| |||||||||||||||||
Member Opinions: By: GOOD4U on 9/3/10
The Brentwood Soccer Club ia a valued component of youth sports in Brentwood and Williamson County. The Club also, through the hosted tournaments, brings activity, exposure, and revenue to Brentwood. I personally believe that the club contributes far more it receives from the city.Residency requirements for community facities are understandable. However, requiring a competive organization to include more individuals is an "affirmative action" which should be discouraged. It is the equivalent of the City of Nashville requiring the Titans to only hire local players. By: justthefacts on 9/3/10
What the BWSC fails to mention is they recruited many players from Franklin to play at BWSC along with coaches and if any Brentwood player chose to play in Franklin was because they were not offered to to play on a BWSC team that they deserved. There are older age group coaches at BWSC that also coach at high schools in Franklin and want to develop their future players and Brentwood kids are not getting a fair opputunity. Brentwood H.S. has a long tradition in soccer success and that is in jeopardy with how things are currently being handled AT BWSC. To compare an NFL team to a local age group amatuersoccer club is laughable. By: whatsup on 9/3/10
While I believe that charging a fee for use of fields may be necessary, doubling the fee seems like an extreme measure. I am sure there can be a better devised plan for working with BWSC TO deal with this issue. I disagree with the comment that any BWSC player that chose to play in Franklin did so because they were not offered a chance to play for BWSC. There were instances this try-out season where very talented players chose to only try out at Franklin who had previously played for BWSC. It would be great if every player for BWSC lived in Brentwood, but that is not realistic. This is a competitive soccer club. I also agree that it is a very hard process when selecting players for teams and trying to figure out percentages. As the article stated, sometimes there aren't enough Brentwood residents trying out, or they don't accept an offer to play or accept and then decline it later.There are so many variables that play into the process of building teams. Do you tell a child who has made a team that they can no longer play because the percentages aren't correct and that child doesn't live in the city? It is a difficult issue and there may be no perfect answer, but to increase the fee to twice the current fee sounds like someone isn't being realistic and isn't thinking about the positive impact that this club has on the community as a whole. By: cbosen on 9/3/10
The fields the BWSC and other organizations play on are city-owned property paid for and maintained by Brentwood taxpayers -- that's why there is a residency requirement IF any organization wants priority in using the fields and/or free or discounted use of the fields. Any organization regardless of residency is welcome to rent the Brentwood facilities at the non-resident rate (if available after other organizations with priority get the first opportunity). No select sporting organization is all-inclusive -- their players must try-out and be, well, selected. The families who choose select sports (not just soccer) pay a premium in time and money versus the recreational leagues. Some select sports have up to three practices per week for up to three hours per practice plus games and travel time. That's a big commitment for those who choose to make it. City taxpayers, however, should not have to supplement that choice for families who do not reside in the city. (It may even be arguable whether or not the City taxpayers should supplement any exclusive organization, but that's not this topic.) By giving such organizations field priority for their practices and games, the fields are not available for use by those who pay for their maintenance and upkeep. By not charging a rental fee if residency requirements aren't met by these organizations, local residents also sacrifice revenue that could be put towards acquiring additional property for such facilities. The residency requirements and non-resident fee structure must be enforced in all cases. If the majority of participants of any activity aren't from Brentwood, why should the city provide an economic break in subsidizing a private organization serving citizens of other communities? By: GoFranklinRebels on 9/3/10
There are a lot of issues here, but to me these are the main points: Select soccer is a money-making enterprise. Not necessarily for the organization itself but for the professional coaches. So while BSC may be technically a nonprofit it is really just a front for the coaches who get paid salaries. Second, BSC has benefited tremdously fromt he horribly mismanaged select soccer program based in Franklin (TNFC). The best players are going to seek out the best situations for themselves, and this has lured a lot of Franklin kids and Davidson County kids to BSC. Who knows much "active recruiting" is going on, but there is no doubt that the club is violating the spirit of its obligation to serve primarily Brentwood residents. Personally, I think the best solution would be to tax the income of the professional coaches, and require extra fees for non-resident players. By: Dawg64 on 9/3/10
Wonder how many people in Brentwood or Williamson County work in Nashville and enjoy all of the services provided by Metro government? Many of us that live outside of Brentwood and Williamson County spend tens of thousands of dollars each year in Williamson County. Being able to play competitive soccer with the best players in the area, not just from Brentwood, will make all of the players better. By: 3bmom on 9/3/10
