# West LA merger?



## Mystery Train (Jan 10, 2018)

Pure rumor I suppose, but got wind of a possible 3-way merger between Westside Breakers, Santa Monica United and LAFC.  Anyone with scoop on that?  That pretty much consolidates all the options on the westside to one club, wouldn't it?  @soccerobserver , I know you're connected over there, any inside info to share?


----------



## TangoCity (Jan 10, 2018)

Still some smaller stuff -- but those would be the three bigger ones.  FC England, Culver City and AYSO United the smaller.


----------



## Dargle (Jan 10, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Pure rumor I suppose, but got wind of a possible 3-way merger between Westside Breakers, Santa Monica United and LAFC.  Anyone with scoop on that?  That pretty much consolidates all the options on the westside to one club, wouldn't it?  @soccerobserver , I know you're connected over there, any inside info to share?


The third club is FCLA (not LAFC, the MLS Academy).

From largest to smallest, there would still be Autobahn, Culver City, AYSO United LA, Chelsea SC LA, FC England, LA Stars Premier, Brazil Stars, and Athletic FC.  The westside of LA has always had probably more clubs than the field space could support.


----------



## soccerobserver (Jan 10, 2018)

Happy New Year MT...Why you gonna call me out like that ?? I’m just enjoying my box of popcorn...


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Jan 10, 2018)

West LA Surf


----------



## Mystery Train (Jan 11, 2018)

soccerobserver said:


> Happy New Year MT...Why you gonna call me out like that ?? I’m just enjoying my box of popcorn...


Pass that popcorn down the row, brother.

Happy New Year!


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jan 11, 2018)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> West LA Surf


Maybe that will bring ECNL to LA County!


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Pure rumor I suppose, but got wind of a possible 3-way merger between Westside Breakers, Santa Monica United and LAFC.  Anyone with scoop on that?  That pretty much consolidates all the options on the westside to one club, wouldn't it?  @soccerobserver , I know you're connected over there, any inside info to share?


Yep, but, can't share yet


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> West LA Surf


Nope


----------



## espola (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> Yep, but, can't share yet


Yes you can.  Don't be a jerk.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> Nope


My guess is either a GPS Affiliate or Something New.


----------



## RedNevilles (Jan 11, 2018)

West LA United


----------



## charlie murphy (Jan 11, 2018)

thought FCLA was a TFA affiliate .


----------



## SoCal GK mom (Jan 11, 2018)

The merger is probably going to happen. It is not a takeover by another club, but rather a reaction to the mega-clubs in the region. It has become difficult for medium-sized clubs, without DA/ECNL, to compete for players, coaches, and power in CalSouth. By pooling the talent in the region, the new consolidated club will be able to have a stronger presence. And yes, ECNL is one of the goals of the merger. But it won't be a Surf affiliate, a Galaxy affiliate, or any other affiliate. Just its own newer and bigger thing. (FCLA and TFA split up in the middle of last season).


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

Kicker4Life said:


> My guess is either a GPS Affiliate or Something New.


Wrong again....


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

espola said:


> Yes you can.  Don't be a jerk.


No, I can't, it's not a done deal yet...


----------



## espola (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> No, I can't, it's not a done deal yet...


Do you think discussing it here is going to make any difference?


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

Dargle said:


> The third club is FCLA (not LAFC, the MLS Academy).
> 
> From largest to smallest, there would still be Autobahn, Culver City, AYSO United LA, Chelsea SC LA, FC England, LA Stars Premier, Brazil Stars, and Athletic FC.  The westside of LA has always had probably more clubs than the field space could support.


plenty of field space, everyone is fighting for the same talent pool....the one's listed above are having the same issue and way behind


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

SoCal GK mom said:


> The merger is probably going to happen. It is not a takeover by another club, but rather a reaction to the mega-clubs in the region. It has become difficult for medium-sized clubs, without DA/ECNL, to compete for players, coaches, and power in CalSouth. By pooling the talent in the region, the new consolidated club will be able to have a stronger presence. And yes, ECNL is one of the goals of the merger. But it won't be a Surf affiliate, a Galaxy affiliate, or any other affiliate. Just its own newer and bigger thing. (FCLA and TFA split up in the middle of last season).


Go SoCal GK mom!....


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> Wrong again....


Yah....they were both a bit of a stretch. The only other that would make sense (and a lot of it) is LAFC.


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

espola said:


> Do you think discussing it here is going to make any difference?


yes, some of the people at the club use this site as well, Go SoCal GK mom is on the right track......


----------



## Overlap (Jan 11, 2018)

Kicker4Life said:


> Yah....they were both a bit of a stretch. The only other that would make sense (and a lot of it) is LAFC.


Nope, not even close


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> No, I can't, it's not a done deal yet...


Just ignore Magoo.....life is better that way!


----------



## Kicker4Life (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> Nope, not even close


Booooo


----------



## espola (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> yes, some of the people at the club use this site as well, Go SoCal GK mom is on the right track......


And...?


----------



## Jstplay (Jan 11, 2018)

Overlap said:


> plenty of field space, everyone is fighting for the same talent pool....the one's listed above are having the same issue and way behind


I agree that these clubs are competing for the same talent pool. Unfortunately your statement of “plenty of field space” is way off.  Quality field space to accommodate the amount of players  on the Westside is extremely limited.


----------



## og808 (Jan 11, 2018)

Here comes Westside United FC


----------



## SC310 (Jan 12, 2018)

Confirmed by a parent of the Breakers. Email went out.


----------



## Dargle (Jan 12, 2018)

SC310 said:


> Confirmed by a parent of the Breakers. Email went out.


An e-mail confirmed that it is happening or confirmed that it was under discussion (and soliciting input etc)?  I think it's the latter, although most assume it wouldn't have gone out if it wasn't close to being done.


----------



## soccerobserver (Jan 12, 2018)

I would think there are enough Type A parents between the three clubs that word would have spread if there had been an official announcement yet...besides PR 101 says it is best to announce good news on a Monday not on a Friday...but who knows??


----------



## Mystery Train (Jan 12, 2018)

Not a done deal yet. 

My cynical .02 is that this is just yet another geography in SoCal succumbing to the inexorable evolution of mega-clubs.  I get why they would feel it is necessary, but I think it's too bad if they do it.  There is something to be said having lots of mid-size clubs like SMU and Breakers.  In the old days, they would be considered to be "big" clubs by comparison to local boutique clubs.  But with everyone scrambling to play national leagues (I contend this ought to be patently unnecessary for SoCal teams, but that's another discussion), the DA and ECNL trying to siphon each other's talent pool, you get mega-clubs like Galaxy, Slammers, Surf, Legends, Arsenal, etc. continuing to gobble up teams and turning youth club soccer into a mini-version of the telecom industry where consumers have fewer choices and no power.  As usual, this type of thing is going to benefit a small group of people (the guys at the top) and a few players on a few teams who need to play nationally to get exposure.  The vast majority of the kids at these clubs won't benefit at all from merging.  Economically and socially, the westside kids aren't using soccer as their one hope to get to college.  Soccer is a passion for many of them and they can get everything they need with a small club, and if they want to shop around, there are choices.  But mega-clubs put everyone in a funnel and hope to squeeze out the best into one team and line their pockets with everyone else's money.  

This model is quickly becoming the ONLY model in So Cal, and I think that sucks.  My impression has been that Breakers and SMU were not like that.  Smaller clubs usually have 2-3 really great coaches with really great teams that tend to stick together and a scattering of other coaches/teams that come and go.  Their model for success is usually in stability.  Keep good coaches, keep teams together, and add a couple of players here and there that could contribute, and do the best you can with the rest.  Mega clubs also usually have 2-3 really great coaches with really great teams.  But then they have about a hundred mediocre teams with a carousel of coaches and players that come and go constantly.  Their model for success is to post "OPEN TRYOUTS" notices all over the place and get as many people to sign up as possible and field as many teams as they can every year.  Their primary focus is not stability and "development," but recruiting.  Recruiting other coaches.  Recruiting other players.  Recruiting entire teams and small clubs.  Then, by sheer force of numbers, they compile enough talented kids in one spot to win big kickball contests and get national "exposure."  Yuck.

If they do merge, I would hope they can keep their customers happy and cared for, but a quick scan around SoCal mega-clubs would indicate that outcome is unlikely in the long run. 

Cynical rant over . . .


----------



## Mystery Train (Jan 15, 2018)

All quiet on the western front?


----------



## Overlap (Jan 16, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> All quiet on the western front?


not a simple task...


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Jan 17, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Not a done deal yet.  My cynical .02 is that this is just yet another geography in SoCal succumbing to the inexorable evolution of mega-clubs...


I agree with this post.  But I think there's a cyclical nature to clubs where the smaller ones that have lost their edge or are not doing so well will fade away (or get merged) and are replaced by new clubs.  I don't think the soccer landscape will only be about the mega clubs.  I believe there are some new smaller clubs (like Ole and Tudela) that seem to be enjoying some level of success.


