# Surf buys out DM Sharks?



## Mic Nificent (Aug 14, 2019)

Anyone else hear the rumor that Surf is going to or may have already bought out Del Mar Sharks?


----------



## espola (Aug 14, 2019)

Mic Nificent said:


> Anyone else hear the rumor that Surf is going to or may have already bought out Del Mar Sharks?


What would they be buying, and from whom?


----------



## Mic Nificent (Aug 14, 2019)

Doesn’t need much explanation. Either you heard of this or not.


----------



## surfertwins (Aug 14, 2019)

Who did you hear this from... Surf or Sharks source?


----------



## timbuck (Aug 14, 2019)

I have no idea if this is true. But if it is-  does it get Surf back into ECNL?


----------



## MWN (Aug 15, 2019)

Mic Nificent said:


> Doesn’t need much explanation. Either you heard of this or not.


You use the term "buy" in the context to two companies that are public benefit corporations / non-profits, so its a valid question.  The Surf  Model is to license its name "surf" to various regions: SGV Surf, Murrieta Surf, Hawaii Surf, etc.   These are simply independent soccer clubs that pay Surf to use the name.  Then we have Surf SD, Surf OC, Surf LA, which are "company" run Surf branches, versus affiliates.  These guys simply license the surf name under the Surf affiliate program.

If Del Mark Sharks and Surf were to "merge" it would not surprise me, with the Del Mark sharks simply giving up and transferring all of their assets to the bigger stronger kid on the block.  Operating as an affiliate is likely too close to home and not realistic.


----------



## MWN (Aug 15, 2019)

MWN said:


> You use the term "buy" in the context to two companies that are public benefit corporations / non-profits, so its a valid question.  The Surf  Model is to license its name "surf" to various regions: SGV Surf, Murrieta Surf, Hawaii Surf, etc.   These are simply independent soccer clubs that pay Surf to use the name.  Then we have Surf SD, Surf OC, Surf LA, which are "company" run Surf branches, versus affiliates.  These guys simply license the surf name under the Surf affiliate program.
> 
> If Del Mark Sharks and Surf were to "merge" it would not surprise me, with the Del Mark sharks simply giving up and transferring all of their assets to the bigger stronger kid on the block.  Operating as an affiliate is likely too close to home and not realistic.


I just read what I wrote and its confusing.  Should be:



> Then we have Surf SD, Surf OC, Surf LA, which are "company" run Surf branches, versus affiliates.  These guys simply license the surf name under the Surf affiliate program.


----------



## Keepers_Keeper (Aug 15, 2019)

No way.  Surf is more about business and developing the players/teams that are cherry picked to highlight the “surf” brand. That is not how DMCV  sharks has or will ever operate. Rumors abound but the truth is that the DMCV culture is appreciated and wants to be maintained by the coaches and players affiliated with the sharks club.


----------



## Mic Nificent (Aug 15, 2019)

I agree I hope it’s not true. I’ve heard this from a director And a few coaches from different clubs but none no longer affiliated with either surf or sharks. Earlier I said bought out but yes technically it would be a merge but don’t fool yourself if you don’t any money is changing hands. Technically would be a merge but behind closed doors it’s a purchase lol


----------



## redhood (Aug 15, 2019)

Sharks selling out??? I never thought I'd see the day. I love the way that they develop their teams. Bummer.


----------



## MWN (Aug 15, 2019)

Appreciate that if its other DOCs or Coaches saying these things, it could be strategic false information to create a little discord and unease among the Del Mar Shark parents.


----------



## Mic Nificent (Aug 15, 2019)

I hope that’s all it is. Would hate to see them fold and merge with surf.


----------



## mccorn (Sep 19, 2019)

Hearing that this is in fact happening


----------



## espola (Sep 19, 2019)

mccorn said:


> Hearing that this is in fact happening


I repeat my question - What would they be buying, and from whom?


----------



## met61 (Sep 19, 2019)

espola said:


> I repeat my question - What would they be buying, and from whom?