In an email sent to the entire membership of BWSC, Mr. Holt stated "but I am personally not in favor of succumbing to these financial demands" and a very different picture was painted about this issue. The City of Brentwood is not willing to let BWSC use our facilities at a lower discounted rate if they don't meet certain residency requirements. Mr. Holt has focussed his efforts toward "policy reform" and trying to change the rules when it comes to the costs associated with field useage for BWSC. If Mr. Holt wants BWSC to be afforded the benefits of lower field fees under the parameters of Category II Service Providers , then he needs to REALLY look into why BWSC has lost and continues to lose Brentwood residents as members of the club. Brentwood kids are continually being offered positions on teams lower than deserved and parents are seeing the best interest of their kids take a backseat to the demands/expectations of many on the coaching staff hence they are leaving the club. The ideals on which BWSC was founded are still applicable today and can continue to be honored in the future if the development of kids both on and off the field stays the number one focus. By: TennGranny on 9/3/10
This is the BRENTWOOD soccer club. I expect it was founded to "give Brentwood youth the opportunity to play competitive soccer" in order to promote a healthy lifestyle for our children and keep them off drugs. It appears Mr Holt either has a different agenda or doesn't understand the city's requirements. (i.e. Why are there four U13 boys teams when there weren't enough Brentood children to fill two?) I urge the City of Brentwood to 1) stand firm on their park-usage policy and require that the extra costs are assessed only to the non-resident participants; 2) require full compliance to their residency requirements after this season; and 3) give Mr Holt a calculator and show him how to use it! By: cbosen on 9/3/10
@Dawg64 - People from Nashville and around Williamson County are welcome to use Brentwood parks and facilities free of charge -- the same way residents here can partake of Metro government facilities. Want to play the disc golf course at Crockett Park but live in Nashville, no problem -- play as many rounds as you would like for FREE. Want to go to the children's puppet shows at the downtown metro library but live in Brentwood -- no problem, the shows are free for everyone. But, want to check out a book from Metro and live in Williamson County -- you'll have to pay a $50 annual non-resident fee to do so. Want to check out a book from Brentwood library but don't live in the city limits -- you'll have to pay a non-resident fee to do so. At issue here is the priority status organizations that serve primarily Brentwood residents are given when it comes to reserving fields, the fee structure they pay to use those facilities (if any), etc. The City isn't saying BWSC can't use the facilities, just that the charge for doing so is based upon how many city residents are included in their program. According to the story the BWSC has already been given leniency thru the development of the Category II designation (lower residency percentage requirements) -- now they are requesting further lowering those standards or coming up with another less expensive option than the city is offering. By: nutofsoccer on 9/3/10
Looks like BWSC should focus on developing thier own players (similar to thier mission statement) instead of recruiting overpaid coaches with their players to create teams at BWSC. BWSC benefited from the mismanagement of the Franklin club several years ago, but that management no longer exist and now BW residents are choosing to play for the Franklin club while BWSC must deal with the former Franklin players it has. The BW athlete is as good as any. If BWSC stuck to thier mission statement they would have better players that are BW residents and would not feel the need to recruit out of city or county players to compete. Doubling BWSC fees seems a bit harsh...hopefully they will find a fair resolution. By: janie1988 on 9/3/10
Love living in Brentwood! We have had two sons play for the BWSC! What a wonderful service they provide. I am a Brentwood Residence but I feel this club benefits from the non-residents!!! We pay fees too and it is spreaded evenly among the teams. We are fine with that but I do not agree with the fees they are wanting to raise. This club does so much for the Brentwood communiy. Besides the economic boost, it also gives Brentwood a good name. I hear so many people from traveling teams say what a wonderful community you live in! To continue a wonderful, competitive club there has to be players from other areas. Yes I agree they may need to pay some but these new fees are not fair. I feel as a Brentwood resident and as a member of the BWSC that the Soccer Club is being treated unfairly! By: 3bmom on 9/3/10
@janie1988 The City has been grossly undercharging BWSC for years giving them a pass when they weren't compliant with the rules required for the fee structure they paid. The City isn't "raising fees".......they are no longer willing to accept BWSC excuses for not meeting residency requirements that would afford them the lower fees. What does the BWSC do for the community that earns them the right to be above the rules? Other non-compliant organizations pay these fees. Why should BWSC be able to use field space coveted by other organizations at a discounted rate? How can BWSC possibly be responsible for an economic boost when they don't even pay the full monies owed for their field useage? Traveling teams are right....this is a wonderful community because we have so much...strong schools, beautiful parks and recreational facilities, nice homes and a wonderful way of life and that should be credited to "OUR CITY"(NOT BWSC) because they protect "our" best interest so that our community stays wonderful! I have had 3 children play for BWSC and am also a resident but I am tired of seeing my children's classmates and friends get swallowed up in the BWSC politics where they leave the club altogether. When non-resident kids come to BWSC, they won't stay unless they are offered positions on high teams because it is not worth the trip otherwise. Remember......we live in the wonderful community so Brentwood kids don't want to go play anywhere else so they either accept teams lower than their abilities or quit the club!! . There is space for non-residents...up to 40% of the club but they should pay the fees that you and I already pay in taxes. We as Brentwood residents and members of BWSC should appeal to the BWSC to let the Brentwood kids play at the competitive level in their wonderful community and quit letting the coaches run other agendas within "OUR" club. We may lose some non-residents but we don't need over half of the soccer club membership to be non-residents to be strong!! By: Hendry on 9/3/10
I am a City of Brentwood resident and my kids play at BWSC. The city has established guidelines and BWSC needs to follow them. The answer is pretty simple...the $40,000 shortfall sounds pretty large, but if you assess it across 850 players, it comes out to $40. That is peanuts when you consider the overall fees that are paid. Moving forward, non-residents should bare this burden. Based on current ratios, non-residents would pay an additional $80 a year. Again, peanuts when you consider what is paid to participate for travel soccer. If the City wanted to be gracious, they could wave the additional assessment this year. But next year, BWSC needs to budget and assess it's non-residents appropriately. By: theU on 9/4/10
I am a parent of 2 BWSC players and have served as a team Manager and Board Representative for the past 5 years. Five years ago the BWSC brought in the top soccer consultant in the country (UNC Women’s Head Coach) to help the club organize and develop an infrastructure plan. The success and popularity of our program had created challenges that we needed help with to get the infrastructure in place to sustain our success and achieve our goals. Our goal is to offer a program to Brentwood residents to become the best soccer players they can be and play at the highest level of competition possible, while still offering advanced programs to all Brentwood players. The only way for a top level athlete to continue to get better at their sport is to train with other top level athletes that compliment their abilities. As players of all sports get older, their interests change. Some get tired of the time commitment required in travel sports and look for something less competitive or drop out. Some have a true love of their sport and aspire to achieve greater accomplishments. Top athletes in any sport need to train with the best coaches and players in order to continue to improve their skills and move on to the next level. When athletes from outside the area make the effort to drive to Brentwood multiple times a week for practices and games, that is the highest compliment that can be made to a program, it speaks volumes for the BWSC success. BWSC does not recruit players from other areas. That process occurs naturally when other teams play BWSC teams and learn how well coached our teams and players are and how well organized our club is. The product on the field speaks for itself and that is a result of the tireless effort by everyone in the organization that works hard and contributes to this fine program. Each age group at BWSC has competitive tiered level teams within its rank; Premier, Elite, Select, and Classic. So our focus is not only on the top performing team, but each team receives advanced soccer training to allow all players to reach their goals whatever they are; making the Middle School, High School, or College team. BWSC could have chosen any name, but we chose Brentwood Soccer Club. We are proud to display our City’s name on our jerseys, bags, vehicles, etc. When we roll into a tournament, everyone knows who we are, unlike others that adopt an abbreviated acronym of their favorite pro team. The City should openly embrace the BWSC and the opportunity that it has created for Brentwood residents to play competitive soccer. The BWSC is an organization that should be praised by the City, our local schools, and the Chamber of Commerce, not taxed and levied as though we were some sort of undue burden. By: cbosen on 9/4/10
