Anonymous wrote:
it's not their contract it's the club makes money off selling more gear.
Anonymous wrote:If you can afford the 2500 - 3500 to make yourself feel like your kids a selected travel player, you can afford the 300 for a uniform. send your kid to El Salvador and get a free kit if they could actually make a team. #whiteprivledge
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have no issue with new game uniforms every two years. I DO have an issue with teams that require uniforms for practice. That is just insane.
I disagree. We just left a club for many reasons but one of them being, that the club had no culture around this. Kids had practice uniforms that they bought but would show up wearing whatever. Basketball t-shirts, different colored socks on each leg—you name it. Looked like a rec club if you happened to be checking out the club as a prospective player, or if you were a competing club sharing the same field.
Anonymous wrote:I have no issue with new game uniforms every two years. I DO have an issue with teams that require uniforms for practice. That is just insane.
Oooh, pic? Can't be worse than the Virginia Union Orange/Green combo.Anonymous wrote:Mclean’s uniforms this year are horrendous! I truly think they had an elementary school student design them. Random logos all over the place.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What’s worse is paying more money for the kit because the club has a uniform sponsor. So the club gets money from the sponsor, but the families have to pay more to have the logo screened on.
It would be interesting to see what the incentives are for the club in these contracts.
Sponsors offset family costs. If there were no sponsors then families would need to pay even more. Like any business these clubs need to cover their expenses and make some profit.
They may offset some other costs, but for this club the addition of the logo added cost to the kit. Last season some of the programs had sponsors, others didn’t. The jersey was identical except one had the sponsor - and the one with the sponsor was $5 more (25 rather than 20). So across 2 pairs of game shorts, 2 game jerseys, multiple practice jerseys it adds up. It’s great that the club gets some money from the sponsor, but for our club it’s probably 25k more the families have to spend.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What’s worse is paying more money for the kit because the club has a uniform sponsor. So the club gets money from the sponsor, but the families have to pay more to have the logo screened on.
It would be interesting to see what the incentives are for the club in these contracts.
Sponsors offset family costs. If there were no sponsors then families would need to pay even more. Like any business these clubs need to cover their expenses and make some profit.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone have any thoughts on sturdiest brands? Kids have capelli right now and I’m not impressed, falling apart pretty fast even when air dryed. They’re switching to Adidas and hoping that will last longer in terms of still looking nice.
Anonymous wrote:I have no issue with new game uniforms every two years. I DO have an issue with teams that require uniforms for practice. That is just insane.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sponsors go right to club pockets and don't reduce the cost for families at all.
It absolutely reduces family costs. Do you think family payments are enough to cover all the club's expenses and that they would be breaking even if not for the sponsors? Without the sponsorships you would be paying even more.
Also, when other businesses do extra things to make more profits, we don't say they are taking advantage of their customers. If a restaurant sells hats and t-shirts to make additional revenue streams do you say they are sticking it to their food customers? I don't get why clubs are the bad guys when they are just another business trying to make a profit that we are free to choose to buy their product or not. They aren't tricking us or hiding costs.
Anonymous wrote:Sponsors go right to club pockets and don't reduce the cost for families at all.
Anonymous wrote:What’s worse is paying more money for the kit because the club has a uniform sponsor. So the club gets money from the sponsor, but the families have to pay more to have the logo screened on.
It would be interesting to see what the incentives are for the club in these contracts.