SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP MPRD

MPRD seems like a biable, affordable alternative Mt Pleasant. Why isnt more robust given the cost?

Copied from the town website.

Soccer

Fall Youth 2018
Developmental Soccer Fall (Coastal League)
Registration June 3rd - June 25th, 2018
There are no age waivers into Developmental League. This league is for ages 8-17. Boys and Girls play separately. Teams may be based on evaluations and player rankings to keep teams competitive. Teams may change from Fall to Spring. All players in the program have mandatory training one day per week. Training fee is $100.00 per season. A minimum of 2 practices per week. Uniforms will be an additional cost. U9-U13 games are played Saturdays/Sundays in the SCYSA Coastal League. U14-U18 play in the Open League. Optional Tournaments will be available and are an additional cost prior to the event. No age waivers for any group.

Fall 2018 Developmental Soccer Information Sheet

I think the u14-u18 part is new. Kids normally had to stop playing or go to Cainhoy or USAMP. It was understood to be prohibited due to prior contract arrangements with Mount Pleasant Soccer booster club (USAMP).

A little bit of history here for starters. Cainhoy Athletic was birthed out of MPRD (our first 5 coaches/teams all came from the MPRD developmental program).
This exodus was multi faceted and each of us, I'm sure had our own reasons but the main one really was a dedication to soccer. With an ability to manage rosters and levels of competition at a broader scale.

I'd suggest the recent shift by MPRD to support open league above U14 really will not change the framework and mission of MPRD. This change was enacted due to a passionate group of parents (and coach) who preferred to stay at Patriots Point for training due to its size and lights so said coach can train two teams back to back. I fully support that decision and love that MPRD will support the ask. The earlier (SCUMP) contract did have non compete clauses present but no one really feels these teams will compete in any way with USA/MP where they play (and USA/MP leadership championed MPRD opening this up) and again this shift right now is targeted at U15 rising boys now offered open league.

While we do not compete in the same stratosphere as USA/MP in the most part, we certainly do have good options and desire for PMSL and SCSCL, and at that level of play, I can't imagine why you would go anywhere else

Cost at MPRD (developmental) is just about the same as CASC (when you add in coaches stipend) and is attractive, but my word of caution is that this organization may limit growth or opportunities at more advanced levels (like CPL, and higher leagues with State Cup competition). Of course, MPRD could certainly continue opening more and more up, and maybe they will. But my crystal ball suggests a more modest approach.

We will lose probably one new team per year jumping out that we used to snag but honestly we'd rather lose that growth if it means forcing parents to us (rather than choosing). Of course with some of the new field opportunities coming our way, these same teams may choose to join us rather than be coerced or forced which is much better.

CASC mission statement was to provide soccer to the underserved in Cainhoy area and as a reprieve from the crowded fields in Mt P.

So for the actual history, I can post the link to the text in the costly Cainhoy v Town of Mount Pleasant lawsuit that spells it all out. It is not flattering.

I am on record as being very impressed with CASC. I wish more people saw clubs as an opportunity to grow kids through soccer. CA probably has a higher % of kids on scholarship/aid than any other local club.

I expect a big push for affordable Mount Pleasant Soccer provided by a Mount Pleasant organization.

Our mission has evolved over the years and latest/current can be found on our website: http://cainhoyathletic.com/about-us

Since our inception we grew to include a wider geographic presence and operations across the broader Charleston area. We continue to push soccer into smaller, lesser served communities like Huger, Awendaw, and Hollywood with varying results but at the same time have seen growth in our more central locations like West Ashley, and Mount Pleasant due to our 'value prop'.

We do invest deeply and whenever possible in creating new playing spaces and will continue to do so (including this fall in tandem with MPRD). Our membership (2017-18 approx 1200) includes majority MP residents and our Office is in Park West adjacent to the MPRD rec complex. In many ways I'd suggest given that three of our primary match fields are in MP, we are as much a MP club as anywhere else. BUT, honestly the lesson I have learned over the years is that geographic bonding to a sub-community is not practical or necessarily wise. Most larger State clubs (the big two) avoided City or location naming convention and we even tried (without too much luck). If you look at our shield, the 'Cainhoy' is in small font to lessen significance compared to 'Athletic'. It even has a weaker color.

We have even considered changing our name more than once, but haven't as we sort of like our brand now.
If you want to support competitive, older teams you have to draw form larger populations and embrace a diverse, mixed population form all corners of a region and without that pull, it is unlikely (rare) any club in any one town or community will survive the drop out rate of youth players.

We welcome and support renewed interest and growth of soccer by the MP rec department and perhaps this new initiative will prove enough to warrant our offering moot and can step away, but until someone else offers what we do (affordable quality participation at low-high levels), we'll be here. And honestly with large growth in our organization outside of MP, I'm not sure MPRD and their sites would serve all our membership well. I'd suggest even our non-MP teams would represent mass larger than several other local clubs.

Our action against MPRD was based on a fundamantal equity issue we felt deserved to be raised and answered to. I actually liked the outcome and recognition by District Court Judge, Richard Gergel who in part C of analysis recognized a fairness shortcoming and then goes on to cede this is a political matter over legal and perhaps our case helped the current situation forcouncil to consider fairly all requests from nonprofit organizations serving town residents.

Again, we fully support any initiative by town or anyone to offer quality, affordable programming anywhere.