Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many staffers or sucker parents hop on these boards the facts remain:

1) ethically and performance wise you are equal to my dogs feces
2) between this winter and next spring you’re going to lose several players in your black and red levels

literally, you are posting anonymously on an internet message board, calling a youth sports club dog shit and bragging that it will "lose several players," (a) as if that's not par for the course in youth soccer, and (b) as if it matters.

life is short, man. find a healthier way to deal with whatever is eating at you. i don't mean to be flippant here. consider talking to someone.

it's kids playing soccer. it's really not that important.

Not PP. Also, not a crystal ball reader. rather an official that has worked for many years in the area. While I wouldn’t necessarily be excessively graphic with the observation I do have to say their teams across the board are below average. My sister’s kids played for Loudoun and it is hard to grasp their performance considering the resources (money and fields) and bloated pool of players. Just my two cents.

Perhaps one of the great mysteries of the DMV - why isn't LS better? I have a DS who plays for them in the ULittles ages. For the fall, he developed quite a bit individually but his team did not come together as well.

He enjoys his coach and team, and is challenged. However, I have noticed the variance in the quality of coaching - quite a range from great to below average. And I'd suggest the player pool is not as deep as some suggest. Yes, there are numbers but the talent at the top end is just not as deep or good as you see at some of the other top tier clubs in CCL.

It is baffling. I'd argue for some reason the club is just much stronger on the girls side at the younger ages than boys. But there is not really a club in the area that peels off the talent at the younger ages for boys (unlike the girls where you have FCV).

I would argue that Loudoun is WEAKER on the girls side when it’s all said and done at U17-U19 when kids are committing to play in college. Take the current 03 age group for example.....boys side 3 players to VT (ranked no 4), Stanford, GW, and VCU. Girls side...Longwood and CNU.

That’s one way to see it. Another is they get a handful of kids in college from a pool of hundreds. With an S. you draw your own conclusions. Some of those kids are selected by inertia. Because the club they’re in has a specific person getting paid to contact college folks, send them videos, hype them up, and also organize a tournament that brings people in town because of the marketing. Don’t fool yourself. If you had knowledgeable staff running a club with that size, money, and marketing you’d have a monster. However, what you have is a puss in boots 🥸

What metrics does the board use to maintain the current bloodsucking incompetents in their place year after year considering the subpar performances? Sorry, a handful of college placements does not equate to success when your program has hundreds of kids and a 7 million dollar industry.

I think that’s easy. Money. The more travel teams they can field the more money they can collect. After red/black the rest are rec disguised as travel. Parents don’t know any better and this area is all about money and hashtags on internet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many staffers or sucker parents hop on these boards the facts remain:

1) ethically and performance wise you are equal to my dogs feces
2) between this winter and next spring you’re going to lose several players in your black and red levels

literally, you are posting anonymously on an internet message board, calling a youth sports club dog shit and bragging that it will "lose several players," (a) as if that's not par for the course in youth soccer, and (b) as if it matters.

life is short, man. find a healthier way to deal with whatever is eating at you. i don't mean to be flippant here. consider talking to someone.

it's kids playing soccer. it's really not that important.

Not PP. Also, not a crystal ball reader. rather an official that has worked for many years in the area. While I wouldn’t necessarily be excessively graphic with the observation I do have to say their teams across the board are below average. My sister’s kids played for Loudoun and it is hard to grasp their performance considering the resources (money and fields) and bloated pool of players. Just my two cents.

Perhaps one of the great mysteries of the DMV - why isn't LS better? I have a DS who plays for them in the ULittles ages. For the fall, he developed quite a bit individually but his team did not come together as well.

He enjoys his coach and team, and is challenged. However, I have noticed the variance in the quality of coaching - quite a range from great to below average. And I'd suggest the player pool is not as deep as some suggest. Yes, there are numbers but the talent at the top end is just not as deep or good as you see at some of the other top tier clubs in CCL.

It is baffling. I'd argue for some reason the club is just much stronger on the girls side at the younger ages than boys. But there is not really a club in the area that peels off the talent at the younger ages for boys (unlike the girls where you have FCV).

I would argue that Loudoun is WEAKER on the girls side when it’s all said and done at U17-U19 when kids are committing to play in college. Take the current 03 age group for example.....boys side 3 players to VT (ranked no 4), Stanford, GW, and VCU. Girls side...Longwood and CNU.

