? Where can I find them to verify? If this is true there's just no way we (as a club) will be able to last next year.

DS is in the younger age groups; there's just no chance. We're going to end up aging out.

It's ridiculous that those that do the bulk of the work make 1/3 of what LB makes. On top of that, she coaches a team. What other ED also coaches? How can a TD make so little that they have to take on additional teams to make a good salary. A TD should be able to supervise the day to day of the club but seems inefficient if they are also tasked with training their teams. Very hard to make it to other training sessions if they have to be on the field themselves. To respond to the PP we have seen LC at a couple of our games before.

I'm sure the benefits that come with that low pay are pretty nice to make up for it. It's not like they're expected to be available 9-5 and then in the evenings. Plus, if that was the case, im sure their OT pay is great.

[Anonymous]

Coaches don't get benefits; and I don't think they can qualify for OT pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coaches don't get benefits; and I don't think they can qualify for OT pay.

40+ hours a week, exempt employees without benefits for 30k? Is that even legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coaches don't get benefits; and I don't think they can qualify for OT pay.

Correct and the role of the TD at a club involves a lot more than what people think. They may not be at the office from 9-5 but I would say almost that in the involvement of running a club. Then expected to oversee staff, run their own practices, games on weekends is easily an 80+ hour per week job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coaches don't get benefits; and I don't think they can qualify for OT pay.

+1

"What are benefits? What is OT?"

No chance they get either one of those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the next meeting please ask for her 10-year vision

Like when she said coaches would only serve two years on a team? Like when she said she would post financial statements? Like when she promised to have a performance program only to charge every player and undercut its director?

I think we were at the same meeting.

Whoever brings up McLean offers a very good point. If McLean is among the wealthier parts of the county, their staff may be compensated accordingly. However, with the most recent IRS 990 forms, here is the breakdown:
McLean
Revenue $3.2M
Assets $3.99M
Exec Dir Comp $106K
Fin Mgr Comp $65K
TD $120K
Dir of Soc $97K

LMVSC
Revenue $1.3M
Assets $800K
Exec Dir Comp $117K
Fin Mgr Comp $60K
TD $32K
Dir of Soc $52K

Can this be why the financials have never been made public to the paying members? This metric seems to upside down, where LB/JG make more than those from other clubs (with almost 2.5X revenue and 5X assets) and pay the Directors a fraction of what other clubs pay. This may possibly be among the reasons we have yet to see LC or FL at games or practices.

What. The. Hell.

Looking at a single year doesn't provide the clearest picture. My guess is the trend is the TD's compensation, in particular, has decreased in the past two to three years. If memory serves me correctly, it was the only other full time position outside the ED. It appears, now, the TD has been relegated to a PT position and probably has to coach three or four teams in order to make up the difference in pay. The truth is you can't compare LMVSC with Mclean, Loudoun, Arlington, SYC, or Alexandria from a organizational standpoint. Those clubs are simply at a different level with respect to infrastructure and financial viability. LMVSC is more like Gunston, barely hanging on and with the same three people doing four different jobs. LMVSC exists in obscurity and if LB has to provide rec soccer only in order to retain her position, I have no doubt that's what she'll do. Additionally, she'll rely on a new wave of young coaches hungry to get their foot in the door in a travel program. If that means the older teams are disregarded in order to focus on cultivating a the youngest players, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the next meeting please ask for her 10-year vision

Like when she said coaches would only serve two years on a team? Like when she said she would post financial statements? Like when she promised to have a performance program only to charge every player and undercut its director?

I think we were at the same meeting.

Whoever brings up McLean offers a very good point. If McLean is among the wealthier parts of the county, their staff may be compensated accordingly. However, with the most recent IRS 990 forms, here is the breakdown:
McLean
Revenue $3.2M
Assets $3.99M
Exec Dir Comp $106K
Fin Mgr Comp $65K
TD $120K
Dir of Soc $97K

LMVSC
Revenue $1.3M
Assets $800K
Exec Dir Comp $117K
Fin Mgr Comp $60K
TD $32K
Dir of Soc $52K

Can this be why the financials have never been made public to the paying members? This metric seems to upside down, where LB/JG make more than those from other clubs (with almost 2.5X revenue and 5X assets) and pay the Directors a fraction of what other clubs pay. This may possibly be among the reasons we have yet to see LC or FL at games or practices.

What. The. Hell.

Looking at a single year doesn't provide the clearest picture. My guess is the trend is the TD's compensation, in particular, has decreased in the past two to three years. If memory serves me correctly, it was the only other full time position outside the ED. It appears, now, the TD has been relegated to a PT position and probably has to coach three or four teams in order to make up the difference in pay. The truth is you can't compare LMVSC with Mclean, Loudoun, Arlington, SYC, or Alexandria from a organizational standpoint. Those clubs are simply at a different level with respect to infrastructure and financial viability. LMVSC is more like Gunston, barely hanging on and with the same three people doing four different jobs. LMVSC exists in obscurity and if LB has to provide rec soccer only in order to retain her position, I have no doubt that's what she'll do. Additionally, she'll rely on a new wave of young coaches hungry to get their foot in the door in a travel program. If that means the older teams are disregarded in order to focus on cultivating a the youngest players, so be it.

LMVSC lost 1/3 of its player pool two years in a row, and the ED makes more money than the McLean. I agree one year of financials doesn't tell the entire story, but understanding the greater situation does. If what you said is a possibility (focusing on on rec, sacrificing older teams), I just can't imagine how the CCL rumors aren't true. If what you said about there will always be young, hungry coaches (which I think you are correct on), I think this also fuels the LC rumors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the next meeting please ask for her 10-year vision

Like when she said coaches would only serve two years on a team? Like when she said she would post financial statements? Like when she promised to have a performance program only to charge every player and undercut its director?

I think we were at the same meeting.

Whoever brings up McLean offers a very good point. If McLean is among the wealthier parts of the county, their staff may be compensated accordingly. However, with the most recent IRS 990 forms, here is the breakdown:
McLean
Revenue $3.2M
Assets $3.99M
Exec Dir Comp $106K
Fin Mgr Comp $65K
TD $120K
Dir of Soc $97K

LMVSC
Revenue $1.3M
Assets $800K
Exec Dir Comp $117K
Fin Mgr Comp $60K
TD $32K
Dir of Soc $52K

Can this be why the financials have never been made public to the paying members? This metric seems to upside down, where LB/JG make more than those from other clubs (with almost 2.5X revenue and 5X assets) and pay the Directors a fraction of what other clubs pay. This may possibly be among the reasons we have yet to see LC or FL at games or practices.

What. The. Hell.

Looking at a single year doesn't provide the clearest picture. My guess is the trend is the TD's compensation, in particular, has decreased in the past two to three years. If memory serves me correctly, it was the only other full time position outside the ED. It appears, now, the TD has been relegated to a PT position and probably has to coach three or four teams in order to make up the difference in pay. The truth is you can't compare LMVSC with Mclean, Loudoun, Arlington, SYC, or Alexandria from a organizational standpoint. Those clubs are simply at a different level with respect to infrastructure and financial viability. LMVSC is more like Gunston, barely hanging on and with the same three people doing four different jobs. LMVSC exists in obscurity and if LB has to provide rec soccer only in order to retain her position, I have no doubt that's what she'll do. Additionally, she'll rely on a new wave of young coaches hungry to get their foot in the door in a travel program. If that means the older teams are disregarded in order to focus on cultivating a the youngest players, so be it.

LMVSC lost 1/3 of its player pool two years in a row, and the ED makes more money than the McLean. I agree one year of financials doesn't tell the entire story, but understanding the greater situation does. If what you said is a possibility (focusing on on rec, sacrificing older teams), I just can't imagine how the CCL rumors aren't true. If what you said about there will always be young, hungry coaches (which I think you are correct on), I think this also fuels the LC rumors.

Why would the young coaches fuel LC rumors. He will need the young coaches in order to fill coaching spots. Even more if current coaches are looking to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the next meeting please ask for her 10-year vision

Like when she said coaches would only serve two years on a team? Like when she said she would post financial statements? Like when she promised to have a performance program only to charge every player and undercut its director?

I think we were at the same meeting.

Whoever brings up McLean offers a very good point. If McLean is among the wealthier parts of the county, their staff may be compensated accordingly. However, with the most recent IRS 990 forms, here is the breakdown:
McLean
Revenue $3.2M
Assets $3.99M
Exec Dir Comp $106K
Fin Mgr Comp $65K
TD $120K
Dir of Soc $97K

LMVSC
Revenue $1.3M
Assets $800K
Exec Dir Comp $117K
Fin Mgr Comp $60K
TD $32K
Dir of Soc $52K

Can this be why the financials have never been made public to the paying members? This metric seems to upside down, where LB/JG make more than those from other clubs (with almost 2.5X revenue and 5X assets) and pay the Directors a fraction of what other clubs pay. This may possibly be among the reasons we have yet to see LC or FL at games or practices.

What. The. Hell.

Looking at a single year doesn't provide the clearest picture. My guess is the trend is the TD's compensation, in particular, has decreased in the past two to three years. If memory serves me correctly, it was the only other full time position outside the ED. It appears, now, the TD has been relegated to a PT position and probably has to coach three or four teams in order to make up the difference in pay. The truth is you can't compare LMVSC with Mclean, Loudoun, Arlington, SYC, or Alexandria from a organizational standpoint. Those clubs are simply at a different level with respect to infrastructure and financial viability. LMVSC is more like Gunston, barely hanging on and with the same three people doing four different jobs. LMVSC exists in obscurity and if LB has to provide rec soccer only in order to retain her position, I have no doubt that's what she'll do. Additionally, she'll rely on a new wave of young coaches hungry to get their foot in the door in a travel program. If that means the older teams are disregarded in order to focus on cultivating a the youngest players, so be it.

LMVSC lost 1/3 of its player pool two years in a row, and the ED makes more money than the McLean. I agree one year of financials doesn't tell the entire story, but understanding the greater situation does. If what you said is a possibility (focusing on on rec, sacrificing older teams), I just can't imagine how the CCL rumors aren't true. If what you said about there will always be young, hungry coaches (which I think you are correct on), I think this also fuels the LC rumors.

