West LA merger?

[Paul Spacey]

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.clu...-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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.