That’s one way to see it. Another is they get a handful of kids in college from a pool of hundreds. With an S. you draw your own conclusions. Some of those kids are selected by inertia. Because the club they’re in has a specific person getting paid to contact college folks, send them videos, hype them up, and also organize a tournament that brings people in town because of the marketing. Don’t fool yourself. If you had knowledgeable staff running a club with that size, money, and marketing you’d have a monster. However, what you have is a puss in boots 🥸

What metrics does the board use to maintain the current bloodsucking incompetents in their place year after year considering the subpar performances? Sorry, a handful of college placements does not equate to success when your program has hundreds of kids and a 7 million dollar industry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many staffers or sucker parents hop on these boards the facts remain:

1) ethically and performance wise you are equal to my dogs feces
2) between this winter and next spring you’re going to lose several players in your black and red levels

literally, you are posting anonymously on an internet message board, calling a youth sports club dog shit and bragging that it will "lose several players," (a) as if that's not par for the course in youth soccer, and (b) as if it matters.

life is short, man. find a healthier way to deal with whatever is eating at you. i don't mean to be flippant here. consider talking to someone.

it's kids playing soccer. it's really not that important.

Not PP. Also, not a crystal ball reader. rather an official that has worked for many years in the area. While I wouldn’t necessarily be excessively graphic with the observation I do have to say their teams across the board are below average. My sister’s kids played for Loudoun and it is hard to grasp their performance considering the resources (money and fields) and bloated pool of players. Just my two cents.

Perhaps one of the great mysteries of the DMV - why isn't LS better? I have a DS who plays for them in the ULittles ages. For the fall, he developed quite a bit individually but his team did not come together as well.

He enjoys his coach and team, and is challenged. However, I have noticed the variance in the quality of coaching - quite a range from great to below average. And I'd suggest the player pool is not as deep as some suggest. Yes, there are numbers but the talent at the top end is just not as deep or good as you see at some of the other top tier clubs in CCL.

It is baffling. I'd argue for some reason the club is just much stronger on the girls side at the younger ages than boys. But there is not really a club in the area that peels off the talent at the younger ages for boys (unlike the girls where you have FCV).

I would argue that Loudoun is WEAKER on the girls side when it’s all said and done at U17-U19 when kids are committing to play in college. Take the current 03 age group for example.....boys side 3 players to VT (ranked no 4), Stanford, GW, and VCU. Girls side...Longwood and CNU.

That’s one way to see it. Another is they get a handful of kids in college from a pool of hundreds. With an S. you draw your own conclusions. Some of those kids are selected by inertia. Because the club they’re in has a specific person getting paid to contact college folks, send them videos, hype them up, and also organize a tournament that brings people in town because of the marketing. Don’t fool yourself. If you had knowledgeable staff running a club with that size, money, and marketing you’d have a monster. However, what you have is a puss in boots 🥸

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many staffers or sucker parents hop on these boards the facts remain:

1) ethically and performance wise you are equal to my dogs feces
2) between this winter and next spring you’re going to lose several players in your black and red levels

literally, you are posting anonymously on an internet message board, calling a youth sports club dog shit and bragging that it will "lose several players," (a) as if that's not par for the course in youth soccer, and (b) as if it matters.

life is short, man. find a healthier way to deal with whatever is eating at you. i don't mean to be flippant here. consider talking to someone.

it's kids playing soccer. it's really not that important.

Not PP. Also, not a crystal ball reader. rather an official that has worked for many years in the area. While I wouldn’t necessarily be excessively graphic with the observation I do have to say their teams across the board are below average. My sister’s kids played for Loudoun and it is hard to grasp their performance considering the resources (money and fields) and bloated pool of players. Just my two cents.

Perhaps one of the great mysteries of the DMV - why isn't LS better? I have a DS who plays for them in the ULittles ages. For the fall, he developed quite a bit individually but his team did not come together as well.

He enjoys his coach and team, and is challenged. However, I have noticed the variance in the quality of coaching - quite a range from great to below average. And I'd suggest the player pool is not as deep as some suggest. Yes, there are numbers but the talent at the top end is just not as deep or good as you see at some of the other top tier clubs in CCL.

It is baffling. I'd argue for some reason the club is just much stronger on the girls side at the younger ages than boys. But there is not really a club in the area that peels off the talent at the younger ages for boys (unlike the girls where you have FCV).

I would argue that Loudoun is WEAKER on the girls side when it’s all said and done at U17-U19 when kids are committing to play in college. Take the current 03 age group for example.....boys side 3 players to VT (ranked no 4), Stanford, GW, and VCU. Girls side...Longwood and CNU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many staffers or sucker parents hop on these boards the facts remain:

1) ethically and performance wise you are equal to my dogs feces
2) between this winter and next spring you’re going to lose several players in your black and red levels

literally, you are posting anonymously on an internet message board, calling a youth sports club dog shit and bragging that it will "lose several players," (a) as if that's not par for the course in youth soccer, and (b) as if it matters.

life is short, man. find a healthier way to deal with whatever is eating at you. i don't mean to be flippant here. consider talking to someone.

it's kids playing soccer. it's really not that important.