Potato ~ Patato .... "merging" better?


----------



## Kicker4Life (Sep 19, 2019)

espola said:


> I repeat my question - What would they be buying, and from whom?


Access to ECNL maybe?


----------



## met61 (Sep 19, 2019)

Kicker4Life said:


> Access to ECNL maybe?


Was there a directive for clubs to choose DA or ECNL, but not both?


----------



## Kicker4Life (Sep 19, 2019)

met61 said:


> Was there a directive for clubs to choose DA or ECNL, but not both?


Yes...but  IF DMCV becomes a SURF affiliate (thus still a separate organization), the DMCV group could retain ECNL and essentially become Surf’s. ECNL affiliate whilst the mothership retains DA


----------



## timbuck (Sep 19, 2019)

LoopHole FC - South


----------



## Keepers_Keeper (Sep 19, 2019)

Here are the facts as of today...there was a potential licensing agreement which would enable the competitive arm of DMCV Sharks to license (NOT MERGE or be acquired by) the Surf Brand in order to have shared access with fields, primarily the former polo fields (surf soccer park).  A meeting with membership was held to inform DMCV Sharks parents/families of this potential action.  Based on the feedback from membership and others impacted by a potential licensing agreement with Surf, the licensing arrangement will not go forward.  The culture and focus on players is what makes DMCV Sharks "the Sharks".  That message was heard loud and clear, and kudos to leadership for listening and being courageous in prioritizing the importance of preserving the culture over "brand".


----------



## met61 (Sep 19, 2019)

Keepers_Keeper said:


> Here are the facts as of today...there was a potential licensing agreement which would enable the competitive arm of DMCV Sharks to license (NOT MERGE or be acquired by) the Surf Brand in order to have shared access with fields, primarily the former polo fields (surf soccer park).  A meeting with membership was held to inform DMCV Sharks parents/families of this potential action.  Based on the feedback from membership and others impacted by a potential licensing agreement with Surf, the licensing arrangement will not go forward.  The culture and focus on players is what makes DMCV Sharks "the Sharks".  That message was heard loud and clear, and kudos to leadership for listening and being courageous in prioritizing the importance of preserving the culture over "brand".


$ doesn't always equal quality.


----------



## futboldad1 (Sep 19, 2019)

Kicker4Life said:


> Yes...but  IF DMCV becomes a SURF affiliate (thus still a separate organization), the DMCV group could retain ECNL and essentially become Surf’s. ECNL affiliate whilst the mothership retains DA


ECNL would pull it as soon as the season ends......

keepers-keeper....thanks for the informative update, have many friends at Sharks and they were all praying their club would remain independent


----------



## Sunil Illuminati (Sep 19, 2019)

There are no buy-outs in Youth Soccer. There's nothing to buy.


----------



## futboldad1 (Sep 19, 2019)

Sunil Illuminati said:


> There are no buy-outs in Youth Soccer. There's nothing to buy.


But there are sell-outs.....


----------



## jpeter (Sep 19, 2019)

futboldad1 said:


> But there are sell-outs.....


Lots of those

Too bad so sad,. "Surf Sharks" would have been a hoot


----------



## Keepers_Keeper (Sep 19, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Lots of those
> 
> Too bad so sad,. "Surf Sharks" would have been a hoot


Funny.  Actually would have been DMCV Surf.  Better than SMurf, right?


----------



## MyDaughtersAKeeper (Sep 19, 2019)

Keepers_Keeper said:


> Here are the facts as of today...there was a potential licensing agreement which would enable the competitive arm of DMCV Sharks to license (NOT MERGE or be acquired by) the Surf Brand in order to have shared access with fields, primarily the former polo fields (surf soccer park).  A meeting with membership was held to inform DMCV Sharks parents/families of this potential action.  Based on the feedback from membership and others impacted by a potential licensing agreement with Surf, the licensing arrangement will not go forward.  The culture and focus on players is what makes DMCV Sharks "the Sharks".  That message was heard loud and clear, and kudos to leadership for listening and being courageous in prioritizing the importance of preserving the culture over "brand".


