Sporting California! What are they doing?

Carlsbad7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
SuperSoccerStar said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Code said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Code said:
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....
Click to expand...
Same reason why LAFC Academy (MLSN Academy) and LAFC Socal (formerly Real SoCal, playing ECNL).
 
Code said:
Certain clubs are notorious for playing NL players on the RL teams, while other clubs avoid it, even to the point of playing with no subs. Sporting USA, Legends, and Slammers will usually have NL players on the roster during league games; and they absolutely stack the RL teams with NL players during the playoff games, and other events.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Grace T. said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bad example as I get Hulu included in my Disney+ subscription 😉
 
TeamDadJokes said:
Bad example as I get Hulu included in my Disney+ subscription 😉
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
Code said:
I feel bad for the teams across the entire organization. That woman's antics caused negative effects across multiple teams in multiple locations. The analogy of one bad apple spoiling the entire bushel comes to mind, but the organization has responsibility as well. The Club allowed this selfish coach to take it hostage and demand certain things that were obviously not earned. The lesson is they would have been better off cutting her out of the club (even if they lost teams in Temecula) the instant she attempted to highjack the ECRL hub via politics instead of performance.
Click to expand...
 
Code said:
I feel bad for the teams across the entire organization. That woman's antics caused negative effects across multiple teams in multiple locations. The analogy of one bad apple spoiling the entire bushel comes to mind, but the organization has responsibility as well. The Club allowed this selfish coach to take it hostage and demand certain things that were obviously not earned. The lesson is they would have been better off cutting her out of the club (even if they lost teams in Temecula) the instant she attempted to highjack the ECRL hub via politics instead of performance.
Click to expand...
JL is harmful to youth soccer. Her focus is solely on making money, and she manipulates parents and players by portraying herself as a victim. Her cult-like approach is manipulative and she'll turn against anyone who challenges her even if you’ve been a close friend. My daughter will forever remember this lady as a coach who ruined her soccer career. She's already moved through four clubs causing chaos and breaking teams up along the way. She will likely keep doing so as long as it benefits her financially. I advise parents to get your kids out now and save your child from this type of behavior.
 
Soccrsource7 said:
JL is harmful to youth soccer. Her focus is solely on making money, and she manipulates parents and players by portraying herself as a victim. Her cult-like approach is manipulative and she'll turn against anyone who challenges her even if you’ve been a close friend. My daughter will forever remember this lady as a coach who ruined her soccer career. She's already moved through four clubs causing chaos and breaking teams up along the way. She will likely keep doing so as long as it benefits her financially. I advise parents to get your kids out now and save your child from this type of behavior.
Click to expand...
A familiar story! There's a few coaches/DOCs like that and we had almost the identical story but with any AYSO coach. So sad....keep your eye out for coaches (or really ANYONE in a position of authority) who pulls the "I'm under attack and I need you to come to my aid" bullshit. We fell for it briefly, but once you recognize it get out immediately!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top