@theU The City has openly embraced BWSC for the past several years -- creating the Category II service provider designation with reduced residency requirements for the club compared to ALL other service providers. To say that the club is being "taxed and levied as though we were some sort of undue burden" implies that it's okay for other organizations to pay the established fee-structure or meet the established residency requirements, just not this particular organization. To use your analogy of players only improving when working/playing with other players of similar talent, would you advocate opening Williamson County Schools to non-County residents (no matter their academic ability) as a way to improve everyone's academic performance? I understand that talented players from other areas will want to try-out for a well-run, competitive team. However, no organization can meet dual priorities -- either the ultimate goal is to offer an opportunity for Brentwood residents to play competitive soccer (and enjoy the highly discounted use of Brentwood taxpayer funded facilities and priority over other service providers), OR the ultimate goal is simply to assemble teams of the best players no matter where they live. Either goal is acceptable as a competitive model, but as the old adage goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The BWSC could choose, in order to meet the residency requirement percentages, to limit the number of outside residents who make the teams (keeping ONLY the absolute cream of the crop -- thus making the apparently less-talented local players even better thanks to their vastly superior skills). Or, the BWSC could choose to have only two or three tiers of select teams per age group instead of four thus reducing the overall number of players -- of course, that would also reduce the fees collected by the organization. Or, the BWSC (or any other service provider -- since this isn't really a question of one organization, it's a City policy issue) can select any players they want regardless of residency in order to build the most talented teams -- but doing the latter should not entitle them to priority field use at taxpayer expense. I'm curious how the established Brentwood field usage fee structure compares to usage of private indoor complexes such as A Game Sportsplex or the other indoor facility in Cool Springs where some of the travel teams practice. A Brentwood rate of $50 without lights and $100 with lights for a 2-hour block of time seems downright inexpensive compared to what a private enterprise would charge. By: jpw94 on 9/4/10
Doubling the fee seems arbitrary. As long as the city is applying the same charge basis as any other organization which does not meet the residency requirement, BWSC should pay it. Part of that calculation should also be if there is any other economic benefit derived from the relationship that is or should be factored into that fee. Such as the two major tournaments sponsored by BWSC which, no doubt, brings revenue to Brentwood businesses. I see many groups playing on that field on weekends. I don't recall any of those organizations creating revenue for the city. Let's give credit where credit is due. There is a middle-ground, I am sure. The questions remain to be answered: if the fee structure would force BWSC to go elsewhere, how does the loss of revenue impact the city's budget? Will it affect the residents in any way? Losing this revenue and not having a way to recoup it, seems to be fiscally irresponsible. Is the demand for the fields so high that they will be utilized in a way which will replace that revenue source? As a resident of Brentwood (and a parent of a BWSC player), I would hope so. By: cbosen on 9/4/10
How does meeting a residency requirement preclude the BWSC from sponsoring two tournaments a year in Brentwood? The soccer club wants the benefits that go with being the BWSC, but doesn't want to meet the requirements necessary to enjoy those benefits (priority and reduced field usage fees). Whether or not the club generates some revenue from visitors to the city isn't at issue. It's difficult to argue that the established rules should not apply to everyone equally, yet that's what this sounds like. The City this budget year approved the increase in rates for non-residents reserving city park and rec facilities because they realized that the previous structure was costing the city money. It was the right thing to do -- people can still use the facilities, but if you're a non-resident, there's a fee involved to reserve the facilities for exclusive use. Kind of funny that an organization that is selective in who they do business with (who they allow to participate in the club) would take issue with a public entity (the City) being selective in the rules that govern who can use taxpayer-funded facilities. By: alpal62 on 9/4/10
Know that good people with the best intentions from both the City and the Soccer Club are diligently working together for the greater good of our community. Brentwood Soccer Club respects and appreciates what the City has done over the last twenty years to provide an environment at Crockett and Tower Parks, enabling youth sports opportunities of all flavors (football, baseball, recreational soccer, club soccer, rugby, lacrosse, etc.). While we may respectfully disagree in principal on some policy issues (each with meaningful & compelling perspectives), we wholeheartedly agree on the best interest of the youth in our community, and we will prevail together as partners. You have my commitment that we will not allow our prides or egos to interfere with what is right. We all want competitive soccer to continue in Brentwood, and it will. Keep the faith! Alan Holt By: nutofsoccer on 9/4/10
