CYA and SYA merger?

[Anonymous]

The counties (at least Fairfax and Loudoun) charge per kid per season for field use, and it’s like $15-$20 per kid per season. So a team of 15 is paying about $250 total. Ref fees are essentially getting split between 2 teams for each game, so it’s roughly $150-$200 per season per team. Insurance is cheap through VYSA. So, a rec team with 15 players at $200/season is bringing in around $3K against $400 in expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, but
- on the county fee schedule they don't appear to distinguish between the quality of the field - just its size.
- as far as my (admittedly poor) memory serves, the number of refs doesn't change based on travel vs rec, but rather based on age. Younger travel teams get by without ARs, older rec teams have a three-man ref team just the same as older travel teams, and the costs differ little as the same ref can be reffing a rec team one weekend and a travel team the next and he gets paid the same.
- I agree they train more times per week, but the less the fields cost the less this matters
- I accounted for the cost of the coach in my comparison (and used a top end coaches fee - in many cases the coach will get half what I used)
- I didn't account for league entry fees. How much are they?
- Tournament fees are typically accounted for separately the main fee and are charged on top of that - with each team splitting the exact cost of the tournaments they enter between all the players, so this shouldn't affect my calculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The counties (at least Fairfax and Loudoun) charge per kid per season for field use, and it’s like $15-$20 per kid per season. So a team of 15 is paying about $250 total. Ref fees are essentially getting split between 2 teams for each game, so it’s roughly $150-$200 per season per team. Insurance is cheap through VYSA. So, a rec team with 15 players at $200/season is bringing in around $3K against $400 in expenses.

Thanks - that;s good info. Are you able to put numbers on the costs for travel also?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The counties (at least Fairfax and Loudoun) charge per kid per season for field use, and it’s like $15-$20 per kid per season. So a team of 15 is paying about $250 total. Ref fees are essentially getting split between 2 teams for each game, so it’s roughly $150-$200 per season per team. Insurance is cheap through VYSA. So, a rec team with 15 players at $200/season is bringing in around $3K against $400 in expenses.

I think you jumped the gun there Danny boy but about 1.5-2 thou per team you’re looking at something

[Anonymous]

Really thought the new VA Valor Club would make a statement with there coaching slate announcement: https://www.facebook.com/VirginiaValorFC/photos/pcb.138316668297790/138314894964634/

Very underwhelming coaching staff particularly on the boys side of the program. Far to many CYA coaches leading age groups. Has the TD not looked at the VPL standings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really thought the new VA Valor Club would make a statement with there coaching slate announcement: https://www.facebook.com/VirginiaValorFC/photos/pcb.138316668297790/138314894964634/

Very underwhelming coaching staff particularly on the boys side of the program. Far to many CYA coaches leading age groups. Has the TD not looked at the VPL standings?

Also quite a few holes. You would think with 2 staffs being brought together, there would be more than enough coaches to cover all the teams. And yes, sorry to all the 09 boys top players. You will be wasting at least a year of development.

[Anonymous]

The county doesn’t charge for grass fields.

[Anonymous]

If gold is the best, why would they have coaches on the weaker teams in that group but not the gold?

A lot more cya coaches then sya when sya is usually the stronger club. Weird.

[Anonymous]

Wow they gave him one of Sya’s stronger teams to coach so he can look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This epic merger of two mediocre clubs will take mediocrity to all new levels. Valor will be valiant at providing easy wins for the myriad better clubs , and the larger player pool will create many more opportunities for them to lose players to those clubs the second they show any symptom of above average ability

People seem to get so butt hurt by what other clubs do. I just don’t understand this mentality.

Serious question, you obviously have your kid in a club where you are happy. Exactly what does mocking or running another club down do for you? If your kid plays for a competing club I have news that may surprise you, your kid is at the same “mediocre” level as CYA/SYA.

I don't think he's butt hurt - at least he didn't come across that way to me. I don't know much about SYA, but I do know that CYA is a failing club. CYA is struggling because it has lost a lot of players. It lacks this base not for some fundamental reason tied to location or accessible market - it was a perfectly healthy club only four or five years ago - but because it does a lot of things wrong. I presume from some of the comments that SYA also has some problems. What this poster is saying is that merging two failing clubs doesn't magically create a successful club unless you also do something to solve the issues. I don't think CYA has even got to the stage where it can acknowledge what its issues are, so unless this is actually a takeover rather than a merger I see little hope of things getting better and suspect that the PP is correct - merging two failing clubs will just produce a larger club which will also fail for the same reasons the current ones do.

I don't agree. Will CYA/SYA ever be an elite club? No, but it doesn't have to be one either to be successful. There are lots of kids who just want to play competitively but who also have no ambition beyond local/regional leagues and playing in High School. A club that focuses on a tight geographic area can become a very successful club as long as it knows what it is and is not.

Well it is possible we don't agree - but your stated reason for disagreement was with something I didn't say.

I agree it is perfectly possible for a club to be successful without having an ambition to be elite. I didn't say that CYA is failing because it is not elite. CYA is failing it has substantial overheads and more customers are leaving than joining. More customers are leaving than joining because it is not providing a good customer experience.

I agree that it is perfectly possible to design a good customer experience around non-elite soccer. However CYA cannot just be a rec club - something it was (and maybe still is) actually quite good at - because it has a lot of debt which requires more revenue than the rec teams can generate. And so it must have quite a large travel program in order to distribute the cost of the debt across teams. And right now they are caught in a vicous circle. As the size of the travel program shrinks, the price goes up to cover the debt service which is spread among fewer and fewer players, and more people leave.

Unfortunately price is not the only reason people leave. The coaching is poor (not every coach and team of course, but on average it is not good), and the teams are frequently uncompetitive in the leagues they play in and in some cases they struggle to get eleven players on the field - often having to resort to letting players play for free in order to keep enough kids on the roster.

So I think my original point is still valid. If CYA does not address the problems it has with organization and coaching then this merger will not help. I agree the solution does not have to be becoming an "elite" club
and attracting the best players. But it does need to provide a good travel soccer product to its target market - whatever that is - something it currently fails to do.

You keep saying CYA needs to address problems when the club has fundamentally changed. Isn't a merger with SYA an attempt at addressing both club weaknesses?

It appears to me more like an attempt to address the symptoms (not enough players) without addressing the causes of those symptoms. If I am correct then the combined club will continue to lose more customers than it gains. Perhaps I will be proven wrong.

Early signs are that I will not be proven wrong. It's a pity. Sorry for all kids and parents involved in what is shaping up to be an implosion.

[Anonymous]

Why was he fired?

[Anonymous]

If Yugo and Studebaker merged and made a car...and then two even worse cars companies merged....that's the appropriate automotive metaphor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Yugo and Studebaker merged and made a car...and then two even worse cars companies merged....that's the appropriate automotive metaphor

I was willing to give them a chance, but the first move they make is to go with CCL and drop NPL/ECNL-R...and a month later it seems most of the movement is in the other direction, away from CCL. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Yugo and Studebaker merged and made a car...and then two even worse cars companies merged....that's the appropriate automotive metaphor

I was willing to give them a chance, but the first move they make is to go with CCL and drop NPL/ECNL-R...and a month later it seems most of the movement is in the other direction, away from CCL. Oh well.

All the movement. That was a really bad decision - if it was even their decision to make. From a competitive standpoint, Valor would be a good fit in ECNL-RL. CCL next year is going to be a worse experience in every way.

[Anonymous]

Anyone from CYA have insight about: Sofiane Allaquat, Dan Drickey, or Bashir Hooper? Good coaches?