Coaches leaving Sting?

Pale Rider wrote:Many Coaches leave do to lack of upward mobility. They get tired of turning over players that they ACTUALLY developed, to a Coach with a big reputation and an even bigger ego.  Sometimes a Coach would like to grow WITH the players they develop. It can't last forever, but being stripped of your work every 2-3 years and starting over is a slight that grows bigger with each repetition. If you have a good Coach, you better reward them from time to time. Nobody works for attaboys forever.

This could be one of the reasons why Hanlon left Sting...Gutierrez might have been trying to lure some of Hanlon's top '06 players to Sting Black full time.  Hanlon will probably take over the FCD premier team.

There can be good and bad with coaching changes. I would argue that some coaches are phenomenal with the younger girls. They understand them, can get their attention and can teach those skills. The theory would be that you then turn them over to those that have experience at the next level. They teach tactics and skills at another level etc. Further and don't dismiss this but they have met and have college coaching connections and most college coaches work through the club coach. This is not to say that someone like Megan cannot teach skills at tactics to 15 year olds as easily as 8 year olds nor could she not develop the coaching connections but I do know that working with 15 year olds and working with 8 year olds is completely different. One would think that someone who specializes in 14-17 year olds would struggle teaching 6-10 year olds. It is less apparent but it would seem that the same would hold true the other way. Just because you are great with 6-10 year olds does not make you as great with 14-17 year olds. Finally, as with all things, it comes down to money. Select coaches get paid more because the clubs charge more. There are only so many Select teams. Using Megan and AG only as an example, if Megan takes a team Select, AG has no one to coach. If the club has spent money bringing in AG and she has made her bones in Select, develop relationships with college coaches and specialized in older kids and agreed to pay her accordingly she has to have teams to coach. If she does not, she does not get paid and she leaves. It is unrealistic to expect AG to go back to 6 year olds, build and develop a new team and take them through 17. Her pay could not be the same etc etc. No one would agree to do that. Like any business, the younger and newer coaches teach the youngers and make less. They bounce around and eventually get a shot at Select. They then start taking teams on both sides of the line and eventually take only Select teams. That is why it's easy to pick off coaches at younger ages because you just have to promise them a shot. They are building a career. Again, using Megan only as an example because I have ZERO knowledge of specifics, if she thought she had a better career move somewhere else, good for her. There are dues to be paid at every club and at every job. Does not mean that Sting did anything wrong or FCD did anything right. Nature of the business.

DDdad - you are right. Nature of the business.

It is the nature of the business, but not the story in this case.

DDdad wrote:There can be good and bad with coaching changes.  I would argue that some coaches are phenomenal with the younger girls.  They understand them, can get their attention and can teach those skills.  The theory would be that you then turn them over to those that have experience at the next level.  They teach tactics and skills at another level etc.  Further and don't dismiss this but they have met and have college coaching connections and most college coaches work through the club coach.  This is not to say that someone like Megan cannot teach skills at tactics to 15 year olds as easily as 8 year olds nor could she not develop the coaching connections but I do know that working with 15 year olds and working with 8 year olds is completely different.  One would think that someone who specializes in 14-17 year olds would struggle teaching 6-10 year olds.  It is less apparent but it would seem that the same would hold true the other way.  Just because you are great with 6-10 year olds does not make you as great with 14-17 year olds.  Finally, as with all things, it comes down to money.  Select coaches get paid more because the clubs charge more.  There are only so many Select teams.  Using Megan and AG only as an example, if Megan takes a team Select, AG has no one to coach.  If the club has spent money bringing in AG and she has made her bones in Select, develop relationships with college coaches and specialized in older kids and agreed to pay her accordingly she has to have teams to coach.  If she does not, she does not get paid and she leaves.  It is unrealistic to expect AG to go back to 6 year olds, build and develop a new team and take them through 17.  Her pay could not be the same etc etc.  No one would agree to do that.  Like any business, the younger and newer coaches teach the youngers and make less.  They bounce around and eventually get a shot at Select.  They then start taking teams on both sides of the line and eventually take only Select teams.  That is why it's easy to pick off coaches at younger ages because you just have to promise them a shot.  They are building a career.  Again, using Megan only as an example because I have ZERO knowledge of specifics, if she thought she had a better career move somewhere else, good for her.  There are dues to be paid at every club and at every job.  Does not mean that Sting did anything wrong or FCD did anything right.  Nature of the business.  

You are correct that that is 'a' model that some clubs use, but it is not the only successful model.

The 'cradle to grave' model has been used successfully for getting to nationals, and placing players on top college teams as well.

Even at Sting, you have coaches cycling back to younger ages (for whatever reason) after coaching at the older levels and doing college interface for older teams.