@the U Arrogance has clearly disconnected you from your club. BWSC coaching staff, board members and parents recruit as much as any other youth soccer club in middle TN. The soccer community is hit hard every year with phone calls from a variety of BWSC cronies. Most clubs participate in similar behavior at the end of every spring. And yes players naturally want to play for good teams at good clubs but BWSC has boundaries when selecting players...that should change their focus so they begin to develop their own! They have a BRENTWOOD YMCA feeding players into their club every year but they focus on recruiting instead. I believe BWSC has created their own issues with an overpaid staff that has lead to the need for 3 or 4 teams in each age group to provide a budget that they can work with. But now with distorted numbers regarding residency they don't meet the policy requirements set by the city and will have to make some tough sacrifices. Training with other top level athletes is not the "only" way to get better. It is one element of many required for athletes to improve in their sport. I am curious what the number of BW city residents is on the top teams at BWSC. I would bet it is less than 50% on several of their rosters. By: theU on 9/5/10
I didn't realize that the City was competing with private enterprise (D1 and A-Game) for use of fields. For that matter, the costs to maintain the fields has not experienced an increase to the City in the same way they are levying added on fees to their Cat II service provider. It appears the City wants more money, plain and simple. Prior to creating this Cat II level, there was none – only a Cat I Service provider. Budgets were fine, but for whatever reason the City targeted the BWSC and created the Cat II Pay provider. Apparently, it’s all about money. The tax levies have gone up over the past several years, the City wants to raise them again, and likely again and again. When will it stop, and why are they doing it? Is our government that jealous of a successful private program that it will go to these extremes in an attempt to tear it down? Those of us with children in public schools have seen programs with good intentions like “No child left behind”, become the ”No child gets ahead” program. Dumb-ing anything down has never made anything better. The City doesn’t want to leave anyone from Brentwood behind, we understand that appreciate that. But their attempt to prevent Brentwood citizens to get ahead is very confusing. By: ShowMeTheMoney on 9/5/10
@cbosen One should question what the City has been doing with the money that BWSC has been paying to them over the past 5 years (excess of $100,000). Which City Official’s pet projects have now been funded, thanks to the generous families in the BWSC program? Which programs are being funded with soccer tax dollars? One thing for sure is that the City is not addressing the field storm drainage problems that exist at Crockett Park. When the Crockett Park multi-purpose fields were constructed, there must have been a shortfall in the budget for soils and drainage study required. Either that or this step was skipped over by the City inspectors. Even the slightest rain on the fields will cause the City Parks & Rec Dept to close fields. We have the nicest fields that can’t be played on. This creates a huge financial impact to organizations and service providers that use the fields, as well as the local Chamber of Commerce. How many future tournaments will be cancelled because the City will not address their storm water drainage problems in our City fields? What better use of money that is being collected from BWSC than to put it back into the facilities? Ask yourselves: Where is the money going, and when will the facilities get the repair attention that they deserve? I’m sure they City will reply to us, “General Fund”, but we all know what that means. By: krbyhy on 9/5/10
I've recently moved to Brentwood after living in the midwest and being involved in competitive soccer for almost 17 years. Both my children played at the highest levels, and I volunteered my time as a team manager,ODP administrator, etc. In all honesty, I am quite surprised this issue even exists. Unlike high school sports, competitive soccer is exactly what the name implies;competitive. Players must try out with the ultimate goal of being given the opportunity to train and play with other quality athletes. While I agree that any organized team who utilizes city/county fields should pay a general usage fee, the idea of "penalizing" a group of youth athletes for their desire to play at an elite level simply because they do not live in a specific area is absurd. Perhaps that view works with recreational or high school sports where residency requirements may come into play, but it totally defeats the whole purpose of developing quality athletic programs and building high level teams who can compete at state, regional, and national levels. The success BWSC has enjoyed to this point is because of their quality coaching staff and their ability to attract quality players, all of which has brought recognition to the Brentwood name. To try and restrict that process will wind up hurting the Brentwood community in the long run as teams from other states will no longer choose to bring their travel dollars into Brentwood for tournament events/games. As a long time soccer fan and new Brentwood resident, I would strongly like to see Brentwood move forward and revise a policy that clearly is no longer viable. By: cbosen on 9/5/10
