Re: CPP Question

by DrPepper 22/10/14, 01:26 pm

Let's be honest, LHGCL is run by the big clubs and rules like CPP benefit (and are abused by) the big clubs the most.

They don't like it when smaller clubs rain on their parade.

by Packrabbit 22/10/14, 01:33 pm

Tex-agreed. My goal was NOT to point finger at individuals, all of whom, I believe are outstanding people and coaches. In a last minute rush, I believe the rule was used carelessly.

Instead of complaining in generalities and heresy, I thought it important to take a specific case, and say, "do you realize what this looks like ?!", and (to paraphrase BOTN), "c'mon man, where is this going!?"... Pay attention! Look what you doing to to these players and the competitive process!

by Packrabbit 22/10/14, 01:47 pm

DrPepper wrote:Let's be honest, LHGCL is run by the big clubs and rules like CPP benefit (and are abused by) the big clubs the most.

They don't like it when smaller clubs rain on their parade.

I don't believe that, and the fix is pretty simple. The LHGCL board can solve this problem tomorrow. The cost for violating the spirit of the rules needs to be prohibitively high... When is the last time someone jacked with the 75% rule? They don't bc the consequences are too steep and embarrassing.

True, the world isn't fair, but here are plenty examples of smaller clubs in NTX and the country that are competitive and grown substantially in the past few years. Some of these smaller clubs are going to figure it out and get big. There is no law saying a club must stay small.

by Guest 22/10/14, 01:52 pm

Packrabbit wrote:
DrPepper wrote:Let's be honest, LHGCL is run by the big clubs and rules like CPP benefit (and are abused by) the big clubs the most.

They don't like it when smaller clubs rain on their parade.

I don't believe that, and the fix is pretty simple. The LHGCL board can solve this problem tomorrow. The cost for violating the spirit of the rules needs to be prohibitively high... When is the last time someone jacked with the 75% rule? They don't bc the consequences are too steep and embarrassing.

True, the world isn't fair, but here are plenty examples of smaller clubs in NTX and the country that are competitive and grown substantially in the past few years. Some of these smaller clubs are going to figure it out and get big. There is no law saying a club must stay small.

lol, why would they agree to that when they run the league and only hurt themselves with such a ruling....

by haterinho 22/10/14, 02:12 pm

Lots of talk about modifying or refining CPP. Maybe what Ntx needs is exactly the opposite. Bust it wide open. Let clubs roster whatever players they can find for any given game.

Then parents wouldn't have to complain about CPP, no one would be confused about definition of team, and market dynamics will be free to run their course.

Clubs that regularly abuse this freedom at the expense of their customers will lose business quicker than they will now with all these restrictions keeping them from doing what they want to do. Alternatives centered on integrity will eventually form and take their place, or the select bubble will pop, or the pool concept will actually prove to be an effective player development model within pay to play. Either way, we may get there faster if we take the governors off and let clubs do what they want.

by SD69 22/10/14, 02:23 pm

haterinho wrote:Lots of talk about modifying or refining CPP. Maybe what Ntx needs is exactly the opposite. Bust it wide open. Let clubs roster whatever players they can find for any given game.

Then parents wouldn't have to complain about CPP, no one would be confused about definition of team, and market dynamics will be free to run their course.

Clubs that regularly abuse this freedom at the expense of their customers will lose business quicker than they will now with all these restrictions keeping them from doing what they want to do. Alternatives centered on integrity will eventually form and take their place, or the select bubble will pop, or the pool concept will actually prove to be an effective player development model within pay to play. Either way, we may get there faster if we take the governors off and let clubs do what they want.

So basically, just go back to academy. They haven't blown up over this.

by KnKsDad 22/10/14, 02:40 pm

Packrabbit, which club are you affiliated with again? I still never received your response to my last inquiry on that subject. Why you hiding?

And what is it about DrPepper's comment that isn't true? DP is right on point. I guess the board could solve the problem, so why haven't they? And will they? Who comprises the board? Oh, that's right my bad, it consists of a bunch of soccer enthusiasts who actually might care about the spirit of the game and rule.

