I've come to find with this info where there's smoke there's fire... might take years for the fire to start though
Sporting California! What are they doing?
- Thread starter Keepitrealdad
- Start date
If by "well" you consider the bottom mid of league or lower. I'm sorry but the competition between GA and ECNL in SoCal is so far off.
There has been talk about a big ECNL club buying out CitySC to get a foothold in Socal. Nobody specific has been named but it does make sense. Also I haven't heard about City owners looking to sell.
Code
GOLD
Yes, "well" means middle of the pack.
Sharks joined Legends and are now called Legends San Diego. Since Sharks had an ECNL license, they kept it. I would assume that any club that has a license would keep it.
Last edited:
Code
GOLD
Why would they need to sell the club to switch leagues or change names?
Correct but you cant just be a club for example like Rebels and say hey ECNL I want to form a second ECNL team. They also had to take over that already formed Sharks ECNL team. I guess they could kick everyone off and make a second Legends Norco team now and still call it Legends San Diego but I doubt they do that.
It's not about City wanting to sell.
It's more about if you were a club outside of Socal and wanted to gain a foothold in the Socal market who would you buy out. Basically make an offer they can't refuse.
There's like 50 ECNL clubs that practice at OCGP. They all compete for players. Legends = East LA, Slammers = Coastal LA, Surf = San Diego.
CitySC is right in the middle of all of them and the fields and players are fairly protected.
This might surprise you but ECNL can do anything they want with allowing teams into the league.
If one of the strongest regional leagues in the nation has 2nd teams that out rank other clubs 1st teams it's time to consider allowing 2nd ECNL teams.
Code
GOLD
It works because they have independent registrars, coaching staffs, directors, and boards. It is in essence a separate club, with the same logos. They are like independent franchises (ie McDonalds, Subway, Harley Davison). Same thing with Slammers and Slammers Koge; they have completely independent organizations from the Players up to the Directors. So it isn't as if some club has two teams in the League, it is just two clubs with a similar name. Why run a franchise name on your club? Marketing to parents who don't understand they are not the same club. This is why there are so many Surf "Clubs" in the country. There is only one San Diego Surf, only one Legends, only one Slammers, only one South Valley Surf, only one East County Surf, only one San Diego Soccer Club Surf, only one Slammers Koge, only one CDA Slammers, only one Legends San Diego, only one Las Vegas Surf (Las Vegas Hot Surf and Turf is the correct terminology by the way)...etc....
Code
GOLD
I guess I was just confused about why you mentioned City was not looking to sell. I wasn't implying anyone was looking to buy them; just speculating on who would fill the the Sporting USA ECNL spot when the get booted from ECNL. City would be a great fit, due to all the reasons you listed above.
ScrParentSocal
BRONZE
Agreed. She did this with Legends, Murrieta Soccer Academy, and now Sporting. Hopefully clubs see this and don't hire her.
I don't know where I said new clubs or merged clubs are not allowed to join ECNL. All I said was a existing club cannot just out of the blue ask the ECNL to have a second ECNL team for the age group. I said your only goin got get one if you had some prior agreement like Slammers and Koge did or when Sharks joined Legends. I even gave an example where I said a club like Rebels cant just ask for a second ECNL team.
If your saying they will start allowing clubs to have second teams I seriously doubt it. They haven't before. What happens to ECRL then?
ScrParentSocal
BRONZE
So for Legends San Diego aka Sharks, after this year do they lose ECNL since they are now Legends or do they register as different regions as separate entities to be able to keep both ECNL teams per age group within Legends and Legends San Diego?
City has MLSN, and 2x GA teams, DPL, and multiple SOCAL teams per age group both boys and girls and a significant rec program. There's also several satellite City clubs that license their name and logo.
Revenue is not a motivator
If City wanted to be ECNL it would have happened a long time ago. This is why I mentioned the buyout option. If ego, arrogance, or obstinatance (either party) is the reason for not joining ECNL City will never join.
City can't do ECNL easily because of the MLS team. They'd have to do a satellite structure like LAFC academy with LAFC Socal (formerly Real Socal). Some Texas teams IIRC walked away from MLSN to do ECNL last year, but here in SoCal it's such a revenue generator, even for secondary clubs like Murrieta or Ventura, with kids literally commuting the length of the city to play.
Same reason why LAFC Academy (MLSN Academy) and LAFC Socal (formerly Real SoCal, playing ECNL).
That wasn’t my experience with Slammers in the 3 years I’ve been familiar with their RL teams as a parent with a child playing on their roster and in RL.
For Legends and sporting I agree. I’ve also seen Blues, LAFC, LA Breakers, Beach, Phoenix Rising, MVLA, and Heat pull the same stunts.
But never Slammers FC RL. Sorry but can’t give you that one.
I wish more people understood that ECNL forces clubs to play both boys and girls even if clubs would prefer to only do one or the other. (I realize there's a couple exceptions)
If you bought Hulu would you also be expected to buy the Disney channel? And if you didn't buy the Disney channel would it be fair if Hulu dropped you as a customer? This is essentially what ECNL does to clubs.
Bad example as I get Hulu included in my Disney+ subscription
I actually picked Hulu and Disney+ as an example because they're both owned by Disney. But I think you get the idea. ECNL does some things that are questionable in the ethics department.Bad example as I get Hulu included in my Disney+ subscription
Are clubs that don't want ECNL dictating which leagues they participate in if they want to play in girls ECNL such a bad thing? As an example by accepting ECNLs terms to play in Girls ECNL you're conceding the 1st and 2nd (ECNL/RL) girls teams to ECNL but your also conceding the 1st and 2nd boys teams to ECNL/RL to ECNL. This is roughly 80 players per age group, u13+.
The more you know about this type of thing the less you want to know.