I know this story is about one organization, but in reality it applies to ANY organization that doesn't meet residency requirements established by the City. I'm not against select teams of any type -- I have family members who have earned full-ride collegiate scholarships playing select sports so I know the value of such opportunities. I appreciate what these groups do for local kids and the local economy. I just differ in opinion on who should bear the brunt of the costs and benefits associated with the groups -- I don't think it should fall to the taxpayers, but to those who directly participate. @ ShowMeTheMoney According to the BWSC website, there are 50 teams in the BWSC covering both boys and girls teams. Also according to the website, the playing season in Fall lasts from August 1 through Thanksgiving (4 months). The Spring season lasts from March 1 through late May or early June followed by try-outs for the next season (3 months). The winter season involves indoor practices during the intervening months. So, that's a total of 7 months of the year that the fields are being used by the BWSC. Practices, according to the website, are twice a week for an hour-and-a-half per session for "most teams" although frequency and duration is entirely the coach's decision. So, that's three hours per week per team just for practices. Multiply those three hours by the 28 weeks in 7 months for 84 hours of field-use time per team. Multiply the 84 hours per team by 50 teams for a total of 4,200 field-use hours for practices by the BWSC over the course of the Fall and Spring seasons. You estimate in excess of $100,000 has generously been given by BWSC families over the past five years to the City in the form of Category II fees (City Officials will be happy to explain their difference between taxes and fees, I'm sure -- fees, in their view, are optional depending on a person's choice). So, that would be $20,000 per year -- let's go ahead and up that to $25,000 per year (a total of $125,000 over the past 5 years). Now, divide that $25,000 annually by the 4,200 hours of practice field use time annually for a approximate total cost to BWSC of $5.25 per hour of field use time. That's not including time for games, etc. Another way to look at this is to take your estimate of $25,000 per year and divide that among the 50 BWSC teams for a total of $500 per team paid annually. That $500 per team each team pays for approximately 84 hours of practice annually (90 minute sessions twice per week for 7 months). Again, that breaks down to less than $6 per hour per team. So, the BWSC receives exclusive reservation rights as a Cat. II service provider and usage of practice fields at an approximate cost of less than $6 per hour per team. And you imply that City Officials are siphoning off money for "pet projects" rather than putting money back into the fields and not properly funding the upkeep of the facilities? You want taxpayers to fund even more upgrades to the facilities so that private organizations can monopolize their usage even further? AND you don't want your City costs to be equal to what other organizations pay? @TheU You've never seen a select soccer team practicing on the basketball/volleyball courts at A Game? I have -- when the coach wants to practice more often than he/she can get field availability from the City. Do you think A Game or any other facility rents those courts for $6 per hour? It's not all about the money, at least for the City -- the City has residency requirements for ALL organizations. If those requirements are met, the fees for usage are less than if they are not met. There is no reason for local taxpayers to fund field usage and maintenance costs for non-local taxpayers participating in exclusive organizations of any type. There is no levying of "added fees" here on the part of the City -- just a requirement that organizations actually meet and pay the already established fees. As for the BWSC being "targeted" in the creation of the Category II provider, all any organization has to do is serve 75 percent Brentwood residents in 12-and-under teams and 60 percent on 13-and-up teams and there is no charge for field use. BWSC, evidently, could not meet that standard, so the City formed Category II offering reduced rates and residency requirements. How low should that residency requirement go? Where does it end? The City publishes their annual budget and how much is generated in revenue and expenditures on park and rec facilities each year. You claim the City's costs to maintain fields has not increased. Well, employees have received raises -- that's a direct cost. Gasoline is more expensive for mowing, etc. Have BWSC fees to participate not increased over that time? Is the club larger today than previously? What would be the impact of reducing the club's team numbers from the current 50 teams to, say 35 or 40 teams and using a larger percentage of Brentwood residents? Of course, TNFC players, for example, pay somewhere between $60 and $150 per month (depending on age level) directly to TNFC to participate according to their website ($600 - $1500 per player over the course of a 10-month season). BWSC fees are likely in that same ballpark -- I couldn't find them online. So, reducing the number of teams from 50 to 40 (especially at the upper levels where fees are higher -- and where, interestingly, the BWSC has fallen to the lowest residency percentages) would mean a significant financial hit to the organization. So, yes, maybe it is just all about the money. But hopefully a solution will be found that serves all interests. By: volintn on 9/6/10
