>>[a.foley] Mark, in response to some of the "points" you raised RE my earlier post.<<
I must have really done a poor job if you used scare quotes around the term “points”. Again, I apologize up front for any ignorance that I might show here. Thanks for taking the time to respond and help me learn.
>>[a.foley] Ok, you can throw numbers, rankings and statistics at me all you want for I do not care for such things.<<
I now understand your dislike of quantitative metrics, so I’ll try to use qualitative means. When you talk about rivalries, there are some of us [not all of us by any means, but at least a few people] who would like to see South Carolina in various capacities be able to better compete with the rest of the country – or at least a few states in our geographic region. That was really all I was trying to show using numbers, ranking, and statistics.
>>[a.foley] Your argument was holding up quite well until your whole "field" thing - have you ever played the game?? Do you know what its like to try to play a crisp passing/possession game on a cut up or poor field??<<
Here’s a conundrum: is it more difficult to play a crisp passing/possession game if you don’t know how or is it more difficult to play a crisp passing/possession game on a cut up or poor field?
Actually, what I said, and I tried to be very careful, was that a club’s success had almost [note that term “almost”] nothing to do with fields and almost [note that term “almost” again!] everything to do with coaches.
If you disagree, and you believe that fields are more important than coaches, or even that fields are close to being on par with coaches, I wish you’d articulate your reasoning so I could learn from you.
>>[a.foley] Oh, by the by - when you commented on LPAF questioning on why the clubs should merge you casually said for the "same reason that companies merge: to be able to quickly scale and to realize cost savings. The scaling could be associated with more recreational and classic players, more fund-raising, and more regionally and nationally competitive teams. The cost savings could be associated with coach/team ratios, overhead payment, and the like – it’s just a matter of doing a pareto analysis of costs and then working on the costs that add the least value." I implore you, and all others involved in CHILDRENS SPORTS<<
You dropped out on this last paragraph [a verb, senator, give us a verb! – an old Garry Trudeau jibe at Ted Kennedy - and please note that I'm completely kidding - the number of typographic, syntactic, and semantic errors I make I'm sure far exceeds everyone on this board] but I think I know where you’re going. Look – there’s no doubt that when you get on the field you have to remember that soccer is a youth sport [I’m not sure at U-19 or even U-18 I’d call it a child’s sport, but that’s not germane to this argument] and behave accordingly. In point of fact, since the “customer” of these clubs is the player and the paying parent, I don’t know how you do otherwise in all facets of a club.
But there are a lot of parents, paying a lot of money, to have their children play in club soccer. These parents have the right to demand that they get the absolute best value for their dollar. The way to do that isn’t to remember at a club’s business level [e.g., it’s board] that this is a child’s sport and then childishly handle the club’s finances. Instead, the way to do this is to use all business techniques possible associated with maximizing revenue [e.g., charity, tournaments, merchandising, etc.] while also making sure that every dime spent is reviewed ruthlessly with respect to the value that it brings the player.
The people talking about doing this merger have to take into account fiscal issues – because it is through fiscal policy that the highest possible amount of value can be delivered to each player – whether that player is recreationally- or competitively-oriented.
Please let me know where I’ve made mistakes or missed the point in this.
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon}