Yes, BRYC Boys are doing better than their girls. BRYC boys still need a lot of help. Not sure VYS will help much, but better than nothing. BRYC boys had 0 teams go to the ECNL playoffs last year and most likely will have zero again this year. The 08 Boys are currently in via a wildcard, but they have a tough schedule ahead and most likely won’t make it.

SoccerD wrote:

Cruzado wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?

I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.

After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?

No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.

Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.

You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.

But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?

I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.

The facts reported to me from emails and communications seen (and now a petition). I can't be much more transparent on a message board than I've been, unless you want me to out the BRYC sources/friends, which I can't do. I read Dolansky's communication and it touched a nerve because it was not remotely transparent (ha!). Why protest? No buy-in from the membership, which as one pointed out about McLean/SYC, perhaps isn't the norm. No buy-in from the TD/DOC (as I've been reliably informed). The players may (speculation) revolt. The coaching staff is disenfranchised after being ignored and backdoored. The route was ECNL girls ... for the BRYC ECNL boys. it's being dictated. And VYS boys is weaker than the alternatives. You are reaching for low hanging fruit. If I were trying to grow the boys for any club, BRYC included, I would pick the best partner or not partner. Perhaps affiliate (not sure what is entailed there). I wouldn't ignore my DOC and ECNL Director's preference (again, facts reported to me), cater first/only to the girls, and upset my membership base, and then dictate a result that wasn't asked for or socialized. And I certainly wouldn't do it with a Board that reportedly is illegitimate (expired terms; not full; and ultimately not in the know). Those are the facts.

If the ends always justify the means, I guess folks won't care. That seems to be the sentiment from a bunch here. Except the ends aren't that great given the lack of strength of the VYS boy side. Seems like desperation to save the girls struck and VYS horse traded. "Give us your boys too or no deal."

If this were my 4th grader's club, I would wonder about the choices made, I would wonder who would coach if they made ECNL, etc. I might just be naive. This is how it's done? Lots are up in arms about it.

Thanks for the questions.

P.S. Great handle.

BRYC boys are “up in arms” and may “revolt” about … what? The VYS boys are “weaker than the alternative”—what other club with a stronger boys side has any interest in partnering with BRYC?

Would like to see a head to head VYS vs BRYC at all boys ages from U12 on down (the future). Maybe the BRYC boys would calm down when they realize that the combined team will be stronger.

Read higher - no “partnership”/merger needed according to BRYC Boys folks in the know. Affiliations preferred.

Getting affiliates isn’t an option though. If it was then BRYC would already have them. Instead, BRYC has the best platform that exists, yet no one has considered them a destination club for the last 5-10 years. Kids don’t even want to drive 20 minutes to play ECNL there. No other club wants to be their affiliate and it’s not working at younger ages on the girls side or the boys side. I don’t know any of these people, but that should be a knock on everyone involved including the TD and the commissioner.

It might not be entirely their fault though. BRYC is nowhere near the size of Arlington and Loudoun, so at the ECNL level they probably do need to expand the player pool however they can. That is the VDA and VA Union model, right? Best case is working with your neighbors, staying in Fairfax, keeping your coaches, and giving your kids the exact same opportunities that they had in previous years. Isn’t that what’s happening? It’s just that the rebranding at the ECNL level is necessary for anyone currently outside the club to actually want to join. From what I’ve read, no one is saying that VYS is taking over. More like BRYC is expanding in greater FX County.

You know what is as big as Loudoun or Arlington? Fairfax County. This should be a good opportunity for high level players in FX…. And I see is as a great save and even expansion for BRYC.

Do you have any actual alternatives, SoccerD?

