FWFC refusing to allow players to guest with other teams?

Hook It wrote:

Blank77 wrote:

dadof3 wrote:

2028 wrote:

Blank77 wrote:You would think it wouldn't be a big deal, but soccer coaches. for the most part, are small, tiny, insecure people.

The whole process is a mess. The kids should get from the end of Spring season to signing day to do whatever they want. The fact that a coach can hassle and restrict a player's ability to improve their situation is pathetic and that it is a regular occurence just boggles my mind. Now NTSSA will sign a release for you in June, but what about these tournaments in May. It is a good time for the free agents to be guesting and practicing now. It is hard to make a 1 year decision in 3-4 weeks time.

I second that motion!

It is a two way street too. There are some parents who have 3 backup plans and have everyone on hold too. I would reather be honest and let the chips fall. Your kid will find a home after the initial signing day if you are prudent. A lot of coaches sign 14 or 15 and look for 1 or 2 stragglers who didn't make that initial cut.

Who wants to be 15 or 16 on a team? My DD wants to find a team where she can be part of the core and help build something. That is hard to do in a short time period. No matter how much due diligence you do and watching, until the coach sees your player in his system and you see your DD in his for several games, you don't know. The process leads to people making decisions without a full slate of info and if you guess wrong, who suffers - your DD.

It is a business first, business second, business third, coach's ego 4-10, and some distance after is your DD. Plus, if you are being honest that doesn't make the coaches honest. They all lie, some straight to your face. Usually, the better the coach and the team, the more bullshit he can shovel.

Also, it is possible to find a spot after signing day, but there are fewer guesting and tournament opportunities and it is even more of a crapshoot. Plus, many teams go in to break mode since they don't have to recruit or go to QT - they just rest up and wait or the season.

Perfect summary 77;
If your DD wants to be a "PLAYER" who really wants the responsibility of leading and contributing to the success of a team (the CORE as 77 refers to) you need to have that discussion with her and know that. No lip service, her actions on a weekly basis should show you her commitment. If not, really find her a team she will have a great time with and build friendships in and let the rest of the cards fall were they will.

I don't disagree with you guys, but if you are a CORE player then you are not in these discussions...and if you ARE both a core player and in these discussions, then you are not as core as you think...(talk to coach). If being core is what you are looking for, thn it will happen with a little bit of time.

I am just pointing out that there are players who try to hold the teams hostage as well. I have seen teams fold that were broken down by parents with agendas, but the coach was honest the whole time. I am not defending a coach who has to look out for his own interestes (both short term-current team and long term-reputation). We should all know that that is part of NTX soccer, but the loudest chirping parents are the ones who cause the most dissent.

My point on signing late is more along the lines that if your plan A falls through, there are other options available for good players. They may not start as a core player, but they can become one if you find teh right team/coach. There are camps with coaches outside guesting and those are good opportunities to meet coaches and to get honest opinions. A $100 camp for 3-4 days can give you a decent persepctive on the MAN without rocking the team boat. Your dd can also meet some of the palyers and see if she is a fit for that group.

I think we were talking more about wanting to be a core player. Core players do split, just not as common.

Also, the point of a single player holding a team hostage is a real thing - especially on younger teams that aren't healthy. From what I see this singular player factor diminishes quickly after select starts. Those stand outs in academy very likely are sill standouts, but the gap closes and the team takes over. In 01s,between U11 and U12, one the top team lost several stand outs and in u12 they are still on top. The threat of someone leaving can cause more problems then if they just left.

Blank77 wrote:I think we were talking more about wanting to be a core player. Core players do split, just not as common.

Also, the point of a single player holding a team hostage is a real thing - especially on younger teams that aren't healthy. From what I see this singular player factor diminishes quickly after select starts. Those stand outs in academy very likely are sill standouts, but the gap closes and the team takes over. In 01s,between U11 and U12, one the top team lost several stand outs and in u12 they are still on top. The threat of someone leaving can cause more problems then if they just left.