----------



## Overlap (Jan 18, 2018)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> I agree with this post.  But I think there's a cyclical nature to clubs where the smaller ones that have lost their edge or are not doing so well will fade away (or get merged) and are replaced by new clubs.  I don't think the soccer landscape will only be about the mega clubs.  I believe there are some new smaller clubs (like Ole and Tudela) that seem to be enjoying some level of success.


yes, but, what age level are the Ole & Tudela (looks like U littles)? What will these clubs do when they keep losing their top talent to the bigger clubs as those teams get older (merge or stick with U little?) Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of teams staying together however, the reality is, the A type parents will always take their kid to what they think is the best option for them (and I don't just mean the kid), I was lucky enough to have my older DD (G98), stick with her team & club until they aged out, she loved her team mates and her team, a few left over their last 2 years for ECNL and they still managed to keep the core together. I'll be honest, there were a few times I didn't think they'd continue. They had a great deal of success on and off the field, all went to very good academic schools, 10 are still playing at the college level, and for the one's that stuck together, it was the most fun watching their growth as players and young adults you could ever wish for your kid. I've seen the changes over the last 2 seasons with my younger DD, age matrix & DA, I'm not a fan at the moment although, I hope it develops US soccer in general. I just think it's going to be a bumpy few more years until it all gets figured out.


----------



## Fact (Jan 18, 2018)

Overlap said:


> yes, but, what age level are the Ole & Tudela (looks like U littles)? What will these clubs do when they keep losing their top talent to the bigger clubs as those teams get older (merge or stick with U little?) Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of teams staying together however, the reality is, the A type parents will always take their kid to what they think is the best option for them (and I don't just mean the kid), I was lucky enough to have my older DD (G98), stick with her team & club until they aged out, she loved her team mates and her team, a few left over their last 2 years for ECNL and they still managed to keep the core together. I'll be honest, there were a few times I didn't think they'd continue. They had a great deal of success on and off the field, all went to very good academic schools, 10 are still playing at the college level, and for the one's that stuck together, it was the most fun watching their growth as players and young adults you could ever wish for your kid. I've seen the changes over the last 2 seasons with my younger DD, age matrix & DA, I'm not a fan at the moment although, I hope it develops US soccer in general. I just think it's going to be a bumpy few more years until it all gets figured out.


How did the offers of the girls that left for ECNL compare to your core team?


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Jan 18, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Not a done deal yet.
> 
> My cynical .02 is that this is just yet another geography in SoCal succumbing to the inexorable evolution of mega-clubs.  I get why they would feel it is necessary, but I think it's too bad if they do it.  There is something to be said having lots of mid-size clubs like SMU and Breakers.  In the old days, they would be considered to be "big" clubs by comparison to local boutique clubs.  But with everyone scrambling to play national leagues (I contend this ought to be patently unnecessary for SoCal teams, but that's another discussion), the DA and ECNL trying to siphon each other's talent pool, you get mega-clubs like Galaxy, Slammers, Surf, Legends, Arsenal, etc. continuing to gobble up teams and turning youth club soccer into a mini-version of the telecom industry where consumers have fewer choices and no power.  As usual, this type of thing is going to benefit a small group of people (the guys at the top) and a few players on a few teams who need to play nationally to get exposure.  The vast majority of the kids at these clubs won't benefit at all from merging.  Economically and socially, the westside kids aren't using soccer as their one hope to get to college.  Soccer is a passion for many of them and they can get everything they need with a small club, and if they want to shop around, there are choices.  But mega-clubs put everyone in a funnel and hope to squeeze out the best into one team and line their pockets with everyone else's money.
> 
> ...


small local clubs backed by city/county work but they come with rules. cities require clubs to do business in a certain manner in order to get resources. big clubs dont want anyone to dictate how to do things, especially if they require a certain number of scholarships to be given - regardless of the talent level of the player. you also have to take in to account attitude of the parents. some only want to go to winning clubs and believe that some how translates into development. US Soccer needs to back the community clubs, which would combat a lot of the mergerfest. Clubs could put resources into paying coaches more and funding more teams.  The problem is US SOccer makes money off this system and development isnt the real priority.

speaking of plastering "open tryouts" everywhere, ever notice the banner at the top of the forum topic list?  surf spending some marketing money here


----------



## soccerobserver (Jan 18, 2018)

Fact said:


> How did the offers of the girls that left for ECNL compare to your core team?


Good question Fact...first it should be noted that after ECNL was formed, SMU's girls side more than doubled in size. The older SMU team lost 3 players to ECNL.

One went and came back after 2-3 seasons. She is out of soccer and at an Ivy League level college.

The second left bc she was playing up and needed to find a team she liked in her natural age group. She ended up using SMU coach to get her connected with her Ivy League college. She said the ECNL coaches at her club did not get the Ivy League and were better w D1 schools  in CA. They regretted leaving.

The third had aspirations to play soccer professionally. She went to ECNL and thrived --displacing the incumbent player. ECNL worked out beautifully for her.


----------



## espola (Jan 18, 2018)

Not_that_Serious said:


> speaking of plastering "open tryouts" everywhere, ever notice the banner at the top of the forum topic list?  surf spending some marketing money here


The ads each reader sees on this page are different depending on posting and clicking habits.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Jan 18, 2018)

espola said:


> The ads each reader sees on this page are different depending on posting and clicking habits.


i must love me some Surf =)

The banner at the top of the forum listings doesnt look like google ads. Looks like an html/css banner they made and stuck at top of the forum categories.


----------



## espola (Jan 18, 2018)

Not_that_Serious said:


> i must love me some Surf =)
> 
> The banner at the top of the forum listings doesnt look like google ads. Looks like an html/css banner they made and stuck at top of the forum categories.


OK, I see it now.

Money talks.


----------



## Overlap (Jan 19, 2018)

Fact said:


> How did the offers of the girls that left for ECNL compare to your core team?


see soccerobservers reply ^


----------



## Fact (Jan 19, 2018)

espola said:


> The ads each reader sees on this page are different depending on posting and clicking habits.


What ads do you see?  Duck Dynasty ads or beard trimmers?


----------



## espola (Jan 19, 2018)

Fact said:


> What ads do you see?  Duck Dynasty ads or beard trimmers?


Physics and math textbooks


----------



## El Clasico (Jan 21, 2018)

I see ads for booze, blow and hookers....


----------



## KJR (Jan 21, 2018)

Overlap said:


> yes, but, what age level are the Ole & Tudela (looks like U littles)? What will these clubs do when they keep losing their top talent to the bigger clubs as those teams get older (merge or stick with U little?) Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of teams staying together however, the reality is, the A type parents will always take their kid to what they think is the best option for them (and I don't just mean the kid), I was lucky enough to have my older DD (G98), stick with her team & club until they aged out, she loved her team mates and her team, a few left over their last 2 years for ECNL and they still managed to keep the core together. I'll be honest, there were a few times I didn't think they'd continue. They had a great deal of success on and off the field, all went to very good academic schools, 10 are still playing at the college level, and for the one's that stuck together, it was the most fun watching their growth as players and young adults you could ever wish for your kid. I've seen the changes over the last 2 seasons with my younger DD, age matrix & DA, I'm not a fan at the moment although, I hope it develops US soccer in general. I just think it's going to be a bumpy few more years until it all gets figured out.


Our oldest teams in 2018 will be 2005s, and if we can't provide top level training, competition, and exposure for them over the next few years, we'll lose our best players -- that's the reality as a smaller, "independent" club. But we were aware of that when we made the choice to start the club last year, and we've taken it as a challenging path rather than a dead end. There are big clubs that do what they do very well, but they don't serve every community -- they're geographically or financially inaccessible to a lot of talented kids. We believe in our brand of soccer (as well as our mission of diversity and inclusivity) and think that, if we can grow it slowly and deliberately, we can be successful with our model.

You're right: this is a really interesting time in US soccer, and there's a lot that needs to be figured out up and down the pyramid. We'd like to think that, as things sort themselves out, there will be room for larger _and_ smaller clubs to thrive. We'll see.

http://tudelafcla.com


----------



## Toch (Jan 21, 2018)

KJR said:


> Our oldest teams in 2018 will be 2005s, and if we can't provide top level training, competition, and exposure for them over the next few years, we'll lose our best players -- that's the reality as a smaller, "independent" club. But we were aware of that when we made the choice to start the club last year, and we've taken it as a challenging path rather than a dead end. There are big clubs that do what they do very well, but they don't serve every community -- they're geographically or financially inaccessible to a lot of talented kids. We believe in our brand of soccer (as well as our mission of diversity and inclusivity) and think that, if we can grow it slowly and deliberately, we can be successful with our model.
> 
> You're right: this is a really interesting time in US soccer, and there's a lot that needs to be figured out up and down the pyramid. We'd like to think that, as things sort themselves out, there will be room for larger _and_ smaller clubs to thrive.
> 
> Keep doing what you are doing and hopefully the parents aren’t suckered away from you. Sign them up for National League and keep moving up


----------



## jrcaesar (Jan 22, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> My cynical .02 ... {snip} ... Cynical rant over . . .


If there were some pinned/sticky posts that new-to-soccer parents can easily find, this should be one of them. Good perspective for parents to consider.


----------



## Overlap (Jan 22, 2018)

KJR said:


> Our oldest teams in 2018 will be 2005s, and if we can't provide top level training, competition, and exposure for them over the next few years, we'll lose our best players -- that's the reality as a smaller, "independent" club. But we were aware of that when we made the choice to start the club last year, and we've taken it as a challenging path rather than a dead end. There are big clubs that do what they do very well, but they don't serve every community -- they're geographically or financially inaccessible to a lot of talented kids. We believe in our brand of soccer (as well as our mission of diversity and inclusivity) and think that, if we can grow it slowly and deliberately, we can be successful with our model.
> 
> You're right: this is a really interesting time in US soccer, and there's a lot that needs to be figured out up and down the pyramid. We'd like to think that, as things sort themselves out, there will be room for larger _and_ smaller clubs to thrive. We'll see.
> 
> http://tudelafcla.com


We were once one of the "smaller" clubs, there were only 4 girls teams when we formed a team for my oldest DD U12, way back in the day (G98). I get everything you're saying and agree, to me, it was the best path and no regrets what so ever, just keep focused, keep recruiting the top talented kids at the early age, just know you'll lose a few along the way since parents usually feel the need to get the next best shiny thing. Just stay the course and best of luck!


----------



## SoccerLife75 (Jan 29, 2018)

I guess this Merger was a No Go.


----------



## Mystery Train (Jan 29, 2018)

That's what I heard, too.  But also sounded like the door is open for resuming discussions next year?


----------



## Overlap (Jan 30, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> That's what I heard, too.  But also sounded like the door is open for resuming discussions next year?


correct, no go, possible next year however, not likely


----------



## Overlap (Jan 30, 2018)

SoccerLife75 said:


> I guess this Merger was a No Go.


correct, No Go


----------



## Mystery Train (Jan 30, 2018)

Overlap said:


> correct, no go, possible next year however, not likely


That's basically good news for most of the paying customers at these clubs, in my opinion.  I'm sure that a merger would have created a couple of very strong teams in a couple of age groups on the girls' side at least.  That would be a boost for a small handful (4-5) really top level players, and for a couple of coaches.  Beyond that, I don't really know how mergers like this would benefit any other players or their families.  I've been through the same thing with a big club on the other side of LA, and believe me, the feeling of just being a "number" to the club is increased when these things happen.  The co-dependence between status-hungry helicopter parents and the overly ambitious mega-clubs they inevitably spawn, to me, is the scourge of youth soccer.  The more club directors that resist the urge to become the monster, the better (at least for the consumer).


----------



## Overlap (Jan 30, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> That's basically good news for most of the paying customers at these clubs, in my opinion.  I'm sure that a merger would have created a couple of very strong teams in a couple of age groups on the girls' side at least.  That would be a boost for a small handful (4-5) really top level players, and for a couple of coaches.  Beyond that, I don't really know how mergers like this would benefit any other players or their families.  I've been through the same thing with a big club on the other side of LA, and believe me, the feeling of just being a "number" to the club is increased when these things happen.  The co-dependence between status-hungry helicopter parents and the overly ambitious mega-clubs they inevitably spawn, to me, is the scourge of youth soccer.  The more club directors that resist the urge to become the monster, the better (at least for the consumer).


That is my personal opinion as well. I really do think what happened is for the best, especially for SMU. They have over 40 years of history, helping to build the brand over the years, it just seemed like such a waste to throw that all away for just a few teams. The reality is, some will always leave, the one's that stick it out will also benefit from an environment where they can keep learning and growing not only as player's but, young adults.


----------



## RedNevilles (Jan 30, 2018)

Don't let them fool you. I heard it is still going ahead. Seems quite late though


----------



## Dargle (Jan 30, 2018)

RedNevilles said:


> Don't let them fool you. I heard it is still going ahead. Seems quite late though


All three clubs sent out e-mails to their members on Sunday/Monday telling them the merger was off (at least for this year).  I suppose it's possible something changed, but you may have heard outdated news.


----------



## Overlap (Jan 30, 2018)

RedNevilles said:


> Don't let them fool you. I heard it is still going ahead. Seems quite late though


the only one fooled is you , it's a No Go, guaranteed


----------



## Overlap (Jan 30, 2018)

Dargle said:


> All three clubs sent out e-mails to their members on Sunday/Monday telling them the merger was off (at least for this year).  I suppose it's possible something changed, but you may have heard outdated news.


correct, all 3 have sent emails to their families, nothing else is possible at this point, play on!


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 2, 2018)

I have to disagree with you guys about maintaining the status quo. I get what you're saying, and I used to fully believe in the nice, neighborhoody, continuity vibe, but I believe the arguments for a westside merger far outweigh the arguments against.

(Full disclosure, I'm a former SMU parent, now at TFA, and I pay a lot of attention to west side soccer.)

Here's what I see a consolidated westside club would do:
- Consolidate talent. Most westside A teams are lucky to have half of a decent team, and merging would bring all the talent together. Development is more likely to happen the narrower the gap in talent between the top and bottom players. Makes it much easier for the coach to teach. Everyone is happier. 
- Recruiting. Right now there are decent players languishing at Chelsea, FC England, Autobahn Athletic FC, etc. This would make one clear destination for those players to end up. Also, some of those local ballers that left in middle school to try their luck in DA eventually decide against DA, and having a top team in the neighborhood would be an obvious destination. I know lots of high school age kids who finish out their years commuting to successful distant teams.
- Maintaining talent. There are TONS of kids who commute out of the west side. SMU B06 alone have 8 players now at Galaxy, TFA, or LAFC. On the girls side, it tends to be even more, as the demographics of girls soccer skews toward affluent suburban areas. It's going to get even worse, in the 7 years that I've been paying attention I've seen younger and younger kids getting very serious about soccer.
- Roster slimming: There's probably 10% of the players on the three clubs that are roster fodder that could be serviced by (what would now be) the lower level clubs. Take a typical boys age group: There's four teams between the two clubs. A consolidated club could cut the roster bloat and have three decent teams. These kids are generally getting ripped off as it is, and would have a better experience at a different club. 
- Coaching. Both SMU and FCLA has a lot of questionable coaches running around that were hired by previous DOCs. They're pretty much all overpaid, as the management of the two clubs believed their own hype about how amazing their coaches are, and competed with each other to retain "top talent". A merger will be a great opportunity to trim the excess coaches, and give opportunities to the handful of coaches who actually know what they're doing (and there are some good ones in the lot).
- Curriculum. By having a bigger club, you can actually have a meaningful curriculum and developmental progression. Coaches will be slotted into their strengths. Some of these guys like teaching younger kids ball skills, some of them like getting high school kids recruited. Run the thing as a real academy, with coaches interchanging at practice, learning from each other. Age groups practicing as a unit, olders vs youngers, etc. 
- Fend off the even bigger clubs. You can rail about the growth of clubs all you want, but it's the reality of the situation now. The worry is that by resisting becoming a super club, you make yourself vulnerable to take over by mega club. I'm thinking of RSC, Galaxy, LAFC, Legends or someone could come knocking with sweet-talk about a "path to DA", and all it takes is convincing some clueless well-meaning volunteer club president and the next thing you know, you're a total feeder club. I know Surf was sniffing around SMU a few years ago, so this isn't as far-fetched as you might think. By scaling up, you have a better chance to maintain local control.
- Economy of scale. Goalkeeping coach, equipment, skill clinic, futsal nights, college recruiting resources. All of that become cheaper on a per player basis and therefore achievable.
- College recruiting. By becoming bigger, you can get known to college coaches. As it is now, each of those clubs produces a top team maybe once every four years. It's a massive struggle for the team administrator to get noticed by college coaches. A big club would have consistently strong teams and players. 
- Apply for DA status. I think the boy's side is saturated, but a girl's DA on the westside makes a lot of sense. Or ECNL. The boys side could ride the coattails, enjoying the benefit of having better coaches and higher standards.
- Professional management. Can pay for administrators, a treasurer, and a field wrangler.
- Funding players. Right now, at least on the boys side, both SMU and FCLA have a big problem funding scholarship players. Many average boys A teams make a faustian bargin: fund a few outside players at unsustainable levels, ride the success for a year or two, and then either crash, use the success to recruit better local players, or find some well-heeled family to fund those kids. It happens at many age groups. It falls on individual parents and TAs to tape the thing together. You bring in some duffers to fill out the roster and hit the coaches salary, we all know the tricks. I've been one of those TAs, so I know what I'm talking about. It sucks to have to tell a family there's no money for your kid this year. It creates horrible team dynamics, as the wealthy parents feel smug, the middle parents resent the loss of playing time, and the funded families feel everyone's resentment. I don't even want to get into the racial elements to this, but we all know it's there. People always figure a westside team should have plenty of money, and it's true you see a lot of kids hopping out of luxury cars. But there are plenty of kids who need scholarship help on the westside. The trouble is that NONE of those clubs have any coherent plan for how to address it. It just falls to team manager and coach to make it work, and it sucks. By consolidating, you could build a plan for this into the charter. Make it part of the club's DNA. Get away from team specific budgets (nice, clean, simple idea, but its time is up) and run the thing as an academy.
- Field space. Obviously, this is a big issue. It'd be more complicated for sure. BUT: a bigger club would have more muscle and could make life hard for the little guys. Also, it could make more efficient use of space. It would also have way more lobbying power. Gain control of the university high field. And what ever happened to that proposed field next to Samohi?
- Shirt sponsorship. Surely with all the media power hitters on the westside, a big club could sell that jersey space?
- Fundraising. A really successful, high-powered, locally-controlled club that does things right would get people excited to open their wallets. Right now, people are afraid to, because they never know if they'll be jumping ship to the other neighborhood club in a year or two. Similarly...
- Cultural capital. Scratch the surface of any westside team, and you'll find parents who are powerful people in LA. Make a club worth believing in, and you can get their help in opening doors and making things happen...
- Long term strategic thinking: At SMU, we talked about raising a few million bucks to turf a field if we ever had a partnership with a park or school. That'd be easier with a big club. The idea would be: the school or park would have the field weekdays from 8am to 5pm, the club would use it from 5-9:30, and could have three 1.5 hour practice sessions. The club would pay for the turf and maintenance. LAUSD is insane to work with, but a big club might be able to make things happen, or could work with other school districts like Culver City. With fields, you can get into the real money makers, which is tournament hosting.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 2, 2018)

> That's basically good news for most of the paying customers at these clubs, in my opinion. I'm sure that a merger would have created a couple of very strong teams in a couple of age groups on the girls' side at least. That would be a boost for a small handful (4-5) really top level players, and for a couple of coaches. Beyond that, I don't really know how mergers like this would benefit any other players or their families. I've been through the same thing with a big club on the other side of LA, and believe me, the feeling of just being a "number" to the club is increased when these things happen. The co-dependence between status-hungry helicopter parents and the overly ambitious mega-clubs they inevitably spawn, to me, is the scourge of youth soccer. The more club directors that resist the urge to become the monster, the better (at least for the consumer).





> That is my personal opinion as well. I really do think what happened is for the best, especially for SMU. They have over 40 years of history, helping to build the brand over the years, it just seemed like such a waste to throw that all away for just a few teams. The reality is, some will always leave, the one's that stick it out will also benefit from an environment where they can keep learning and growing not only as player's but, young adults.


Look, I totally respect what you guys are saying here. I think there's a lot to be said for a more community-oriented feeling than you get at a superclub (I imagine, haven't actually been at one). I valued that a lot at SMU. But...
- If you're on a B team at any of these local clubs, you probably currently have that feeling of being just a number. The bottom players are morale-sapping roster fodder, and the top players are all angling for a move to an A team, the coach is mailing it in, and the club administration's priority is keeping the coach and top players happy. Once in a while it works out fine, but that's the exception, and when it does it's probably because you have a fantastic TA. 
- That positive, community feeling that SMU has doesn't just happen by accident, it's the product of a lot of hard work from the administrators and board. There are a lot of amazing, intelligent, generous people at that club (and presumably at the other two as well). A merged club should build on that work, as I believe they would, because it's what the local market wants out of the club soccer experience. I don't think you have to give that up.
- bottom line, I think the westside soccer environment is changing. There are more people that want more than two 1.5 hour practices a week. People want technical training, they want possession soccer, they want intelligent play. The old days of fitness and athleticism being good enough for American soccer are ending. Knowledge of soccer is improving, and they want to see their local club keeping up with that.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic about what can be achieved, but what I currently see is a recipe for mediocrity. At the end of the day, it's far too easy to age through these westside clubs, have some good times and life experiences, but not really learn very much about soccer. The good news is at least SMU is reforming, there's a lot of good things happening at the younger level under the new management, and they'll be rolling it out at older level as kids age through. They're moving to more of an academy system of instruction. So, in the absence of a merger, I hope that at least succeeds and pushes the other clubs a bit.


----------



## Mystery Train (Feb 2, 2018)

Good post, John.


John Akii-Bua said:


> Look, I totally respect what you guys are saying here.


And I respect your very thoughtful post outlining the positives of a merger.  There's a lot to consider, and it isn't black and white.  And I agree with much of what you're saying, such as: 


John Akii-Bua said:


> - Long term strategic thinking:





John Akii-Bua said:


> - College recruiting.





John Akii-Bua said:


> Fend off the even bigger clubs.





John Akii-Bua said:


> - Field space.


 **although you would think it would be great at a mega club, they end up with so many teams that even though they secure big spaces, those big spaces are jammed with too many squads at practice time.  


However, I have seen one of these mega clubs in operation up close and personal, (you admitted you haven't) and let me tell you that unequivocally you are being pie-in-the-sky when it comes to some of the other points.  The quality of coaching does NOT improve with bigger clubs.  The "professional" management at bigger clubs are the same amateur yokels who ran small clubs of yesterday (I actually LOL'd at "professional management").  Fundraising...yes, let me tell you, they raise the hell out of some funds, and none of it comes back to the families in the form of scholarships or financial aid.  ZERO.  Curriculum is actually much LESS consistent at big clubs.  With 100's of teams, the DoC's are stretched far too thin to ensure that everyone is playing a specific style.  The only clubs consistent with style from top to bottom are small ones in my experience.  And lastly, big clubs are an absolute factory for mediocrity.  Your observation about the talent gap between the best player on a small club team and the worst player is right.  And yes, if you go to Galaxy's top team, or Surf, or Arsenal, or Slammers, the gap isn't quite as huge, but behind that team are 5-10 full teams of mediocrity.  The resentment that B-team families feel at small clubs is amplified 100x at a big club, where they are continually sold a pathway to the top team (aka "development") and yet studiously neglected at tryout time.  The ills that you observe in small clubs are not cured by expansion.  They are only magnified to horrific, grotesque degrees.  

Your post outlined very thoroughly the motivations and benefits behind these clubs in considering the merger, and I agree that they sound very promising.   I just happen to think that in reality, most of those benefits turn out to be a mirage.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 2, 2018)

Those are all good points, MT. I can definitely see all the pitfalls you describe. Depressing, innit? Are there any clubs out there that can provide a model for how to do things right?

I guess I'm counting on the people who run the three clubs to do their due diligence in setting the thing up so that it doesn't become a fetid domain of a single club president or DOC. I see the westside market requiring a certain level of professionalism and integrity in a club. Parents here have the skills and desire to advocate for their kids, and/or participate in running the club (as you know, SMU jettisoned their long time TD, and FCLA did the same to Walker). A local superclub would have to figure out a way to service that clientele, as well as harness it. There are a lot of serious people who are involved at SMU, attorneys and what-not, (and I assume at FCLA and Breakers too) who should be able to set up a system of checks and balances. Obviously, having a slush fund of scholarship money for the DOC to use as he sees fit is a recipe for disaster, so a system would need to be properly built in from the start. Fundraising would have to go to a specific goal, like a turf field.

From both the SMU and FCLA coaches I've talked to, there's a real sense that the two clubs are bloated. I think there's a desire among the coaches to pare things down and provide better training. No one on the west side wants to deal with field space for a club of four plus teams per gender age group. I do think a merged club would have fewer teams than the sum of the current clubs' stable, though maybe the temptation to grow would be irresistible.

When I wrote that about "professional management" I did kind of wonder who they could find to hire. I was actually thinking more that it'd be good to pay for part time administrative help like a treasurer and field coordinator to ensure a certain level of competency and standards. A single highly-paid manager is a very dangerous thing, everything becomes dependent on that one person, who builds a cult of personality.

I don't know what happened to the merger. Maybe there were too many compromises required, and the new club would end up just like every other superclub. In which case, you're right that we're better off that it blew up.


----------



## Mystery Train (Feb 2, 2018)

John, 
I think I get what you're saying, and what you are visualizing isn't a mega club like Slammers like I thought, but more like a talent dense but mid-size club like SoCal Blues (not sure what the boys side equivalent is).  That's an interesting thought.  I don't know Blues' structure and understand the Bakers run it as their own kingdom so maybe they aren't the exact model you're looking for, but I like the idea of a club specifically designed to serve a particular geographic customer base.  Sounds like you should negotiate the merger and run it!


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 2, 2018)

ha ha! I just need to control the lease to VA field, then they'd listen to me


----------



## soccerobserver (Feb 2, 2018)

JAB it sounds as though you come from the boys side. My experience has been on the girls side and let me tell you the old days of the monopoly on the girls side really sucked for the kids. Now you have three different decent options as a parent to find the right fit for your daughter. I know families at all three clubs who are very happy in their situations.

With respect to college recruiting most of the families I see are sending their daughters to small academically selective collges primarily on the east coast. They have to have high grades and high SAT/ACT scores. ECNL and DA involve more travel and more training time but to what end??? Three hours per week and an addition session every once in a while is enough. Weekend travel out of state will only make it more difficult to sustain high grades and to have enough time to get high scores. More training and travel increases the "true costs" of soccer without increasing the payoff/benefits for kids who are using soccer to gain admission into a selective college.

SMU G98's are the Proof statements of my point about the demographics of the customer base: The kids received offers from Harvard, Hopkins, Swarthmore, Hartwick, Bates, Emory, Whittier,  Bowdoin, Pomona-Pitzer, U of Chicago, Tufts, Hamilton, Williams, Cal Lutheran, Chapman, Lewis and Clark and many other colleges. This list compares favorably to any mega club except for kids who want to play D1 at a large university. The Harvard and Hopkins kids were not recruited for soccer and are out of soccer but nobody feels sorry for them lol.