Our son has played for both clubs - one very recently after transferring from the other. We were with one club for 4 years and the other for less than half of a season. The bottom line is this...there are some great kids at BRYC who are having the system fail them. There are also many kids playing at ECNL level who could not make an ECNL roster elsewhere. As you get in the older age groups, BRYC becomes more competitive because the league has flushed out some who can't compete and drawn others who want a roster out of convenience or a myriad of other reasons. BRYC is the absolute worst at recruiting, and alot of that can be pinned on the lack of administration, structure, and personalities to make that happen. You kind of have to stumble into the club or know someone to be brought in. And that's not because it's elite - they literally have next to no outreach mechanism. There are several issues stopping both boys and girls from excelling. While talent level is one, another huge one is the lack of training field space. Teams are often on a space that's as small as 1/8th the size of a regulation pitch. Hard to practice through balls like that. A "partnership" with Vienna would presumably create additional field space. But, I think the adjoining issue is that the one field was being divided so that a scarce staff at BRYC could cram in their practices in one spot - Woodson HS. Another motivating factor for BRYC to do a partnership is there are a couple age groups (one in particular) that is completely barren. They don't have a competitive team to put on the field and got absolutely embarrassed in EDP this past fall. It drove the few talented kids away.

Vienna - some great coaches and kids and a no frills environment. Hate to stereotype any club or kid, but it is a very white collar area. So, while there are some very skilled players and they do a decent job of developing them at the U-littles, the kids often lack grit. There are many hungry-hustle kids, so don't get all bent out of shape. But they tend to lose close games because "some" of their kids lack an edge.Honestly, I don't know how much you can teach that once you get to ECNL level. There are a couple of age groups at Vienna that can compete with about any club in the area. Our kid was on a top team that won top flight of a tournament or two throughout the DC region. So, I wouldn't look down on Vienna because it's a small club. It only takes a handful of really skilled kids to put out a great product. And those kids are trickling away for bigger platforms of ECNL and MLS Next. Question is - does Vienna want to try to keep them and pump the resources that go with being an ECNL / MLS Next Club. Doubt it.

Bottom line - BRYC needs VYS more than VYS needs BRYC. Without a new talent pool, BRYC is on verge of collapsing at a couple of age groups. Vienna should probably keep the model they have unless they're aiming to become a Bethesda. And, I don't think they have the horses at the top or connections to make that happen for years to come.

The crazy thing here is that Dolansky never mentioned the FCV angle. Why did he not even mention that? Bryc and VYS will greatly improve the FCV boys side. But, more importantly, fcv girls will make huge improvements to bryc ecnl and VYS ecnlr.

SoccerD wrote:No one said to me or said here that anyone is afraid of competition for spots. Want best growth model. Best talent. That is not VYS boys basically.

...or BRYC boys.

No one said to me or said here that anyone is afraid of competition for spots. Want best growth model. Best talent. That is not VYS boys basically.

Yet VYS boys U12 on down are stronger than BRYC. And BRYC’s “model” has made them the floor mat of ECNL for years. Go figure.

If this doesn’t work out it will be because of drama like this—not like VYS talent doesn’t have other nearby options if they want to play in ECNL.

MadridFan wrote:

Cruzado wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?

I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.

After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?

No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.

Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.

You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.

But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?

I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.

The facts reported to me from emails and communications seen (and now a petition). I can't be much more transparent on a message board than I've been, unless you want me to out the BRYC sources/friends, which I can't do. I read Dolansky's communication and it touched a nerve because it was not remotely transparent (ha!). Why protest? No buy-in from the membership, which as one pointed out about McLean/SYC, perhaps isn't the norm. No buy-in from the TD/DOC (as I've been reliably informed). The players may (speculation) revolt. The coaching staff is disenfranchised after being ignored and backdoored. The route was ECNL girls ... for the BRYC ECNL boys. it's being dictated. And VYS boys is weaker than the alternatives. You are reaching for low hanging fruit. If I were trying to grow the boys for any club, BRYC included, I would pick the best partner or not partner. Perhaps affiliate (not sure what is entailed there). I wouldn't ignore my DOC and ECNL Director's preference (again, facts reported to me), cater first/only to the girls, and upset my membership base, and then dictate a result that wasn't asked for or socialized. And I certainly wouldn't do it with a Board that reportedly is illegitimate (expired terms; not full; and ultimately not in the know). Those are the facts.

If the ends always justify the means, I guess folks won't care. That seems to be the sentiment from a bunch here. Except the ends aren't that great given the lack of strength of the VYS boy side. Seems like desperation to save the girls struck and VYS horse traded. "Give us your boys too or no deal."

If this were my 4th grader's club, I would wonder about the choices made, I would wonder who would coach if they made ECNL, etc. I might just be naive. This is how it's done? Lots are up in arms about it.

Thanks for the questions.

P.S. Great handle.

BRYC boys are “up in arms” and may “revolt” about … what? The VYS boys are “weaker than the alternative”—what other club with a stronger boys side has any interest in partnering with BRYC?

Would like to see a head to head VYS vs BRYC at all boys ages from U12 on down (the future). Maybe the BRYC boys would calm down when they realize that the combined team will be stronger.

...because BRYC boys are going to get demoted to lower level teams.

No one said to me or said here that anyone is afraid of competition for spots. Want best growth model. Best talent. That is not VYS boys basically.

Cruzado wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?

I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.

After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?

No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.

Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.

You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.

But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?

I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.

The facts reported to me from emails and communications seen (and now a petition). I can't be much more transparent on a message board than I've been, unless you want me to out the BRYC sources/friends, which I can't do. I read Dolansky's communication and it touched a nerve because it was not remotely transparent (ha!). Why protest? No buy-in from the membership, which as one pointed out about McLean/SYC, perhaps isn't the norm. No buy-in from the TD/DOC (as I've been reliably informed). The players may (speculation) revolt. The coaching staff is disenfranchised after being ignored and backdoored. The route was ECNL girls ... for the BRYC ECNL boys. it's being dictated. And VYS boys is weaker than the alternatives. You are reaching for low hanging fruit. If I were trying to grow the boys for any club, BRYC included, I would pick the best partner or not partner. Perhaps affiliate (not sure what is entailed there). I wouldn't ignore my DOC and ECNL Director's preference (again, facts reported to me), cater first/only to the girls, and upset my membership base, and then dictate a result that wasn't asked for or socialized. And I certainly wouldn't do it with a Board that reportedly is illegitimate (expired terms; not full; and ultimately not in the know). Those are the facts.

If the ends always justify the means, I guess folks won't care. That seems to be the sentiment from a bunch here. Except the ends aren't that great given the lack of strength of the VYS boy side. Seems like desperation to save the girls struck and VYS horse traded. "Give us your boys too or no deal."

If this were my 4th grader's club, I would wonder about the choices made, I would wonder who would coach if they made ECNL, etc. I might just be naive. This is how it's done? Lots are up in arms about it.

Thanks for the questions.

P.S. Great handle.

BRYC boys are “up in arms” and may “revolt” about … what? The VYS boys are “weaker than the alternative”—what other club with a stronger boys side has any interest in partnering with BRYC?

Would like to see a head to head VYS vs BRYC at all boys ages from U12 on down (the future). Maybe the BRYC boys would calm down when they realize that the combined team will be stronger.

...because BRYC boys are going to get demoted to lower level teams.

Cruzado wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?

I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.

After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?

No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.

Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.

You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.

But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?

I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.

The facts reported to me from emails and communications seen (and now a petition). I can't be much more transparent on a message board than I've been, unless you want me to out the BRYC sources/friends, which I can't do. I read Dolansky's communication and it touched a nerve because it was not remotely transparent (ha!). Why protest? No buy-in from the membership, which as one pointed out about McLean/SYC, perhaps isn't the norm. No buy-in from the TD/DOC (as I've been reliably informed). The players may (speculation) revolt. The coaching staff is disenfranchised after being ignored and backdoored. The route was ECNL girls ... for the BRYC ECNL boys. it's being dictated. And VYS boys is weaker than the alternatives. You are reaching for low hanging fruit. If I were trying to grow the boys for any club, BRYC included, I would pick the best partner or not partner. Perhaps affiliate (not sure what is entailed there). I wouldn't ignore my DOC and ECNL Director's preference (again, facts reported to me), cater first/only to the girls, and upset my membership base, and then dictate a result that wasn't asked for or socialized. And I certainly wouldn't do it with a Board that reportedly is illegitimate (expired terms; not full; and ultimately not in the know). Those are the facts.

