Muldoon unacceptable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Muldoons is terrible but it’s always been. Potomac also uses it for their home field at the younger ages. There’s a shortage of soccer fields so the better fields go to older teams.

+1

This is the reason folks. There are a shortage of fields in the county and the older kids/teens get the good fields. We played for Bethesda at Muldoons in the earlier years as many, many families have and we’ve also played on fields with grass so long that we told the kids to lift the ball with their feet to pass it. LOL. Making memories. Now they’re teens and play on the good fields. The older kids/teens deserve the good fields just like the old man deserves the corvette. You have to do your time and be patient. No one is out to get you. It’s simply a shortage of fields.

[Anonymous]

One of the richest counties in the US and not enough quality fields. SummerHill, Polo Grounds and Muldoons all are crap. NIMBY / lawyers are hard at work in MoCo. Get involved on local soccer clubs’ BODs and elect better county officials. That’s your only hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Convenient for whom? Muldoons is in the boon docks.

So let me get this straight. If a club is “over capacity” then they should still charge the extra families for fees and then use that as justification for keeping unsafe fields instead of setting a max capacity of families and stick to safe fields. Of course in this situation the club is completely without fault. Not to mention the County. Clearly the parents fault.

Does that sound about right?

One might think in left leaning, paternalistic Montgomery County someone might take issue with a large bog being used for children’s soccer. I guess there isn’t enough tax revenue there. But that’s a discussion for another forum.

Why is providing facilities for private organizations the responsibility of the county government?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny that people think that BSC is using Muldoon's because they want to, or that they don't know it's a sucky field.

Why do clubs use lousy fields? Because they have no alternative. Or, more specifically, the alternative is not offering the program at all. Fields are scarce, and getting access is difficult and can be byzantine. This is especially true the closer you get to the city and more expensive real estate becomes. It's not like a club can go to "Fields R Us" and just order up as many fields as they like. They have to go with what they can get.

Why do clubs offer programs when they don't have the facilities to support them? Because people will sign up for them anyway.

Is this supposed to be some kind of excuse? It’s falling flat to me.

It's not an excuse, it's an explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Convenient for whom? Muldoons is in the boon docks.

So let me get this straight. If a club is “over capacity” then they should still charge the extra families for fees and then use that as justification for keeping unsafe fields instead of setting a max capacity of families and stick to safe fields. Of course in this situation the club is completely without fault. Not to mention the County. Clearly the parents fault.

Does that sound about right?

One might think in left leaning, paternalistic Montgomery County someone might take issue with a large bog being used for children’s soccer. I guess there isn’t enough tax revenue there. But that’s a discussion for another forum.

I don't know why you use the word "fault" like it's some kind of moralistic issue.

Soccer clubs are private entities, they do what is in their best interest. The limiting factor on what programs are offered is people's willingness to sign up for them, not the availability of facilities. If people keep signing up they'll put the programs wherever they can.

It's like complaining about a restaurant having long wait times for a table. The only reason that's possible is that the customers are willing to put up with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Convenient for whom? Muldoons is in the boon docks.

So let me get this straight. If a club is “over capacity” then they should still charge the extra families for fees and then use that as justification for keeping unsafe fields instead of setting a max capacity of families and stick to safe fields. Of course in this situation the club is completely without fault. Not to mention the County. Clearly the parents fault.

Does that sound about right?

One might think in left leaning, paternalistic Montgomery County someone might take issue with a large bog being used for children’s soccer. I guess there isn’t enough tax revenue there. But that’s a discussion for another forum.

I don't know why you use the word "fault" like it's some kind of moralistic issue.

Soccer clubs are private entities, they do what is in their best interest. The limiting factor on what programs are offered is people's willingness to sign up for them, not the availability of facilities. If people keep signing up they'll put the programs wherever they can.

It's like complaining about a restaurant having long wait times for a table. The only reason that's possible is that the customers are willing to put up with it.

That’s interesting. Virginia clubs have a lot of practices and games on public fields. I’m actually shocked that the opposite is true in Montgomery County. Safety issues are a government issue to me. Having kids with rolled ankles because of sinkholes in a boggy field should bear some liability for the “private entity.”

[Anonymous]

On the restaurant analogy, the better comparison is not line waiting times, it’s food quality. They have mandated inspections for public health reasons. It’s hard to pin down the source of a bout of stomach illness and if guidelines and routine inspections weren’t conducted, there would be no incentive for restaurants to ensure they were operating cleanly. Try to figure out next time you get norovirus if it was the bug “going around” or related to the meal prep the last time you went out for a quick bite. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Convenient for whom? Muldoons is in the boon docks.

