ECNL forcing Brave & Union Partnership

[Anonymous]

So the lawsuit, how we doing with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VA Unions Girls 2025 Commits so far:

(MULTIPLE) UVA (ACC)
Florida State (ACC)
GEORGIA (SEC)
UCLA (BIG 10)
Penn State (BIG 10)
Wisconsin (BIG 10)
Maryland (BIG 10)
GEORGE MASON

I'm sure there are more. The point is that's a ton even compared to some of the top ECNL clubs in the country

The phrase, "You couldn't pay me to go these schools," literally applies, except for one on the list that offered to do so. Let's just be clear about this: which ones are the recruits who could not have gotten these offers if they had played for a different coach or club? Are you one of the parents saying that these kids were not good enough to get these offers on their own (I certainly hope not)? Or are you one of the coaches who is trying to take the credit?

This is an idiot post. I would be happy to send my kids to any of these schools - UVA, UCLA? Are you mad? And nothing wrong with UMD, GA, UW or FL State.
Out of curiosity, where did you to go school, OP? And what is your current job? Just trying to see what makes someone so self-righteous

I think it is "idiotic," not idiot, and I am neither mad nor insane. Nor is it "self-righteous" to say anything like this - it is not a moral question or judgment in any respect whatsoever. I have a great job, have had a great career, make over $ 5 million per year, and guess what . . . IT HAS HAD NOTHING OR NEXT TO NOTHING WHERE I WENT TO SCHOOL (I WENT TO FOUR), JUST LIKE THE SCHOLARSHIPS THESE WOMEN RECEIVE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CLUB OR COACH FOR WHICH THEY PLAY.

I did not say these were poor or mediocre universities. You need to read more carefully.

No, it is an idiot post - meaning drafted by an idiot. And the above is what I'd call a moron post. And self-righteous. I think it's safe to say that you don't have a great job, likely don't make a ton of money nor did you go to a reputable university. I'm sure it was "fine". But I doubt your school outranked UVA, UCLA, or even UMD. The kids accepted at these schools did well. Good for them. You sound like a jealous ninny. Plus the all caps bit has outed you as a basement dwelling troll.

Please continue. This is incredibly amusing and a pretty impressive display of an inability to admit that you have made pretty basic mistakes in reading my initial post. But also please take a stab at answering the questions in my post. If it’s not too difficult for you.

Different poster. Use some of your $5M/yr salary to take a writing class.

Another different poster and I agree a writing class is inorder!

"Another different . . . . " (?!!!) Great company you're keeping. Preach on.

U nor be as smrt as u thunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean to tell us OP that if these same kids played for BRAVE, they'd be getting the same looks at showcases than the kids at Union? Wake up...

Wow, $5 mil a year and still have time for this forum. maybe we all should go to wherever it is you went and spend time trolling with 'IDIOT'IC replies...

Not OP and DD not at either of these clubs but yes, the look that kids got on brave is similar to Union. Any ECNL team gets a ton of exposure. What you do with it is yours. DD played a game with 125 scouts at an Ecnl showcase. Many might have been there for the other team. She had an outstanding game. Received more than 20 calls from schools she had not been in contact with. ECNL get you the exposure. Would you rather be on Union than Brave if the travel time was the same. Of course. Was there more exposure at Union, of course. But Brave got plenty of exposure.

+1000000
My DD plays Brave and the colleges these kids are writing to are attending their games including US Scouts - all the big conference teams attended and contacted coaches. I am honestly shocked how arrogant PP statement is. I really hope this parent leaves for another club because I can already hear his elitist commentary on the sidelines. Ick!

[Anonymous]

20 players on roster for u13-u14 age groups? Crazy!!!

[Anonymous]

Can we get to 150 pages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How happy would we be if ECNL took away both Brave and Union's boys programs? That was the threat. Then we'd complain that the clubs didn't do anything to protect their teams. No win situation.

LW should get the "Captain of The Titanic Award" instead of the USYS Honor Award for her handling of this merger. It keeps being stated the clubs had no choice and that the club is doing this in the best interest of its members. Let's be real. The league wasn't kicking out Union Girls ECNL. The only question is if the club would be better off without Union Boys ECNL. Brave was/is a lost cause no mater what. Let them die and preserve what we have. Sometimes the best thing is to do nothing. Instead they panicked. Given the current outcome of Boys coaches leaving I'm 100% sure the parents would rather have kept their coaches over the league status. The problem is that MYS leadership didn't even bother to ask their members what THEY wanted. That is why they are upset with this merger. There was path forward for McLean to retain it's Girls ECNL program without causing such turmoil in the Boys program. LW and CW have destroyed the legacy that was McLean. Nobody is going to recognize this club in the coming years.