You correctly state that there are smaller clubs that are competitive, yet your previously expressed biases indicate just not quite competitive enough. You can't really say much about Andromeda because they are higher up than you. It's a shame that CPP would be used against them. I'm sure they have "injuries" too, but where do they turn? They just suck it up and play ball. You are also correct that there is no "law" in place saying a club must stay small, just rules like CPP and those for promotion/relegation that provide road blocks to that process (that's assuming they even want to get big).

by Inn Keeper 22/10/14, 05:28 pm

I have an idea. If you are going to use CPP players, you are required to have 3 CPP KITS for each team in the club. The CPP kits will be all black with the numbers CPP1, CPP2 and CPP3. Kind of like Thing 1, Thing 2 and Thing 3. Now the icing on the cake, a BIG YELLOW STRIPE up the back signifying to everyone you are scared to play with the players on your roster whether due to injury or to stave off relegation or you couldn't beat a team DD vs DD without outside mercenaries.This will also allow you to how many and how long the CPP player (s) is on the pitch. Also, if you are claiming injuries, those players wear red pennies and can't come into the game.

by Packrabbit 22/10/14, 06:46 pm

KnKsDad wrote:Packrabbit, which club are you affiliated with again? I still never received your response to my last inquiry on that subject. Why you hiding?

And what is it about DrPepper's comment that isn't true? DP is right on point. I guess the board could solve the problem, so why haven't they? And will they? Who comprises the board? Oh, that's right my bad, it consists of a bunch of soccer enthusiasts who actually might care about the spirit of the game and rule.

You correctly state that there are smaller clubs that are competitive, yet your previously expressed biases indicate just not quite competitive enough. You can't really say much about Andromeda because they are higher up than you. It's a shame that CPP would be used against them. I'm sure they have "injuries" too, but where do they turn? They just suck it up and play ball. You are also correct that there is no "law" in place saying a club must stay small, just rules like CPP and those for promotion/relegation that provide road blocks to that process (that's assuming they even want to get big).

I'm sorry, KnK, I had something in my eye. What was the question? I sense you were trying to make a point.

by Packrabbit 22/10/14, 06:58 pm

DrPepper wrote:Let's be honest, LHGCL is run by the big clubs and rules like CPP benefit (and are abused by) the big clubs the most.

They don't like it when smaller clubs rain on their parade.

DP, i beg your pardon, I was not not specific earlier, and I did not mean to disagree with you specifically.

I don't believe LHGCL is run by the big clubs. You're right, CPP does benefit the larger clubs than the smaller ones, but that doesn't make the rule a bad thing. What's wrong is a big club using the rule to be anti-competitive. I favor player mobility within a club...trapping players to one team only makes the club stronger than the customer.

by SickofStupidity 22/10/14, 08:49 pm

Packrabbit wrote:
DrPepper wrote:Let's be honest, LHGCL is run by the big clubs and rules like CPP benefit (and are abused by) the big clubs the most.

They don't like it when smaller clubs rain on their parade.

DP, i beg your pardon, I was not not specific earlier, and I did not mean to disagree with you specifically.

I don't believe LHGCL is run by the big clubs. You're right, CPP does benefit the larger clubs than the smaller ones, but that doesn't make the rule a bad thing. What's wrong is a big club using the rule to be anti-competitive. I favor player mobility within a club...trapping players to one team only makes the club stronger than the customer.

Who, then, do you propose LHGCL is run by?

by SickofStupidity 23/10/14, 03:57 pm

silentparent wrote:
Packrabbit wrote:
DrPepper wrote:Let's be honest, LHGCL is run by the big clubs and rules like CPP benefit (and are abused by) the big clubs the most.

They don't like it when smaller clubs rain on their parade.

I don't believe that, and the fix is pretty simple. The LHGCL board can solve this problem tomorrow. The cost for violating the spirit of the rules needs to be prohibitively high... When is the last time someone jacked with the 75% rule? They don't bc the consequences are too steep and embarrassing.

True, the world isn't fair, but here are plenty examples of smaller clubs in NTX and the country that are competitive and grown substantially in the past few years. Some of these smaller clubs are going to figure it out and get big. There is no law saying a club must stay small.

lol, why would they agree to that when they run the league and only hurt themselves with such a ruling....

gotta agree with SP on this

Packrabbit - if you don't believe LHGCL is run by large clubs, who do you think runs it?

by SickofStupidity 24/10/14, 07:39 am

6 posts in 1 day

get challenged on a comment and . . . crickets

maybe you should change your handle to "jackrabbit"

by dadof3 24/10/14, 10:06 am

SickofSilliness wrote:6 posts in 1 day

get challenged on a comment and . . . crickets

maybe you should change your handle to "jackrabbit"

He sometimes posts in bursts. He hasn't logged on in the last day, so it may not be avoidance...he may just have something better to do than stalk the forum...of course, jackrabbit is kinda funny too!

Not my question, but I don't really know much about who runs LHGCL. It seems to me that it is set up and favors big clubs, but when 75-80% of your clientele is one group, it tends to be a self-fulfilling circuit. I didn't see the game in question that started the thread, nor do I have a dog in that hunt, but fair is fair, and I understand small and independents being upset about CPP.

I would love to see CPP go to ONE player only...Therefore, a GK injury or some other major injury that shortened your bench significantly could be covered...but you couldn't REALLY control a game with it...and I wouldn't even mind if the C in CPP was abandoned-make it ANY player in good standing with North Texas?? Why not that?

*I know that to some people that is heresy coming from a Solar parent, but when we used CPP last year, the club wasn't the issue, the position was...At that point, if we had had options outside the club, we probably would have explored that as well...kinda surprised that nobody said this yet...

by rockindaddy 24/10/14, 10:23 am

I think it would be a great idea to abandoned the C in CPP as you state. It would continue the supposed good parts of the rule and would level to playing field for all teams in the league.Or at least the smaller clubs could band together much like the 5 clubs that combined to form the NPL teams under City FC.

by Lefty 24/10/14, 10:36 am

haterinho wrote:Lots of talk about modifying or refining CPP. Maybe what Ntx needs is exactly the opposite. Bust it wide open. Let clubs roster whatever players they can find for any given game.

Then parents wouldn't have to complain about CPP, no one would be confused about definition of team, and market dynamics will be free to run their course.

Clubs that regularly abuse this freedom at the expense of their customers will lose business quicker than they will now with all these restrictions keeping them from doing what they want to do. Alternatives centered on integrity will eventually form and take their place, or the select bubble will pop, or the pool concept will actually prove to be an effective player development model within pay to play. Either way, we may get there faster if we take the governors off and let clubs do what they want.

Would be an ok approach as long as the contracts are adjusted to create two separate options.

One saying that you are signing with the club and where you play, and with what group of players week to week, will be determined by the club. The other would be clubs offering the team based option where CPP or non-roster players are not allowed.

Basically sign an open roster contract or a closed roster contract.

by Gunner9 24/10/14, 11:05 am

dadof3 wrote:..and I wouldn't even mind if the C in CPP was abandoned-make it ANY player in good standing with North Texas?? Why not that?

This is an excellent idea. Most of these kids/coaches know eachother by this point anyway. I do see some club resistance to this, however.

by Packrabbit 24/10/14, 12:08 pm

SickofSilliness wrote:6 posts in 1 day

get challenged on a comment and . . . crickets

maybe you should change your handle to "jackrabbit"

Lol. Sorry! I viewed the comments as rhetorical questions, and not a quiz. I'm not familiar with the organization, but if they need a CPP commissioner, I can send my resume! My guess is, since there is money involved, I would assume the LHGCL org chart would include some type of executive(s) that reports to a board or trustees.

AS FOR, the big clubs run the league theory, if we are going to speak intelligently, I guess I need to be educated on the following:

1st, Who are the Big Clubs that control LHGCL.
2nd, By what means or methods do the Big Clubs control LHGCL?
3rd, What special, anti-competitive treatment do the Big Clubs receive?

My current thinking is similar to D3's: its necessary for any successful business to be responsive to their clients, but, unless LH is directly owned by the Big Clubs (or their representatives), I'm not sure how or why the LH board would be beholden to just a few clubs. It's not like 1 or 2 clubs could start a league and others would participate. The fact is, the Bigs Clubs (who are?) do not remotely dominate this market, as a Lone Star does in Austin.

Finally, last weekend's match and commentary here has evolved my CPP thinking . If the LHGCL can't prevent CPP from being an anti-competitive, rent-a-player system, then it should be eliminated. The use of the old intra-club transfers can be used to moved talented players to the right teams; if injuries are an issue, another player, from another team, who fits the need can transfer onto it; assuming roster requirements aren't exceeded.

