Coach turn over

[in the know]

Just heard on the grape vine that its not just the Bolts who are having a major turn over in coaching staff, I believe that Scorps seemd to be in the same transition. Are they moving from one to the other?

Re: Coach turn over

Just heard on the grape vine that its not just the Bolts who are having a major turn over in coaching staff, I believe that Scorps seemd to be in the same transition. Are they moving from one to the other?

I think the Bolts situation has been logically explained in this thread:
http://talking-soccer.com/region3/vi...b4ae9e6a9c7451

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Yea to that (if true). I'm tired of having our schedules always being adjusted to accomodate an opposing coaches schedule.

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Not about winning? If it's about cost savings, why do so many clubs have two, three or more teams in the same age group? If there weren't so many multi-age group teams out there, we would have more coaches spread around. I've never met someone that did a job that "wasn't worth it". Next you'll be telling us "it's for the children". Right.

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Not about winning? If it's about cost savings, why do so many clubs have two, three or more teams in the same age group? If there weren't so many multi-age group teams out there, we would have more coaches spread around. I've never met someone that did a job that "wasn't worth it". Next you'll be telling us "it's for the children". Right.

I firmly believe clubs should have multiple teams in an age group. I wish more of them did it. And I wish they moved players amongst those teams as their skill level and development mandates.

If you have such a problem with the way MAPLE clubs operate, perhaps you should find another discussion board to visit.......

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Not about winning? If it's about cost savings, why do so many clubs have two, three or more teams in the same age group? If there weren't so many multi-age group teams out there, we would have more coaches spread around. I've never met someone that did a job that "wasn't worth it". Next you'll be telling us "it's for the children". Right.

I don't have a problem with the system as it exists. Just the whining that goes on when the rules are changed that don't accommodate your personal and individual needs. My point is that if you don't have the personnel to handle the business you already have, then stop taking on more. Don't expect Maple (or insert league here) to grant you favors at someone else's expense. You can't be all things to all people.

Clubs do move players around to play with others of similar skill level. It’s called “tryoutsâ€￾. If clubs that are short staffed dedicated their time to fewer players (per roster thus increasing play time) and fewer teams, these players would develop more rapidly. If it’s not about winning, this would be a more logical solution. Wow, what a concept.

This is supposed to be a forum of opinions and I have my own. If you don’t want your posts to be commented on, then maybe you should find a more PC forum.

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Not about winning? If it's about cost savings, why do so many clubs have two, three or more teams in the same age group? If there weren't so many multi-age group teams out there, we would have more coaches spread around. I've never met someone that did a job that "wasn't worth it". Next you'll be telling us "it's for the children". Right.

I don't have a problem with the system as it exists. Just the whining that goes on when the rules are changed that don't accommodate your personal and individual needs. My point is that if you don't have the personnel to handle the business you already have, then stop taking on more. Don't expect Maple (or insert league here) to grant you favors at someone else's expense. You can't be all things to all people.

Clubs do move players around to play with others of similar skill level. It’s called “tryoutsâ€￾. If clubs that are short staffed dedicated their time to fewer players (per roster thus increasing play time) and fewer teams, these players would develop more rapidly. If it’s not about winning, this would be a more logical solution. Wow, what a concept.

This is supposed to be a forum of opinions and I have my own. If you don’t want your posts to be commented on, then maybe you should find a more PC forum.

I believe the whining on this subject came from your first post.......

[quote=Anonymous]

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Not about winning? If it's about cost savings, why do so many clubs have two, three or more teams in the same age group? If there weren't so many multi-age group teams out there, we would have more coaches spread around. I've never met someone that did a job that "wasn't worth it". Next you'll be telling us "it's for the children". Right.

I don't have a problem with the system as it exists. Just the whining that goes on when the rules are changed that don't accommodate your personal and individual needs. My point is that if you don't have the personnel to handle the business you already have, then stop taking on more. Don't expect Maple (or insert league here) to grant you favors at someone else's expense. You can't be all things to all people.

Clubs do move players around to play with others of similar skill level. It’s called “tryoutsâ€￾. If clubs that are short staffed dedicated their time to fewer players (per roster thus increasing play time) and fewer teams, these players would develop more rapidly. If it’s not about winning, this would be a more logical solution. Wow, what a concept.