Probably corret. LW and CW pushed to combine the girls (voluntarily) in addition to the boys (that ECNL forced)

Well said...and I'm a parent of an MYS/VA Union boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How happy would we be if ECNL took away both Brave and Union's boys programs? That was the threat. Then we'd complain that the clubs didn't do anything to protect their teams. No win situation.

LW should get the "Captain of The Titanic Award" instead of the USYS Honor Award for her handling of this merger. It keeps being stated the clubs had no choice and that the club is doing this in the best interest of its members. Let's be real. The league wasn't kicking out Union Girls ECNL. The only question is if the club would be better off without Union Boys ECNL. Brave was/is a lost cause no mater what. Let them die and preserve what we have. Sometimes the best thing is to do nothing. Instead they panicked. Given the current outcome of Boys coaches leaving I'm 100% sure the parents would rather have kept their coaches over the league status. The problem is that MYS leadership didn't even bother to ask their members what THEY wanted. That is why they are upset with this merger. There was path forward for McLean to retain it's Girls ECNL program without causing such turmoil in the Boys program. LW and CW have destroyed the legacy that was McLean. Nobody is going to recognize this club in the coming years.

Probably corret. LW and CW pushed to combine the girls (voluntarily) in addition to the boys (that ECNL forced)

Well said...and I'm a parent of a MYS/VA Union boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20 players on roster for u13-u14 age groups? Crazy!!!

Thats really not that bad

[Anonymous]

I just got why they didn't call it Fairfax Union. I was like why do they call it Fairfax Virginia Union, that sounds stupid. They should just call it Fairfax Union, or for short...ohhh!

[Anonymous]

Alright! 24 hours since the announcement and everyone’s had some time to process the coaching slate and tryout schedule.

Are you all in on the merger and prioritizing FVU, are you thinking trying out other places in addition to it, or not convinced by what has transpired and just looking elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

Run

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alright! 24 hours since the announcement and everyone’s had some time to process the coaching slate and tryout schedule.

Are you all in on the merger and prioritizing FVU, are you thinking trying out other places in addition to it, or not convinced by what has transpired and just looking elsewhere?

I believe this “slate” is a bait and switch. The money’s not there to fund all those coaches. 1 coach will have to be in charge of each age group and others can help out or fill in as needed—which is no different than any other club.

Listing a bunch of names gives everyone some false sense of comfort when they see a name they like, but the devil’s still hidden in the unknown details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright! 24 hours since the announcement and everyone’s had some time to process the coaching slate and tryout schedule.

Are you all in on the merger and prioritizing FVU, are you thinking trying out other places in addition to it, or not convinced by what has transpired and just looking elsewhere?

I believe this “slate” is a bait and switch. The money’s not there to fund all those coaches. 1 coach will have to be in charge of each age group and others can help out or fill in as needed—which is no different than any other club.

Listing a bunch of names gives everyone some false sense of comfort when they see a name they like, but the devil’s still hidden in the unknown details.

Maybe the agreement was half or reduced coaching fee for teams with two or three coaches given every one is sharing the duties and has multiple teams.

There is much potential. Slate of multiple coaches, in most cases, is certainly to appease both those already with Fairfax or VA Union — who wants their coach to disappear if players are enjoying them? I think the styles, lead coach, and details of the coaching dynamics will work itself out. We’ve been with other clubs and the slates were reasonably considered and the coaches we’ve worked with from these clubs are better than many across the DMV (and beyond). McLean’s club organization and communication is definitely multiple steps beyond others in the region, we will have good fields, travel not too far for any of the sites, and hopefully players and parents who want to see it work.

Hopefully, as many have mentioned, they work to select the best talents, regardless of club or if external, without quotas, with coaches advocating for those they know will excel and form the best team. I feel for the 2008s who are in a critical year both otherwise, players will hopefully be assessed fairly and with coaches cooperating. This is only step 1, so hopefully they will work with a spirit of understanding, listening, and making real objective consideration.

Unhappy with a placement — look elsewhere. Yes, timing is tough but players can be considered at practices after ID sessions for the one or two additional spots with another club.

Rosters — I hope they try to keep the 2012s and 2011s to 18 rather than 20 or more. Too tough on the younger ECNL players to not dress or travel. Playing time for development will be the question among these ages too. Yes, trimming to 18 means there will be much disappointment but if you want to raise the level, don’t add two more who are not going to keep up.

Sorry to be optimistic as not many others seem not to be. I recognize the merger madness of the past several years has been rough for many, but this version could yield some strong results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright! 24 hours since the announcement and everyone’s had some time to process the coaching slate and tryout schedule.

