DC United Academy - aa strong academy or not

[Anonymous]

saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Is the list public? How can you tell you is on it.

[Anonymous]

Edit: who is on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

He doesn't care about it being a MLS thing

He is obsessed with smearing DCU at any and every chance. So even though multiple academies on the link have 2012’s on their lists, the toxic person tried to make it a DCU thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

He doesn't care about it being a MLS thing

He is obsessed with smearing DCU at any and every chance. So even though multiple academies on the link have 2012’s on their lists, the toxic person tried to make it a DCU thing

Relax. DCU doesn't need smearing by others. It does just fine smearing itself on its own. It is widely known that it is one of the worst, if not the worst academies in the MLS system and even US Soccer will tell you them same.

And yes, this is a MLS wide issue. The +5 is for kids outside of the MLS academy and yes it is absolutely ridiculous that any club can claim rights to a player that isn't in their academy and they haven't even developed or had a part in developing in any way. It's absolutely absurd. But the MLS can do what it wants because no one challenges them. This is, on its face is illegal, but no one pays attention because it's soccer and no one really cares in this country. Try something like this in American football or basketball an watch people lose their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

He doesn't care about it being a MLS thing

He is obsessed with smearing DCU at any and every chance. So even though multiple academies on the link have 2012’s on their lists, the toxic person tried to make it a DCU thing

If there is another place to have a civil discussion and ask serious questions, let me know. People on this board make fun of people for not doing their homework but when you ask questions, you are smearing. Make it make sense.

While it is a MLS thing, only 3 clubs have the majority of their +5 players as 2012's, the first year of eligibility in tagging a player. If you have chosen to bit the apple, you have to deal with their rules.

Will the club tag a player if they have signed with them already? If we all know another club is highly unlikely to pay a compensation fee, is it ethical to tag a 13-year that have you not invested in (only an applicable strategy to 3 clubs)? When 27 teams are not doing what you are doing, is it a MLS thing or just those clubs take advantage of an unethical rule that has not been challenged yet like the NCAA a decade ago?

Don't deflect. Answer the questions for the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

He doesn't care about it being a MLS thing

He is obsessed with smearing DCU at any and every chance. So even though multiple academies on the link have 2012’s on their lists, the toxic person tried to make it a DCU thing

If there is another place to have a civil discussion and ask serious questions, let me know. People on this board make fun of people for not doing their homework but when you ask questions, you are smearing. Make it make sense.

While it is a MLS thing, only 3 clubs have the majority of their +5 players as 2012's, the first year of eligibility in tagging a player. If you have chosen to bit the apple, you have to deal with their rules.

Will the club tag a player if they have signed with them already? If we all know another club is highly unlikely to pay a compensation fee, is it ethical to tag a 13-year that have you not invested in (only an applicable strategy to 3 clubs)? When 27 teams are not doing what you are doing, is it a MLS thing or just those clubs take advantage of an unethical rule that has not been challenged yet like the NCAA a decade ago?

Don't deflect. Answer the questions for the public.

You do know you're not looking at a list from MLS or US Soccer?
It's a social media page that claims to have insider information

Also, you know this is not a full list of protected players on all clubs, but rather the most recent additions, allegedly

If a club starts at U15, it would make logical sense to see U15's being added new to their list

Again, this list isn't from the clubs, MLS or US Soccer.

Multiple clubs have 2012’s on the list.
Its a MLS thing.

[Anonymous]

It's not losing to Philly Union that makes DCU so bad. It is the way they lose. They look like they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. It's a shame. U16s shut out with no chance really. You can't watch DCU and think there is any development happening there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not losing to Philly Union that makes DCU so bad. It is the way they lose. They look like they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. It's a shame. U16s shut out with no chance really. You can't watch DCU and think there is any development happening there.

You do know the dcu u15s are playing up u16, correct? Obviously not.