There is big news in Seattle soccer circles, almost all of it flying under the radar of the mainstream press. For well over a year I have been posting interviews and press releases for Seattle United. For some time I have wanted to talk about the club Seattle United is 'knocking from power' within the Seattle Youth Soccer Association (SYSA). That club is the 31-year-old Emerald City FC.
This is such a hot-button topic in Seattle soccer that when I asked ECFC's Bobby Howe for an interview, he declined. In fact, many people declined to talk in fear of some kind of possible career damage. Finally I spoke with a coach who agreed to summarize and comment on the whole drama. I will call this person "Coach X," as that person wishes to speak frankly and also live to see another day in state soccer circles.
Coach X has followed the ECFC-Seattle United developments closely. The summary and viewpoints below are Coach X's alone.
UPDATE: Read a response to the interview below from a former ECFC coach.
Examiner: How would you describe / recap the Emerald City FC - SYSA 'issues' that have surfaced over the last few years?
Coach X: The Seattle Youth Soccer Association has for a long time been the largest association within the Washington State Youth Soccer Association. Yet it has not been producing - at least among the various clubs within the SYSA - many competitive teams in relation to its numbers. While this is true for both Premier/PDL and select, it has been particularly true on the select side. This has been viewed as a failure of organization and a failure in development, as well as outsiders drawing on the talent pool of Seattle. Several years ago an effort started to "reform" or "redesign" the system that SYSA had in place to provide soccer for the older youth players. Over the last two years, the pace accelerated on this effort. Despite the occassional strong select team, SYSA believed that there should be a better system for their players, that heightened opportunities, development and success across the board.
There have been a series of meetings, with participation from across the spectrum of interests and clubs in Seattle, although current and recent members of Emerald City composed the bulk of the participants in the committees. A respected consultant, Jan Glick, that the Washington Youth Soccer used to help design the "Seamless Soccer" program that the state has adopted, was brought in to help matters along.
ECFC as a club had basically, it seems, been somewhat ignoring the process. ECFC was focused on the highest end of Premier/PDL player and team, and expected that the players who were interested in playing at that upper level in the Seattle community would come to them. This focus had not led to an amicable history between ECFC and other SYSA clubs in the past. It is clear that when the effort to revise the SYSA system began, people both within and outside of Emerald City expected that Emerald City would be central to the new organization, perhaps even that it would be a vastly expanded Emerald City.
Throughout the entire state over the last few years there has been a philosophical dispute, and this definitely came into play here. On one side, there are those who believe that "youth soccer professionals" should run and manage everything important in youth soccer, and on the other side are those who believe that while paying Directors of Coaching and coaches is fine, they should be paid to coach, and oversee coaching, not to run clubs, leagues and associations. This disagreement in philosophies probably led some of the ECFC leadership to believe that the SYSA program, which became named "Seattle United", would never amount to anything, since it would not empower the paid "youth soccer professionals" as they were at Emerald City. This same type of philosophical dispute is raging in the state right now over the PDL, and to a certain extent, within the PDL. At the lowest level, part of this difference in philosophy is "We are bigger, better, have coaches with X,Y, Z licenses who are paid, can do more for the players and have our own soccer complexes, So all the little teams and clubs should send their best players to us," versus "All you want to do is keep raping our teams and stealing our top players so that our teams and clubs can never reach the higher levels. Then you look down on us." There is no doubt that this philosophical break had been in play within the SYSA and soured relations between ECFC and the "select" clubs.
So when the SYSA committees on the Seattle United Project started becoming close to presenting a finished plan, the ECFC leadership became more interested but where unable to steer things to the way they thought it should be. They also felt a bit disparaged because their decades of soccer experience - in coaching, and in administration - were being listened to, but not heeded. (It is interesting that the Seattle United plan incorporates many of the features that Bobby Howe, the Director of Coaching for ECFC, used to campaign for across the state.) Rather than just enlarging Emerald City Football Club to encompass all the select teams - and select clubs - within Seattle, the committee decided to go the other way. They formed up an entirely new organization, the Seattle United Football Club, and placed all of the select and Premier/State level play in it. The idea is that a new organization could defuse old animosities and provide a clean slate with equal opportunities and access for all.
An unfortunate, but planned, consequence is that all the other clubs are going to become part of Seattle United. Emerald City, for various reasons which included wanting to retain their leadership and a lack of faith in Seattle United, decided to fight against the plan and retain their independance and existence. There is no evidence that their moves have been motivated by a desire to prevent SYSA from performing a "full, independant audit" of their financial records.
