Local corrupt dude wants to run for president of US Soccer

[Unregistered]

This whole "pay to play" discussion isn't serious. If you have a club with non-DAP teams, and the DAP teams are free, guess who's paying to make DAP free? It's just the non-DAP kids paying for the DAP kids. You can claim they could use sponsoring and other revenue sources to fund DAP, but it's still the same thing (instead of lowering fees for non-DAP with the other revenue sources, you make DAP free).

OK, so we want everyone to pay for free, and if you don't accomplish that, you're corrupt? Utter nonsense- doesn't even make any sense.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2051963]

U12s are hardly as you say. They cant even beat Valeo. U16s are not a wildcard and are struggling in the middle of the standings. too many on the roster too. That is not good for development. Only team doing "well" are the 18s but playoffs not guaranteed as they have some tough games ahead.

A lot of teams failed to beat valeo this year despite valeo being the worst team in the league. But I've seen some of the 12s games and they play very good soccer. They went undefeated against Nefc which was really the only important games. I don't think people give the 12s and bolts as a club enough credit on this site.

Not really the point of this thread, but you may have a bit of an inflated sense of the Bolts U12s. They structured their two U12 rosters as A and B teams, with all the stronger players on one roster the whole year. Most of the other clubs did a lot of shuffling of players between the two teams, with strong and weak players on both teams. A pure A team should be winning over mixed A/B teams. Because of this, the Bolts U12 record shows that almost every week they won one game and lost the other. Next year may be a bit of a shock for this '04 group when the other clubs put all their strongest '04 players on the same team (not to mention Revs combining the strongest from their three Alliance clubs!).

[Unregistered]

This whole "pay to play" discussion isn't serious. If you have a club with non-DAP teams, and the DAP teams are free, guess who's paying to make DAP free? It's just the non-DAP kids paying for the DAP kids. You can claim they could use sponsoring and other revenue sources to fund DAP, but it's still the same thing (instead of lowering fees for non-DAP with the other revenue sources, you make DAP free).

OK, so we want everyone to pay for free, and if you don't accomplish that, you're corrupt? Utter nonsense- doesn't even make any sense.

The idea ( and this is a directive from US soccer) is to make the higher age levels of the DAP free so as to attract the best players. Whether that is subsidized by the lower teams and or sponsorship and or whatever else is up to the club . In the bolts case Nothing is done to facilitate this- The bulk of the money is simply going to the Brian and Marco fund. They are just raking in the dough (as if their summer camps are not enough). It's pure greed . What has Gans done about it-absolutely nothing

[Unregistered]

The idea ( and this is a directive from US soccer) is to make the higher age levels of the DAP free so as to attract the best players. Whether that is subsidized by the lower teams and or sponsorship and or whatever else is up to the club . In the bolts case Nothing is done to facilitate this- The bulk of the money is simply going to the Brian and Marco fund. They are just raking in the dough (as if their summer camps are not enough). It's pure greed . What has Gans done about it-absolutely nothing

A directive from US soccer....hahhahhahhahhaha

you are not serious are you?

That directive and a dollar can buy you a coke.

[Unregistered]

This whole "pay to play" discussion isn't serious. If you have a club with non-DAP teams, and the DAP teams are free, guess who's paying to make DAP free? It's just the non-DAP kids paying for the DAP kids. You can claim they could use sponsoring and other revenue sources to fund DAP, but it's still the same thing (instead of lowering fees for non-DAP with the other revenue sources, you make DAP free).

OK, so we want everyone to pay for free, and if you don't accomplish that, you're corrupt? Utter nonsense- doesn't even make any sense.

The idea ( and this is a directive from US soccer) is to make the higher age levels of the DAP free so as to attract the best players. Whether that is subsidized by the lower teams and or sponsorship and or whatever else is up to the club . In the bolts case Nothing is done to facilitate this- The bulk of the money is simply going to the Brian and Marco fund. They are just raking in the dough (as if their summer camps are not enough). It's pure greed . What has Gans done about it-absolutely nothing

[Unregistered]

The idea ( and this is a directive from US soccer) is to make the higher age levels of the DAP free so as to attract the best players. Whether that is subsidized by the lower teams and or sponsorship and or whatever else is up to the club . In the bolts case Nothing is done to facilitate this- The bulk of the money is simply going to the Brian and Marco fund. They are just raking in the dough (as if their summer camps are not enough). It's pure greed . What has Gans done about it-absolutely nothing

And it isn't only his decision either is it? You can't blame that solely on one person when there are multiple people involved.