Are you all in on the merger and prioritizing FVU, are you thinking trying out other places in addition to it, or not convinced by what has transpired and just looking elsewhere?

I believe this “slate” is a bait and switch. The money’s not there to fund all those coaches. 1 coach will have to be in charge of each age group and others can help out or fill in as needed—which is no different than any other club.

Listing a bunch of names gives everyone some false sense of comfort when they see a name they like, but the devil’s still hidden in the unknown details.

Maybe the agreement was half or reduced coaching fee for teams with two or three coaches given every one is sharing the duties and has multiple teams.

There is much potential. Slate of multiple coaches, in most cases, is certainly to appease both those already with Fairfax or VA Union — who wants their coach to disappear if players are enjoying them? I think the styles, lead coach, and details of the coaching dynamics will work itself out. We’ve been with other clubs and the slates were reasonably considered and the coaches we’ve worked with from these clubs are better than many across the DMV (and beyond). McLean’s club organization and communication is definitely multiple steps beyond others in the region, we will have good fields, travel not too far for any of the sites, and hopefully players and parents who want to see it work.

Hopefully, as many have mentioned, they work to select the best talents, regardless of club or if external, without quotas, with coaches advocating for those they know will excel and form the best team. I feel for the 2008s who are in a critical year both otherwise, players will hopefully be assessed fairly and with coaches cooperating. This is only step 1, so hopefully they will work with a spirit of understanding, listening, and making real objective consideration.

Unhappy with a placement — look elsewhere. Yes, timing is tough but players can be considered at practices after ID sessions for the one or two additional spots with another club.

Rosters — I hope they try to keep the 2012s and 2011s to 18 rather than 20 or more. Too tough on the younger ECNL players to not dress or travel. Playing time for development will be the question among these ages too. Yes, trimming to 18 means there will be much disappointment but if you want to raise the level, don’t add two more who are not going to keep up.

Sorry to be optimistic as not many others seem not to be. I recognize the merger madness of the past several years has been rough for many, but this version could yield some strong results.

Nice to hear some positivity around this. I don’t think anyone wanted this to happen initially but there is opportunity for something good here.

I’ve heard that the younger ages will look to keep the rosters a bit lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright! 24 hours since the announcement and everyone’s had some time to process the coaching slate and tryout schedule.

Are you all in on the merger and prioritizing FVU, are you thinking trying out other places in addition to it, or not convinced by what has transpired and just looking elsewhere?

I believe this “slate” is a bait and switch. The money’s not there to fund all those coaches. 1 coach will have to be in charge of each age group and others can help out or fill in as needed—which is no different than any other club.

Listing a bunch of names gives everyone some false sense of comfort when they see a name they like, but the devil’s still hidden in the unknown details.

Maybe the agreement was half or reduced coaching fee for teams with two or three coaches given every one is sharing the duties and has multiple teams.

There is much potential. Slate of multiple coaches, in most cases, is certainly to appease both those already with Fairfax or VA Union — who wants their coach to disappear if players are enjoying them? I think the styles, lead coach, and details of the coaching dynamics will work itself out. We’ve been with other clubs and the slates were reasonably considered and the coaches we’ve worked with from these clubs are better than many across the DMV (and beyond). McLean’s club organization and communication is definitely multiple steps beyond others in the region, we will have good fields, travel not too far for any of the sites, and hopefully players and parents who want to see it work.

Hopefully, as many have mentioned, they work to select the best talents, regardless of club or if external, without quotas, with coaches advocating for those they know will excel and form the best team. I feel for the 2008s who are in a critical year both otherwise, players will hopefully be assessed fairly and with coaches cooperating. This is only step 1, so hopefully they will work with a spirit of understanding, listening, and making real objective consideration.

Unhappy with a placement — look elsewhere. Yes, timing is tough but players can be considered at practices after ID sessions for the one or two additional spots with another club.

Rosters — I hope they try to keep the 2012s and 2011s to 18 rather than 20 or more. Too tough on the younger ECNL players to not dress or travel. Playing time for development will be the question among these ages too. Yes, trimming to 18 means there will be much disappointment but if you want to raise the level, don’t add two more who are not going to keep up.

Sorry to be optimistic as not many others seem not to be. I recognize the merger madness of the past several years has been rough for many, but this version could yield some strong results.

Nice to hear some positivity around this. I don’t think anyone wanted this to happen initially but there is opportunity for something good here.

I’ve heard that the younger ages will look to keep the rosters a bit lower.

Union 2011s are playing this year at 19 already before the merger.