LMVSC town hall

[Anonymous]

No but I’m friends with lots of ex/current parents. Not a lot of love

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did LMV just lose another director? Director of Rec VV, is the most recent one to leave his post. Why are FT running from this club?

Is this even real? Also, this thread is about travel. Let's be honest, does it really matter who's in charge of rec?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did LMV just lose another director? Director of Rec VV, is the most recent one to leave his post. Why are FT running from this club?

Is this even real? Also, this thread is about travel. Let's be honest, does it really matter who's in charge of rec?

Yes it's real. This thread is (was) about LMVSC's townhall on the Soccer forum; it's about all things LMVSC soccer. If it's only about rec, then people were wrong to criticize LMVSC moving rec players to travel just to round out a team.

Yes it kinda does matter.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:At some point, maybe someone could sum up the issues at play here instead of just trading accusations about who's who.

For the record, I am a cyborg sent here from the year 3012 to change the course of history so that the U.S. wins the U-20 Women's World Cup in 3013.

Are you the moderator of this thread or do you have some specific reason to jump in here to add your two cents?

Seems you are passive aggressively trying to find out issues with LMVSC for your own reasons. Maybe start a thread for that.

[Anonymous]

This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:At some point, maybe someone could sum up the issues at play here instead of just trading accusations about who's who.

For the record, I am a cyborg sent here from the year 3012 to change the course of history so that the U.S. wins the U-20 Women's World Cup in 3013.

Are you the moderator of this thread or do you have some specific reason to jump in here to add your two cents?

Seems you are passive aggressively trying to find out issues with LMVSC for your own reasons. Maybe start a thread for that.

Or maybe I just find this behavior really puzzling, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. I also like to know what's going on out of curiosity.

I have no stake in LMVSC one way or the other, aside from a desire not to see any club completely collapse.

club had coaches and players defect which led to club shrinking. Club cannot field teams and is shrinking more. This is all resulting in a feed back loop. At some point they will end up as a small local club with a large rec program and will be fine. Right now, some still think of the club as bigger than it is or will be

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:At some point, maybe someone could sum up the issues at play here instead of just trading accusations about who's who.

For the record, I am a cyborg sent here from the year 3012 to change the course of history so that the U.S. wins the U-20 Women's World Cup in 3013.

Are you the moderator of this thread or do you have some specific reason to jump in here to add your two cents?

Seems you are passive aggressively trying to find out issues with LMVSC for your own reasons. Maybe start a thread for that.

Or maybe I just find this behavior really puzzling, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. I also like to know what's going on out of curiosity.

I have no stake in LMVSC one way or the other, aside from a desire not to see any club completely collapse.

club had coaches and players defect which led to club shrinking. Club cannot field teams and is shrinking more. This is all resulting in a feed back loop. At some point they will end up as a small local club with a large rec program and will be fine. Right now, some still think of the club as bigger than it is or will be

OK, thanks. That makes sense. I know they had to borrow at least one team (from PAC) to fulfill CCL assignments, which does make one wonder why they're in CCL.

they filled way more than that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

2004: boys in NCSL, no girls
2005: boys in NCSL, girls not competitive
2006: boys not competitive, no girls
2007: boys not competitive, girls in NCSL

Alexandria getting MLS Next full slate, SYC getting MLS Next full slate (and pathway to ECNL), Arlington ECNL isn't helping out. The Gunston merger failed. It's all going downhill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

2004: boys in NCSL, no girls
2005: boys in NCSL, girls not competitive
2006: boys not competitive, no girls
2007: boys not competitive, girls in NCSL

Alexandria getting MLS Next full slate, SYC getting MLS Next full slate (and pathway to ECNL), Arlington ECNL isn't helping out. The Gunston merger failed. It's all going downhill.

Correction to this...:

2004 Boys does not appear able to field a team for 21-22.

The rest is accurate and with the sinking vessel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

2004: boys in NCSL, no girls
2005: boys in NCSL, girls not competitive
2006: boys not competitive, no girls
2007: boys not competitive, girls in NCSL

Alexandria getting MLS Next full slate, SYC getting MLS Next full slate (and pathway to ECNL), Arlington ECNL isn't helping out. The Gunston merger failed. It's all going downhill.

When you say 2006 boys not competitive, what does that mean. Where did the boys go? I assume they will still field teams. 2006 boys looked like a decent age group for LMVSC this past year. Red was middle of the pack in CCL and White was at top of NCSL D2. What happened?

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

2004: boys in NCSL, no girls
2005: boys in NCSL, girls not competitive
2006: boys not competitive, no girls
2007: boys not competitive, girls in NCSL

Alexandria getting MLS Next full slate, SYC getting MLS Next full slate (and pathway to ECNL), Arlington ECNL isn't helping out. The Gunston merger failed. It's all going downhill.

I can understand having a tough time putting together CCL teams in the upper half of the league, but NO teams? What in the world? I only see one or two other clubs in Northern Virginia that can't field teams in most age groups.

The upcoming schedule for ECNL-R is a joke too. Would have been better staying in CCL.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

2004: boys in NCSL, no girls
2005: boys in NCSL, girls not competitive
2006: boys not competitive, no girls
2007: boys not competitive, girls in NCSL

Alexandria getting MLS Next full slate, SYC getting MLS Next full slate (and pathway to ECNL), Arlington ECNL isn't helping out. The Gunston merger failed. It's all going downhill.

I can understand having a tough time putting together CCL teams in the upper half of the league, but NO teams? What in the world? I only see one or two other clubs in Northern Virginia that can't field teams in most age groups.

It’s not that simple. Entire age groups left especially at the older age groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

2004: boys in NCSL, no girls
2005: boys in NCSL, girls not competitive
2006: boys not competitive, no girls
2007: boys not competitive, girls in NCSL

Alexandria getting MLS Next full slate, SYC getting MLS Next full slate (and pathway to ECNL), Arlington ECNL isn't helping out. The Gunston merger failed. It's all going downhill.

When you say 2006 boys not competitive, what does that mean. Where did the boys go? I assume they will still field teams. 2006 boys looked like a decent age group for LMVSC this past year. Red was middle of the pack in CCL and White was at top of NCSL D2. What happened?

Continuing to lose players and coaches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread used to be pretty good but now it's less fun than a dumpster fire.

don't worry it'll light up again when it's confirmed the high school aged teams won't be in CCL

2004: boys in NCSL, no girls
2005: boys in NCSL, girls not competitive
2006: boys not competitive, no girls
2007: boys not competitive, girls in NCSL

Alexandria getting MLS Next full slate, SYC getting MLS Next full slate (and pathway to ECNL), Arlington ECNL isn't helping out. The Gunston merger failed. It's all going downhill.

Speaking of SYC, I thought they had to borrow the Gunston girls team in order to have a high school team? I have no dog in this btw, just pointing out other clubs are borrowing teams as well.