John I think you are very wise and make great points but I think maybe the boys side is not working as well as the girls  side is today.

Lastly, choice is critically  important. Choice makes the clubs better since they have to compete and play nice. The old days of  coach being a dictator because he has the only club in the area are thankfully over! Today if a girl is stuck on a B team at SMU she can go to Breakers. If a girl is stuck on a B team at Breakers she can go to SMU. That was not always the case. With one Megaa club the families would be in the darker ages and at the mercy of having to stick with a coach/team that was not a good fit or who was not being fair to the player. That would suck eggs bigtime.

The mega merger would benefit the few brilliant and  ambitious coaches and Type A families who desire national recognition for soccer!!!! The rest of the community interests would be subourne to this overarching megalomaniacal goal of soccer supremacy, fame and fortune....

I would rather sprint through the flames of hell in gasoline soaked underwear than go backwards to the old monopoly days...


----------



## Mystery Train (Feb 2, 2018)

soccerobserver said:


> I would rather sprint through the flames of hell in gasoline soaked underwear than go backwards to the old monopoly days...


LOL!!!


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 3, 2018)

> The mega merger would benefit the few brilliant and  ambitious coaches and Type A families who desire national recognition for soccer!!!! The rest of the community interests would be subourne to this overarching megalomaniacal goal of soccer supremacy, fame and fortune....


well, that's me put in my place I guess.

but, yeah, boys side. Furthermore, he's still only a u12, so I haven't gone through the whole progression, though I have tried to inform myself. Don't really know that much about Breakers.

Good points, SO, particularly about the monopoly.

Some rebuttal:
- I take your point that choice is good, and probably prevents the clubs from sliding into outright suckitude. However, it's not like it spurs them to excellence, either. The three clubs are all pretty much at the same level, and anyone really wanting a more intensive experience needs to commute.
- My understanding is that back in those old days, Breakers were far more successful, so at least there was the possibility of playing on a top team locally. Presumably, this was because they had the talent consolidated. Either way though, the soccer landscape has shifted massively since then, especially for girls.
- Finally, the DA is possibly a solution to the monopoly problem. The USSF does require a certain level of service that I think keeps DA clubs decent, particularly the recent clubs that had to apply. (Some of the legacy DA clubs that got invited in are admittedly coasting a bit.) Essentially the USSF provides another pressure point on the club.

About DA:
- I think you could pretty easily find 12 westside girls in every age group that want to play at that level, and 8 more that would be willing to drive in from out of area. (afternoon west on the 10 and south through the sepulveda pass are actually reverse commutes). Remember, as it is, plenty of girls commute out of the westside to play high-level soccer, and, I argue, more will be willing to do so in the future. (For example, at TFA alone there are 3 westside boys at 06, 3 at 07, and already 2 08s.) 
- Just because the club has a DA team doesn't force you to play on it. The second team will be very strong too, and, if things are done properly, the other teams will have a strong coattail effect from the DA program.
- having said that, I do see your point and I've talked to a lot of westside parents who share your opinion. I totally recognize that academics are big on the westside, and a lot of kids at these clubs go to private schools and want to play high school soccer.

College:
- let's be honest, those girls didn't get into those schools because the club did a much better job teaching soccer than its competitors. They got in because that's what happens in westside zip codes. I'll wager that both those girls' non-soccer playing friends and the girls on the less successful B team all got into similar schools. 
- I'll confess that I don't know the history of the G98 team. But let's take the vaunted SMU G01 team: Looking at YSR, they're at 23 in socal (179 nationally), while Breakers is at 56 (394 nationally). This tells me SMU has won that age group, and they're not even competing for the same players anymore (though I do know an local G01 baller, and she won't go near either one of those teams.) As I said, every few years things break right and all the local talent ends up at one club. Most of the time the talent ends up diluted. If you're not in one of those lucky age groups, but play soccer at a high level, right now you're commuting if you want to get seen by recruiters. With a consolidated club, almost every age group would have an A team playing at a level like G98.


----------



## soccerobserver (Feb 3, 2018)

JAB as usual you make some excellent points however here is my retort for the moment ...

College Recruiting:
The truly successful coaches train their players up to a level that is appealing to the best D3 soccer programs. I know personally several girls who had the academic chops to get admitted to schools like williams and who went to the camps but were not chosen by the college coach. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore etc coaches did not make offers to many girls in west side soccer teams. I give certain SMU coaches credit for developing their players over time to where their players got multiple offers from these top D3 college coaches. There are also SMU coaches who did not develop their players and where their players did not get chosen from other less well coached SMU teams. The coach make all the difference in the world over time. Please --it is not a given to get recruited into the top D3 colleges soccer programs. The development of soccer skills and soccer IQ matters...even if the academic credential are there the soccer has to be there also.

SMU G01 had at least one player being recruited by Harvard and several others being recruited by top D3 schools. What would DA add to their opportunities other than more travel and training time away from school ???

Monopoly is anathema to Excellence :

The biggest beneficiary of a west side soccer monopoly will be the handful of mediocre coaches at all three clubs. The elite coaches at all three would benefit also but not to the degree that the mediocre ones would. In the last 3 seasons How many coaches have been culled at SMU, Breakers and LAFC ??? A monopoly will only entrench the mediocre coaches; a consolidated pool of players will help crappy coaches look better in terms of wins and losses.

How to Make the Clubs Teach Better Soccer across more teams:

Hire train and develop better coaches! If the clubs want better soccer then they should train and develop better coaches. A merger consolidating  the player pool can help on the surface but not at a deeper level of it's all the same coaches all consolidated together.

This is my other $0.02.


----------



## shortBUTslow (Feb 3, 2018)

John Akii-Bua said:


> (though I do know an local G01 baller, and she won't go near either one of those teams.)


please explain


----------



## Overlap (Feb 4, 2018)

John Akii-Bua said:


> I have to disagree with you guys about maintaining the status quo. I get what you're saying, and I used to fully believe in the nice, neighborhoody, continuity vibe, but I believe the arguments for a westside merger far outweigh the arguments against.
> 
> (Full disclosure, I'm a former SMU parent, now at TFA, and I pay a lot of attention to west side soccer.)
> 
> ...


All good points and all were taken into consideration with the proposed merger, what everyone fails to realize is, trying to get everyone on the same page takes time, there has to be a level of trust and stuff does come up at the last minute that may have some questioning motives or not fully understanding the "why" certain things have to happen to protect everyone involved. I still think it could still happen, just not this year, I do believe almost everyone is on the same page although, now it's going to be a new group that will have to be educated in March and that takes time too.


----------



## Overlap (Feb 4, 2018)

soccerobserver said:


> JAB as usual you make some excellent points however here is my retort for the moment ...
> 
> College Recruiting:
> The truly successful coaches train their players up to a level that is appealing to the best D3 soccer programs. I know personally several girls who had the academic chops to get admitted to schools like williams and who went to the camps but were not chosen by the college coach. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore etc coaches did not make offers to many girls in west side soccer teams. I give certain SMU coaches credit for developing their players over time to where their players got multiple offers from these top D3 college coaches. There are also SMU coaches who did not develop their players and where their players did not get chosen from other less well coached SMU teams. The coach make all the difference in the world over time. Please --it is not a given to get recruited into the top D3 colleges soccer programs. The development of soccer skills and soccer IQ matters...even if the academic credential are there the soccer has to be there also.
> ...


Another very good point, if you're lucky enough to have your DD with the best coaches over their club years U12-U19, they will benefit, even if they have no interest in playing college soccer, they learn the game the correct way, enjoy it more and benefit from offers when the time comes if they are interested.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 5, 2018)

shortBUTslow said:


> please explain


One of the many many westside kids who started off at one of those three clubs, and then left to find better training, more skilled and ambitious teammates, and a more intense environment. Look, it's easy to diss these kids and families as overly ambitious trophy/scholarship hunters, but there are a lot of us who are serious about soccer and aren't being served by the local clubs. I just think that soccer on the westside has outgrown the glorified rec soccer that's available now. I've talked to a lot of westside coaches who agree, btw.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 5, 2018)

Overlap said:


> All good points and all were taken into consideration with the proposed merger, what everyone fails to realize is, trying to get everyone on the same page takes time, there has to be a level of trust and stuff does come up at the last minute that may have some questioning motives or not fully understanding the "why" certain things have to happen to protect everyone involved. I still think it could still happen, just not this year, I do believe almost everyone is on the same page although, now it's going to be a new group that will have to be educated in March and that takes time too.


Anyone ever come across the linguistic/psychological idea that the brain reveals hidden thoughts through unconscious word or language choices? 

Just something about a post about the difficulty forming trust in these negotiations that repeatedly uses the phrase "on the same page" made me think of that. definitely some subliminal messaging there, amirite?

Joking aside, Overlap, I totally agree. If the clubs can't agree to a merger that's going to produce the amazing club that the westside deserves, then it's far better to can it.


