I agree with better resources providing more opportunity for better results. I also think that the coaching resources play a bigger role than fields or other material resources. Some think that more money automatically equals better soccer; this is not necessarily true. Money can provide opportunity to gain resources, but unless those resources are properly applied, it's not an advantage.
I guess the question is, do people want to move players to the clubs with better resources, or do they want to try to improve the resources at the clubs where they are? As you addressed in your earlier post, would team loyalty and consistent year-to-year coaches and rosters help to improve performance, or is it better to move players around from club to club trying to find that "best" place? Would our area be better served by consolidating our few best players in one club to create one dominant team, or by trying to improve the level of play at several clubs, thereby increasing the level of local competition and giving each team better experience on the pitch close to home?
I know it's hard for any team or club to expand and improve while people are jumping ship; sometimes it takes time to build a program, and if nobody is willing to stick with it and invest that time--which includes some degree of trial and error--it never gets built.