Yup. 100% agree...never all the way gone, but you get the conversations out of the way earlier as they get older. And I agree with your earlier point-go ahead and release them...if they are unhappy it only spoils the koolaide for the rest anyway. Coaches who have been there/done that know that is how it works.

mommabear1 wrote: Not every player asking to guest play want to leave their team. And then some may be considering it, but not seriously. I think from the coach's or club's perspective, (and I am certainly neither of those), it could be that along with guest releases to play in tournaments, comes practice releases. When multiple players are missing from practices, it can affect the entire dynamic of the team practice. This can hurt the team, especially if the player is not actually leaving.

Also, it isn't necessary to call coaches petty, etc...this could be a club decision that the individual coach may not even agree with, but is required to enforce. Not a fun position to be in for a coach.

Just a thought

Every player that got a guest player release from my DD's coaches over 8 years left the team. There is a reason why they want to try somewhere else. It is because they don't like the situation they are in. Let them go. What good does it do to hold them one more month when they have already made their minds up to leave?

Blank77 wrote:You would think it wouldn't be a big deal, but soccer coaches. for the most part, are small, tiny, insecure people.

The whole process is a mess. The kids should get from the end of Spring season to signing day to do whatever they want. The fact that a coach can hassle and restrict a player's ability to improve their situation is pathetic and that it is a regular occurence just boggles my mind. Now NTSSA will sign a release for you in June, but what about these tournaments in May. It is a good time for the free agents to be guesting and practicing now. It is hard to make a 1 year decision in 3-4 weeks time.

Totally agree with this

Things should be this way, but there shouldn't be a contract restricting the play of a minor in the first place. Coaches should actually be able to coach. As much money as NTX spends the national theam SHOULD have more NTX kids. Unicorns SHOULD s#!t glitter covered cotton candy. People SHOULD live up to the commitments they make

Blank77 wrote:

dadof3 wrote:

2028 wrote:

Blank77 wrote:You would think it wouldn't be a big deal, but soccer coaches. for the most part, are small, tiny, insecure people.

The whole process is a mess. The kids should get from the end of Spring season to signing day to do whatever they want. The fact that a coach can hassle and restrict a player's ability to improve their situation is pathetic and that it is a regular occurence just boggles my mind. Now NTSSA will sign a release for you in June, but what about these tournaments in May. It is a good time for the free agents to be guesting and practicing now. It is hard to make a 1 year decision in 3-4 weeks time.

I second that motion!

It is a two way street too. There are some parents who have 3 backup plans and have everyone on hold too. I would reather be honest and let the chips fall. Your kid will find a home after the initial signing day if you are prudent. A lot of coaches sign 14 or 15 and look for 1 or 2 stragglers who didn't make that initial cut.

Who wants to be 15 or 16 on a team? My DD wants to find a team where she can be part of the core and help build something. That is hard to do in a short time period. No matter how much due diligence you do and watching, until the coach sees your player in his system and you see your DD in his for several games, you don't know. The process leads to people making decisions without a full slate of info and if you guess wrong, who suffers - your DD.

It is a business first, business second, business third, coach's ego 4-10, and some distance after is your DD. Plus, if you are being honest that doesn't make the coaches honest. They all lie, some straight to your face. Usually, the better the coach and the team, the more bullshit he can shovel.

Also, it is possible to find a spot after signing day, but there are fewer guesting and tournament opportunities and it is even more of a crapshoot. Plus, many teams go in to break mode since they don't have to recruit or go to QT - they just rest up and wait or the season.

Indeed, the entire process is a mess. Other select sports have much better methodologies in place. The North Texas Soccer model heavily favors the clubs and coaches, and this has become even more the case in recent years with the elimination of the N+1 Rule such that the clubs now retain byes.