If the ends always justify the means, I guess folks won't care. That seems to be the sentiment from a bunch here. Except the ends aren't that great given the lack of strength of the VYS boy side. Seems like desperation to save the girls struck and VYS horse traded. "Give us your boys too or no deal."

If this were my 4th grader's club, I would wonder about the choices made, I would wonder who would coach if they made ECNL, etc. I might just be naive. This is how it's done? Lots are up in arms about it.

Thanks for the questions.

P.S. Great handle.

BRYC boys are “up in arms” and may “revolt” about … what? The VYS boys are “weaker than the alternative”—what other club with a stronger boys side has any interest in partnering with BRYC?

Would like to see a head to head VYS vs BRYC at all boys ages from U12 on down (the future). Maybe the BRYC boys would calm down when they realize that the combined team will be stronger.

Read higher - no “partnership”/merger needed according to BRYC Boys folks in the know. Affiliations preferred.

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?

I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.

After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?

No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.

Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.

You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.

But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?

I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.

The facts reported to me from emails and communications seen (and now a petition). I can't be much more transparent on a message board than I've been, unless you want me to out the BRYC sources/friends, which I can't do. I read Dolansky's communication and it touched a nerve because it was not remotely transparent (ha!). Why protest? No buy-in from the membership, which as one pointed out about McLean/SYC, perhaps isn't the norm. No buy-in from the TD/DOC (as I've been reliably informed). The players may (speculation) revolt. The coaching staff is disenfranchised after being ignored and backdoored. The route was ECNL girls ... for the BRYC ECNL boys. it's being dictated. And VYS boys is weaker than the alternatives. You are reaching for low hanging fruit. If I were trying to grow the boys for any club, BRYC included, I would pick the best partner or not partner. Perhaps affiliate (not sure what is entailed there). I wouldn't ignore my DOC and ECNL Director's preference (again, facts reported to me), cater first/only to the girls, and upset my membership base, and then dictate a result that wasn't asked for or socialized. And I certainly wouldn't do it with a Board that reportedly is illegitimate (expired terms; not full; and ultimately not in the know). Those are the facts.

If the ends always justify the means, I guess folks won't care. That seems to be the sentiment from a bunch here. Except the ends aren't that great given the lack of strength of the VYS boy side. Seems like desperation to save the girls struck and VYS horse traded. "Give us your boys too or no deal."

If this were my 4th grader's club, I would wonder about the choices made, I would wonder who would coach if they made ECNL, etc. I might just be naive. This is how it's done? Lots are up in arms about it.

Thanks for the questions.

P.S. Great handle.

BRYC boys are “up in arms” and may “revolt” about … what? The VYS boys are “weaker than the alternative”—what other club with a stronger boys side has any interest in partnering with BRYC?

Would like to see a head to head VYS vs BRYC at all boys ages from U12 on down (the future). Maybe the BRYC boys would calm down when they realize that the combined team will be stronger.

soccerVA wrote:

Arch wrote:I thought the BRYC rec program (.org) was the nonprofit but the BRYC academy (.com) wasn't necessarily a nonprofit. Academy is "BRYC" in name only; the rec program is part of BRYC nonprofit proper, correct? The ECNL and NCSL access the "BRYC" name has is through the .com. Why would there be any board approval necessary for the for-profit side to run their business?