Upon further review, never mind.  Don't type angry.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Sep 19, 2019)

MyDaughtersAKeeper said:


> Upon further review, never mind.  Don't type angry.


Pls clarify?


----------



## espola (Sep 20, 2019)

MyDaughtersAKeeper said:


> Upon further review, never mind.  Don't type angry.


I have even forgotten what it was that I disagreed with, so I removed my flag.


----------



## TheyBothPlay (Sep 23, 2019)

espola said:


> I have even forgotten what it was that I disagreed with, so I removed my flag.


I think you were pointing out that there is “nothing to buy” as most clubs are non-profits.

While that’s of course technically correct as “profits” aren’t available to “owners” to be paid as dividends on stock or through stock repurchases or able to be realized through sales of stock, I also think  it’s abundantly clear to most who follow the non-profit world of youth soccer that amounts that are paid out as salaries to DOCs and other management positions of these non-profits are effectively at the discretion of those who control who these non-profit clubs and the amount paid out in this fashion somehow magically tend to trend in lockstep fashion with the amounts that absent those salaries would otherwise be profits in the corporate world.  So while technically correct there aren’t buyouts of equity in the non-profit world, the likely  thoughts underlying most of those statements/sentiments are directionally correct...


----------



## espola (Sep 23, 2019)

TheyBothPlay said:


> I think you were pointing out that there is “nothing to buy” as most clubs are non-profits.
> 
> While that’s of course technically correct as “profits” aren’t available to “owners” to be paid as dividends on stock or through stock repurchases or able to be realized through sales of stock, I also think  it’s abundantly clear to most who follow the non-profit world of youth soccer that amounts that are paid out as salaries to DOCs and other management positions of these non-profits are effectively at the discretion of those who control who these non-profit clubs and the amount paid out in this fashion somehow magically tend to trend in lockstep fashion with the amounts that absent those salaries would otherwise be profits in the corporate world.  So while technically correct there aren’t buyouts of equity in the non-profit world, the likely  thoughts underlying most of those statements/sentiments are directionally correct...


I don't know what that means.  Are you a lawyer?  Lawyers sometimes get paid good money to write paragraphs like that.


----------



## TheyBothPlay (Sep 23, 2019)

espola said:


> I don't know what that means.  Are you a lawyer?  Lawyers sometimes get paid good money to write paragraphs like that.


That’s surprising you don’t know what that means given how you’ve spoken about being on boards, following some Poway bond issuances, etc...


----------



## espola (Sep 23, 2019)

TheyBothPlay said:


> That’s surprising you don’t know what that means given how you’ve spoken about being on boards, following some Poway bond issuances, etc...


I repeat my questions - what would they buy? and from whom?

Your post seemed to say that non-profits have paid employees (I know that already - I was in a position to negotiate and/or approve coaches' contracts at one time).  Is that what you meant?  If so, how is that an answer to the questions?


----------



## TheyBothPlay (Sep 23, 2019)

espola said:


> I repeat my questions - what would they buy? and from whom?
> 
> Your post seemed to say that non-profits have paid employees (I know that already - I was in a position to negotiate and/or approve coaches' contracts at one time).  Is that what you meant?  If so, how is that an answer to the questions?


In that role, you never noticed that the total paid to the paid employees closely approximated the amount  available after other expenses were take care of and grew as the size of the organization grew (with amounts paid to coaches growing more slowly than amounts paid to “management”)? And that a much higher level of interest and influence in management and oversight and budget  of the non-profit  was taken by management as opposed to community.  If not, you likely helped run a tighter  ship than most.


----------



## espola (Sep 23, 2019)

TheyBothPlay said:


> In that role, you never noticed that the total paid to the paid employees closely approximated the amount  available after other expenses were take care of and grew as the size of the organization grew (with amounts paid to coaches growing more slowly than amounts paid to “management”)? And that a much higher level of interest and influence in management and oversight and budget  of the non-profit  was taken by management as opposed to community.  If not, you likely helped run a tighter  ship than most.


