DC Soccer Club

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The allegations are directed toward the CXO, and the ED who are involved in all aspects of the club, including the Recreation program. That’s likely why the communication was shared with all families, not just those connected to the individual making the claim.

They aren't going to everyone. I got the ad for the Brookland tryouts, but not these emails

-Another rec parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The allegations are directed toward the CXO, and the ED who are involved in all aspects of the club, including the Recreation program. That’s likely why the communication was shared with all families, not just those connected to the individual making the claim.

They aren't going to everyone. I got the ad for the Brookland tryouts, but not these emails

-Another rec parent

Really? I’m a rec-only parent and got both. I wonder what lists they are using.

[Anonymous]

As a travel parent, I didn't get the Brookland ad but I got the latest email.

[Anonymous]

Let’s be honest—DCSC is the one keeping these kids from playing. They keep dragging out these TROs (now August 19!!!), and at this point, it’s looking like the kids won’t even be able to prep for a fall season -- if they are even able to have one. That’s not just frustrating—it’s wrong.

These families didn’t leave DCSC on a whim. They walked away because the club didn’t live up to its promises. Now they just want what any parent wants: their kids to play with a club that’s closer to home and actually meeting their children’s needs, with coaches they love and respect. None of these families want a cross‑town commute for practice, especially after decisions that let them down in the first place.

Instead of letting the kids move forward, DCSC is holding things up with legal maneuvering. It’s no longer about soccer—it’s about control. And the kids are collateral damage.

It’s disgusting. And it shows exactly what DCSC prioritizes—not community, not development, certainly not character, but power. Youth sports should never look like this.

Let the kids play. Enough is enough.

[Anonymous]

Can someone give a TLDR? I swear I’ve read this thread from page 1 and I’m still lost. Now there’s a TRO? Against the new club?

[Anonymous]

I got three copies of this email, with two kids in travel, one of whom also plays rec, so I think he was sending it to a pretty broad list.

[Anonymous]

Wow … I just saw the email from the former director. If even part of what he stated in the Employment Intake Questionnaire is true, why did Greg Andrulis try to brush it under the rug? It’s been exactly a year with no resolution. How is that acceptable in any organization, let alone one serving youth and families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow … I just saw the email from the former director. If even part of what he stated in the Employment Intake Questionnaire is true, why did Greg Andrulis try to brush it under the rug? It’s been exactly a year with no resolution. How is that acceptable in any organization, let alone one serving youth and families?

Since his appointment, the club has experienced significant staff turnover. How many coaches and directors have come and gone during his tenure? That alone should raise concern. More importantly, how many truly respect his leadership and feel confident in the direction he’s taking the organization?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FWIW, my kid was on a regular DCSC team, not a Brookland team, and they were also practicing on Fort Stevens in the dark/dust, for basically the whole year. I don't think this was specifically a failure to live up to whatever promises were made to Brookland families.

Yep, field allocation was honestly a sh*tshow for all this year.

Because the person responsible at DCSC for scheduling fields lives in Florida.

[Anonymous]

Wait! Someone was hired to handle one of the most critical issues in the club, yet they live out of state? How is that supposed to work effectively? If that’s true, it’s no surprise the club continues to struggle with fields. Decisions like this make it clear why DCSC isn’t moving in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait! Someone was hired to handle one of the most critical issues in the club, yet they live out of state? How is that supposed to work effectively? If that’s true, it’s no surprise the club continues to struggle with fields. Decisions like this make it clear why DCSC isn’t moving in the right direction.

There’s another staff member currently living out of state as well. COVID is over. Good night!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give a TLDR? I swear I’ve read this thread from page 1 and I’m still lost. Now there’s a TRO? Against the new club?

Two years ago, Tom Walsh’s Brookland FC (BFC) entered a two-year partnership with DCSC to expand opportunities for the NE-based club he founded and developed. DCSC overpromised and underdelivered. About a year ago, Tom began experiencing workplace harassment, which DCSC seemingly failed to address appropriately.

With his contract set to expire at the end of this season, Tom notified DCSC months ago that he did not intend to renew—based on multiple factors, including DCSC’s broken promises and the ongoing harassment—and planned to leave with the NE families who had followed him there. DCSC pushed back.

Following legal negotiations, Tom agreed to delay tryouts for his new club, Brookland Athletic Club (BAC), until late May. But on the day of tryouts, DCSC filed for—and was granted—a temporary restraining order, blocking BAC from proceeding. Kids were literally showing up ready to try out, and Tom was left to explain the situation to confused and frustrated parents on the spot. That TRO has since been extended to August 19.

Anyone familiar with travel soccer knows the seasonal year begins August 1. By August 19, players need to be rostered and practices should already be underway. This TRO is making that impossible. The kids are the ones being hurt—caught in the middle of DCSC’s power grab. It’s shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give a TLDR? I swear I’ve read this thread from page 1 and I’m still lost. Now there’s a TRO? Against the new club?

Two years ago, Tom Walsh’s Brookland FC (BFC) entered a two-year partnership with DCSC to expand opportunities for the NE-based club he founded and developed. DCSC overpromised and underdelivered. About a year ago, Tom began experiencing workplace harassment, which DCSC seemingly failed to address appropriately.

With his contract set to expire at the end of this season, Tom notified DCSC months ago that he did not intend to renew—based on multiple factors, including DCSC’s broken promises and the ongoing harassment—and planned to leave with the NE families who had followed him there. DCSC pushed back.

Following legal negotiations, Tom agreed to delay tryouts for his new club, Brookland Athletic Club (BAC), until late May. But on the day of tryouts, DCSC filed for—and was granted—a temporary restraining order, blocking BAC from proceeding. Kids were literally showing up ready to try out, and Tom was left to explain the situation to confused and frustrated parents on the spot. That TRO has since been extended to August 19.

Anyone familiar with travel soccer knows the seasonal year begins August 1. By August 19, players need to be rostered and practices should already be underway. This TRO is making that impossible. The kids are the ones being hurt—caught in the middle of DCSC’s power grab. It’s shameful.

Did Tom agree to a non-compete? Presumably the judge would have found that there with a likelihood that DCSC would succeed on the merits if he or she granted the TRO. It would not be surprising if one of the conditions of the original merger agreement was that Tom couldn't just leave and start another soccer club that competed with DCSC.

(Also small note: based on Tom's official complaint, the harassment is not ongoing. He says it stops after the original complaint to DCSC and he received an apology and agreement to change behavior. The ongoing aspect of his complaint is that he had to continue to work with the person who he has accused of harassment (albeit he was promoted out of her line of authority).)

[Anonymous]

On what basis was the TRO granted? Did he sign a non-compete or something? This whole thing makes me sad, and (although I’m sure there are two sides to the story) it sucks for the kids and families caught in the middle.

[Anonymous]

The Executive Director will not terminate the Chief Experience Officer. She was recruited based on her inappropriate relationship/connection with the Executive Director at DCSC. It is evident that she lacks the necessary skills to effectively manage a club, and the current Executive Director is infatuated with her and also lacking in this area. Despite multiple coaches bringing this issue to the attention of both the former and current presidents, no action was taken. Quite disappointing.