So let me get this straight. If a club is “over capacity” then they should still charge the extra families for fees and then use that as justification for keeping unsafe fields instead of setting a max capacity of families and stick to safe fields. Of course in this situation the club is completely without fault. Not to mention the County. Clearly the parents fault.

Does that sound about right?

One might think in left leaning, paternalistic Montgomery County someone might take issue with a large bog being used for children’s soccer. I guess there isn’t enough tax revenue there. But that’s a discussion for another forum.

I don't know why you use the word "fault" like it's some kind of moralistic issue.

Soccer clubs are private entities, they do what is in their best interest. The limiting factor on what programs are offered is people's willingness to sign up for them, not the availability of facilities. If people keep signing up they'll put the programs wherever they can.

It's like complaining about a restaurant having long wait times for a table. The only reason that's possible is that the customers are willing to put up with it.

That’s interesting. Virginia clubs have a lot of practices and games on public fields. I’m actually shocked that the opposite is true in Montgomery County. Safety issues are a government issue to me. Having kids with rolled ankles because of sinkholes in a boggy field should bear some liability for the “private entity.”

I think you're really stretching it to say there's some sort of compelling danger to public safety to kids playing soccer on lumpy fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the restaurant analogy, the better comparison is not line waiting times, it’s food quality. They have mandated inspections for public health reasons. It’s hard to pin down the source of a bout of stomach illness and if guidelines and routine inspections weren’t conducted, there would be no incentive for restaurants to ensure they were operating cleanly. Try to figure out next time you get norovirus if it was the bug “going around” or related to the meal prep the last time you went out for a quick bite. Good luck with that.

You're missing the point that the alternative to playing on a poor field isn't playing on a great field that's out there but sitting unused because the people running the club are stupid/selfish/venal. The alternative is not playing at all. So what you're proposing is that the government should shut down soccer played on poor quality fields, just as it shuts down restaurants with poor hygiene.

What is the compelling public interest in preventing soccer from being played on poor quality fields?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Convenient for whom? Muldoons is in the boon docks.

So let me get this straight. If a club is “over capacity” then they should still charge the extra families for fees and then use that as justification for keeping unsafe fields instead of setting a max capacity of families and stick to safe fields. Of course in this situation the club is completely without fault. Not to mention the County. Clearly the parents fault.

Does that sound about right?

One might think in left leaning, paternalistic Montgomery County someone might take issue with a large bog being used for children’s soccer. I guess there isn’t enough tax revenue there. But that’s a discussion for another forum.

I don't know why you use the word "fault" like it's some kind of moralistic issue.

Soccer clubs are private entities, they do what is in their best interest. The limiting factor on what programs are offered is people's willingness to sign up for them, not the availability of facilities. If people keep signing up they'll put the programs wherever they can.

It's like complaining about a restaurant having long wait times for a table. The only reason that's possible is that the customers are willing to put up with it.

That’s interesting. Virginia clubs have a lot of practices and games on public fields. I’m actually shocked that the opposite is true in Montgomery County. Safety issues are a government issue to me. Having kids with rolled ankles because of sinkholes in a boggy field should bear some liability for the “private entity.”

I think you're really stretching it to say there's some sort of compelling danger to public safety to kids playing soccer on lumpy fields.

I would say that the health benefit of exercise outweighs the danger of injury, even on an uneven field.

[Anonymous]

The only alternative to muldoons is not playing at all?

[Anonymous]

Easy solution have every MoCo club that uses Muldoons add 2 additional roster spots for each team in the entire organizations. Take those two spots fees on average $2k per year and dedicate it to put quality turf or grass on the farms add in 2 more tournaments with all proceeds going as well and over a 3-5 year period should payoff the fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only alternative to muldoons is not playing at all?

Why would you assume that better alternatives exist and they're just not using them?

[Anonymous]

Is BSC AND Muldoons the only option? It’s either that or nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easy solution have every MoCo club that uses Muldoons add 2 additional roster spots for each team in the entire organizations. Take those two spots fees on average $2k per year and dedicate it to put quality turf or grass on the farms add in 2 more tournaments with all proceeds going as well and over a 3-5 year period should payoff the fields.

You're on the right track but you're numbers are probably an order of magnitude low.

It's amazing to me that otherwise intelligent people don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that athletic fields cost money. Good fields cost a lot of money. If you look at what field time costs, how much field time a program needs, and what parents are willing to pay, for the most part youth sports programs are not sustainable unless they have someone else footing the bill for their fields. That someone else is usually the local government.

If you live someplace where the local government is unwilling to pay the cost of providing facilities for youth sports -- or more specifically, your sport of choice -- then the choice is going to be playing on poor fields or not playing at all.