Examiner: Washington Youth Soccer has recently ruled in favor of SYSA's right to have final say over select / elite club status. Is this the correct ruling? How does it affect ECFC?
Coach X: The basic "building block" of governance in the Washington State Youth Soccer Association is the association. The association runs local soccer areas, it votes in the elected state officers (including the president), it votes on changes to the bylaws and rules governing the WSYSA, and the association board is normally composed of elected local soccer officials representing the interests of all the youth soccer players in a specifically defined community. Clubs belong to associations, and are represented (mechanism can vary from association to association) on the association boards.
Recently, ECFC filed a grevience against the Seattle Youth Soccer Association which basically was a challenge to the right and ability of an association to decide how soccer would be organized within its own association. WSYSA formed a hearing committee to hear the grevience. This committee was formed of people with extroardinary backgrounds in youth soccer governance and judicial issues, including 2 members from out of state who were easily qualified to hear national level judicial disputes. ECFC lost on every single point it tried to make, all but one of them unamimously. ECFC then appealled to the next higher level of youth soccer governance, Region IV (entire Western US region, some 14 states). Region IV rejected the ECFC most empbatically.
The SYSA plan for the future, which they incorporated into their association bylaws revision, precludes a seperate ECFC within the SYSA as it designates the new organization to be the provider for competitive soccer. This is within the rights, abilities and perogatives of any association, according to the WSYSA and the United States Youth Soccer Association bylaws. Bylaws are not something that can be wished away, they are supposed to be followed. Sort of like the US constitution. And like the constitution, there can be a lot of wrangling over just what is meant by them.
Morally and ethically SYSA, which represents the interests of the entire soccer community within its boundaries, made the decision that the SU model would be better for all its kids. ECFC leadership made the decision that their continued existence would be better for all the current ECFC kids. Both may well be correct, It boils down to the case of the greatest good for the greatest number. And SYSA won.
How would you characterize the handling of these issues by ECFC / Bobby Howe? How would you characterize the Seattle United 'movement?'
Coach X: As an outsider looking at this situation, it seems that the ECFC leadership handled the entire chain of events poorly due to a variety of reasons. They did not believe that there was enough enthusiasm for change, they did not think there was enough organization to get it done, they thought that their reputation would be enough to overawe any who disagreed with them, and in a worst case scenario, they might have to expand their activities into the select realm. There had been long standing issues of trust and lack of diplomacy between ECFC and the other Seattle Clubs to start with. Again, in the beginning, many assumed the final product produced (if any) by the committees would be on the order of a greatly expanded ECFC. The ECFC leadership may have been playing a game of "hard to get" to increase their leverage in the final revisions of the proposal. They also clearly had an impression that they were in a much stronger position than they really were, and perhaps even that they could simply opt out and refuse to participate with anything the SYSA decided on. It is interesting to note that there was a single member of the ECFC leadership group who was the only person barred from participation in the committee and sub committees that drew up the SU proposal, (because he had a reputation of being so difficult to get along with). Everyone else was invited to participate in the committees and make their voices heard.
Once the committee decided to go off in a different direction, the ECFC leadership became more active, but not more successful. A series of disagreements between SYSA, the supporters of the new SU club, and the ECFC leadership developed over e-mails that were being sent out, with both sides accusing the other of misleading people. The ECFC leadership decided to use the PDL as a lever against the new club, and this backfired in a way they did not expect. This served to weaken support for the PDL, which the Washington Youth Soccer was determined to bring back into it's fold and under proper state governance. Inflammatory e-mails being sent out by the ECFC leadership to the PDL did not help resolve matters. Again, we turn back to the philosophical debate going on state wide in terms of youth soccer and who should control it, the paid "Youth Soccer Professionals" or the representatives of the soccer families. Bobby Howe, the Director of Coaching for ECFC and the most influential of their leadership, has repeatedly warned in his e-mails that the SYSA move to create Seattle United and abolish ECFC represents a threat to the paid soccer professionals power in this state. Some of the membership of the PDL realize that these brazen statements, while they may be true, are also terrible public relations for the PDL and strengthen the hand of the state in their negotiations to bring the PDL back into the fold. This has not endeared Bobby Howe, who has great stature in the coaching community, or ECFC to many in the PDL at this time.
ECFC was very late in trying to mobilize "the voice" of its families, which led to many of them to believe that they had deliberately been kept in the dark. And in many ways they had, as SYSA was happy to let ECFC inform its members of what was going on, and ECFC did not do so effectively, either through ineptitude or by their own decision to insulate their membership against what was going on.
ECFC, in its statements and its actions of defiance, has committed a series of risky blunders, it seems. It has not accomplished anything constructive in doing so, and left itself, and its key leaders, open to a variety of charges and sanctions. The consequences of this is that ECFC could be forced to shut down because of sanctions for its behavior immediately, rather than limping along for the next four years. It's key leadership could face sanctions that suspend them for periods of time, which would preclude them from any participation at any level in youth soccer in anyway and in any form. This could remove the limited options that ECFC has left, legally.
The most recent blunder by ECFC was their "merger proposal" that was given over to SU and the SYSA at the meeting mediated last week by Washington Youth Soccer. This was following previous statements about ECFC possibly staying in the PDL as a US Club Soccer team or leaving SYSA and directly affiliating with the WSYSA as a club. Those statements showed an appalling lack of knowledge of the rules and bylaws that the state and national soccer organizations operate under, as well as the political realities of the matter. The ECFC merger proposal was basically that SU and ECFC work together as equals for two years, retaining seperate finances, administrations and governance, that (in violation of the SYSA bylaws) ECFC was to have all the Premier level teams and SU would run the lower level select. During these two years, the SYSA would establish a committee to look to splitting apart into at least two associations. (The idea being that SU could have one and ECFC could have one). At no point in the ECFC proposal was there any commitment to actually go ahead and merge, at least no such statement has come out. One has to admire the sheer audicity of such a proposal while recognizing that very few could believe that it was a "good faith" proposition.
The "movement" within SYSA for something better than the old structure (or at least different) was much like the "Tea Partiers" originally - many different ideas, many different individual specific gripes, and a wide spread feeling that things were not working right and had to change. Probably the key moment in the process was when Jan Glick was brought in. At that point, the committees became more focused, and the ideas began to become more refined. It is interesting to note that many ECFC adherants identify the bringing in of Glick as the real turning point in the process, a negative one for their for their club. While some of the ECFC aherents characterize what now happened as a hatchet job to get rid of ECFC by some of the SYSA leadership, if the SYSA leadership knew ahead of time what the outcome would be, they have never breathed a word about it. The Glick-mediated committee produced a plan that supported the new direction the state was taking, and basically called for a new organization to take over all of Select and upper level youth soccer in the SYSA and to absorb all the existing clubs that now serviced those players. Adroit politicking by the supporters of this new plan, and much public debate, (with the late ECFC attempt to mobilize more of its membership to take part) saw the SYSA board vote 12-2 in favor of the plan.
While SU very carefully and very competently put together their basic leadership and organization, and began hiring coaches, they tried to avoid too much crowing over the defeat of ECFC. A major mis-step came after SU hired one of the most successful coaches from ECFC. Members - no one knows how many - of his team began asking if they could move to SU for next year so that they could stay with their coach. There were other requests from current ECFC players' families for information, including information on playing for SU. So there was an e-mail sent out to every existing team within the SYSA, including ECFC, to their team managers that discussed teams coming across to SU for next year, even if they were allowed to stay with their current teams. This was a politically inept move, and many people considered it to be recruiting. In the minds of many, it lowered Seattle United down to the level of ECFC and its e-mails that some within the SYSA and SU had become upset with.
Seattle United then played hardball at the Washington Youth Soccer-mediated merger conference last week, with perhaps the most interesting point in their proposal being a year and a half severence pay package for Bobby Howe (which is in the neighborhood of $100,000) coupled with a conduct clause. Seattle United was willing to pay plenty (with ECFC's funds) for Howe to go away and be quiet.
Where do things stand right now for ECFC, and what might be next for them?
Coach X: Right now, Washington Youth Soccer has stated that ECFC has 3 options left. Move as a club to another association, go out of business on schedule (4 years of declining size), or move to US Club Soccer (and not play in the PDL). ECFC probably has the ability to move and merge with another club, in another association as well. The last option is to try to reopen negotiations with Seattle United, on a serious basis, and work out a merger (rather than gradual absorption) with them. None of these are palatable or easy. Moving to USCS would be the easiet, and ECFC has been trying to get a portion (or all, which is a forelorn hope) of the PDL to move there. Moving to another association would likely cause the club to lose half their players or more. It has not been done in this state before that anyone can recall. While some clubs are able to draw players from a wide area (Crossfire Premier is very successful at this) every club has a local basis for existing. A move to another community would be difficult to do, even if another association could be found that would be willing to take them in.
It is known that the ECFC leadership is desperately looking at possible options. While there has been a merger mania going on in youth soccer in this state for the last couple of years, the ECFC leadership is adamant about not merging and staying independent. It would be diificult to sell to their members that they are moving elsewhere to merge with someone else after refusing to merge into SU. At this point, it seems most likely that ECFC will move out of WSYSA and into US Club Soccer while hoping to be able to entice enough of the current PDL clubs to do the same to offer a high level league in US Club Soccer for its teams to play in. Without other higher level PDL clubs moving over, Emerald City will likely dominate play in the US Club Soccer league, not having teams of comparable talent to play against.
I'd like to thank Coach X for this recap. My column is always open to differing views and I'd be happy to entertain responses from people within Emerald City Football Club. Contact me at goalseattle@gmail.com.
Comments
If I am reading this correctly, ECFC may be willing to merge with a club outside of SYSA, but not one within SYSA? That is stupid.
Soccer fan, if they merge within SYSA, then they still fall as 'second fiddle' to Seattle United, who is the only club sanctioned by Seattle Youth Soccer to field select / elite clubs.
weird
None of our programs work, as demonstrated by our record internationally. We are routinely beaten by countries that don't have any youth programs. A successful program needs to teach children to love the game and encourage creativity. Not create hi speed, well tuned robots.
This split was all so very preventable. It just required accepting change and working with others as change came to them.
ECFC is already running select soccer in sysa outside of the "A" team "green teams" all the white and blue teams are nothing more than select at best not even close to a premier level team.
As an interesting side note, for years the PDL has been painted as a clandestine boys club making up rules on the fly. Well how is it that the state is now trying to broker a deal with another association to take ECFC in exchange for SU's membership to the PDL?
Perspective is a wonderful thing, sadly this article is riddled with inaccuracies and personal interpretations of events which are not a true depiction of the facts. This and many other contributions only serve to muddy the waters further and perpetuate what is already a sensitive situation.
To claim to have so much internal knowledge of a situation yet clearly state "As an outsider looking at this situation" highlights the issues perfectly.
You may as well put the person's name as it's obvious who wrote it.
bobby howe is a j@ck@ss.........Howe do you coach soccer and run a club.
Coach X, THANK YOU for sharing this. For a while now we have been 'in limbo' about all of this. It's a sad story, but at least a bit clearer for me now. ---former ECFC family
J-ronimo...my email is open to get other points of view. goalseattle<at>gmail.com
Joe Soccer nailed it
I agree with the jest of the article. What ECFC had going against them since the beginning has been the independent teams. There was nothing they could do about teams deciding to continue together after U11. SYSA and District 1 never fully supported independent teams either. Lumping them all together in brackets regardless of strength and having them figure it out themselves. Seattle United solution to this "problem" is to break up teams at the younger ages so no loyality to a coach and team are a problem. They want to approve who coaches. This way they can ensure all the top players feed into SU premier since they will have control the independent teams. This is a luxury ECFC never had. I dont think the families of Seattle realize what is going to happen. It is really too bad. Too bad for all the kids who just want to play soccer with their friends and care less about the politics.
I hope those who are commenting critically on the article are willing to put a bit more substance into a direct response to David.
Come play on my team...
oh wait, the adults won't let the team continue next year.
Go play on someone else's team...but don't get too comfortable.
This always happens to some degree. Parents of mediocre players ruining it for the most talented players.
I hope ECFC thinks big, and sets up clubs state wide thru the US Soccer Club. I know Eastern Washington would love it. Take the best, only the best.
"The "movement" within SYSA for something better than the old structure (or at least different) was much like the "Liberals/Socialists/Progressives/Obamaniacs" originally - many different ideas, many different individual specific gripes, and a wide spread feeling that things were not working right and had to change."
Translation: ECFC cut our kids from the team. That's not fair. Let's destroy ECFC.
Yakamaniac, there are no mediocre players, you elitist punk.
Soccer Fan - there was never a real merger with Seattle United on the table - Seattle United's "merger" was the destruction of ECFC, a grab for all of their families and all of their money. A real merger involves a blending of two organizations, not the destruction of one by another. The latter process is called a hostile takeover.
David: Good piece and thanks for covering a topic that is being mostly ignored in the press. But you need to get some more sides of the story. Why not go find "Family X" from ECFC and ask them how about their experience? And there is another aspect to the story: How much of this is about what's best for the kids and how much is about about adults vying for control and money? In my mind, that's the real story that pervades much of high level youth soccer throughout the state.
Mikeyman "current and recent members of Emerald City composed the bulk of the participants in the committees" Seems like this was a well thought out effort from within the club and association with a vocal minority not accepting the result.
Yakamaniac, it's my experience that the parents of the top level players are the ones who got cut and no amount of money and loss of their child's childhood will change that.
Soccerdad, I have been trying for some time now to get feedback from *anyone* in the ECFC camp. I am still very open to hearing from players, coaches, families... goalseattle<at>gmail.com.
If it is true that Seattle select teams have historically underperformed, it is due to a dilution of the player pools as quality players head to clubs outside of Seattle. Now thanks to the lack of planning on Seattle United's part and the weak reaction on Emerald City's part, there is currently no viable access to the PDL for Seattle U11-U14 players for next year. As a parent of an Emerald City player, who talks to other parents of Emerald City players, I know now even more players will be headed to outside clubs for their playing experience... my child included. Mission accomplished?
What will be the reaction of the select teams when Seattle United has to "steal" select level players to fill their rosters because the premier level players have left for other clubs?
Both parties have made a complete wreck of this. Both parties are culpable. No one involved is without blame. So let's quit trying to assign blame and work instead on getting this sorted out.
I got this comment in an anonymous email this morning:
We're not an ECFC family and never have been. But we're in a rather unique situation where we were looking very seriously at ECFC as an option for our child next year. The one thing that this whole story has done is make it impossible for us to consider a jump to Seattle now. Who would want to jump into this who isn't absolutely forced to?
Ultimately, it seems to me that people should have been able to decide this question with their feet. Associations and boards, who think they know better than decades of history and people's freedom to choose, have taken the decision away from the parents and players under the age-old guise that they know better than us what's good or bad for our children. Faced with options that don't include those that we would prefer, no one has benefited from this, except of course the people who run, benefit and profit from the outcome.
soccer fan 2 -- well said. As an ECFC B team parent, I could not agree more.
OK, I am getting some good feedback via emails: goalseattle<at>gmail.com. I will post some of them with permission:
As a former ECFC parent of a younger player (U14 and younger), I was EXTREMELY unimpressed by club. There was neglible player development. Practices were rote at best. Players were locked into one position. Athleticism and speed were prized, player creativity and ball skills were not. Basically we paid to compete in the closed PDL where winning is the only measure of success. Analogy: ECFC is basically REC soccer on steroids.
My child has attended the Seattle United Development Academies. The academies have been positive, challenging, and more importantly, have developed my child's soccer skills.
Another email comment sent to me:
ECFC leadership (coaches and board members) has not served its members. On the other hand, ECFC families must accept responsibility for their passiveness and/or cowardice. The ECFC membership should have demanded their club's participation in the Seattle United transition process after the July 2009 vote. ECFC's participation would have smoothly transitioned its younger members, while ECFC would have continued focusing on serving its older players playing out their remaining high school years with ECFC.
Another email comment sent to me:
As documented, ECFC did not and has not worked with SYSA and Seattle United. Therefore, ECFC families have been in state of fear and confusion about their children's current and future player, team, and league status. SYSA and Seattle United have been consistent in their messages, ECFC has not.
We can talk about falsehoods being perpetrated on both sides. ECFC is not being responsive or communicative with it's families. Seattle United is barreling ahead based on inaccurate assumptions. Quoted from the Seattle United website:
"In its inaugural season, Seattle United will be fielding two teams in each gender in the age groups of U11, U12, U13, and U14... These teams will play at the highest level that is available in Washington State. That may be PDL, or it may be a new version of those leagues run by WSYSA."
All information I have read to date indicates that the PDL is not, in fact, transitioning to a state run entity this year. And the PDL Board claims that Seattle United have not even approached them about entry into the PDL.
Seattle youth soccer player (remember the ones that were supposed to benefit from all of this?) still have no options, at present, for playing in the PDL. That is unless they go play for another association... which some likely will.
Inside/Out: That is a travesty. What if ECFC had accepted the resolution from last summer and worked with SU to share the PDL slot? ECFC has fought and lost that resolution at every step. Can someone tell me why my club won't follow the rules? If it would agree to share the PDL slot there would be no scary proposition for us all. Don't tell me the PDL Leadership wouldn't buy in to that. We all know our DOC could get it done.
Looking Glass: I agree, there are good solutions to this situation. Unfortunately based on stubbornness displayed by BOTH sides up to this point, I do not hold out hope that any easy solution will come to pass.
People on all sides of the issue are spending so much effort focusing on who is right and who is wrong, as the clock slowly ticks away to April 16 (the first day allowed by the state for tryouts at the U11, U12 levels). Players need to make their decisions soon, and no good options are being presented by either of the Seattle "Premier" Clubs.
Seattle Youth Soccer will be routed. I hope the exodus I am predicting does not some to pass, but as I talk to other families whose players are at the premier level, the tide seems to be turning in that direction.
i guess as the governing organization, they are obligated to do the most good for the most amount of people
Logic: I certainly see your point. Perhaps the rec and select players will benefit from the additional opportunities provided, if they are all that's left to Seattle Youth Soccer. Seattle United will have to change their mission statement, though :)
If ECFC would stop refusing to comply with the governing rules you would have a place for each premier team and you would have harmony. Further, you would now have the players feeding into premier that should be feeding into premier instead of the disconnect that existed in the past and would continue to exist if premier wasn't a part of Seattle United. Inside/Out how is premier not going to benefit from being a part of the same structure with select? PLEASE ECFC BOD & DOC ADMIT THAT THERE IS A NEW GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND FOLLOW THE RULES SO KIDS AND FAMILIES CAN HAVE THE PROPER PLACE TO PLAY. QUIT MAKING IT PERSONAL AND DO WHAT YOU ARE MANDATED BY THE BYLAWS TO DO! IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE.
Looking Glass: You misunderstand my statement. I was conceding to Logic's point that this might be a case of punishing the few for the good of the many. I took that to mean that premier level players will suffer by being pushed out of the association, but perhaps the rec and select players will benefit from increased opportunities?
It is Logic's opinion and I chose not to discount it. I personally believe that a well functioning soccer organization has the diversity of players from all levels of play. If we continue down this path, perhaps soon there won't be premier level teams in Seattle Youth Soccer U11-U14. (if you define a premier level team as one who plays in the PDL) I'm not saying this is for the better, I'm just saying that it is happening.
I think we are actually on the same page. We both want the adults to get over their egos and do what is best for the soccer players. Barring that, premier level players may be forced to play for a different association next y
Inside/Out - Sorry for the misunderstanding, you mean short term if a solution isn't found it will push players away. I agree. I thought you meant long term fewer premier players will be in SU based on the structure. I think we agree that long term the SU structure will feed more players to premier over what exists now. I also think that other clubs/associations fear what a unified SYSA will mean regarding the quality of SU premier teams.
You don't really expect any ECFC members to want to engage with such an overtly one-sided mean-spirited hatchet-job article like this, do you? I was hoping for some some reasonably-intelligent reporting on what is an important issue for our children. Instead I get lines like lines like...
There is no evidence that [ECFC's] moves have been motivated
by a desire to prevent SYSA from performing a "full, independant [sic]
audit" of their financial records.
...dropped into the story out of nowhere! Not only is it a non-sequitur in context, but it's borderline libelous. What is that about?!?
Your transparency is disappointing, embarrassing, desperate.
Reading comprehension not your thing? This is an Examiner INTERVIEW of someone who has knowledge and an opinion on the subject. I wouldn't dream of taking a stance on something I am not directly involved in. However, I did take the time to contact people...and Coach X was willing to take the time to share these thoughts. I am not endorsing them as right or wrong. However, I am very appreciative of Coach X's willingness to talk to us.
Read more closely, people. I do interviews. People share their thoughts. I talk about the stuff I know about, and turn to others on topics where they have much more to say. This is one of those topics. I provided four questions, and look at all the information / personal perspective Coach X gave us.
Emerald City FC has the same opportunity to use this forum as a pulpit. So far they have declined. goalseattle@gmail.com
LOL, 'disappointed in Examiner.' Really? You do know this is an interview, don't you? That these thoughts were shared TO David, but are not BY David? Why do ECFC people fail to take correct accounting for their own actions or lack of actions? I'd like to see you repost an apology to David for suggesting he wrote these responses. He'd covering youth soccer more than anyone locally ever has, and you come on here and misread a QUOTE as from HIM? Good gried.
The other side of this too is that David has tried to contact ECFC people, and they have either politely said no or not gotten back to him. He has posted this over on the WPS forums. Now, he mat get some flack because he posts the Seattle United press releases...but why should he? He also has interviewed Darren Sawatzky (Sounders), Alex Weaver (Highline), featured Westsound FC and ran a crest contest that highlighted six clubs, INCLUDING ECFC! What more exactly can he do when only one side wants to talk? Just avoid the whole topic? Now THAT is what the mainstream press are doing! Kudos to David for at least getting some side of the argument to speak out in this INTERVIEW.
OK everyone. Let's refocis on the topic at hand (which isn't me.) Yes, this was an interview. Yes it has observations and opinions from "Coach X." Yes, I post Seattle United press releases. It should be known that I openly canvas on the WPS boards for news stories from any and ALL Washington Youth Soccer clubs. Love the sport. Love the kids. Hoping for the best.
I do have some empathy with David, he is the messenger in this instance. However, as has been pointed out it can be perceived that he is a vehicle through which SU releases its news by persistently posting those releases in the media. This is not to say he endorses them, but he sure doesn't post any of the official ECFC releases / emails and as such presents himself to be predominantly on one side of the proverbial fence.
The main issue despite the many unfounded claims in the 'interview' is that Coach X makes a bold statement of being someone from the outside looking in, yet makes all the claims regarding the processes, the committees etc.. They are either involved in the situation or they are not. If they are not involved then the claims they have made have been spoon fed via a 3rd party, if they are involved (which we all know they are) then to make a statement regarding 'outside looking in' is disingenuous.
In addition, the fact that David has gone to great lengths to suggest ECFC has not responded or has declined to interview would suggest that the person spoken to was not a current ECFC coach. Thus the question of 'who else would have a vested interest in the inner workings of the process?' would rear its ugly head. Well given the history of providing SU's press releases in an official capacity, it would be a strong indicator as to which organization this particular coach X comes from. Therefore it is clearly a one sided approach with ulterior motives on behalf of Coach X. IF the coach is not a member of SU or ECFC (and has no interest to do so) then you would have to question why would someone be so interested in the details of a situation? For the kids? lol well that would be a refreshing change.
As i say, it is an interview but one that
Don't shoot the messenger, if Coach X is wrong, where is the rebuttal? Oh wait, he or she is offering the truth.
I accept press releases from ALL youth soccer clubs. So far Seattle United are the only ones sending them my way, and they did so without my invitation.
Having said that, I like the ideas behind the SU structure, and going forward I hope to watch their efforts even more closely.
@Get A Clue — oh, this is an interview! *slaps head* well, that makes it fair and balanced and responsible! how silly of me.
seriously, lobbing softball questions and then publishing unsubstantiated vitriol from anonymous sources IS taking a stance.
Correct: taking a stance that this subject is newsworthy.
First, Falk has the responsibility to ask more challenging and penetrating questions, to probe Coach X's position and his clear bias toward SU. Falk failed to be balanced in his questions, and thus gave Coach X a free forum to advocate for SU. Second, Coach X is no outsider looking in, another falsehood. It is clear that he is an SU coach salivating at the chance to grab ECFC players. While Falk is a messenger and should not be castigated for running the interview of Coach X, it is abundantly clear Falk has no journalism skills and no ability to analyze propaganda from fact. I'm no ECFC apologist, but the free ride SU has been given, as if it were this White Knight motivated solely of doing what's best for the kids and the game, is preposterous. Anyone who is close to the happenings knows the motives behind the individuals that sparked this hostile takeover of ECFC. SU is not clean. Falk, if you want to be a journalist -- do your legwork.
The people complaining about someone's opinion coming through in an interview can't be serious, can they? How in the world is a question like "What's next for ECFC?" be biased? ridiculous. More ECFC denial. They never address the real issues, they just circle the wagons and plug their ears. Sorry to say David, but you are seeing the REAL ECFC in these comments. I don't even think an opposing interview is necessary. They are showing their true colors and uncooperative motives right here already.
It would be great to actually talk about what Coach X said, and detail exactly where some readers think Coach X is 'off the mark.' Is that possible? goalseattle<at>gmail.com.
Anything else is spinning our wheels.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!