CYA and SYA merger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

PP. I should add to this that I do know that, during the three years or so from 2014 - 2017, they went from $30K to over $500K in the bank. And - since I doubt the rec revenue changed all that much - this was presumably due to the increased size of the travel program during that period before the management changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

This is spot on. Rec subsidizes the travel teams, and the lower travel teams subsidize the top team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

This is spot on. Rec subsidizes the travel teams, and the lower travel teams subsidize the top team.

I don't get this.

A rec team takes in maybe $400 per year per kid with maybe 15 kids on the roster - so $6K a year total out of which they have to pay for fields (maybe two practices per week and the gamefield/refs every other week) for - let's say 24 weeks total. Those expenses have got to be $125 a week - maybe $3K in total, and a fair bit more at the older age groups where they are playing on high school main fields which are several hundred dollars to rent. But let's say $3K "profit" a year per team before overheads.

If we compare to a travel team where the fees are $2K a year per kid, and rosters are typically larger, say $40K total. The only really significant extra expense is the coach (tournament fees are on top of the $2K) - who makes at most $20K per team. The game field presumably costs the same and the practise fields may cost a bit more if only because there are more practices - but it's hard for me to see how this team makes less than the $3K gross profit the rec team makes.

I also don't understand how/why lower travel teams subsidize higher level ones. Aren't the costs (fields, balls, refs, coaches) virtually identical? And the fees are also similar - so where's the subsidy?

[Anonymous]

Our rec league plays seven games in fall and seven games in spring. Many teams only practice once a week, and most teams practice on grass fields or county fields (which don’t cost $125/week, are you kidding me?!?!). The ONLY cost to the league are the referees, and they don’t start those until u9.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

This is spot on. Rec subsidizes the travel teams, and the lower travel teams subsidize the top team.

I don't get this.

A rec team takes in maybe $400 per year per kid with maybe 15 kids on the roster - so $6K a year total out of which they have to pay for fields (maybe two practices per week and the gamefield/refs every other week) for - let's say 24 weeks total. Those expenses have got to be $125 a week - maybe $3K in total, and a fair bit more at the older age groups where they are playing on high school main fields which are several hundred dollars to rent. But let's say $3K "profit" a year per team before overheads.

If we compare to a travel team where the fees are $2K a year per kid, and rosters are typically larger, say $40K total. The only really significant extra expense is the coach (tournament fees are on top of the $2K) - who makes at most $20K per team. The game field presumably costs the same and the practise fields may cost a bit more if only because there are more practices - but it's hard for me to see how this team makes less than the $3K gross profit the rec team makes.

I also don't understand how/why lower travel teams subsidize higher level ones. Aren't the costs (fields, balls, refs, coaches) virtually identical? And the fees are also similar - so where's the subsidy?

Your numbers are ridiculously far off. How long has it been since you had a kid play rec soccer? 7-8 week season is the norm, all volunteer coaches, crappy school or grass fields for practices, cost is maybe $30/per kid for the whole season to cover the refs and balls and field permits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our rec league plays seven games in fall and seven games in spring. Many teams only practice once a week, and most teams practice on grass fields or county fields (which don’t cost $125/week, are you kidding me?!?!). The ONLY cost to the league are the referees, and they don’t start those until u9.

It's been a few years since I had a kid playing rec - is it really only 7 games each of spring and fall? My memory was of longer seasons, but then again my memory is not especially good .

I got the fees from the fairfax county fee schedule (lost the link now but it wasn't too hard to find), where the athletic fields seemed to cost between $34 and $60 per use by non-commercial users (except main high school stadium fields which were $500 - and note that older age group rec teams play on those fields). Refs cost say $30 for a single ref (obviously more at older ages when ARs are also used).

In any event - for the purposes of this discussion I'm not sure it matters - and in fact the lower the fees the stronger the case that travel teams are more profitable.

In essence a rec team takes in ~$6K per year as compared to a travel team which has ~$20K or more left over after paying for the coach. The other costs are not dissimilar (field fees and refs) and - as you say - don't amount to all that much. And the less they amount to, the more profitable the travel team is relative to the rec team.

