LMVSC town hall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of a previous blue player (we became white team), I think it's a refreshing take on youth sports. We used to, like every club in the area, spend too much time caring only for the red team or the best players. With this new model, I feel confident and very good that white team players and blue team players will get just as many resources as the red team players. We grade school subjects on a curve, why not treat youth soccer players on a curve?

I'm just happy that we're finally going to be balancing out resources and attention. Our uniforms are blue and white, we should be focusing on them

+1 and must admit, the 'elitism' from "some of the teams" hopefully starts to recede; i don't care if we're considered elite or not and tbh i'd prefer not. you don't want to be part of this community club, bye bye

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

That's what I heard, that academy will train together and it seems to be the case so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

That's what I heard, that academy will train together and it seems to be the case so far.

why does everybody not acknowledge this part? what about the age groups that only have one team? what about the age groups that have zero teams? what about the age groups that had two teams and will now be in between one and two teams?

[Anonymous]

look at their taxes. LB has a decentish salary - I think around 80k. No-one else is making much. The coach and field costs should expand and contract with participation rates. I don't see how they have to fold. Compared to larger clubs with high salaried TDs and age group coordinators they seem in good shape

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:look at their taxes. LB has a decentish salary - I think around 80k. No-one else is making much. The coach and field costs should expand and contract with participation rates. I don't see how they have to fold. Compared to larger clubs with high salaried TDs and age group coordinators they seem in good shape

I'd rather see their books rather than taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:look at their taxes. LB has a decentish salary - I think around 80k. No-one else is making much. The coach and field costs should expand and contract with participation rates. I don't see how they have to fold. Compared to larger clubs with high salaried TDs and age group coordinators they seem in good shape

I'd rather see their books rather than taxes.

you don't need to. look at the standings. count the number of teams. count the number of players at practices. it's all there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:look at their taxes. LB has a decentish salary - I think around 80k. No-one else is making much. The coach and field costs should expand and contract with participation rates. I don't see how they have to fold. Compared to larger clubs with high salaried TDs and age group coordinators they seem in good shape

I'd rather see their books rather than taxes.

you don't need to. look at the standings. count the number of teams. count the number of players at practices. it's all there.

there is a difference between shrinking and folding. Count the number of rec soccer players, county the number of rec basketball players. Those there who wanted to showcase on a top tier team need to leave or be disappointed. Those there who want something more than rec who aren't planning on vying for a scholarship and don't care about playing CCL will probably be fine in NCSL (probably happier)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:look at their taxes. LB has a decentish salary - I think around 80k. No-one else is making much. The coach and field costs should expand and contract with participation rates. I don't see how they have to fold. Compared to larger clubs with high salaried TDs and age group coordinators they seem in good shape

I'd rather see their books rather than taxes.

you don't need to. look at the standings. count the number of teams. count the number of players at practices. it's all there.

there is a difference between shrinking and folding. Count the number of rec soccer players, county the number of rec basketball players. Those there who wanted to showcase on a top tier team need to leave or be disappointed. Those there who want something more than rec who aren't planning on vying for a scholarship and don't care about playing CCL will probably be fine in NCSL (probably happier)

Careful about CCL talk. There's plenty of us that wish to do NCSL exclusively, but well all know LC and JN will be on these boards immediately to say "it's fine, it's fine, the academy is used in europe so we'll be european-level!".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Problem is it waters down the play for red team players. AAP students aren’t mixed with Gen Ed students. They are given a more challenging track for a reason.

But if the red team practices separately/elsewhere, exactly how does that challenge red team players more?

No no no no. LC and JN both said, the academy trains together. They didn't have an answer for all the age groups with only one team, nor age groups that are missing teams. But they said it: the age group trains together.

That's what I heard, that academy will train together and it seems to be the case so far.

why does everybody not acknowledge this part? what about the age groups that only have one team? what about the age groups that have zero teams? what about the age groups that had two teams and will now be in between one and two teams?

I acknowledge that there are ages with no teams or only one. As a parent what am I supposed to do. What can the club do if they don’t have the players. They can’t magically create a team or add an additional one. What they can hope is to rebuild and work with the ones they have. I wish the club would have a team at each age but some age groups left completely or they were already low in numbers to begin with not having a second team. That was the case with the 06 girls. As for the training of those with one team, maybe combine them with then next age group up.

[Anonymous]

As a parent, I can set demands of what they do. If they're successful, they'll get my money. Now, what can they do? Perhaps not use some recycled idea (academy) which requires one very key variable: lots of players. LC set up this academy because it will be good for his teams. That's it. But it doesn't matter.

