What does a youth soccer coach make per year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

Do you have data to support this claim? It seems a bit self-serving and said to justify high fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

Do you have data to support this claim? It seems a bit self-serving and said to justify high fees.

No. Do you have data to support any claim, including that it self-serving for a full-price-paying parent like me to say something that is as obvious as the fact that water is wet (and which is actually contrary to my self-interest? Most parents are there and already pay full freight. If they could not afford it, they would not be there, right? Some do not pay all, but can afford to pay some. They are partly subsidized, like most college students with financial aid. And some cannot afford to pay anything and need full freight to be paid. Pretty obvious to anybody who is dealt with anything like higher education in their lives, or for that matter, travel soccer teams at more diverse clubs. So yes, just reducing prices is plainly not going to work for a lot of kids who today get a 100% or partial discount. Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs we evaluated. If your point is that no parents should pay as much, it's a free market, and there's plenty of low-priced options out there along with rec. Take advantage of those options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

Do you have data to support this claim? It seems a bit self-serving and said to justify high fees.

No. Do you have data to support any claim, including that it self-serving for a full-price-paying parent like me to say something that is as obvious as the fact that water is wet (and which is actually contrary to my self-interest? Most parents are there and already pay full freight. If they could not afford it, they would not be there, right? Some do not pay all, but can afford to pay some. They are partly subsidized, like most college students with financial aid. And some cannot afford to pay anything and need full freight to be paid. Pretty obvious to anybody who is dealt with anything like higher education in their lives, or for that matter, travel soccer teams at more diverse clubs. So yes, just reducing prices is plainly not going to work for a lot of kids who today get a 100% or partial discount. Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs we evaluated. If your point is that no parents should pay as much, it's a free market, and there's plenty of low-priced options out there along with rec. Take advantage of those options.

and he should make 350k why again?....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

Do you have data to support this claim? It seems a bit self-serving and said to justify high fees.

No. Do you have data to support any claim, including that it self-serving for a full-price-paying parent like me to say something that is as obvious as the fact that water is wet (and which is actually contrary to my self-interest? Most parents are there and already pay full freight. If they could not afford it, they would not be there, right? Some do not pay all, but can afford to pay some. They are partly subsidized, like most college students with financial aid. And some cannot afford to pay anything and need full freight to be paid. Pretty obvious to anybody who is dealt with anything like higher education in their lives, or for that matter, travel soccer teams at more diverse clubs. So yes, just reducing prices is plainly not going to work for a lot of kids who today get a 100% or partial discount. Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs we evaluated. If your point is that no parents should pay as much, it's a free market, and there's plenty of low-priced options out there along with rec. Take advantage of those options.

and he should make 350k why again?....

He shouldn't. See above and preceding discussion. Try reading. Or thinking. Or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

Do you have data to support this claim? It seems a bit self-serving and said to justify high fees.

No. Do you have data to support any claim, including that it self-serving for a full-price-paying parent like me to say something that is as obvious as the fact that water is wet (and which is actually contrary to my self-interest? Most parents are there and already pay full freight. If they could not afford it, they would not be there, right? Some do not pay all, but can afford to pay some. They are partly subsidized, like most college students with financial aid. And some cannot afford to pay anything and need full freight to be paid. Pretty obvious to anybody who is dealt with anything like higher education in their lives, or for that matter, travel soccer teams at more diverse clubs. So yes, just reducing prices is plainly not going to work for a lot of kids who today get a 100% or partial discount. Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs we evaluated. If your point is that no parents should pay as much, it's a free market, and there's plenty of low-priced options out there along with rec. Take advantage of those options.

and he should make 350k why again?....

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is pointless to talk about these things with people like this. The people who have kept this thread going are not remotely interested in solving any problems, just in feeling resentful. It is a larger problem in civic discourse. Everybody is equipped to feel outrage but most are too lazy, dumb or cynical to do anything about it except whine whine whine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

Do you have data to support this claim? It seems a bit self-serving and said to justify high fees.

No. Do you have data to support any claim, including that it self-serving for a full-price-paying parent like me to say something that is as obvious as the fact that water is wet (and which is actually contrary to my self-interest? Most parents are there and already pay full freight. If they could not afford it, they would not be there, right? Some do not pay all, but can afford to pay some. They are partly subsidized, like most college students with financial aid. And some cannot afford to pay anything and need full freight to be paid. Pretty obvious to anybody who is dealt with anything like higher education in their lives, or for that matter, travel soccer teams at more diverse clubs. So yes, just reducing prices is plainly not going to work for a lot of kids who today get a 100% or partial discount. Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs we evaluated. If your point is that no parents should pay as much, it's a free market, and there's plenty of low-priced options out there along with rec. Take advantage of those options.

and he should make 350k why again?....

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is pointless to talk about these things with people like this. The people who have kept this thread going are not remotely interested in solving any problems, just in feeling resentful. It is a larger problem in civic discourse. Everybody is equipped to feel outrage but most are too lazy, dumb or cynical to do anything about it except whine whine whine.

So we should all believe anecdotal evidence to justify specious claims? If you are going to soapbox on and on about how you are smart and trying to solve this problem, perhaps you should start with real data to inform real decisions. Just because its no sweat off your back to pay several thousands of dollars a year doesn't mean everyone else is as fortunate. Opportunity costs hit lots of folks, and maybe they are forgoing other beneficial activities to support their kids playing soccer. FWIW if you think Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs you really didn't do your research.

[Anonymous]

I'm a NP. I'm in the process of writing Alexandria Soccer Association a letter asking them to explain that bonus. It doesn't seem right to me. I know that my son's coach has to coach multiple teams to make a living, while simultaneously holding down another job. As a customer, that compensation scheme seems off to me, and I feel strongly that they need to distribute the money that they have differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree 350k is a little much. In a country where pay to play is a big issue this hits a lot of peoples hearts. Kids can’t play or afford to play but ED get 350k? How about he gets half and use that money for something else in the club

Earlier poster who doesn’t like the mob mentality when it comes to individual salaries. Agreed on your point. But I think all of that was established on page one of the thread. Now the hard part: what is the right way to do this. First, establish a sane base. 100K? Second, establish a ratio with average coach salary. Third, require club to establish minimum percentage of subsidized or free access to rec and travel programs. They have a high number relative to other clubs, which is one of the reasons my kid plays there. Fourth, do not exceed more than 4% fee increase for rec or travel in any year. Fifth, if the club has excess funds end of year, determine formula for splitting between community access, coaches and ED. And if the Board doesn’t implement it, then donors can earmark donations for community access or coaches. Problem solved.

1) OK, 2) maybe, 3)not sure why you would subsidize when you could just charge less, 4) how about incentives for reducing fees? 5) no, illegal. Replace the board.

Flat price reduction is not necessary for most families and not sufficient for others.

Do you have data to support this claim? It seems a bit self-serving and said to justify high fees.

No. Do you have data to support any claim, including that it self-serving for a full-price-paying parent like me to say something that is as obvious as the fact that water is wet (and which is actually contrary to my self-interest? Most parents are there and already pay full freight. If they could not afford it, they would not be there, right? Some do not pay all, but can afford to pay some. They are partly subsidized, like most college students with financial aid. And some cannot afford to pay anything and need full freight to be paid. Pretty obvious to anybody who is dealt with anything like higher education in their lives, or for that matter, travel soccer teams at more diverse clubs. So yes, just reducing prices is plainly not going to work for a lot of kids who today get a 100% or partial discount. Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs we evaluated. If your point is that no parents should pay as much, it's a free market, and there's plenty of low-priced options out there along with rec. Take advantage of those options.

and he should make 350k why again?....

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is pointless to talk about these things with people like this. The people who have kept this thread going are not remotely interested in solving any problems, just in feeling resentful. It is a larger problem in civic discourse. Everybody is equipped to feel outrage but most are too lazy, dumb or cynical to do anything about it except whine whine whine.

So we should all believe anecdotal evidence to justify specious claims? If you are going to soapbox on and on about how you are smart and trying to solve this problem, perhaps you should start with real data to inform real decisions. Just because its no sweat off your back to pay several thousands of dollars a year doesn't mean everyone else is as fortunate. Opportunity costs hit lots of folks, and maybe they are forgoing other beneficial activities to support their kids playing soccer. FWIW if you think Alexandria is lower-priced than other clubs you really didn't do your research.

Whine whine whine whine whine whine. Where's your data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NP. I'm in the process of writing Alexandria Soccer Association a letter asking them to explain that bonus. It doesn't seem right to me. I know that my son's coach has to coach multiple teams to make a living, while simultaneously holding down another job. As a customer, that compensation scheme seems off to me, and I feel strongly that they need to distribute the money that they have differently.

Please do. This is the kind of action people should take if they believe appropriate. Do something other than howling at the moon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NP. I'm in the process of writing Alexandria Soccer Association a letter asking them to explain that bonus. It doesn't seem right to me. I know that my son's coach has to coach multiple teams to make a living, while simultaneously holding down another job. As a customer, that compensation scheme seems off to me, and I feel strongly that they need to distribute the money that they have differently.

Please do. This is the kind of action people should take if they believe appropriate. Do something other than howling at the moon.

Maybe ask them how many kids could play for free or reduced rates if they dropped ED compensation to something rational?

[Anonymous]

350 THOUSAND!!! he makes more than MLS players!! Forget being a pro I want to be a ED at Alexandria!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:350 THOUSAND!!! he makes more than MLS players!! Forget being a pro I want to be a ED at Alexandria!!!

good one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a NP. I'm in the process of writing Alexandria Soccer Association a letter asking them to explain that bonus. It doesn't seem right to me. I know that my son's coach has to coach multiple teams to make a living, while simultaneously holding down another job. As a customer, that compensation scheme seems off to me, and I feel strongly that they need to distribute the money that they have differently.

Please do. This is the kind of action people should take if they believe appropriate. Do something other than howling at the moon.

You are not the only one. This thread has been very illuminating for Alexandria parents.