We have always been partial to coaches who have coached at older ages and prepped players for college rather than ones who specialize in younger ages. Our thinking is we would rather have someone teaching them at the younger ages who knows first hand what is important and where they need to finish.

You are right. Lots of models work. I think the prevalent model is to develop coaches but it is not a rule. No doubt that coaching changes at any age for any reason are traumatic. I do think that coaching changes CAN be beneficial even between equally good coaches. Different voice, diff drills, diff expectations. Those tend to pull the best out of players who might grow complacent w one voice. Certainly no rules for getting to the right end game, however

golgolgol wrote:what about Jay Fitzgerald? I heard he was leaving too? Also, Kyle O'Keefe and Marty West. Anyone know what's going on with those?

Didn't Jay Fitzgerald just take the team over from Kyle O'Keefe?  Any update on him staying or leaving? If he is leaving, is he taking his team with him?

I was told Jay took over Kyle's teams when Kyle left, but that Jay has moved to Texans. Unsure if Kyle's teams went with him. Anyone on these teams know?

Jay was coaching Kyle's old team at Sting's facility at Texas Star as of 1.5 hours ago.

aTmAg wrote:Jay was coaching Kyle's old team at Sting's facility at Texas Star as of 1.5 hours ago.

Thanks! I guess that answers that part of the rumors!

It's official now. Jay Fitzgerald and Jermaine Serrato have left Sting and joined Texans.

Did their teams go with them?

Yep

So the only Select coach left is Marty?
Then you have the academy teams/coaches!  Wow!

I think one academy coach. The '05 team. After a year when they figure out the full price for sting select, a lot of those players will bolt. Just like the '02s.

That does seem like a lot of turnover at one club. Is that normal? Are they bringing in new coaches? I would assume the Texans have had coaches leave too, in order to have room for the new coaches? Or are they just expanding?

It's not normal. Coaches were not getting paid what they were owed. Sounds like Brent is having financial difficulty. It sucks that coaches players are paying the price for his illegal jackassery.

aTmAg wrote:It's not normal. Coaches were not getting paid what they were owed. Sounds like Brent is having financial difficulty. It sucks that coaches players are paying the price for his illegal jackassery.

This has been going on for years. I'm surprised that it has taken so long for coaches to jump like this.

Coaches move every year.  One year its Solar, next year its Texans, next year its Sting, and so on and so on.

It's not often that entire divisions basically go away.

Here's part of the reason: $$$. Sting club has been "not paying" or docking coaches pay, if parents quit or do not finish paying their contracts. Example: Player gets hurt or quits soccer, parents walk away from contract which was on a monthly payment until paid in full. Balance still owed. Coach doesn't get paid by club, because of the contract non payment.

My comments: Contract is with Club not with Coach, so Club should be pursuing contract payment from Parents. Coach should be paid regardless of contract situation. Instead Sting is looking at coaches as bill collectors, and if the coaches don't follow thru then coach gets docked.

The above is just a symptom of probably a larger financial health issue at Sting in my opinion.

aTmAg wrote:It's not often that entire divisions basically go away.

It sure is interesting that is affecting the Dallas division.

Not just that, but when Sting fires a coach, and another coach steps in to take over his/her teams for the rest of the spring, then they should be paid for that work.

DDPlays4Snacks wrote:Here's part of the reason:  $$$.   Sting club has been "not paying" or docking coaches pay, if parents quit or do not finish paying their contracts.    Example:  Player gets hurt or quits soccer, parents walk away from contract which was on a monthly payment until paid in full.  Balance still owed.   Coach doesn't get paid by club, because of the contract non payment.  

My comments:  Contract is with Club not with Coach, so Club should be pursuing contract payment from Parents.  Coach should be paid regardless of contract situation.     Instead Sting is looking at coaches as bill collectors, and if the coaches don't follow thru then coach gets docked.

The above is just a symptom of probably a larger financial health issue at Sting in my opinion.    

The coach is almost always responsible if the parents don't pay.  I've seen (first hand) and heard of it being handled that way at several clubs in NTX.

I can see a coach being instructed by the club to not play somebody who does not pay. But if a girl walks away from a team, what is the coach supposed to do? Repo their car in the middle of the night? It's BS to dock their pay in that case. It would makes sense if the coach defies the club and plays the player anyway.

aTmAg wrote:I can see a coach being instructed by the club to not play somebody who does not pay.  But if a girl walks away from a team, what is the coach supposed to do?  Repo their car in the middle of the night?  It's BS to dock their pay in that case.  It would makes sense if the coach defies the club and plays the player anyway.

The coach can do whatever he wants (from what I've seen anyway).  He will just be docked for the amount that the team "shorts" the club.  If he's willing to abide by the reduction in pay then he can play the kid or whatever.  I've absolutely seen this happen at multiple clubs as well.