But let's not exaggerate the origins of the problems. While select soccer is a business, and that makes it a big part of the reason things have gone so wrong; there's no way you'll convince me that the coaches' egoes are more than half to blame for the state of the sport. Coaching issues clearly make the top ten list, but it is the parents that are much more often the flies in the ointment. For every dishonest coach, there are at least 10 scoundrel parents. Some of them are flat out crazy... just look at this forum. And many don't even seem to get the very basic concept of a contract and then accordingly complain about how unfair it is when they are personally affected.

Know what you're signing, people. Look at the stupidity of the title of this thread: "FWFC Refusing to Allow Players to Guest with Other Teams?" It could just as easily be re-named "FWFC Requiring Parents to Honor the Contracts They Signed". That's why they call it a contract. If it's not to your liking, then work it out with the coach and club IN WRITING BEFORE you sign it or get your release before the cutoff date.

Xara wrote:
Know what you're signing, people. Look at the stupidity of the title of this thread: "FWFC Refusing to Allow Players to Guest with Other Teams?" It could just as easily be re-named "FWFC Requiring Parents to Honor the Contracts They Signed". That's why they call it a contract. If it's not to your liking, then work it out with the coach and club IN WRITING BEFORE you sign it or get your release before the cutoff date.

How bout we name it, minor signs non-legal binding agreement under duress and after the value of the contract is over exploited child blocked to find another recipient of their parents' money?

I understand your point Xara, but I think you are giving the coaches/clubs a bit of a pass. I tend to agree with Blank77- i find most of the coaches/clubs to be complete hypocrites on this. On one hand they do not want to release players because they signed a contract, but on the other hand that same coach/club will welcome a released player with open arms and even help them through the process. Heck look at all the recent recruiting posts- they seem ready to accept those players "not honoring their commitment" or maybe they are just recruiting the rec. players who's parents frequent this forum. The real irony of course will come when/if FWFC posts an open practice recruiting thread prior to the transfer window.

ok got it. Coaches suck and are hypocrites so that relieves parents of responsibility. I have never left a team early. I did ask for a practice release last year so we could look at another team (we stayed) and the coach was gracious enough to give it to us and just ask us to let him know asap. If he had said no we would have just waited until the open period to check out the team. It is important to me that my kids learn to finish what you start and live up to your word even if nobody else does or things don't go your way. This of course does not include getting out of a harmful situation.

style points wrote:I understand your point Xara, but I think you are giving the coaches/clubs a bit of a pass. I tend to agree with Blank77- i find most of the coaches/clubs to be complete hypocrites on this. On one hand they do not want to release players because they signed a contract, but on the other hand that same coach/club will welcome a released player with open arms and even help them through the process. Heck look at all the recent recruiting posts- they seem ready to accept those players "not honoring their commitment" or maybe they are just recruiting the rec. players who's parents frequent this forum. The real irony of course will come when/if FWFC posts an open practice recruiting thread prior to the transfer window.

I would agree with you that it comes across as hypocrisy. But again, we have to look at the contract (e.g. the "fact sheet") that parents sign going into select play. It will state that a coach will or will not allow guest play, and some coaches will even add stipulations under which they will permit or deny it. But I've never seen a fact sheet which states a coach will not accept guest players. So it's the difference between hypocritical and tortious conduct. Is the coach a hypocrite? Yes. Does the coach violate the terms of his agreement with the parents or players should he allow guest players to come onto his team? No. I know it's not what people want to read, but it is the unfortunate truth... and it's what most people sign their kids on for without giving a second thought to what could possibly go wrong down the road. Then they come on here and complain that they are being held to a contract. There was no duress. No one had a gun to their heads. Without a doubt, it's the kids that lose in these situations; but the parents knowlingly contract their own children for nearly a year with a simple swipe of the pen.

style points wrote:The real irony of course will come when/if FWFC posts an open practice recruiting thread prior to the transfer window.

I think the original poster was referring to this exactly!!