BTW plenty of DA clubs are making no progress in reducing fees. They're hardly alone. A USFF directive isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Some clubs aren't event sticking to minimum starts or practicing 4 days/week. USSF can only push clubs so far to take a hit to their bottom line. USSF needs all the clubs in the system to make it work. Force clubs to take losses clubs will drop out

[Unregistered]

And it isn't only his decision either is it? You can't blame that solely on one person when there are multiple people involved.

BTW plenty of DA clubs are making no progress in reducing fees. They're hardly alone. A USFF directive isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Some clubs aren't event sticking to minimum starts or practicing 4 days/week. USSF can only push clubs so far to take a hit to their bottom line. USSF needs all the clubs in the system to make it work. Force clubs to take losses clubs will drop out

If they were serious about it, they would run the programs themselves.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2052017]

Not really the point of this thread, but you may have a bit of an inflated sense of the Bolts U12s. They structured their two U12 rosters as A and B teams, with all the stronger players on one roster the whole year. Most of the other clubs did a lot of shuffling of players between the two teams, with strong and weak players on both teams. A pure A team should be winning over mixed A/B teams. Because of this, the Bolts U12 record shows that almost every week they won one game and lost the other. Next year may be a bit of a shock for this '04 group when the other clubs put all their strongest '04 players on the same team (not to mention Revs combining the strongest from their three Alliance clubs!).

Yes this is true. But, valeo and bayside were very weak in terms of talent. Revs only picked up 2 kids from GPS, 2 from Seacoast, and the rest from Nefc. They tried to get 2 kids from bolts but were turned down.

[Unregistered]

Sadly true. Gans may be a good guy but he's been on a board filled with fraudulent coaches who are in it for the wrong reasons. MK gets paid more than his Holy Cross salary to show up 5 times a USDA season. It's the old boys club of washed up drunks scamming the youth soccer system.

Also, coincidence that almost every board member has had a subpar player in the club? Probably would have been cut elsewhere. Absolutely shocking.

[Unregistered]

And it isn't only his decision either is it? You can't blame that solely on one person when there are multiple people involved.

BTW plenty of DA clubs are making no progress in reducing fees. They're hardly alone. A USFF directive isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Some clubs aren't event sticking to minimum starts or practicing 4 days/week. USSF can only push clubs so far to take a hit to their bottom line. USSF needs all the clubs in the system to make it work. Force clubs to take losses clubs will drop out

When an MLS team is still charging (see DC United) that should say it all.

Beware Girls DA players...............

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2052017]

Not really the point of this thread, but you may have a bit of an inflated sense of the Bolts U12s. They structured their two U12 rosters as A and B teams, with all the stronger players on one roster the whole year. Most of the other clubs did a lot of shuffling of players between the two teams, with strong and weak players on both teams. A pure A team should be winning over mixed A/B teams. Because of this, the Bolts U12 record shows that almost every week they won one game and lost the other. Next year may be a bit of a shock for this '04 group when the other clubs put all their strongest '04 players on the same team (not to mention Revs combining the strongest from their three Alliance clubs!).

The Bolts U12 team will dismantle the Revs next year. It will totally expose the Revs

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2052480]

The Bolts U12 team will dismantle the Revs next year. It will totally expose the Revs

Yes talent in the club alliances was very weak. Bolts had a core group and chemistry to begin with and are adding better players. Three of their players I believe are on the National Team Radar.

[Unregistered]

Sadly true. Gans may be a good guy but he's been on a board filled with fraudulent coaches who are in it for the wrong reasons. MK gets paid more than his Holy Cross salary to show up 5 times a USDA season. It's the old boys club of washed up drunks scamming the youth soccer system.

Also, coincidence that almost every board member has had a subpar player in the club? Probably would have been cut elsewhere. Absolutely shocking.

Yep- this is absolutely not the kind of guy we want running US soccer. We need someone with the right vision AND the spine to gut out the corruption, cronyism and nepotism that runs rampant in that organization.

...and don't get me started on MK.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2052490]

Yes talent in the club alliances was very weak. Bolts had a core group and chemistry to begin with and are adding better players. Three of their players I believe are on the National Team Radar.

Every player approached by the Revs had the common sense to decline. TS actually helped a few families. Imagine that.