Why would the young coaches fuel LC rumors. He will need the young coaches in order to fill coaching spots. Even more if current coaches are looking to leave.

not the pp

when LC arrived, he tried to bring in plenty of coaches from SYC; it didn't work out because so many players were lost. if young coaches are looking to leave, it may be because they have inside info.

i think there are too many rumors flying around right now. let's all settle down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the next meeting please ask for her 10-year vision

Like when she said coaches would only serve two years on a team? Like when she said she would post financial statements? Like when she promised to have a performance program only to charge every player and undercut its director?

I think we were at the same meeting.

Whoever brings up McLean offers a very good point. If McLean is among the wealthier parts of the county, their staff may be compensated accordingly. However, with the most recent IRS 990 forms, here is the breakdown:
McLean
Revenue $3.2M
Assets $3.99M
Exec Dir Comp $106K
Fin Mgr Comp $65K
TD $120K
Dir of Soc $97K

LMVSC
Revenue $1.3M
Assets $800K
Exec Dir Comp $117K
Fin Mgr Comp $60K
TD $32K
Dir of Soc $52K

Can this be why the financials have never been made public to the paying members? This metric seems to upside down, where LB/JG make more than those from other clubs (with almost 2.5X revenue and 5X assets) and pay the Directors a fraction of what other clubs pay. This may possibly be among the reasons we have yet to see LC or FL at games or practices.

What. The. Hell.

Looking at a single year doesn't provide the clearest picture. My guess is the trend is the TD's compensation, in particular, has decreased in the past two to three years. If memory serves me correctly, it was the only other full time position outside the ED. It appears, now, the TD has been relegated to a PT position and probably has to coach three or four teams in order to make up the difference in pay. The truth is you can't compare LMVSC with Mclean, Loudoun, Arlington, SYC, or Alexandria from a organizational standpoint. Those clubs are simply at a different level with respect to infrastructure and financial viability. LMVSC is more like Gunston, barely hanging on and with the same three people doing four different jobs. LMVSC exists in obscurity and if LB has to provide rec soccer only in order to retain her position, I have no doubt that's what she'll do. Additionally, she'll rely on a new wave of young coaches hungry to get their foot in the door in a travel program. If that means the older teams are disregarded in order to focus on cultivating a the youngest players, so be it.

LMVSC lost 1/3 of its player pool two years in a row, and the ED makes more money than the McLean. I agree one year of financials doesn't tell the entire story, but understanding the greater situation does. If what you said is a possibility (focusing on on rec, sacrificing older teams), I just can't imagine how the CCL rumors aren't true. If what you said about there will always be young, hungry coaches (which I think you are correct on), I think this also fuels the LC rumors.

Why would the young coaches fuel LC rumors. He will need the young coaches in order to fill coaching spots. Even more if current coaches are looking to leave.

not the pp

when LC arrived, he tried to bring in plenty of coaches from SYC; it didn't work out because so many players were lost. if young coaches are looking to leave, it may be because they have inside info.

i think there are too many rumors flying around right now. let's all settle down.

How do you differentiate those that are “young” coaches. Why would they leave and not those that have been at the club longer. Asking bc I hope my kid’s coach doesn’t leave.

[Anonymous]

^-- it's usually a financial decision; not just for the season of how much money i make but also how much will the coaching role help the coach's career.

so, in regards to money, things to consider:
- if the club doesn't go in CCL, fees (should) be reduced but that'll also mean compensation is likely to be reduced (unless you're LB). i believe that level of team, years in club, which license you have are part of a formula to decide compensation
- if the club keeps hemorrhaging players, while the coach still loves the game, it's hard to be in a situation in which players constantly leave. does it help to have two red teams of players that aren't dedicated playing in NCSL, or, is it better to coach 2nd teams at a different club that are competitive, do show up, etc

[Anonymous]

a real thing to consider is the fact LMVSC is geographically in a higher cost of living area; if the club can't charge CCL rates, i can't imagine compensation will be so good that they won't look at other competition (especially if they are good coaches). that's what is so especially worrying about the CCL rumors. people say 'leagues don't matter' and that's just not very intelligent.

[Anonymous]

I am so lost, as a parent. I work during practices, and I'm not a soccer person so I only cheer during games. But there's some very odd reasoning that doesn't make sense. Somebody please help.

LMVSC: "The academy system is what's used in Europe and is the best option for our club to develop our players".

LMVSC academy operation: several age groups are missing 2nd teams (meaning the academy can't exist)

LMVSC parents: we need to be in CCL to lure players in (meaning the academy doesn't work to develop players)

LMVSC parents: we need to lure players in for the academy to work (mean academy is pointless for age groups without two teams)

I can't help but see this situation as: the academy wasn't installed to benefit the players. This makes me question "Then why was the academy installed?" During social distance practices this summer, I would expect it was too difficult to assess. Mixing players as a whole makes me think that COVID had nothing to do with it. So, what is going on? There was no information I recall during the townhall to justify the reasoning for an academy (I know it was a long time ago, which is why I'm asking).