[Warning: Long post�but one in which I try to lay out the argument�I promise to try my best to post more tersely and concisely about this subject in the future�]
Coach P: thank you for this incredibly wonderful message and thank you for taking the time to read and post. I think that you are in the �informed majority� with respect to one big �meta-club� (whether it�s virtual or physical) and that I�m in the minority � and in the case of me, it�s probably the �ignorant minority�.
The arguments for mergers and central planning are often very compelling. And there are absolutely cases in which they work. However, in my experience, these are the minority of cases. The primary advantage of mergers and central planning is the concept of synergy: what one wag in the late 1990�s called �1 + 1 = 3�. This synergy is typically broken down into supplier-side efficiencies (e.g., greater buying power), internal efficiencies (e.g., less money for administrative tasks and more money for the doers (e.g., coaches)), and market-side efficiencies (e.g., greater market share translating into stuff like greater pricing power). As you note, the buying power would be increased, uniforms, field rentals, etc. Internal efficiencies probably are not much of a factor with volunteers and the like doing administrative work, but it could be better. And market-side efficiencies should be increased because each corporate entity is approached once and is more likely to donate because of a bigger player base.
I mentioned once the USSR as a straw man of how badly central planning works. I admit, it�s a bit hackneyed to use this example. But the corporate world is littered with examples of why mergers and central planning don�t work as well as people think that they would. Just a few examples range from AOL/Time Warner, Compaq/Digital, AT&T/NCR. I�m not saying that mergers never work; just that it�s more of the exception than the rule (note: obviously, with my beliefs, I do not and will not own HP equity at this time!)
Here�s what people often miss: it�s typically much easier to work in, lead, manage, and buy from a smaller focused organization with a clear goal/mission than it is to do the same in a larger organization with competing constituencies and factions and an unclear or disagreed upon mission/goal. The term �much easier� is beguiling because you can measure saved supplier costs but it�s more difficult to measure the costs of increased complexity.
However, I think that there�s an even more important factor at play here. As many people have stated, the central concept should be about serving players. What we�re discussing in this thread for the most part is supporting those players and their parents that are in the minority � that care passionately about winning on a state, regional, and national level. These players and their supporting parents are willing to sacrifice resources to play for the best team and the best coach. This is the reason that I�ve stated often that at least for these types of players and parents that the coach/team is the central issue and that the club exists only to serve these coaches as the embodiment of the team. In some clubs, the boards exist to serve the players; what I am arguing is that this model changes when the constituency is highly competitive players and supporting parents and instead the boards have to exist to serve the coaches. The coaches have to then serve the players and parents; otherwise, the players �vote with their feet� and leave.
The highly controversial analogy that I can make concerns the current vouchers issue. The two most widely discussed views on vouchers are that they will take away from badly needed public school revenue versus that they will introduce a much needed element of competition in public schools and give students/parents more control because of choice.
My position on this is probably rather clear given the position I�ve taken on soccer clubs. But I don�t want to argue vouchers; instead, I want to just use this as an analogy for what I�m trying to present. I would rather have an existing club (if possible) or a new club (if needed) clearly define that they have a goal/mission of being competitive at a state, regional, and national level and that everything else that they do is in service of that mission. Does this mean that recreation or recreation+ programs couldn�t be supported? Absolutely not; instead, it means that these programs would be run in service of player development to accomplish the mission/goal of the club.
I�ve seen people talk about the current clubs and DOC�s and existing coaches not sharing players and the like. But the truth is that for the type of highly competitive players and their supporting parents that you need to achieve this type of mission, the issue is not the club or DOC or existing coach; instead, it is whether a player/parent becomes convinced in their own �selfish best interest� that they should move to a different coach/team. Bluntly, the players/parents are already in control at this level of competition; the clubs are not.
What I believe needs to be done is rather than attempt to coerce area players/parents into playing on a centralized team, instead offer the player/parent a better and more differentiated product in the form of better coaches and thus better teams. Of course, better coaches will cost resources; but I believe that there is a largely untapped market that is willing to pay more for a better product (i.e., a better coach and team). And please note, as I�ve stated before, I do not believe that the use of the term �better coach� means our existing coaches are bad; I think that the provision of greater resource to our existing coaches is a wonderful first step to having �better coaches�.
To all of you who are tired of this subject and believe that it�s just talking and that nothing will be done differently � well, you could be right. However, in this competitive model, we do not need all of the clubs to cooperate; we need either one existing club to establish our mission/goal or we need to create a new club. Either is okay with me.
So, in all seriousness, does anyone know where one might find at least 20 acres and as much as 100 acres that is far enough out of Columbia to be reasonably priced ($2000 to $5000 per acre)?