I also still don't understand how low level travel teams subsidize higher level ones - which is something I have also heard elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

The nonprofit community rec youth clubs don't pay those fees, those are for commercial users.

[Anonymous]

Our rec league teams don't play on high school fields LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our rec league plays seven games in fall and seven games in spring. Many teams only practice once a week, and most teams practice on grass fields or county fields (which don’t cost $125/week, are you kidding me?!?!). The ONLY cost to the league are the referees, and they don’t start those until u9.

It's been a few years since I had a kid playing rec - is it really only 7 games each of spring and fall? My memory was of longer seasons, but then again my memory is not especially good .

I got the fees from the fairfax county fee schedule (lost the link now but it wasn't too hard to find), where the athletic fields seemed to cost between $34 and $60 per use by non-commercial users (except main high school stadium fields which were $500 - and note that older age group rec teams play on those fields). Refs cost say $30 for a single ref (obviously more at older ages when ARs are also used).

In any event - for the purposes of this discussion I'm not sure it matters - and in fact the lower the fees the stronger the case that travel teams are more profitable.

In essence a rec team takes in ~$6K per year as compared to a travel team which has ~$20K or more left over after paying for the coach. The other costs are not dissimilar (field fees and refs) and - as you say - don't amount to all that much. And the less they amount to, the more profitable the travel team is relative to the rec team.

I also still don't understand how low level travel teams subsidize higher level ones - which is something I have also heard elsewhere.

Fewer games/tournaments, less qualified coaches?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

This is spot on. Rec subsidizes the travel teams, and the lower travel teams subsidize the top team.

I don't get this.

A rec team takes in maybe $400 per year per kid with maybe 15 kids on the roster - so $6K a year total out of which they have to pay for fields (maybe two practices per week and the gamefield/refs every other week) for - let's say 24 weeks total. Those expenses have got to be $125 a week - maybe $3K in total, and a fair bit more at the older age groups where they are playing on high school main fields which are several hundred dollars to rent. But let's say $3K "profit" a year per team before overheads.

If we compare to a travel team where the fees are $2K a year per kid, and rosters are typically larger, say $40K total. The only really significant extra expense is the coach (tournament fees are on top of the $2K) - who makes at most $20K per team. The game field presumably costs the same and the practise fields may cost a bit more if only because there are more practices - but it's hard for me to see how this team makes less than the $3K gross profit the rec team makes.

I also don't understand how/why lower travel teams subsidize higher level ones. Aren't the costs (fields, balls, refs, coaches) virtually identical? And the fees are also similar - so where's the subsidy?

Your numbers are ridiculously far off. How long has it been since you had a kid play rec soccer? 7-8 week season is the norm, all volunteer coaches, crappy school or grass fields for practices, cost is maybe $30/per kid for the whole season to cover the refs and balls and field permits.

A while - as I said in the previous post .

However - despite that, and as I also said immediately above - if the fees for refs, fields and balls don't amount to much for a rec team then surely they also don't amount to muc for a travel team either?

My DS plays on a travel team and practices on school fields (although turf ones) - and as far as I could tell (maybe I found incorrect info?), the county does not distinguish between surfaces when it comes to field charges - the only difference is between HS main stadium fields (more expensive) and ES/MS fields (cheaper). And they use the same number of balls and refs. It's true the seasons are longer and they practise more times per week - but in that case - the lower the field fees, the less it matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

This is spot on. Rec subsidizes the travel teams, and the lower travel teams subsidize the top team.

I don't get this.

A rec team takes in maybe $400 per year per kid with maybe 15 kids on the roster - so $6K a year total out of which they have to pay for fields (maybe two practices per week and the gamefield/refs every other week) for - let's say 24 weeks total. Those expenses have got to be $125 a week - maybe $3K in total, and a fair bit more at the older age groups where they are playing on high school main fields which are several hundred dollars to rent. But let's say $3K "profit" a year per team before overheads.

If we compare to a travel team where the fees are $2K a year per kid, and rosters are typically larger, say $40K total. The only really significant extra expense is the coach (tournament fees are on top of the $2K) - who makes at most $20K per team. The game field presumably costs the same and the practise fields may cost a bit more if only because there are more practices - but it's hard for me to see how this team makes less than the $3K gross profit the rec team makes.