IMO, this move is also looking ahead because while, performance-wise, BRYC may be on notice by ECNL (no idea if that's true or not), there aren't enough players in the 2011 pool to field a team in BRYC partly because there are three bridge teams cannibalizing the 2011 players. This move ensures they will have enough to roster a 2011 team in ECNL when they become age-eligible because they can fill-out the roster with VYS players as well as of course any players from other clubs that wish to try out.

Regarding your obsession with the boys, if BRYC coaches are going to head up the ECNL team they don't have to pick any VYS players if they don't think they're good enough. Just as they don't have to pick any of the BRYC pool players either. There are no player quotas required from BRYC or VYS for the BRAVE rosters.

Also, for the boys, the TD was just hired as an assistant by GMU. Maybe he is going to be moving on anyway.

One clarification on the 2011 Girls - the 3 bridge teams aren't what caused the collapse of the 2011 Girls Elite team. There was a 2011 Girls Elite team, but most of the strongest players left for other clubs (not to the bridge teams). One of the bridge teams is fairly strong (D1 NCSL) but most of the players on the other 2 bridge teams are not at the level of pre-ENCL. My understanding is that the Vienna 2011 Girls pre-ENCL team isn't particularly strong either. So, there will be a gap to fill -- BRAVE is going to have to convince strong players from other clubs to make a move (either clubs that don't have an ENCL team or strong clubs where talented players would be on the second team).

I don’t know the 2011 girls but I do know the 2010 girls teams for both BRYC and VYS.

The 2010 BRYC girls pre-ECNL plays in NCSL D1, and only had 2 wins in the fall, and 6 GF/38 GA. One of the bridge teams was actually better, finishing middle of the table in D1. The other 2 bridge teams played in D4.

The 2010 VYS red girls team played in ECNL-R, and I believe had no losses. The black team finished 3rd in NCSL D1 (above both BRYC teams), and their white team was competitive in D2.

I feel pretty comfortable that for the 2010 year on the girls’ side, VYS is substantially stronger. Without a partnership, things could be really ugly for the 2010 BRYC girls in ECNL next fall. With one, the team could be very competitive.

Looks like lots of spirited dialogue. Here is what I am seeing and hearing from these posts:

1. BRYC needs to improve its performance in ECNL
2. BRYC girls are far under performing in ECNL
3. BRYC girls were put on probation
4. BRYC Girls would benefit most from a local deal with VYS
5. BRYC Boys perform better than BRYC girls
6. BRYC Boys could benefit from different partnerships
7. BRYC has decided to do a merger with VYS on both sides
8. BRYC did not listen to consult with Boys ECNL leadership
9. BRYC may not have taken this to a proper vote per 503C rules
10. BRYC may have a non-valid board based on lack of elections protocol
11. BRYC boys do not agree with this move and have a petition
12. BRYC did not engage membership until the late hour

All of the other back and forth aside that seems to be more subjective than objective, I would put forth the following suggestions / conclusions:

1. BRYC senior leaders handled this poorly
2. BRYC leaders should call a board meeting and invite their membership
3. BRYC should allow for a vote on open board seats by its members per bylaws
4. BRYC should allow for a vote on this merger / partnership by its members per bylaws
5. BRYC should consult ECNL Boys and ECNL girls leadership for guidance

I’m interested in this take. How is getting some new talent a bad thing for existing BRYC coaches and players. The VYS boys may not be lighting the world on fire, but there are some very talented players, especially at uLittle. I have seen the 2012s play futsal at TSJ, and they were very good.

Would be nice to see the top VYS 2012 team play the top BRYC 2012 team as an indication of what to expect in the future in terms of a joint ECNL effort. Both are playing in the Arlington ASIST tournament, but unfortunately not in the same flight — VYS’ top 2012 Boys team is in the highest flight, however, so they must be pretty competitive; BRYC’s top 2012 Boys team is two flights lower.

Bottom line is that I don’t see any reason for anyone at either club to be upset by this. VYS lacks access to ECNL and routinely loses top players to other clubs for ECNL (although as others have said, I doubt many players leave VYS for BRYC). Meanwhile BRYC has a solid club but is struggling in ECNL and would benefit from a larger player pool that a collaboration with VYS would bring. The fact that these two clubs are next-door to one another makes it an organic affiliation. I don’t think either team technically includes Fairfax City in its zone, but they’re the best teams closest to Fairfax City, in the heart of Fairfax County, and one would think the Fairfax City area should be fielding a strong team competitive with Arlington and Alexandria.

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?

I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.

After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?

No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.

Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.

You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.

But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?

I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.

The facts reported to me from emails and communications seen (and now a petition). I can't be much more transparent on a message board than I've been, unless you want me to out the BRYC sources/friends, which I can't do. I read Dolansky's communication and it touched a nerve because it was not remotely transparent (ha!). Why protest? No buy-in from the membership, which as one pointed out about McLean/SYC, perhaps isn't the norm. No buy-in from the TD/DOC (as I've been reliably informed). The players may (speculation) revolt. The coaching staff is disenfranchised after being ignored and backdoored. The route was ECNL girls ... for the BRYC ECNL boys. it's being dictated. And VYS boys is weaker than the alternatives. You are reaching for low hanging fruit. If I were trying to grow the boys for any club, BRYC included, I would pick the best partner or not partner. Perhaps affiliate (not sure what is entailed there). I wouldn't ignore my DOC and ECNL Director's preference (again, facts reported to me), cater first/only to the girls, and upset my membership base, and then dictate a result that wasn't asked for or socialized. And I certainly wouldn't do it with a Board that reportedly is illegitimate (expired terms; not full; and ultimately not in the know). Those are the facts.

If the ends always justify the means, I guess folks won't care. That seems to be the sentiment from a bunch here. Except the ends aren't that great given the lack of strength of the VYS boy side. Seems like desperation to save the girls struck and VYS horse traded. "Give us your boys too or no deal."

If this were my 4th grader's club, I would wonder about the choices made, I would wonder who would coach if they made ECNL, etc. I might just be naive. This is how it's done? Lots are up in arms about it.

Thanks for the questions.

P.S. Great handle.

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:

SoccerD wrote:

Swaggalicious wrote:I don’t understand that issue here. To me it looks like the Union partnership or merger. Bringing together player pools to make both the girls and boys sides more competitive. Did these clubs get buy-in before creating Union? No. Isn’t everyone always posting about dilution? Doesn’t this help?

I don’t see treachery here or understand why bryc’s board and how they interface with the board is an issue. The board can always vote no, if a vote is even needed. More like a club struggling and making moves to improve the root issue.

After a closer read, I think SoccerD has some axe to grind with the bryc TD. Treachery, board is illegitimate, people are PM him about this, emasculated, hate backroom deals and failure to follow process/protocol/by-laws. These words and pov doesn’t come from an outside observer. If you’re upset, why don’t you just talk to Dolansky vs. posting here?

No axe to grind with the TD. I don't know Dolansky and it's not my role, obviously, to talk to him. The PMs I got were following my post. Folks should talk openly, IMO, if they have something to share. Obviously, people can disagree with my take and what I've been told. And they have. It's been an interesting dialogue from my perspective.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m interested but not directly impacted. I just found it hard to believe that someone outside of bryc and doesn’t know the TD has such strong opinions of this person and how he’s communicating with his board. Just pointing out my point of view.

Got it. I believe the TD is Brian Welsh.
Mark Dolansky is the Travel Soccer Sports Commissioner acc. to the website. And I truly don't know him beyond the facts relayed, which are troubling to a lot of folks. I'm now hearing there is a petition in protest. What a mess.

You’re right. Dolansky is the Commish.

But I can’t resist taking one last bite of this apple. What facts are you referring to? My read of his email is basically there is no merger and very little info beyond that. Why would any parent protest this? What could be their concern beyond more competition for starting positions. How do you know about how Dolansky is communicating with the board?

I think if you were a bit more transparent, it would help all of us understand the reasoning behind your pov.