Not PP. Also, not a crystal ball reader. rather an official that has worked for many years in the area. While I wouldn’t necessarily be excessively graphic with the observation I do have to say their teams across the board are below average. My sister’s kids played for Loudoun and it is hard to grasp their performance considering the resources (money and fields) and bloated pool of players. Just my two cents.

Perhaps one of the great mysteries of the DMV - why isn't LS better? I have a DS who plays for them in the ULittles ages. For the fall, he developed quite a bit individually but his team did not come together as well.

He enjoys his coach and team, and is challenged. However, I have noticed the variance in the quality of coaching - quite a range from great to below average. And I'd suggest the player pool is not as deep as some suggest. Yes, there are numbers but the talent at the top end is just not as deep or good as you see at some of the other top tier clubs in CCL.

It is baffling. I'd argue for some reason the club is just much stronger on the girls side at the younger ages than boys. But there is not really a club in the area that peels off the talent at the younger ages for boys (unlike the girls where you have FCV).

I would argue that Loudoun is WEAKER on the girls side when it’s all said and done at U17-U19 when kids are committing to play in college. Take the current 03 age group for example.....boys side 3 players to VT (ranked no 4), Stanford, GW, and VCU. Girls side...Longwood and CNU.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many staffers or sucker parents hop on these boards the facts remain:

1) ethically and performance wise you are equal to my dogs feces
2) between this winter and next spring you’re going to lose several players in your black and red levels

literally, you are posting anonymously on an internet message board, calling a youth sports club dog shit and bragging that it will "lose several players," (a) as if that's not par for the course in youth soccer, and (b) as if it matters.

life is short, man. find a healthier way to deal with whatever is eating at you. i don't mean to be flippant here. consider talking to someone.

it's kids playing soccer. it's really not that important.

Not PP. Also, not a crystal ball reader. rather an official that has worked for many years in the area. While I wouldn’t necessarily be excessively graphic with the observation I do have to say their teams across the board are below average. My sister’s kids played for Loudoun and it is hard to grasp their performance considering the resources (money and fields) and bloated pool of players. Just my two cents.

Perhaps one of the great mysteries of the DMV - why isn't LS better? I have a DS who plays for them in the ULittles ages. For the fall, he developed quite a bit individually but his team did not come together as well.

He enjoys his coach and team, and is challenged. However, I have noticed the variance in the quality of coaching - quite a range from great to below average. And I'd suggest the player pool is not as deep as some suggest. Yes, there are numbers but the talent at the top end is just not as deep or good as you see at some of the other top tier clubs in CCL.

It is baffling. I'd argue for some reason the club is just much stronger on the girls side at the younger ages than boys. But there is not really a club in the area that peels off the talent at the younger ages for boys (unlike the girls where you have FCV).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... stealing money from the government? you mean the loan thing?

They should not to raise any fees til after the loan is paid back in full. meaning the coaches and staff take a 10% pay cut til the loan is paid back. or maybe carwash fund raiser where the coaches and staff do the washing not the players. same for all the other clubs that took the loans

What about every other business across the country that took the loans? Them too?

There are quite a few local clubs who DID NOT take out loans. To hear Loudoun DID without refunded fees is criminal. any other clubs that did the same shouldn't be allowed to make up the money in higher player cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... stealing money from the government? you mean the loan thing?

They should not to raise any fees til after the loan is paid back in full. meaning the coaches and staff take a 10% pay cut til the loan is paid back. or maybe carwash fund raiser where the coaches and staff do the washing not the players. same for all the other clubs that took the loans

What about every other business across the country that took the loans? Them too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... stealing money from the government? you mean the loan thing?

They should not to raise any fees til after the loan is paid back in full. meaning the coaches and staff take a 10% pay cut til the loan is paid back. or maybe carwash fund raiser where the coaches and staff do the washing not the players. same for all the other clubs that took the loans

What about every other business across the country that took the loans? Them too?

Most businesses that took money did so because, unlike LS, their revenue dropped to 0...but I’m sure you probably knew that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... stealing money from the government? you mean the loan thing?

They should not to raise any fees til after the loan is paid back in full. meaning the coaches and staff take a 10% pay cut til the loan is paid back. or maybe carwash fund raiser where the coaches and staff do the washing not the players. same for all the other clubs that took the loans

What about every other business across the country that took the loans? Them too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... stealing money from the government? you mean the loan thing?

They should not to raise any fees til after the loan is paid back in full. meaning the coaches and staff take a 10% pay cut til the loan is paid back. or maybe carwash fund raiser where the coaches and staff do the washing not the players. same for all the other clubs that took the loans

Anonymous wrote:... stealing money from the government? you mean the loan thing?