By the way, I got screwed in the name dept- my 63 siblings got the cool names; my 6th oldest brother is Jack; my 3rd younger sister, Jacquelyn (Jackie)... Jake, Sally, Roger (he's famous), Randy, Buck....Totally unfair.

by haterinho 24/10/14, 12:47 pm

Packrabbit wrote: AS FOR, the big clubs run the league theory, if we are going to speak intelligently, I guess I need to be educated on the following:

1st, Who are the Big Clubs that control LHGCL. Sting and Texans
2nd, By what means or methods do the Big Clubs control LHGCL? the board
3rd, What special, anti-competitive treatment do the Big Clubs receive? Silly question.

My current thinking is similar to D3's: its necessary for any successful business to be responsive to their clients, but, unless LH is directly owned by the Big Clubs (or their representatives), I'm not sure how or why the LH board would be beholden to just a few clubs. It's not like 1 or 2 clubs could start a league and others would participate. The fact is, the Bigs Clubs (who are?) do not remotely dominate this market, as a Lone Star does in Austin. What evidence did you present to support this statement of fact? What leverage does Lonestar have that Sting & Texans do not?

Finally, last weekend's match and commentary here has evolved my CPP thinking . If the LHGCL can't prevent CPP from being an anti-competitive, rent-a-player system, then it should be eliminated. The use of the old intra-club transfers can be used to moved talented players to the right teams; if injuries are an issue, another player, from another team, who fits the need can transfer onto it; assuming roster requirements aren't exceeded. Reflects an almost non-existent awareness of LHGCL...can't tell when you're joking or serious. CPP is going absolutely nowhere. Hope you were joking.

By the way, I got screwed in the name dept- my 63 siblings got the cool names; my 6th oldest brother is Jack; my 3rd younger sister, Jacquelyn (Jackie)... Jake, Sally, Roger (he's famous), Randy, Buck....Totally unfair.

good thing Jessica is unrelated..

by Packrabbit 24/10/14, 12:54 pm

Lefty wrote:
haterinho wrote:Lots of talk about modifying or refining CPP. Maybe what Ntx needs is exactly the opposite. Bust it wide open. Let clubs roster whatever players they can find for any given game.

Then parents wouldn't have to complain about CPP, no one would be confused about definition of team, and market dynamics will be free to run their course.

Clubs that regularly abuse this freedom at the expense of their customers will lose business quicker than they will now with all these restrictions keeping them from doing what they want to do. Alternatives centered on integrity will eventually form and take their place, or the select bubble will pop, or the pool concept will actually prove to be an effective player development model within pay to play. Either way, we may get there faster if we take the governors off and let clubs do what they want.

Would be an ok approach as long as the contracts are adjusted to create two separate options.

One saying that you are signing with the club and where you play, and with what group of players week to week, will be determined by the club. The other would be clubs offering the team based option where CPP or non-roster players are not allowed.

Basically sign an open roster contract or a closed roster contract.

Not sure how this would be governed... allowing players to go play anywhere week-to-week will allow smaller clubs to better compete with who? Are we assuming the small clubs will be the only one without governors? In this world of free wheeling player movement, who determines for whom a player plays for weekly? Remember, a contract protects both parties... the best players might enjoy the increased freedom, but what happened when yours get sat, bc an encl player decided to go slumming that week on your team?

by Guest 24/10/14, 01:24 pm

Not a fan of CPP, but since it's for player development, we like to do our part. Whenever we come across a team with CPP's, we try our best to insure they get the most advanced development we can possibly render.

by Packrabbit 24/10/14, 02:01 pm

haterinho wrote:
Packrabbit wrote: AS FOR, the big clubs run the league theory, if we are going to speak intelligently, I guess I need to be educated on the following:

1st, Who are the Big Clubs that control LHGCL. Sting and Texans
And FC Dallas, Solar and all the other clubs just stand back, bite their nails, and wring their hands?

2nd, By what means or methods do the Big Clubs control LHGCL? the board
By "the board", are you saying what?... the Texans and Sting not only control the board, but vote to serve their self interest? Is this a fact or a belief?
3rd, What special, anti-competitive treatment do the Big Clubs receive? Silly question.
...
So that your intellectual contribution to the discussion? ...sounds like you just want to argue ... WTF with the hostility with me, I didn't write the damn rule! if you want to bitch effectively, at least be specific about what pisses you off, what can be fixed to make you happy, instead of retorting with lame comebacks.

My current thinking is similar to D3's: its necessary for any successful business to be responsive to their clients, but, unless LH is directly owned by the Big Clubs (or their representatives), I'm not sure how or why the LH board would be beholden to just a few clubs. It's not like 1 or 2 clubs could start a league and others would participate. The fact is, the Bigs Clubs (who are?) do not remotely dominate this market, as a Lone Star does in Austin.

What evidence did you present to support this statement of fact? What leverage does Lonestar have that Sting & Texans do not?

Seriously? Who's unaware?? Lonestar has 90-95% of the teams, tournament and fields in the Austin market, as well as the only ENCL club. There are no Texans to their Sting...They tell you where, for whom and which level your dd will play. She will work out on the lower team, and will move up as she become eligible in their mind.

Lets see, in NTX, there are 5 ECNL clubs; if sting irritates you, go the texans; if texans aren't a fit, go the FC Dallas; if those teams don't cut it go check Solar; those clubs too big, go to the dfeeters... those clubs not convenient, my gosh, that only leaves, Fever, Spirit, Sporting, Kicks, Mustangs, Aztecs...

Finally, last weekend's match and commentary here has evolved my CPP thinking . If the LHGCL can't prevent CPP from being an anti-competitive, rent-a-player system, then it should be eliminated. The use of the old intra-club transfers can be used to moved talented players to the right teams; if injuries are an issue, another player, from another team, who fits the need can transfer onto it; assuming roster requirements aren't exceeded. Reflects an almost non-existent awareness of LHGCL...can't tell when you're joking or serious. CPP is going absolutely nowhere. Hope you were joking.

Instead of crying, complaining and throwing out generalities and accusations, I tried to document an actual case where CPP was used anti-competitively, got a ton crap over it, ... and you want to razz me for... exactly what? Having "non-existent awareness?" if you aren't apart of the solution, you are a part of the problem... so either get some relevant information or go back to watching cartoons

By the way, I got screwed in the name dept- my 63 siblings got the cool names; my 6th oldest brother is Jack; my 3rd younger sister, Jacquelyn (Jackie)... Jake, Sally, Roger (he's famous), Randy, Buck....Totally unfair.
good thing Jessica is unrelated..

by KnKsDad 24/10/14, 02:22 pm

Packrabbit wrote:
KnKsDad wrote:Packrabbit, which club are you affiliated with again? I still never received your response to my last inquiry on that subject. Why you hiding?

And what is it about DrPepper's comment that isn't true? DP is right on point. I guess the board could solve the problem, so why haven't they? And will they? Who comprises the board? Oh, that's right my bad, it consists of a bunch of soccer enthusiasts who actually might care about the spirit of the game and rule.

You correctly state that there are smaller clubs that are competitive, yet your previously expressed biases indicate just not quite competitive enough. You can't really say much about Andromeda because they are higher up than you. It's a shame that CPP would be used against them. I'm sure they have "injuries" too, but where do they turn? They just suck it up and play ball. You are also correct that there is no "law" in place saying a club must stay small, just rules like CPP and those for promotion/relegation that provide road blocks to that process (that's assuming they even want to get big).

I'm sorry, KnK, I had something in my eye. What was the question? I sense you were trying to make a point.

Was it mud in your eye? The main point I was trying to make regarding the CPP topic has been, and is continuing to be, made by other posters.

What was the question you ask you silly wabbit? The most important question I asked you (and this one is not rhetorical), is what club you are affiliated with? Pretty simple.

by Lefty 24/10/14, 02:39 pm

Packrabbit wrote:
Lefty wrote:
haterinho wrote:Lots of talk about modifying or refining CPP. Maybe what Ntx needs is exactly the opposite. Bust it wide open. Let clubs roster whatever players they can find for any given game.

Then parents wouldn't have to complain about CPP, no one would be confused about definition of team, and market dynamics will be free to run their course.

Clubs that regularly abuse this freedom at the expense of their customers will lose business quicker than they will now with all these restrictions keeping them from doing what they want to do. Alternatives centered on integrity will eventually form and take their place, or the select bubble will pop, or the pool concept will actually prove to be an effective player development model within pay to play. Either way, we may get there faster if we take the governors off and let clubs do what they want.

Would be an ok approach as long as the contracts are adjusted to create two separate options.

One saying that you are signing with the club and where you play, and with what group of players week to week, will be determined by the club. The other would be clubs offering the team based option where CPP or non-roster players are not allowed.

Basically sign an open roster contract or a closed roster contract.

