Swaggalicious wrote:This is great news for both clubs. So how does it work? One ecnl team per age group? One or two ecnlr teams per age group? Is ecnlr part of brave or branded as VYS and bryc?

Cruzado wrote:

Godot wrote:So structurally, where does this leave ostensibly high-level club soccer at U14+ in the local area?

For both girls and boys, on the Virginia side of the Potomac, there’s ECNL at Loudoun, VA Union (Mclean/SYC), VDA (PWSI/VSA), BRAVE (BRYC/VYS), Arlington.

For girls, there’s GA at FCV and Metro United.

For boys, there’s MLS Next at Alexandria and SYC (an alternative to VA Union, for the combo group right? I haven’t had a boy in travel soccer for a few years). Plus Bethesda and DC United north of the Potomac.

This actually seems like decent consolidation to me, something that’s been needed for a while now. My prediction, worth exactly the zero dollars that you all paid for it, is that MLS Next will slowly fade and the top ECNL boys teams will end up playing against the MLS academy teams in some format. GA will quickly fade, and FCV really ought to consider that partnership with a geographically rational ECNL team for the sake of the players. We’ll end up with 4-5 local clubs that are really top feeders to both pros and college, and those will be the clubs that capture a large young player pool from a geographic area that the club dominates. So eventually, Loudoun, Arlington, and VDA win their areas, with Fairfax still up for grabs among the VA Union//SYC//BRYC//VYS machinations. This also has to do with resources for hiring and keeping coaching staffs — the big clubs with huge natural player pools at the young rec and young travel levels have the revenue to support coaches’ salaries. That gets a lot harder when you’re smaller.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but in curious ti hear your thoughts on why you think MLS Next will fade.

I really have no idea and no opinion on that, other than I do find it odd and somewhat frustrating as a parent to not have a clear sense of what the “top” youth league is … I had been assuming that it’s MLS Next and that it’s here to stay, and it was ECNL that was more likely to fold into MLS Next. That’s based on nothing really, other than a vague sense that with the MLS and their youth academies behind it, they won’t be going away.

FCV-Dad wrote: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.

FCV-Dad 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.

You’re absolutely right. No parent in their right mind would ever consider bryc. A bunch of crooks. I have also received over 100 pms from concerned parents. They are asking why they were not consulted on this partnership. Why Dolansky is punishing the boys program to save the girls program. Why not just persue affiliate programs with local clubs. The illegitimate board. And most importantly why the FCV partnership was not mentioned. No one with any ambition for their DC would accept this. If 100% of the parents don’t agree then Dolansky should be removed. How else can someone properly govern a club.

Godot wrote:So structurally, where does this leave ostensibly high-level club soccer at U14+ in the local area?

For both girls and boys, on the Virginia side of the Potomac, there’s ECNL at Loudoun, VA Union (Mclean/SYC), VDA (PWSI/VSA), BRAVE (BRYC/VYS), Arlington.

For girls, there’s GA at FCV and Metro United.

For boys, there’s MLS Next at Alexandria and SYC (an alternative to VA Union, for the combo group right? I haven’t had a boy in travel soccer for a few years). Plus Bethesda and DC United north of the Potomac.

This actually seems like decent consolidation to me, something that’s been needed for a while now. My prediction, worth exactly the zero dollars that you all paid for it, is that MLS Next will slowly fade and the top ECNL boys teams will end up playing against the MLS academy teams in some format. GA will quickly fade, and FCV really ought to consider that partnership with a geographically rational ECNL team for the sake of the players. We’ll end up with 4-5 local clubs that are really top feeders to both pros and college, and those will be the clubs that capture a large young player pool from a geographic area that the club dominates. So eventually, Loudoun, Arlington, and VDA win their areas, with Fairfax still up for grabs among the VA Union//SYC//BRYC//VYS machinations. This also has to do with resources for hiring and keeping coaching staffs — the big clubs with huge natural player pools at the young rec and young travel levels have the revenue to support coaches’ salaries. That gets a lot harder when you’re smaller.

Godot wrote:So structurally, where does this leave ostensibly high-level club soccer at U14+ in the local area?

For both girls and boys, on the Virginia side of the Potomac, there’s ECNL at Loudoun, VA Union (Mclean/SYC), VDA (PWSI/VSA), BRAVE (BRYC/VYS), Arlington.

For girls, there’s GA at FCV and Metro United.

For boys, there’s MLS Next at Alexandria and SYC (an alternative to VA Union, for the combo group right? I haven’t had a boy in travel soccer for a few years). Plus Bethesda and DC United north of the Potomac.

This actually seems like decent consolidation to me, something that’s been needed for a while now. My prediction, worth exactly the zero dollars that you all paid for it, is that MLS Next will slowly fade and the top ECNL boys teams will end up playing against the MLS academy teams in some format. GA will quickly fade, and FCV really ought to consider that partnership with a geographically rational ECNL team for the sake of the players. We’ll end up with 4-5 local clubs that are really top feeders to both pros and college, and those will be the clubs that capture a large young player pool from a geographic area that the club dominates. So eventually, Loudoun, Arlington, and VDA win their areas, with Fairfax still up for grabs among the VA Union//SYC//BRYC//VYS machinations. This also has to do with resources for hiring and keeping coaching staffs — the big clubs with huge natural player pools at the young rec and young travel levels have the revenue to support coaches’ salaries. That gets a lot harder when you’re smaller.

FCV-Dad 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.

You’re absolutely right. No parent in their right mind would ever consider bryc. A bunch of crooks. I have also received over 100 pms from concerned parents. They are asking why they were not consulted on this partnership. Why Dolansky is punishing the boys program to save the girls program. Why not just persue affiliate programs with local clubs. The illegitimate board. And most importantly why the FCV partnership was not mentioned. No one with any ambition for their DC would accept this. If 100% of the parents don’t agree then Dolansky should be removed. How else can someone properly govern a club.

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.