This is supposed to be a forum of opinions and I have my own. If you don’t want your posts to be commented on, then maybe you should find a more PC forum.

I believe the whining on this subject came from your first post.......

[/quote:qpbzhwv7]

So, anyone who disagrees with you is whining. I wasn't the one who was complaining about how there are too few coaches and that the one team, one coach rule.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Not about winning? If it's about cost savings, why do so many clubs have two, three or more teams in the same age group? If there weren't so many multi-age group teams out there, we would have more coaches spread around. I've never met someone that did a job that "wasn't worth it". Next you'll be telling us "it's for the children". Right.

I don't have a problem with the system as it exists. Just the whining that goes on when the rules are changed that don't accommodate your personal and individual needs. My point is that if you don't have the personnel to handle the business you already have, then stop taking on more. Don't expect Maple (or insert league here) to grant you favors at someone else's expense. You can't be all things to all people.

Clubs do move players around to play with others of similar skill level. It’s called “tryoutsâ€￾. If clubs that are short staffed dedicated their time to fewer players (per roster thus increasing play time) and fewer teams, these players would develop more rapidly. If it’s not about winning, this would be a more logical solution. Wow, what a concept.

This is supposed to be a forum of opinions and I have my own. If you don’t want your posts to be commented on, then maybe you should find a more PC forum.

I believe the whining on this subject came from your first post.......

So, anyone who disagrees with you is whining. I wasn't the one who was complaining about how there are too few coaches and that the one team, one coach rule.[/quote:201ce6jv][/quote:201ce6jv]

No. Just pointing out that the whining began with your original post. I really couldn't care any less whether you disagree with me or not.

multiple teams in an age group

In Mass. we need:

1. Fewer clubs
2. More teams per club
3. Better coaches


I disagree with changing the MAPLE schedule to suit individual team's coach's schedule. Other than that, I see no reason that quality coaches shouldn't be able to reach a larger number of players.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Also Heard that maple coaches will not be able to coach 2 teams at the same time. The pressure to win on some clubs is crazy. For what they are being paid it is not worth it..............

Oh good. Should further deplete an already thin coaching pool......

It's not so much about winning as it is about cost savings.

Not about winning? If it's about cost savings, why do so many clubs have two, three or more teams in the same age group? If there weren't so many multi-age group teams out there, we would have more coaches spread around. I've never met someone that did a job that "wasn't worth it". Next you'll be telling us "it's for the children". Right.

I don't have a problem with the system as it exists. Just the whining that goes on when the rules are changed that don't accommodate your personal and individual needs. My point is that if you don't have the personnel to handle the business you already have, then stop taking on more. Don't expect Maple (or insert league here) to grant you favors at someone else's expense. You can't be all things to all people.

Clubs do move players around to play with others of similar skill level. It’s called “tryoutsâ€￾. If clubs that are short staffed dedicated their time to fewer players (per roster thus increasing play time) and fewer teams, these players would develop more rapidly. If it’s not about winning, this would be a more logical solution. Wow, what a concept.

This is supposed to be a forum of opinions and I have my own. If you don’t want your posts to be commented on, then maybe you should find a more PC forum.

I believe the whining on this subject came from your first post.......

So, anyone who disagrees with you is whining. I wasn't the one who was complaining about how there are too few coaches and that the one team, one coach rule.[/quote:m8xxhcog]

No. Just pointing out that the whining began with your original post. I really couldn't care any less whether you disagree with me or not.[/quote:m8xxhcog][/quote:m8xxhcog]

Ok. Based on that response, you obviously you can't defend your position. Time to move on.

Re: multiple teams in an age group

In Mass. we need:

1. Fewer clubs
2. More teams per club
3. Better coaches


I disagree with changing the MAPLE schedule to suit individual team's coach's schedule. Other than that, I see no reason that quality coaches shouldn't be able to reach a larger number of players.

If we have fewer clubs and more teams per club, who will we play? Ourselves?

Re: multiple teams in an age group

In Mass. we need:

1. Fewer clubs
2. More teams per club
3. Better coaches


I disagree with changing the MAPLE schedule to suit individual team's coach's schedule. Other than that, I see no reason that quality coaches shouldn't be able to reach a larger number of players.

If we have fewer clubs and more teams per club, who will we play? Ourselves?

We all know what happens when you eliminate competition. If you think fees are high now, just wait until there are fewer options out there.