Not sure how this would be governed... What governed? People will vote with their $ on which arrangement they prefer.allowing players to go play anywhere week-to-week will allow smaller clubs to better compete with who? Did not say this was about favoring small clubs or allowing them to better compete. It is about giving DD's and parents a choice on what kind of environment they want to play in. Are we assuming the small clubs will be the only one without governors? In this world of free wheeling player movement, who determines for whom a player plays for weekly? The DD and parents if they sign for a closed roster, the club if they sign for open roster. Remember, a contract protects both parties... the best players might enjoy the increased freedom, but what happened when yours get sat, bc an encl player decided to go slumming that week on your team? Sounds like you are saying you would prefer you DD play for a closed roster team.

Would eliminate the situational open rostering we have for all teams today, which is totally under the control of the clubs, and allow the DD/parent to clearly choose which environment they want.

by textigerfan 24/10/14, 03:04 pm

OLJW wrote:Not a fan of CPP, but since it's for player development, we like to do our part. Whenever we come across a team with CPP's, we try our best to insure they get the most advanced development we can possibly render.

Press the "LIKE" button. Great policy.

by haterinho 24/10/14, 03:08 pm

Packrabbit wrote:Instead of crying, complaining and throwing out generalities and accusations, I tried to document an actual case where CPP was used anti-competitively, got a ton crap over it, ... and you want to razz me for... exactly what? Having "non-existent awareness?" if you aren't apart of the solution, you are a part of the problem... so either get some relevant information or go back to watching cartoons

You took it to another level of testiness. Very Happy

I'm not complaining or crying about the rule. I'm more wanna be pundit analyst than wanna be revolutionary. The rule does not really affect me or mine, but I have enough good samaritan in me to be concerned at the way it affects others. If there were more like minded souls in club soccer, this rule would not exist in its current form. Also - I am not anonymous and have never tried to be, so I don't say anything on the forum I wouldn't say to anyone in person. Trying to litigate a single team's use of CPP makes no good sense for me, and not sure I would do it even if I were trying to be anonymous.

Net - your case that LH does not primarily represent the interests of big clubs is not made. And thus the idea LH would eliminate this rule, and others, which primarily benefit big club interests, seems absurd. That is my opinion, which is I why didn't lead with "fact is...". Laughing

by Sponsored content

Join Heath Soccer Academy (Rockwall area)	29/08/24, 10:58 pm	socroc
Join Heath Soccer Academy (Rockwall area)	29/08/24, 11:02 am	socroc
09/10 COMPETITIVE TEAM IN ROCKWALL AREA	17/08/24, 02:26 am	Jumpman
Last call Solar 09/10 Rockwall	22/07/24, 10:48 am	socroc
Last call Solar 09 Rockwall	22/07/24, 10:15 am	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	15/07/24, 08:15 pm	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	15/07/24, 06:35 pm	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	15/07/24, 05:18 pm	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	26/06/24, 10:29 am	socroc
2008G Dallas Texans Tryouts (Final 1-2 spots)	26/06/24, 10:20 am	Dallas Texans East
2008G Dallas Texans Tryouts	26/06/24, 09:52 am	Dallas Texans East
Solar 07 Spear DII Classic League	25/06/24, 01:42 pm	socroc
Solar 06B RL and DI Classic	25/06/24, 01:34 pm	socroc
RSC 11' GCL w/Coach Adam	23/06/24, 01:15 pm	acst
Oh Yeah! movin' on UP 09's	23/06/24, 09:58 am	acst
Open Practice	20/06/24, 10:00 am	Coach Jim
BvB '06 Gold D-1 Coach Chris Obara formerly with Ayses	17/06/24, 11:18 am	BiroBiro
Renegades 2016G and 2017G North Blanton	16/06/24, 06:30 pm	tareyncarol
FCP Dynamos 2010B - Looking For Players	16/06/24, 05:02 pm	fcpcoach
Solar 2014B Williams - White - Needing 2 more players	09/06/24, 02:39 pm	Marvelousmar
RSC ELITE CAC	09/06/24, 12:10 pm	acst
RSC 08Clark	02/06/24, 05:43 pm	acst
Sting 2011 Boys ECNL RL NTX	02/06/24, 06:17 am	Jumpman
NTX Celtic 2011B ECNL-RL-NTX Opportunity	01/06/24, 11:04 pm	FSFFL
NTX Celtic 06/07G ECNL-RL-NTX Opportunity	01/06/24, 10:49 pm	FSFFL