----------



## shortBUTslow (Feb 5, 2018)

John Akii-Bua said:


> One of the many many westside kids who started off at one of those three clubs, and then left to find better training, more skilled and ambitious teammates, and a more intense environment. Look, it's easy to diss these kids and families as overly ambitious trophy/scholarship hunters, but there are a lot of us who are serious about soccer and aren't being served by the local clubs. I just think that soccer on the westside has outgrown the glorified rec soccer that's available now. I've talked to a lot of westside coaches who agree, btw.


You're describing a situation I know pretty well, only in this case, the kid came back only to realize the coaching, training, seriousness, opportunities, and team performance were all better locally.  Not saying that's everyone experience, but it is 100% true in this case.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 5, 2018)

shortBUTslow said:


> You're describing a situation I know pretty well, only in this case, the kid came back only to realize the coaching, training, seriousness, opportunities, and team performance were all better locally.  Not saying that's everyone experience, but it is 100% true in this case.


A lot leave in middle school years when the homework load isn't too high and they want to test themselves in the higher levels. By high school, they might decide it's not worth it for a variety of reasons. More would come back if there were consistently higher level teams on the west side. Sure, a SMU G01 will get you seen by D3 college coaches, but teams playing at that level on the westside are few and far between. A consolidated club should have teams at that level at every age group.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 5, 2018)

soccerobserver said:


> How to Make the Clubs Teach Better Soccer across more teams:
> 
> Hire train and develop better coaches! If the clubs want better soccer then they should train and develop better coaches. A merger consolidating  the player pool can help on the surface but not at a deeper level of it's all the same coaches all consolidated together.
> 
> This is my other $0.02.





Overlap said:


> Another very good point, if you're lucky enough to have your DD with the best coaches over their club years U12-U19, they will benefit, even if they have no interest in playing college soccer, they learn the game the correct way, enjoy it more and benefit from offers when the time comes if they are interested.


I have mixed feelings about this argument. On the one hand, it's undoubtedly true that the level of coaching could be improved. On the other hand, I believe there are a core of very good coaches on the westside. At SMU alone, I count 7+ coaches who I'd entrust my precious child to. Between the three clubs, I'm pretty sure there are enough good coaches do things properly, and, as I said, I think a merger would require culling the mediocre coaches.

Furthermore, I think you're underselling the importance of players. Any coach will tell you, you need to have good, committed players. Good coaching will only take you so far. I've talked to so many westside coaches who are frustrated by the lack of interest among their A team (and don't blame their best players for leaving). Honestly, how many of your kids' teammates get out there and even practice juggling outside of practice? How many practice their weak foot? Most of the ones that do that are long gone. Sure, bad coaches might look better with better players, but right now, good coaches and good players and being held back by a diluted talent pool.


----------



## soccerobserver (Feb 5, 2018)

JAB, I think your post in favor of the merger describes a youth soccer utopia that would be great if it could be built with smart capable coaches and hard working, ethical administrators with appropriate checks and balances in an all encompassing meritocracy.

I submit that your original post is so well thought out it could serve as the Constitition for a new club and a new era of board-driven clubs in contrast to DOC driven clubs.

I sense your point of view comes from coaches and not families. Several times you reference how coaches feel which might be in contrast to how most of the customers feel about having fewer choices.

There are some coaches who blame lackluster results on their lousy diluted player pool. But how can one explain that there are also more successful coaches developing players and winning with the same diluted player pool ?? I submit that maybe the problem is with the some of the coaches and/or lack of coach development  not just the player pool. My experience has been that educated parents choose the better coach regardless of the club. 

I don't think it's fair to call all of the westside clubs' Teams glorified rec teams. 

After years of watching the girls side I did not see that ECNL turned basic coaches into amazing coaches. I doubt DA will be any different than ECNL and quite possibly it will be worse. If you look at the pre split CSL standings  you would see- on the girls side - that the top coaches then are also the top coaches today. This is why many parent are so skeptical of new labels and remain militantly coach-centered. 

I am so passionate about this topic because soccer played a huge role in my daughters' development and I think it would be a shame to go backwards and limit choices for families in the area like it was before.

Manny M, Bogy D,
Fab and PG were all great coaches who impacted my kids in a positive way. I wonder if playing for them would have been possible under the old market structure in west LA.


----------



## Mystery Train (Feb 5, 2018)

John Akii-Bua said:


> Just something about a post about the difficulty forming trust in these negotiations that repeatedly uses the phrase "on the same page" made me think of that. definitely some subliminal messaging there, amirite?


I see what you did there.


----------



## John Akii-Bua (Feb 5, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> I see what you did there.


good, I'm glad it wasn't too obscure


----------



## soccerobserver (Feb 5, 2018)

soccerobserver said:


> JAB, I think your post in favor of the merger describes a youth soccer utopia that would be great if it could be built with smart capable coaches and hard working, ethical administrators with appropriate checks and balances in an all encompassing meritocracy.
> 
> I submit that your original post is so well thought out it could serve as the Constitition for a new club and a new era of board-driven clubs in contrast to DOC driven clubs.
> 
> ...


Point of clarification Manny and Bogy were not in the west side but DD was allowed to guest for them.


----------



## soccerobserver (Feb 5, 2018)

soccerobserver said:


> Point of clarification Manny and Bogy were not in the west side but DD was allowed to guest for them.


JAB I agree with MT that you should run the new club -West Side Santa Monica Utopia United FC- given your philosophy but I doubt it can happen until there are retirements of some folks who think along a different model...I'll leave it at that...


----------



## Overlap (Feb 5, 2018)

John Akii-Bua said:


> Anyone ever come across the linguistic/psychological idea that the brain reveals hidden thoughts through unconscious word or language choices?
> 
> Just something about a post about the difficulty forming trust in these negotiations that repeatedly uses the phrase "on the same page" made me think of that. definitely some subliminal messaging there, amirite?
> 
> Joking aside, Overlap, I totally agree. If the clubs can't agree to a merger that's going to produce the amazing club that the westside deserves, then it's far better to can it.


it does  ... however, only the SC know the real reason(s) it didn't happen, insert - we thought everyone was on the same page, (had to put that back in there)  it could be trust, could be a legal reason that I'm assuming everyone may not have understood or they just decided it wasn't the right time. I've seen some really valid points posted here, trust me, they were all brought up and they were valid reasons to make it happen. I have my personal reason why "I" think it didn't happen but, it's just my opinion. I think the vision was/is right in the big picture of westside club soccer but, not this year.


----------



## Footbollah (May 5, 2018)

Just to close the loop on this discussion, FCLA and Breakers went ahead with the merger, just without SMU:

http://www.labreakersfc.com/_files/PressRelease.pdf

I know coaches, players and parents at all 3 clubs, and the way the merger played out is very much a commentary on the SMU board right now.  (My family also walked away from SMU thanks to the new board.)  

The comedy is that I know of at least one team that moved as a whole from SMU to LA Breakers, along with their mediocre SMU coach. Which has me wondering about the Breaker's judgment, after all.

I think a good coach is more important to a player than the club. But even so, the club's internal politics can negatively affect the coaches and players (example: SMU's board decided to start making its former TD's life difficult, with the goal of getting him to resign.  Except they did it right around State Cup--leaving his teams without a coach leading up to State Cup.) 

There are some good coaches at SMU, Breakers and FCLA, and there are just as many mediocre and bad ones.  Sometimes the club's drama gets in the way.  In my daughter's case, I did not like the coaches for her age group, and the drama made it easy to walk, so she does not play on a club in the westside.

I'm not an advocate for big clubs or little clubs, just sanity and good coaching.  And choices.  There are not enough choices on the westside.


----------



## Paul Spacey (May 5, 2018)

This is a very good thread with some great ideas and input. Regardless of my own club affiliation, I want to see the new LA Breakers club work, primarily for the benefit of the players involved. It’s fantastic to see young players enjoying soccer and being successful; that doesn’t have to mean college or professional soccer, ‘successful’ for me means continuous improvement and being able to compete year-on-year and ultimately enjoying the game.

There are clearly some very experienced people involved at board and coaching level and the main thing anyone involved with the new club (and any club for that matter) should want to see is continued improvement in coach education, delivery of practice and engagement of players. Put everything else aside (ECNL, field space, affiliations with UCLA etc, although they are all looked upon as ‘positive’ of course), the priority should be an ongoing focus on improving coaching so that the players ultimately benefit.

For some people, bigger is better and the spotlight this brings can be positive. For others, smaller can mean more focus and attention. Neither is perfect but all of us involved in Westside soccer should want to serve kids by providing the best possible experience where their needs are prioritized. We all know there are lots of politics involved in club soccer and youth sport in general but we can always get past that.

I completely appreciate that the small % of top-level players on the Westside perhaps want something better but for the huge majority of kids playing club soccer here, they are not in that % and so things like long-distance traveling and higher fees for something ‘elite’ are not really necessary. The majority of kids here would benefit from the approach below.

“as many as possible, as long as possible, in the best environment possible.”

Here is a great article that explains the quote above; well worth reading for parents but in particular for coaches and club board members.

https://www.developingthefuture.club/single-post/2016/06/16/As-many-as-possible-as-long-as-possible-in-the-best-environment-possible

We all have the same goal (or at least we should have); to help kids foster a love for the game and to push/assist them in becoming the best that they can be.