LMVSC doesn't care about the girls side. They've had the same coaches for three teams on their third year, meaning LB lied last year. In spring of 2019, I personally watched SO (Director of Coaching U14 – U19) preside over the 2005 boys practice at Bryant in the early session because "they have State Cup this weekend". Well, so did my DD's 2005 girls and 2006 girls who were at Bryant in the late session, and had to share a very small field because the 2005 boys took most of it. SO left Bryant when the boys left. I also got the chance to see a 2005 girls practice get canceled due to coaching conflicts, odd though because I saw SO at Hayfield with JN (Director of Travel And Coaches) and his 2008 boys team (who at the team were U12). Why was the Director of U14 - U19 at a U12 practice instead of a U14 practice? Because they don't care about the girls, two directors for U12 boys and nothing for the girls.

Do you want to know why we're leaving? Because you pushed us away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I can set demands of what they do. If they're successful, they'll get my money. Now, what can they do? Perhaps not use some recycled idea (academy) which requires one very key variable: lots of players. LC set up this academy because it will be good for his teams. That's it. But it doesn't matter.

LMVSC doesn't care about the girls side. They've had the same coaches for three teams on their third year, meaning LB lied last year. In spring of 2019, I personally watched SO (Director of Coaching U14 – U19) preside over the 2005 boys practice at Bryant in the early session because "they have State Cup this weekend". Well, so did my DD's 2005 girls and 2006 girls who were at Bryant in the late session, and had to share a very small field because the 2005 boys took most of it. SO left Bryant when the boys left. I also got the chance to see a 2005 girls practice get canceled due to coaching conflicts, odd though because I saw SO at Hayfield with JN (Director of Travel And Coaches) and his 2008 boys team (who at the team were U12). Why was the Director of U14 - U19 at a U12 practice instead of a U14 practice? Because they don't care about the girls, two directors for U12 boys and nothing for the girls.

Do you want to know why we're leaving? Because you pushed us away.

...well that's a little damning lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I can set demands of what they do. If they're successful, they'll get my money. Now, what can they do? Perhaps not use some recycled idea (academy) which requires one very key variable: lots of players. LC set up this academy because it will be good for his teams. That's it. But it doesn't matter.

LMVSC doesn't care about the girls side. They've had the same coaches for three teams on their third year, meaning LB lied last year. In spring of 2019, I personally watched SO (Director of Coaching U14 – U19) preside over the 2005 boys practice at Bryant in the early session because "they have State Cup this weekend". Well, so did my DD's 2005 girls and 2006 girls who were at Bryant in the late session, and had to share a very small field because the 2005 boys took most of it. SO left Bryant when the boys left. I also got the chance to see a 2005 girls practice get canceled due to coaching conflicts, odd though because I saw SO at Hayfield with JN (Director of Travel And Coaches) and his 2008 boys team (who at the team were U12). Why was the Director of U14 - U19 at a U12 practice instead of a U14 practice? Because they don't care about the girls, two directors for U12 boys and nothing for the girls.

Do you want to know why we're leaving? Because you pushed us away.

From a boy parent perspective, isn’t Sam the 2005 boys coach? Of course he would be at their practice?! He was probably at the 2004 boys practice too, as he coaches that team as well. I imagine the boys have had cancelled practices too. For the Hayfield situation? I have no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, I can set demands of what they do. If they're successful, they'll get my money. Now, what can they do? Perhaps not use some recycled idea (academy) which requires one very key variable: lots of players. LC set up this academy because it will be good for his teams. That's it. But it doesn't matter.

LMVSC doesn't care about the girls side. They've had the same coaches for three teams on their third year, meaning LB lied last year. In spring of 2019, I personally watched SO (Director of Coaching U14 – U19) preside over the 2005 boys practice at Bryant in the early session because "they have State Cup this weekend". Well, so did my DD's 2005 girls and 2006 girls who were at Bryant in the late session, and had to share a very small field because the 2005 boys took most of it. SO left Bryant when the boys left. I also got the chance to see a 2005 girls practice get canceled due to coaching conflicts, odd though because I saw SO at Hayfield with JN (Director of Travel And Coaches) and his 2008 boys team (who at the team were U12). Why was the Director of U14 - U19 at a U12 practice instead of a U14 practice? Because they don't care about the girls, two directors for U12 boys and nothing for the girls.

Do you want to know why we're leaving? Because you pushed us away.

From a boy parent perspective, isn’t Sam the 2005 boys coach? Of course he would be at their practice?! He was probably at the 2004 boys practice too, as he coaches that team as well. I imagine the boys have had cancelled practices too. For the Hayfield situation? I have no idea.

No, he was not. He was the Director for U14 and up. PM was the coach. Now, explain with SO left when the boys left. U14 players were STILL THERE.