Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. So announcement made which formalized what has been discussed that the youth clubs are merging under the Richmond United brand - going from about 200 players at RU to over 10k combined...

New branding, but not heavy on the details beyond that. Haven't checked out the updated website at this point.

Host of speakers including CEO of US Club Soccer.

Stay tuned, I guess?

Does anyone care about the CEO of US Club Soccer?

MC the CEO of US CLUB SOCCER is the worst - biggest ego in youth soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. So announcement made which formalized what has been discussed that the youth clubs are merging under the Richmond United brand - going from about 200 players at RU to over 10k combined...

New branding, but not heavy on the details beyond that. Haven't checked out the updated website at this point.

Host of speakers including CEO of US Club Soccer.

Stay tuned, I guess?

Does anyone care about the CEO of US Club Soccer?

MC the CEO of US CLUB SOCCER is the worst - biggest ego in youth soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. So announcement made which formalized what has been discussed that the youth clubs are merging under the Richmond United brand - going from about 200 players at RU to over 10k combined...

New branding, but not heavy on the details beyond that. Haven't checked out the updated website at this point.

Host of speakers including CEO of US Club Soccer.

Stay tuned, I guess?

Does anyone care about the CEO of US Club Soccer?

Anonymous wrote:Ok. So announcement made which formalized what has been discussed that the youth clubs are merging under the Richmond United brand - going from about 200 players at RU to over 10k combined...

New branding, but not heavy on the details beyond that. Haven't checked out the updated website at this point.

Host of speakers including CEO of US Club Soccer.

Stay tuned, I guess?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RU has a pathway to Kickers pro and USL. They won’t go MLS Next because that pathway goes away. Go MLS Next and you lose the rights to the players. They wouldn’t be able to sign contracts unless the league approves.

MLS Next does seem unlikely but why would the league have any say over the rights of a pay to play athlete? Is that an academy only policy?

If your player was to be sold to a club or go overseas and sign then the league would collect the money not the club. Players signing USL contracts that then go on to other clubs would have to be “sold” which would result in a transfer fee and funds going back into the club. MLS Next clubs (non academies) will never see money go back into the club from transfers.

Slight FYI here.

MLS did come up with "development grants" to MLS Next teams that aren't academies about a year ago. So an MLSN Academy can grab a player from a basic MLSN (and pretty sure poaching to academies is encouraged) and then if they say sell the player to a European club for say $3 million, the basic MLSN team would get about $10,000 (and up to $30,000 in rare scenarios).

Yes, it is merely a token that wouldn't cover but a couple of years or so of the cost of a player at a basic MLSN. And agreed, this poaching of players and their rights could be a big reason for clubs and players to avoid the MLSN league.

As a parent paying thousands of $$$ a year for my DC to play soccer, I would be very reluctant to play for an org that had any contractual language over what my kid can and cannot do. I can understand it for an academy where they are footing the bill but not where I am the customer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RU has a pathway to Kickers pro and USL. They won’t go MLS Next because that pathway goes away. Go MLS Next and you lose the rights to the players. They wouldn’t be able to sign contracts unless the league approves.

MLS Next does seem unlikely but why would the league have any say over the rights of a pay to play athlete? Is that an academy only policy?

If your player was to be sold to a club or go overseas and sign then the league would collect the money not the club. Players signing USL contracts that then go on to other clubs would have to be “sold” which would result in a transfer fee and funds going back into the club. MLS Next clubs (non academies) will never see money go back into the club from transfers.

Slight FYI here.

MLS did come up with "development grants" to MLS Next teams that aren't academies about a year ago. So an MLSN Academy can grab a player from a basic MLSN (and pretty sure poaching to academies is encouraged) and then if they say sell the player to a European club for say $3 million, the basic MLSN team would get about $10,000 (and up to $30,000 in rare scenarios).

Yes, it is merely a token that wouldn't cover but a couple of years or so of the cost of a player at a basic MLSN. And agreed, this poaching of players and their rights could be a big reason for clubs and players to avoid the MLSN league.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RU has a pathway to Kickers pro and USL. They won’t go MLS Next because that pathway goes away. Go MLS Next and you lose the rights to the players. They wouldn’t be able to sign contracts unless the league approves.

MLS Next does seem unlikely but why would the league have any say over the rights of a pay to play athlete? Is that an academy only policy?

If your player was to be sold to a club or go overseas and sign then the league would collect the money not the club. Players signing USL contracts that then go on to other clubs would have to be “sold” which would result in a transfer fee and funds going back into the club. MLS Next clubs (non academies) will never see money go back into the club from transfers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RU has a pathway to Kickers pro and USL. They won’t go MLS Next because that pathway goes away. Go MLS Next and you lose the rights to the players. They wouldn’t be able to sign contracts unless the league approves.

MLS Next does seem unlikely but why would the league have any say over the rights of a pay to play athlete? Is that an academy only policy?

Anonymous wrote:RU has a pathway to Kickers pro and USL. They won’t go MLS Next because that pathway goes away. Go MLS Next and you lose the rights to the players. They wouldn’t be able to sign contracts unless the league approves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can only speak for Strikers, but they have consistently resisted bumping their clubs up a level for years, even when certain age groups are strong. They’d rather have their teams be in 1st in weaker leagues for the chance at a national title than grow these kids by having them play tough competition week in and week out, even if it means they lose some games. I’m not saying this because I think Strikers is the end all be all, but highlighting that Strikers puts their egos and priorities ahead of the kids they say they want to develop. Maybe combining Kickers and Strikers for more teams helps ensure success at that next level, but at what cost? I’m with Strikers because it’s in my backyard. I have no interest in driving 40 minutes to practice 3 days a week because someone decided combining travel was a good idea.

Also, all of this assumes that the Richmond United model is a good one. The RU families I know can’t stand the organization. I’ve seen a number of kids leave the club for other non-affiliated teams and others quit the sport all together because of how toxic it is. I hate the thought of someone thinking that making everything RU is a good thing.

If they do combine travel, I think this helps all of these smaller clubs that are continuing to attract players from Strikers/Kickers/FCR. Kids move because they don’t feel they are getting a fair shake with a certain club, so if everything is just one club, then the only options are these newer clubs like Grove and Velocity.

Interesting thoughts about Strikers and their priorities - that's kinda why the merger of the clubs is surprising since there seems to be a pretty big gulf in the development philosophies of Kickers, Strikers and FCR. It will be interesting to see where things end up shaking out. It would make sense to try to keep some sort of North Side / South Side model for the rec / classic level teams but move to a more metro area wide model for the ECNL and even the -RL teams. As far as RU goes, I think everyone's experience is different and kinda what you make of it. Thinking of it, it's really not that big overall with just have single age group NL teams and really not carrying a ton of staff outside of the coaches and tech director level.

Seems to be quite a few newer options on the Boys side with the addition of Grove and Velocity, but on the girls side, really the high level option in town is RU unless you want to start driving North...

Anonymous wrote:RU has a pathway to Kickers pro and USL. They won’t go MLS Next because that pathway goes away. Go MLS Next and you lose the rights to the players. They wouldn’t be able to sign contracts unless the league approves.

Anonymous wrote:RU ECRL x 2