----------



## Overlap (May 7, 2018)

Footbollah said:


> Just to close the loop on this discussion, FCLA and Breakers went ahead with the merger, just without SMU:
> 
> http://www.labreakersfc.com/_files/PressRelease.pdf
> 
> ...


I also know coaches, players and parents at all 3 clubs however, maybe you could explain that more in detail? What specifically makes the failed part of the merger the SMU BOD's fault?

I find it hard to think a parent would move their kid because of any "board", their function or disfunction should be far removed from any "single" player. While SMU may have had their issues, it's not any different than other locals club(s), some that can't keep anyone active on their board or one that had their coach pull 2 of their best teams several years ago to another club only to be hired back. My point being, each club has their own issues, some more egregious than others. 

The specific's behind that team moving is somewhat funny and somewhat sad on the part of both clubs letting this happen. While one thinks it was a good thing to do this to the other, I'd be curious to see where this coach lands in the next 1-2 years....and the worst part, what happens to those kids and their enjoyment of the game in 1-2 years.

I would agree with all three clubs having good and bad coaches, I'd like to believe this is what will separate the clubs in the future as no amount of DA, DA2, ECNL, Premier or whatever level will hide a bad coach or club. Regarding your TD statement - the board made every effort to accommodate the TD's needs, the club was growing at a rapid pace, things had to change and could no longer be run as a small club (I would agree the BOD had some internal conflict in how things should be set up moving forward _and a lack of leadership at the time_, the reality was, no one wanted to lead), a new structure had to be set up, new jobs had to be assigned to make the club run better, the then TD made the decision to resign & at the time the TD did, no one forced the TD out.

I hear ya but, I'm not sure if sanity is possible, too many A type parents thinking they know what's best   I also don't think this exclusive to the West Side, all you have to do is read the threads on this site.

*So, if I read correctly at the end, it wasn't a BOD thing? it was your daughter's coach? A coach I would understand, did your DD tryout for the other team?...


----------



## soccerobserver (May 8, 2018)

Footbollah said:


> Just to close the loop on this discussion, FCLA and Breakers went ahead with the merger, just without SMU:
> 
> http://www.labreakersfc.com/_files/PressRelease.pdf
> 
> ...


Footbollah,

To their credit, SMU culled 4 coaches which was tough to do but part of what is needed to hold the club’s coaches accountable to higher standards. Of the 8 teams affected only one team- a very young team- organized and left. The older teams all stayed with the new coaches, who  most would agree represented a real improvement vs the people they replaced.  Nothing wrong with upgrading the coaching staff. I see it as part of the long march to making the club better and better by holding coaches accountable for teaching soccer the right way.


----------



## Footbollah (May 8, 2018)

Overlap said:


> the then TD made the decision to resign & at the time the TD did, no one forced the TD out.


These are all very good points. In saying the TD was “pushed out,” I was characterizing what happened the way the a previous poster did, as did boardmembers who apprently took pride in saying they forced him out.  But indeed, it seems the board made changes that the TD found untenable, so he resigned.

My issue with the SMU board is the hubris and misrepresentations made to more than one parent on our team and a couple of others.  The pride in forcing out the TD (or maneuvering his resignation, depending on whose perspective) is one example.  The idea of turning SMU into a superclub because a couple of teams have had a remarkably good run, despite the statisical likelihood that the % of talent to sustain it along with the other clubs, probably does not exist on the westside, is another.

Yet another, and perhaps more telling, anecdote is that more than one boardmember/parent said that the board’s goal in growing was to snap up as many players as possible on the westside for the primary purpose of crowding out other clubs for fieldspace on the westside.  Their rationale was that, had they not rejected a group of AYSO players, they would not be conpeting for field space with FC England (sorry, Paul).  Maybe the parents were just blowing smoke, which is its own problem. But that’s the attitude, and that’s what I have a problem with.  

This is kids’ soccer development, after all, not Wall Street. Parents or players might not pick up on the attitude directly... Maybe they do in how the club makes decisions and communicates them.  Plus, most parents probably won’t notice and aren’t focused on how the board operates if or until there’s a problem (I first noticed thanks to poor communication). I personally prefer to steer clear.

I’m happy kids have choices like FC England or LA Vikings (and even VBFC, run by one of SMU’s excellent girls team coaches), even if these clubs don’t have teams for every age level.  And whatever I might think about SMU’s goals, which seem mixed and contradictory at times (elite large club?), I vehemently disagree with its motivations, at least, as they were described to me, with pride, in the short time before we left.

As for the merger, I also hope it works.  There are very good people and good coaches at Breakers and FCLA, and the board structure (coach driven, vs parent driven) should give it some continuity in the long term.  I have nothing against these two clubs, and they have always been receptive to my kids, even if I decided different coaches were a better fit in the end. Plus, it makes conplete sense, given their shared location and relative positions within SCSDL.


----------



## Paul Spacey (May 8, 2018)

Footbollah said:


> Yet another, and perhaps more telling, anecdote is that more than one boardmember/parent said that the board’s goal in growing was to snap up as many players as possible on the westside for the primary purpose of crowding out other clubs for fieldspace on the westside. Their rationale was that, had they not rejected a group of AYSO players, they would not be conpeting for field space with FC England (sorry, Paul). Maybe the parents were just blowing smoke, which is its own problem. But that’s the attitude, and that’s what I have a problem with.


Seems strange if the goal is to snap up as many players as possible yet it appears they have reduced the number of teams/players recently (which btw, makes sense to me so it's a good move for the club). Lots of politics and other issues surrounding Westside soccer like I already mentioned; field space is just one of them. One of the benefits of a small setup is that you don't require much field space (and providing you are good tenants, pay on time, cause no issues and actually provide a good service to the community, you are less likely to lose space once you have it).

I like the rejecting a group of AYSO players thing...I remember a number of people saying, "it's ok, they are just a bunch of ex-AYSO coaches with average AYSO players" when we started the club in 2016. After realizing only about 50% of the players were actually AYSO (many came from other clubs) and once people saw the coaching and quality of teams on the field, many changed their minds. 

I sat in a DOC meeting with CSL clubs recently and we were all asked what our retention rate was (% of players who choose not to leave clubs at the end of the season - doesn't account for players you may let go). After generally hearing 70-80%, it's fair to say that there was some surprise when I said almost 100% (2 kids from 110 actually chose to leave, so less than 2%). That tells its own story.

Again, I hope the LA Breakers merger works for the sake of the kids and parents. It seems to me that most Westside clubs are at least trying to move in the right direction and improve what they are offering on and off the field; that has to be a good thing for soccer here.


----------



## soccerobserver (May 9, 2018)

Footbollah, you are an interesting dude. You make things up and you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. In one post you say you chose not to join the Breakers for your daughter. In another post you claim your daughter did not make the Breakers B team, which I have never heard of happening before since their B teams are more recreational. Your allegations about the SMU board and the previous TD- a good man- are hilarious but also untrue. Yet you spout off blithely with fake authority to go along with your loony tunes conspiracy theories and faux european soccer snobbery.  It is painfully clear that your daughter was cut from SMU and somehow you are finding a way to blame the board. I am happy the SMU board elected to remain an Independent soccer club. In my view the board did its job and preserved choice for the families in the area. SMU is still the undisputed #1 when it comes to placing girls and boys in college to play soccer. No other club on the west side comes close. 

Regarding the Breakers and LAFC may I remind you that you previously wrote the following: " Breakers is OK, but it's small, has worn out field space, and fees are high despite not having any assistants." Your words -not mine- from your previous posts. Regarding LAFC you made up more stuff again and you wrote " FCLA...overly involved parents can be a problem, and they always seem to keep one hand in your checkbook"...then you try to summarize what happened at SMU despite the fact that you have no clue. You may have some imaginary friends on the SMU board but I know all of them past and present and you are just making things up about SMU, LAFC and Breakers. 

SMU, Breakers, LAFC, and the new LA Breakers FC will all thrive and co-exist today, tomorrow and into the future. Westside soccer consumers have great choices in front of them. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game and it is fantastic for families to have so many choices of where to play. You said your DD is in school in Encino, so you can even try RSC and its uparalleled choices of teams at all levels of competition.


----------



## soccerobserver (May 9, 2018)

soccerobserver said:


> Footbollah, you are an interesting dude. You make things up and you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about. In one post you say you chose not to join the Breakers for your daughter. In another post you claim your daughter did not make the Breakers B team, which I have never heard of happening before since their B teams are more recreational. Your allegations about the SMU board and the previous TD- a good man- are hilarious but also untrue. Yet you spout off blithely with fake authority to go along with your loony tunes conspiracy theories and faux european soccer snobbery.  It is painfully clear that your daughter was cut from SMU and somehow you are finding a way to blame the board. I am happy the SMU board elected to remain an Independent soccer club. In my view the board did its job and preserved choice for the families in the area. SMU is still the undisputed #1 when it comes to placing girls and boys in college to play soccer. No other club on the west side comes close.
> 
> Regarding the Breakers and LAFC may I remind you that you previously wrote the following: " Breakers is OK, but it's small, has worn out field space, and fees are high despite not having any assistants." Your words -not mine- from your previous posts. Regarding LAFC you made up more stuff again and you wrote " FCLA...overly involved parents can be a problem, and they always seem to keep one hand in your checkbook"...then you try to summarize what happened at SMU despite the fact that you have no clue. You may have some imaginary friends on the SMU board but I know all of them past and present and you are just making things up about SMU, LAFC and Breakers.
> 
> SMU, Breakers, LAFC, and the new LA Breakers FC will all thrive and co-exist today, tomorrow and into the future. Westside soccer consumers have great choices in front of them. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game and it is fantastic for families to have so many choices of where to play. You said your DD is in school in Encino, so you can even try RSC and its uparalleled choices of teams at all levels of competition.


***LAFC should read FCLA


----------



## Overlap (May 9, 2018)

Paul Spacey said:


> Seems strange if the goal is to snap up as many players as possible yet it appears they have reduced the number of teams/players recently (which btw, makes sense to me so it's a good move for the club). Lots of politics and other issues surrounding Westside soccer like I already mentioned; field space is just one of them. One of the benefits of a small setup is that you don't require much field space (and providing you are good tenants, pay on time, cause no issues and actually provide a good service to the community, you are less likely to lose space once you have it).
> 
> I like the rejecting a group of AYSO players thing...I remember a number of people saying, "it's ok, they are just a bunch of ex-AYSO coaches with average AYSO players" when we started the club in 2016. After realizing only about 50% of the players were actually AYSO (many came from other clubs) and once people saw the coaching and quality of teams on the field, many changed their minds.
> 
> ...


That "snap up as many player's" comment comes from pure speculation on the part of the person that made that comment and yes, the reduced number _is_ part of  a focus on quality, not quantity. The politic's is HUGE in westside soccer, fields, crazy parents and people with their own agenda rather than what's best for it's entirety. I've been involved in west side club soccer for 8-9 years and just when you think I've seen it all, something (or someone) else tops it! While field space is an issue, it's not as big as the other nonsense that goes on.

I remember when the AYSO thing came up, it was actually a field space issue that the BOD decided it wasn't going to work, it was tough enough juggling the fields at that point. It just meant the timing wasn't right. That's when you get focused and develop those teams and maybe it works down the road. That's how you prove everyone wrong too!

That retention rate is awesome, it's when you get to the last 3 years that those numbers change, you'll start to see your 02, 03's starting to look elsewhere, (I think it's usually the parents, the kids are fine as long as they're happy and enjoying the game)

I would agree, I think most hope the merger works, only time will tell. I think it will be a tough 1-2 years and an lot of recruiting to keep it going. I don't personally think the west side has the numbers to support it and that's why the recruiting will be so important but, good for soccer in general.


----------



## Overlap (May 9, 2018)

Footbollah said:


> These are all very good points. In saying the TD was “pushed out,” I was characterizing what happened the way the a previous poster did, as did boardmembers who apprently took pride in saying they forced him out.  But indeed, it seems the board made changes that the TD found untenable, so he resigned.
> 
> My issue with the SMU board is the hubris and misrepresentations made to more than one parent on our team and a couple of others.  The pride in forcing out the TD (or maneuvering his resignation, depending on whose perspective) is one example.  The idea of turning SMU into a superclub because a couple of teams have had a remarkably good run, despite the statisical likelihood that the % of talent to sustain it along with the other clubs, probably does not exist on the westside, is another.
> 
> ...


If any BOD member made that statement, I'd be quick to point out, that's part of the problem with parent(s) and their personal agenda. Again, the club's growth was moving at a record pace and could no longer be run the way it was. That caused the changes and the TD felt it best to leave. 

I think your issue should have be directed at the person(s) with such arrogance to think their opinion actually mattered. No 1 person could make that happen and to actually brag about it shows me that person had no business on any BOD. Thank goodness thy're no longer there! I would agree with the talent assessment, I also do not think there's enough talent on the westside to field ECNL, Premier (I think they're one in the same at this point) or high level teams but, that's just me and remains to be seen. I just don't know what the parents end game is as I've said in other threads.

*I also addressed the ASYO comment in a previous comment, above or below just to clarify.

I would also agree, I like the fact that FC England, LA Vikings exist, it opens doors for more kids to play and enjoy the beautiful game, isn't that why we're all here anyway?


----------



## Paul Spacey (May 9, 2018)

Overlap said:


> That "snap up as many player's" comment comes from pure speculation on the part of the person that made that comment and yes, the reduced number _is_ part of  a focus on quality, not quantity. The politic's is HUGE in westside soccer, fields, crazy parents and people with their own agenda rather than what's best for it's entirety. I've been involved in west side club soccer for 8-9 years and just when you think I've seen it all, something (or someone) else tops it! While field space is an issue, it's not as big as the other nonsense that goes on.
> 
> I remember when the AYSO thing came up, it was actually a field space issue that the BOD decided it wasn't going to work, it was tough enough juggling the fields at that point. It just meant the timing wasn't right. That's when you get focused and develop those teams and maybe it works down the road. That's how you prove everyone wrong too!
> 
> ...


Thanks for explaining some of those points. Makes sense and like I said, the moves SMU have made with restructuring will be positive for the club and for the players/parents.

I do see your point about older teams and High School. No doubt retention becomes more difficult then but so far it hasn’t affected us after a year of HS soccer. Ultimately, if what you are providing on and off the field is high quality, your retention rate should remain relatively stable although at older ages it will drop slightly, that’s inevitable.

We’ve encouraged some kids to go to DA tryouts and will continue to do so; we want the best players to go and play at the level they deserve. We now have relationships with both Galaxy and LAFC (one of my very good friends from back in the UK is a Galaxy DA Head Coach) and so our best players know that’s an option if they show the necessary development while with us.

Finally, on ‘recruiting’, again I think it takes care of itself if you provide a high level coaching program so it’s not an issue I really think about too much. Word spreads quickly on the Westside as you know. If you do things right, keeping numbers and attracting new players is easy. If you get it wrong, then it becomes a problem.


----------



## Overlap (May 9, 2018)

Paul Spacey said:


> Thanks for explaining some of those points. Makes sense and like I said, the moves SMU have made with restructuring will be positive for the club and for the players/parents.
> 
> I do see your point about older teams and High School. No doubt retention becomes more difficult then but so far it hasn’t affected us after a year of HS soccer. Ultimately, if what you are providing on and off the field is high quality, your retention rate should remain relatively stable although at older ages it will drop slightly, that’s inevitable.
> 
> ...


Seriously, if  one soccer person sneezes on the westside, every soccer person on the westside gets sick! Just keep in mind this is more like a marathon and like you mentioned, developing the relationships is very important and will only help your success. I've heard good things about your club and the key is staying focused, doing what you do best, and good things will continue to happen. I look back at when my oldest DD was looking to make the move from AYSO to club back in her U11 days, we were the 3rd or 4th girls team and I look at how much things have changes in this short amount of time....crazy!


----------



## John Akii-Bua (May 10, 2018)

Overlap said:


> If any BOD member made that statement, I'd be quick to point out, that's part of the problem with parent(s) and their personal agenda. Again, the club's growth was moving at a record pace and could no longer be run the way it was. That caused the changes and the TD felt it best to leave.
> 
> I think your issue should have be directed at the person(s) with such arrogance to think their opinion actually mattered. No 1 person could make that happen and to actually brag about it shows me that person had no business on any BOD. Thank goodness thy're no longer there! I would agree with the talent assessment, I also do not think there's enough talent on the westside to field ECNL, Premier (I think they're one in the same at this point) or high level teams but, that's just me and remains to be seen. I just don't know what the parents end game is as I've said in other threads.


It's easy enough to bash volunteer parents involved in club soccer, but I can think of very few (but definitely not zero) that I've encountered who have anything resembling a toxic personal agenda. The more common problem is that parents are guided by their own experience, and fail to take the time and effort to inform themselves about the larger issues with club soccer.

From my point of view, DOCs play a huge role in the mediocrity in American club soccer. They're the ones to benefit from all the tournament fees, the pay-to-play, the win-at-all-costs, the scholarship-chasing, player-poaching, and so on. They have a lot to gain, and a lot to lose by keeping parents ignorant.

So, in the hopes that there are any current or future board members reading, it's SO important for the board to oversee the technical staff. Far too often, the DOC/president has the board wrapped up and convinced that the whole operation would fall apart without him. You see so many clubs where the leadership is so entrenched, and you see real stagnation in the coaching and management. In many instances, the BOD members rise to the position exactly because they are helpful to the DOC, who then puts them on the board. So it's very hard for BOD members to then turn around provide any meaningful oversight during their year or two on the board.

In the case of SMU, sure, things got ugly at times, they made some missteps, and members had strong differences of opinion about the direction of the club (probably all necessary to get 9 people to agree to significant change), but I think they deserve a lot of credit for what they've done in the last couple of years. Most of them aren't soccer people, but they did things right by talking to everyone (especially their own coaches) and asking the right questions. It has to be said, he didn't take too well to the questioning, so it doesn't surprise me that there was some crowing after he left.


----------