I also don't understand how/why lower travel teams subsidize higher level ones. Aren't the costs (fields, balls, refs, coaches) virtually identical? And the fees are also similar - so where's the subsidy?

Your numbers are ridiculously far off. How long has it been since you had a kid play rec soccer? 7-8 week season is the norm, all volunteer coaches, crappy school or grass fields for practices, cost is maybe $30/per kid for the whole season to cover the refs and balls and field permits.

and the games, especially when the kids are on small sided fields, cram a ton of kids onto one field. My guess is that insurance, not field rentals, would be their biggest expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our rec league plays seven games in fall and seven games in spring. Many teams only practice once a week, and most teams practice on grass fields or county fields (which don’t cost $125/week, are you kidding me?!?!). The ONLY cost to the league are the referees, and they don’t start those until u9.

It's been a few years since I had a kid playing rec - is it really only 7 games each of spring and fall? My memory was of longer seasons, but then again my memory is not especially good .

I got the fees from the fairfax county fee schedule (lost the link now but it wasn't too hard to find), where the athletic fields seemed to cost between $34 and $60 per use by non-commercial users (except main high school stadium fields which were $500 - and note that older age group rec teams play on those fields). Refs cost say $30 for a single ref (obviously more at older ages when ARs are also used).

In any event - for the purposes of this discussion I'm not sure it matters - and in fact the lower the fees the stronger the case that travel teams are more profitable.

In essence a rec team takes in ~$6K per year as compared to a travel team which has ~$20K or more left over after paying for the coach. The other costs are not dissimilar (field fees and refs) and - as you say - don't amount to all that much. And the less they amount to, the more profitable the travel team is relative to the rec team.

I also still don't understand how low level travel teams subsidize higher level ones - which is something I have also heard elsewhere.

Fewer games/tournaments, less qualified coaches?

The number of games depends on the league obviously - but in many cases the top team plays fewer games. Certainly this was true for the old DA.

Tournament fees are separate and handled on a team-by-team basis - you pay for the ones you go to.

Less qualified coaches is probably true, but then again top teams frequently cost a few hundred $ more per year - which I always thought was to cover the more expensive coach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

This is spot on. Rec subsidizes the travel teams, and the lower travel teams subsidize the top team.

I don't get this.

A rec team takes in maybe $400 per year per kid with maybe 15 kids on the roster - so $6K a year total out of which they have to pay for fields (maybe two practices per week and the gamefield/refs every other week) for - let's say 24 weeks total. Those expenses have got to be $125 a week - maybe $3K in total, and a fair bit more at the older age groups where they are playing on high school main fields which are several hundred dollars to rent. But let's say $3K "profit" a year per team before overheads.

If we compare to a travel team where the fees are $2K a year per kid, and rosters are typically larger, say $40K total. The only really significant extra expense is the coach (tournament fees are on top of the $2K) - who makes at most $20K per team. The game field presumably costs the same and the practise fields may cost a bit more if only because there are more practices - but it's hard for me to see how this team makes less than the $3K gross profit the rec team makes.

I also don't understand how/why lower travel teams subsidize higher level ones. Aren't the costs (fields, balls, refs, coaches) virtually identical? And the fees are also similar - so where's the subsidy?

Your numbers are ridiculously far off. How long has it been since you had a kid play rec soccer? 7-8 week season is the norm, all volunteer coaches, crappy school or grass fields for practices, cost is maybe $30/per kid for the whole season to cover the refs and balls and field permits.

A while - as I said in the previous post .

However - despite that, and as I also said immediately above - if the fees for refs, fields and balls don't amount to much for a rec team then surely they also don't amount to muc for a travel team either?

My DS plays on a travel team and practices on school fields (although turf ones) - and as far as I could tell (maybe I found incorrect info?), the county does not distinguish between surfaces when it comes to field charges - the only difference is between HS main stadium fields (more expensive) and ES/MS fields (cheaper). And they use the same number of balls and refs. It's true the seasons are longer and they practise more times per week - but in that case - the lower the field fees, the less it matters.

travel teams play on nicer fields and absolutely train on nicer fields and they train for more time each session for more times per week. The refs for games are better paid and there are linesmen to be paid too. Travel has paid coaches, league entry fees, and tournament entry fees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Field house off 28 was several million dollars.

Yes - it's a big debt. However the debt is not the fundamental problem here, but it does limit the possible solutions because it prevents CYA deciding to be primarily a rec club for example. They have to run a commercially successful travel soccer program to pay for it.

The field house is a CYA thing and not a CYA soccer thing. CYA is a huge youth sports club. They provide basketball, track, lacrosse and more. The field house generates revenue by renting it out and providing a indoor space to all their sports.

Soccer is just a piece of the pie at CYA and everyone seems to be hung up on the soccer part.

This is true - but travel soccer generates most of the revenue.

This is not true in the big youth sports clubs. The rec programs are more profitable. 1000 kids playing rec soccer at $200/kid using volunteer coaches and practicing on school fields is a huge money-maker.

I'm curious as to how the financials with this Valor organization shake out. CYA has the fieldhouse, owned by CYA. SYA has the debt on its sports park. What portion of "Valor" revenue will go towards servicing the CYA and SYA debt? Since "Valor" will most likely use the fieldhouse and outdoor sports park soccer fields.... Is Valor going to pay rent to use those back to the CYA and SYA? Both clubs are used to commingling their rec and travel revenue AND field permits. These clubs use their large rec numbers to get more field space from the county, which they they distribute in their club. If CYA gets 10 turf fields based on their REC numbers, technically "Valor" shouldn't be using any of those fields. "Valor" has to apply and get fields based on its own numbers. Fairfax doesn't give priority to a travel group over a rec group with the field permitting. In practice, the large clubs use the rec numbers to get fields that they then usually redistribute mostly to travel practices and games.

I'm neither the treasurer nor a board member of any youth soccer club - so you may well know more than me - but I was under the strong impression (gleaned from people in those positions) that travel was much more profitable than rec. I never asked too many detailed questions - so perhaps I misunderstood what I was being told...

On your second point - doesn't CYA have some kind of rights to Sully? I'm pretty sure that, although the land belongs to the county, they paid for some or all of the fields construction in return for usage rights....?

Rec is most definitely the cash cow of all large clubs for the exact reasons stated. Little to no overhead and HUGE numbers because it is completely inclusive of all who wish to participate.

This is spot on. Rec subsidizes the travel teams, and the lower travel teams subsidize the top team.

I don't get this.

A rec team takes in maybe $400 per year per kid with maybe 15 kids on the roster - so $6K a year total out of which they have to pay for fields (maybe two practices per week and the gamefield/refs every other week) for - let's say 24 weeks total. Those expenses have got to be $125 a week - maybe $3K in total, and a fair bit more at the older age groups where they are playing on high school main fields which are several hundred dollars to rent. But let's say $3K "profit" a year per team before overheads.

If we compare to a travel team where the fees are $2K a year per kid, and rosters are typically larger, say $40K total. The only really significant extra expense is the coach (tournament fees are on top of the $2K) - who makes at most $20K per team. The game field presumably costs the same and the practise fields may cost a bit more if only because there are more practices - but it's hard for me to see how this team makes less than the $3K gross profit the rec team makes.

I also don't understand how/why lower travel teams subsidize higher level ones. Aren't the costs (fields, balls, refs, coaches) virtually identical? And the fees are also similar - so where's the subsidy?

Your numbers are ridiculously far off. How long has it been since you had a kid play rec soccer? 7-8 week season is the norm, all volunteer coaches, crappy school or grass fields for practices, cost is maybe $30/per kid for the whole season to cover the refs and balls and field permits.

and the games, especially when the kids are on small sided fields, cram a ton of kids onto one field. My guess is that insurance, not field rentals, would be their biggest expense.

Again - whatever is the case for rec at any age group - it is also the case for travel - no? And the lower the expenses in general, the smaller the difference in cost between rec and travel (which has the same costs except perhaps for practising more frequently and a longer season), and therefore the greater the difference in profitability between rec and travel.