I understand that players should honor their commitment and I am not saying I think a coach should necessarily release a player, but lets not act like they are acting on principal. They are simply using a system that favors them to their advantage. You say ". There was no duress. No one had a gun to their heads, but the parents knowlingly contract their own children for nearly a year with a simple swipe of the pen" but in most cases what choice did they have? The system requires it. I have less sympathy for those that have had kids in the system for a while now like me. But I think back to when my son went select that first year I knew nothing and would never have made those same mistakes knowing what I know now. Great system we have in place here especially for that first year!

go99 wrote:I did ask for a practice release last year so we could look at another team (we stayed) and the coach was gracious enough to give it to us and just ask us to let him know asap.

You would think the approach by your coach would be common place, but some coaches are so egocentric and selfish that they don't operate that way. It really is a shame.

style points wrote:I understand that players should honor their commitment and I am not saying I think a coach should necessarily release a player, but lets not act like they are acting on principal. They are simply using a system that favors them to their advantage. You say ". There was no duress. No one had a gun to their heads, but the parents knowlingly contract their own children for nearly a year with a simple swipe of the pen" but in most cases what choice did they have? The system requires it. I have less sympathy for those that have had kids in the system for a while now like me. But I think back to when my son went select that first year I knew nothing and would never have made those same mistakes knowing what I know now. Great system we have in place here especially for that first year!

For what it's worth, I don't think players should always honor their commitments (and fortunately, there are ways out of bad situations). Younger children certainly don't get the full concept of committing themselves to something for a year. That's a parents doing. And from what I've witnessed, parents are some of the worst in terms of making very, very bad decisions on behalf of their own children despite their claims to the contrary.

But this entire system has built up as a result of both coaches and parents behaving poorly in the past. Consider the idea of the club retaining the bye instead of the team losing it to the old N+1 rule after players would leave. Parents were diabolically working behind scenes in some instances to sabotage coaches and other parents by taking their children en masse to other teams at the last possible moment. Does the new system give too much power to the clubs? I think so. But the old system put the power in the hands of often corrupt parents with personal vendettas and resulted in the kids that hung around getting bushwhacked.

Changes can be a good thing, but it's important to look at the history before calling a coach good or bad because he honors his commitment to a team but a parent or two wants a pass.

This historical reference is true. There was also a time when the contract was not a full year. Scheming parent groups wreaked havoc mid-year on a children's sport. Lots of kids were left high and dry. The year-long contract may not be ideal, but its a far sight better than before.

Caution: Soap Box Falling Below!

Am I the only one, whose parents MADE me finish anything I started--"you will finish what you start?". When you join a team, its pretty simple, the parents and coach are committing to each other for a year--July to May; I intentionally left out the child (often referred to as "my child" when a parent is about to launch into a monologue about the unfairness of the system or coach THEY committed their DD) bc their signature is not legally binding. "My child's contact" is nothing of the sort, just as they aren't the one who drives to practice or pays the dues.

Its interesting how unhappy our children become in May after season play is over. Since NTX provides for unilateral releases (kids only, not coaches) at winter break and before April 1, all of these coaches must be only be revealing their true colors and become (insert your adjective here; my favorite is "incompetent") tyrannical, intemperate, pathetic, conniving, ill-mannered, egotistic, money grubbers who shouldn't be allowed to coach kids-- ALL at the end of April, early May. Obviously, had those coaches developed their character flaws and a hostile, unbearable environment earlier in the season, many more of "my child" would have sought early releases. Lastly, if the commitment becomes so profaned in mid May that it might endanger "my child's love of the sport and her career" (heard it from a 10 yr old's parent), and self interests isn't your motivation, you can make a statement--just go home and sit on the couch for 2 more weeks.

That being said, if it doesnt conflict with your current team schedule, players should be able to guest play in tournaments with a buddy (my dd has never been denied the opportunity), or just the extra touches alone. But, that sensible rule would (justifiably, no less) become a loophole larger than the Lincoln Tunnel, because "my child didn't sign up for this". Indeed, she didn't.

