Reply to GFR Falling apart?

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "GFR Falling apart?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I attended the meeting and it was clear that there was a significant contingent in attendance who supported ML’s takeover attempt [ML the board member, not the coach], largely (with a couple exceptions) from the boys side. Frequent interruptions from this contingent limited the ability of RS, NM, or other board members to respond. I think there was also a significant number of folks on the other side of this issue at the meeting, particularly from the girls’ side folks who had more direct experience with the TF coaches, but they tended to be less disruptive so didn’t get as much chance to speak. My DD is on the girls side and on one of the teams affected by the efforts to remove the TF coaches, and my primary concern is retaining these high quality coaches for my DD’s development, so I guess I have some bias here, but it remains the case that the takeover effort was highly disruptive and I’ve still seen no reason (including in ML’s resignation letter or the allegations in the lawsuit) why the level of disruption caused by ML’s takeover attempt was merited.

If there are concerns about financial processes or board controls, those can be worked out within the Board and/or in the off-season, rather than in a manner that is highly damaging to the club. ML’s supporters tried to deny this, but the timing of the disruption—just a couple weeks before tryouts—plainly hurt the club’s retention and recruiting, as everyone in the affected age groups knows and the statistics shared at the meeting showed. The ML-led Board put out a “proposed” coaching slate that literally had “TBD” for some teams, had individual coaches purportedly (and unbelievably) covering 4-5 teams, and lacked the quality of coaching across the board, at least on the girls’ side, that TF had brought to the club. I don’t know why ML’s supporters at the meeting refused to acknowledge that the disruption was damaging rather than just accepting and justifying it.

Nor has any reason ever been offered for why the timing suddenly became acute in early April 2025. The TF contract and other issues raised had all been in place for a year or more by that point, and nothing offered yet shows any change in April that required sudden and disruptive action. Why couldn’t these issues wait until the summer to work out through constructive engagement rather than in ways damaging to the club? I don’t know the real drivers on the timing because nothing’s been offered, but from the outside the timing certainly appears as though it was chosen to inflict the most harm. Why take these actions in early April with no trigger and no plan on how to address the giant hole in coaching it created just weeks before the typical NoVa tryout period? What changed in early April that warranted doing this much harm to the club? I’ve never seen any answer to this timing question in all the rumors and complaints offered on this board. Why was it a problem in April and not apparent in December? Why couldn’t it wait until June?

Given that there is active litigation, it’s not surprising that the Board was not inclined to “litigate” the merits with ML’s supporters in the room. No sensible lawyer would advise that. But the Board presentation did address some of the significant claims in the lawsuit. First, contrary to ML’s complaint, the presentation made clear that the TF contract was approved by the Board in the first instance and ratified again after ML’s interregnum. Second, the presentation made clear that RS received no compensation through the TF arrangement. While of course the evidence might show otherwise, given that the Board’s lawyer surely vetted the presentation, it seems unlikely there is no support for these claims.

Some of ML’s supporters seemed to think that the mere fact that some coaches were contractors rather than employees was a problem, but there’s no evidence structuring compensation differently was detrimental to the club or the players. If a nonprofit foodbank buys food from a grocery store instead of having its own employees grow it, that can still serve its nonprofit mission. As long as my club fees are the same and don’t go up, why do I care how coaches’ compensation is structured on the back end? I could see that there might be some equity concerns if all coaches weren’t fairly compensated, but like any institution, there are differences in performance and licensing that mean that some coaches might be compensated differently than others. And NM at least stated that coaching compensation was comparable across groups. One heckler complained that the TF contract was sole source rather than blindly and competitively bid, but while taking three bids for a supplier of printer paper and toner might make sense, we don’t want the lowest cost, generic “Acme Coaching” serving as TD and director of coaching and leading our teams. Actual qualifications and track record matter and so competitive bidding would make no sense in this context unless you don’t care who is coaching your kids.

I also think it was unfortunate that these concerns so thoroughly dominated the meeting when my other DD is on the rec/house side, which is half the club in revenue terms and far more in number of kids involved. Rec parents have an equal stake in the club and got short shrift at this meeting bc of the vocal contingent supporting the takeover attempt.

I don’t doubt that governance processes and financial controls at GFR, like at any institution, could be improved. But if you think a stronger or different conflict of interest policy would benefit the club, or some other governance change is needed, the best way to accomplish that is constructive engagement, not disruption and litigiousness. If you think there should be improvements, go to work constructively, not with antagonism and disparagement. RS might at times become defensive, but NM (apart from one unfortunate quip) was calm and engaged throughout the meeting, and impressively so given the accusations being thrown his way and the refusal to afford him an uninterrupted opportunity to respond. If you actually want to make the club better, and not just act out, put in the hard work of building consensus instead of just throwing bombs.
[/quote]

Well. Said.

By the way, the 2 guys who sat with the lawyer and distanced themselves from the rest of the BoD were the 2 who sided with ML and should have been the one's answering a lot of the questions instead of sitting there like they had nothing to do with it.  The rest of the board answered the difficult questions and tried to maintain order when it was those 2 who are directly responsible for everything that went down the past 2 months!  The board members who support TF and RS were stuck defending the decisions made by ML and the other 2.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics