Surf buys out DM Sharks?

Keepers_Keeper said:
Here are the facts as of today...there was a potential licensing agreement which would enable the competitive arm of DMCV Sharks to license (NOT MERGE or be acquired by) the Surf Brand in order to have shared access with fields, primarily the former polo fields (surf soccer park). A meeting with membership was held to inform DMCV Sharks parents/families of this potential action. Based on the feedback from membership and others impacted by a potential licensing agreement with Surf, the licensing arrangement will not go forward. The culture and focus on players is what makes DMCV Sharks "the Sharks". That message was heard loud and clear, and kudos to leadership for listening and being courageous in prioritizing the importance of preserving the culture over "brand".
Click to expand...
$ doesn't always equal quality.
 
Kicker4Life said:
Yes...but IF DMCV becomes a SURF affiliate (thus still a separate organization), the DMCV group could retain ECNL and essentially become Surf’s. ECNL affiliate whilst the mothership retains DA
Click to expand...

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

keepers-keeper....thanks for the informative update, have many friends at Sharks and they were all praying their club would remain independent
 
futboldad1 said:
But there are sell-outs.....
Click to expand...

Lots of those

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

surfing-with-sharks_s.jpg
 
Keepers_Keeper said:
Here are the facts as of today...there was a potential licensing agreement which would enable the competitive arm of DMCV Sharks to license (NOT MERGE or be acquired by) the Surf Brand in order to have shared access with fields, primarily the former polo fields (surf soccer park). A meeting with membership was held to inform DMCV Sharks parents/families of this potential action. Based on the feedback from membership and others impacted by a potential licensing agreement with Surf, the licensing arrangement will not go forward. The culture and focus on players is what makes DMCV Sharks "the Sharks". That message was heard loud and clear, and kudos to leadership for listening and being courageous in prioritizing the importance of preserving the culture over "brand".
Click to expand...
Upon further review, never mind. Don't type angry.
 
Last edited:
espola said:
I have even forgotten what it was that I disagreed with, so I removed my flag.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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