Gunner9 wrote:This historical reference is true. There was also a time when the contract was not a full year. Scheming parent groups wreaked havoc mid-year on a children's sport. Lots of kids were left high and dry. The year-long contract may not be ideal, but its a far sight better than before.

I agree that the contract has to match the season length. The question in my mind is - should the contract and season be six months and have relegation and promotion every six months too. Seems like there would be a lot less angst about being locked up and about relegation and promotion if it was only 6 months rather than a full year.

Sweeper wrote:

Gunner9 wrote:This historical reference is true. There was also a time when the contract was not a full year. Scheming parent groups wreaked havoc mid-year on a children's sport. Lots of kids were left high and dry. The year-long contract may not be ideal, but its a far sight better than before.

I agree that the contract has to match the season length. The question in my mind is - should the contract and season be six months and have relegation and promotion every six months too. Seems like there would be a lot less angst about being locked up and about relegation and promotion if it was only 6 months rather than a full year.

Or, there would be twice as much angst because you would be going through the dance every 6 months instead of every 12. Coach could also cut your DD after 6 months. Want to spend an extra $300-400 on a new uniform kit every 6 months?

Packrabbit wrote:Caution: Soap Box Falling Below!

Am I the only one, whose parents MADE me finish anything I started--"you will finish what you start?". When you join a team, its pretty simple, the parents and coach are committing to each other for a year--July to May; I intentionally left out the child (often referred to as "my child" when a parent is about to launch into a monologue about the unfairness of the system or coach THEY committed their DD) bc their signature is not legally binding. "My child's contact" is nothing of the sort, just as they aren't the one who drives to practice or pays the dues.

Its interesting how unhappy our children become in May after season play is over. Since NTX provides for unilateral releases (kids only, not coaches) at winter break and before April 1, all of these coaches must be only be revealing their true colors and become (insert your adjective here; my favorite is "incompetent") tyrannical, intemperate, pathetic, conniving, ill-mannered, egotistic, money grubbers who shouldn't be allowed to coach kids-- ALL at the end of April, early May. Obviously, had those coaches developed their character flaws and a hostile, unbearable environment earlier in the season, many more of "my child" would have sought early releases. Lastly, if the commitment becomes so profaned in mid May that it might endanger "my child's love of the sport and her career" (heard it from a 10 yr old's parent), and self interests isn't your motivation, you can make a statement--just go home and sit on the couch for 2 more weeks.

That being said, if it doesnt conflict with your current team schedule, players should be able to guest play in tournaments with a buddy (my dd has never been denied the opportunity), or just the extra touches alone. But, that sensible rule would (justifiably, no less) become a loophole larger than the Lincoln Tunnel, because "my child didn't sign up for this". Indeed, she didn't.

Very funny. And very true. Parents often seem to formulate the excuse that the coach is "holding their daughter hostage" when it is the end of the season. Funny how the hostage card only seems to come up in the last one to two months when the parents would like to get the jump on the competition by shopping their little progeny around to other teams.

Again, I truly believe that a coach would be wise to give releases to players if it all possible. But it is the coach's call and subject to the contract that was signed nearly a year prior. There can be extenuating circumstances such as planned tournaments in May in which the team needs to carry a reasonably full roster. If several players want to bail for all the wrong reasons, it's unnecessarily hard on those that remain.

bwgophers wrote:

Sweeper wrote:

Gunner9 wrote:This historical reference is true. There was also a time when the contract was not a full year. Scheming parent groups wreaked havoc mid-year on a children's sport. Lots of kids were left high and dry. The year-long contract may not be ideal, but its a far sight better than before.

I agree that the contract has to match the season length. The question in my mind is - should the contract and season be six months and have relegation and promotion every six months too. Seems like there would be a lot less angst about being locked up and about relegation and promotion if it was only 6 months rather than a full year.

Or, there would be twice as much angst because you would be going through the dance every 6 months instead of every 12. Coach could also cut your DD after 6 months. Want to spend an extra $300-400 on a new uniform kit every 6 months?

