Anonymous wrote:It's not losing to Philly Union that makes DCU so bad. It is the way they lose. They look like they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. It's a shame. U16s shut out with no chance really. You can't watch DCU and think there is any development happening there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

He doesn't care about it being a MLS thing

He is obsessed with smearing DCU at any and every chance. So even though multiple academies on the link have 2012’s on their lists, the toxic person tried to make it a DCU thing

If there is another place to have a civil discussion and ask serious questions, let me know. People on this board make fun of people for not doing their homework but when you ask questions, you are smearing. Make it make sense.

While it is a MLS thing, only 3 clubs have the majority of their +5 players as 2012's, the first year of eligibility in tagging a player. If you have chosen to bit the apple, you have to deal with their rules.

Will the club tag a player if they have signed with them already? If we all know another club is highly unlikely to pay a compensation fee, is it ethical to tag a 13-year that have you not invested in (only an applicable strategy to 3 clubs)? When 27 teams are not doing what you are doing, is it a MLS thing or just those clubs take advantage of an unethical rule that has not been challenged yet like the NCAA a decade ago?

Don't deflect. Answer the questions for the public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

He doesn't care about it being a MLS thing

He is obsessed with smearing DCU at any and every chance. So even though multiple academies on the link have 2012’s on their lists, the toxic person tried to make it a DCU thing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

He doesn't care about it being a MLS thing

He is obsessed with smearing DCU at any and every chance. So even though multiple academies on the link have 2012’s on their lists, the toxic person tried to make it a DCU thing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

i think what you're missing is that the plus 5 list is intended for boys not in academy yet. there is a separate list for kids in acadmy. so everyone on 5 list isn't developmed by the team that puts them on list. it isn't a dc isn't ethical thing, it;s a mls isn't since this is mls rule not dc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

https://www.ussoccercollective.com/mls/winter-2026-mls-academy-protected-list

Pardon me while I learn this landscape.

“Philadelphia Union, like FC Cincinnati, do not currently have any players on their +5 list. They consistently secure the top players they prioritize within their territory.”

Based on this language, why were these 2012’s put on this list if they signed with DCU?

It looks like only St Louis and Seattle have as many or greater portion of their list as 2012s. Seattle, like DCU, does not start until U15. If the 2012’s never had a real team and the parents have been funding the kids development up through U14, I don’t really understand the ethics of DCU or any academy making a claim on a kid you minimally invested in. Am I missing something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Majority of futures were kids who were offered spots before the team was canceled.

There was no fee for futures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Yes, I mean futures.

There is very little investment in the futures so I would not think they would be tagged on a protected list.

The parents paid for the development up to the point and should have the freedom of movement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

assume you mean futures but don't know who all was even on that. never was posted anywhere was it

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.

Any kids who did NOT play on the 2012 team with them get placed on their protected list?

Anonymous wrote:saw DC put some 2012s on there protected list.