So what would they be buying?  And from whom?


----------



## MWN (Sep 23, 2019)

@espola and @TheyBothPlay - the point each of you are making is sound.  To @espola's point, non-profits cannot be "bought," but can be merged into another non-profit and/or control of the target non-profit given to a parent non-profit.  To @TheyBothPlay's point, a merger can effectively be a buy-out, with the members of the target non-profit financially benefiting through increased wages and benefits.

Let's also understand that many clubs do not properly operate.  They are non-profits in name only that rarely adhere to the corporate formalities required of Public Benefit corporations.  Many times when these corporation were formed, the voting "members" of the club were broadly defined to include the parents/players.  Clubs have gotten smarter about this over the years and now limit voting to a select group of insiders that can guarantee their power on the board or as officers.


----------



## espola (Sep 23, 2019)

MWN said:


> @espola and @TheyBothPlay - the point each of you are making is sound.  To @espola's point, non-profits cannot be "bought," but can be merged into another non-profit and/or control of the target non-profit given to a parent non-profit.  To @TheyBothPlay's point, a merger can effectively be a buy-out, with the members of the target non-profit financially benefiting through increased wages and benefits.
> 
> Let's also understand that many clubs do not properly operate.  They are non-profits in name only that rarely adhere to the corporate formalities required of Public Benefit corporations.  Many times when these corporation were formed, the voting "members" of the club were broadly defined to include the parents/players.  Clubs have gotten smarter about this over the years and now limit voting to a select group of insiders that can guarantee their power on the board or as officers.


The clubs in which our family was involved limited voting membership to families who had players in the club.  The election nights were usually only sparsely attended, however, so as a practical matter there was no problem with the board perpetuating itself if only their friends showed up.

I have observed the workings of other clubs whose new board members are selected by the existing board.  That's legal for a non-profit, as long as they play fair and don't initiate self-dealing complaints from the players/families they serve.


----------



## TheyBothPlay (Sep 23, 2019)

espola said:


> The clubs in which our family was involved limited voting membership to families who had players in the club.  The election nights were usually only sparsely attended, however, so as a practical matter there was no problem with the board perpetuating itself if only their friends showed up.
> 
> I have observed the workings of other clubs whose new board members are selected by the existing board.  That's legal for a non-profit, as long as they play fair and don't initiate self-dealing complaints from the players/families they serve.


Yes, to the points of the above, what is being “bought” is effectively the decision making in management of the club, which regardless of how technically structured will almost always be at least effective control absent self dealing or gross mismanagement to the extent that it becomes obvious to people following things at a 100,000 foot level and upsets them enough to actually get engaged.


----------



## espola (Sep 23, 2019)

TheyBothPlay said:


> Yes, to the points of the above, what is being “bought” is effectively the decision making in management of the club, which regardless of how technically structured will almost always be at least effective control absent self dealing or gross mismanagement to the extent that it becomes obvious to people following things at a 100,000 foot level and upsets them enough to actually get engaged.


Allow me to propose an alternative to consider -- all clubs obviously possess physical assets such as goals, corner posts, and field-paint machines (and perhaps a securable container for them) but they also have in some cases intangible assets in the form of permits or priorities to use public park or school district fields.


----------



## TheyBothPlay (Sep 23, 2019)

espola said:


> Allow me to propose an alternative to consider -- all clubs obviously possess physical assets such as goals, corner posts, and field-paint machines (and perhaps a securable container for them) but they also have in some cases intangible assets in the form of permits or priorities to use public park or school district fields.


Totally agree.  And while those all would continue to be held by the existing non-profit (or resulting next merged entity in the even of a merger assuming non-profit corporations can actually merge under law and about which I have no clue), what results from the “buy outs” being discussed is a different set of people with effective day to day control over how those goals, corner posts and intangible assets are used in addition to to control over the budget of the non-profit and how revenues in excess of expenses are retained or disobursed.


----------