Then there would likely be an active secondary market for uniforms.

I frankly believe that the majority of the angst is due to being locked up for an entire year - making a mistake for an entire year - not because there are tryouts. If you love your team and coach and your DD is valued by the coach, then May and June is somewhat of a non-event. If you don't like your team or your DD is not valued by the coach, then being able to move with the knowledge that you can move again in six months if necessary is a lot less stressful.

Sweeper wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Sweeper wrote:

Gunner9 wrote:This historical reference is true. There was also a time when the contract was not a full year. Scheming parent groups wreaked havoc mid-year on a children's sport. Lots of kids were left high and dry. The year-long contract may not be ideal, but its a far sight better than before.

I agree that the contract has to match the season length. The question in my mind is - should the contract and season be six months and have relegation and promotion every six months too. Seems like there would be a lot less angst about being locked up and about relegation and promotion if it was only 6 months rather than a full year.

Or, there would be twice as much angst because you would be going through the dance every 6 months instead of every 12. Coach could also cut your DD after 6 months. Want to spend an extra $300-400 on a new uniform kit every 6 months?

Then there would likely be an active secondary market for uniforms.

I frankly believe that the majority of the angst is due to being locked up for an entire year - making a mistake for an entire year - not because there are tryouts. If you love your team and coach and your DD is valued by the coach, then May and June is somewhat of a non-event. If you don't like your team or your DD is not valued by the coach, then being able to move with the knowledge that you can move again in six months if necessary is a lot less stressful.

Considering the fact that we live in a society where more than 50% of marriages end in some form of legal separation, it is not surprising that many parents want to end their 11-month "marriages" early. It is also not surprising that some coaches/clubs do not want to give permission to "date" while they are still "married" (even if they know that the marriage will be over soon).

I personally don't like the 6 mos contract (of course, we haven't been in a situation that made me want to leave a team high and dry). If your team didn't gel as fast as others at the beginning of the season, and your coach is on the hot seat for it, then talk about playing time and other issues rearing their heads...in 6 mos, you screw 12 girls/families when 3 angry ones pull out. I hate May and June for the swirl of crap that floats around this time of year (even on solid teams). Imagine adding that to Christmas stress??

Sweeper wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Sweeper wrote:

Gunner9 wrote:This historical reference is true. There was also a time when the contract was not a full year. Scheming parent groups wreaked havoc mid-year on a children's sport. Lots of kids were left high and dry. The year-long contract may not be ideal, but its a far sight better than before.

I agree that the contract has to match the season length. The question in my mind is - should the contract and season be six months and have relegation and promotion every six months too. Seems like there would be a lot less angst about being locked up and about relegation and promotion if it was only 6 months rather than a full year.

Or, there would be twice as much angst because you would be going through the dance every 6 months instead of every 12. Coach could also cut your DD after 6 months. Want to spend an extra $300-400 on a new uniform kit every 6 months?

Then there would likely be an active secondary market for uniforms.

I frankly believe that the majority of the angst is due to being locked up for an entire year - making a mistake for an entire year - not because there are tryouts. If you love your team and coach and your DD is valued by the coach, then May and June is somewhat of a non-event. If you don't like your team or your DD is not valued by the coach, then being able to move with the knowledge that you can move again in six months if necessary is a lot less stressful.

I totally agree with this for the first year or maybe even two. I have seen enough coaches change their stripes from Academy to Select and understand a lot of parents are signing their kid up for a year assuming they will be the same coach (attitude, playing time etc). In general I have less issue with a year contract after the first year or two.... parents should be more informed by then with a solid base of knowledge.

I will say I have never seen a coach change his stripes. They will be the same Ahole clueless coach in the first month that they were in the 11th. I have seen teams not live up to expectations. I have seen kids not get the playtime or position they expected. I have not seen a coach be a great teacher of the game and then all of a sudden become a horrible one. Who they are is always there and always well know. Sometime parents choose not to see it thru stary gold tinted glasses.