I can see that this is a very heated issue, however - shouldn't some consideration be given to those players who live and attend school near Crockett Park? There are a very significant number of these players in the older age groups who could WALK to Crockett Park from their homes or from their schools but are not counted in the residency requirements. These are kids that go to Ravenwood High or to Brentwood High - should those players be asked to play at other clubs outside of the city, often driving 30-45 minutes across rush hour traffic to practices, and not play on the same teams with their friends from school, church etc? Williamson County provided funds to purchase and develop, and coninues to help maintain Crockett Park. Brentwood Soccer Club provides volunteers to pick up the park (spending significant man hours after the flood, for example) and to line and maintain the fields. Why aren't these Williamson County residents given at least SOME consideration in the formulas? I am a city resident. I think doubling field costs in one year to a youth sports organization that obviously contributes positively to our community is a bit extreme, and I hope the city and the club will work together to find a reasonable compromise for the benefit of our children. By: ShowMeTheMoney on 9/6/10
@Cbosen, Who is the largest Service Provider to the City parks? I’m sure that you are aware that the YMCA soccer program runs between 1600 and 1800 players in any given season, depending on what other sports are going on in that season. Even though they may be meeting the percentages set by the City, they are still bringing in more non-resident kids to enjoy our wonderful parks than any other service provider. How much does the City charge the YMCA for bringing in all of these non-resident folks? ZERO, ZIP, NADA. Now the YMCA uses a lot of fields for their practices and games, too. One could run their numbers to calculate all of their field usage time, and I am sure it is a large number. But the fact remains that they are not charged a single dime, so regardless of how many field hours they use, their cost is still $0/hour. There are obviously a lot of people using the parks. If we replace the non-resident people with Brentwood residents, there would still be a lot of people using the parks. The only difference would be the amount of money the City would be losing if they were all Brentwood residents. By: drummingfool on 9/6/10
First of all I currently have no dog in this hunt. But, previously I was a manager in BWSC for several years so I know the ins and outs of this argument. What you have here is two camps. One camp is made up of those parents whose children play on the Premier teams and the other is made up of parents whose children do not play on the Premier team. These two camps have diametrically opposed goals. Those on the Premier team have little or no sympathy for the BW taxpayers and their kids who didn't make the Premier team, their goal is bring other 'good' players on the team, to build a super team, so they can go on to win State and Regional titles and bask in the glory of their own child's accomplishments. They say to the soccer skill challenged child of the BW taxpayer, "You can play in your own city, in your own park, but only on a C or a D team. We're trying to see how far we can take our A team" Even when maybe 5 or 6 out of 20 only the A roster is actually from BW. Those BW taxpayers with kids not on the Premier team want to arrange things so their kids are on the Premier team, even if it means that the team will be 'watered down'. It doesn't matter to them because after all, we hire these highly trained and highly capable coaches to compensate for this right? It's the job our the coach to train BW kids. Heck, a baboon can train a team when it's comprised of the best players in the state, it's nearly impossible for them NOT to win. So the motto of this camp is, "Brentwood parks for Brentwood taxpayers period and damn the result." My proposal is this, make no more than 2 teams at each age group fully rostered from BW players, then if any additional players are needed, they can be invited from the outside area. This way, no BW kid is left out and no BW taxpayer has to pay for facilities that his child cannot use. This is the most important issue, not building a super team to boost a few parents' egos. If this is unsatisfactory to the BW Premier players parents, you are welcome to travel to another city and build your team there, we don't really care. drummingfool By: bailey on 9/6/10
Let's not lose sight of the Children. The City has benefited from it's ability to offer families with Children interested in soccer the chance to participate in organized soccer from the recreational player (YMCA)to the competitive player interested in being competitive locally, to the player and family interested in being competitive on a larger Regional and ultimately National level. The BWSC has worked hard to provide families a nationally recognized program with some of the best coaches in the industry to train kids depending on their goal of participating in soccer at the competitive local, regional and national levels. Depending on the Child's skill set, an opportuinity is available. In the competitive soccer world, many of the elite level programs are combining with other programs in their Region to create Super Clubs. We need to be rationale and come up with a solution that meets all parties interest and keeps BWSC fiscally stable and providing an option to meet all levels of competitive play. Here are some questions that should be considered as the decision making parties attempt to identify a resolution: Who from the City is making this decision? The City Manager, the Parks Board, or the City Commissioners? Are they truly looking out for their citizens' best interest? What does “we want parks to be a priority for Brentwood citizens” mean? How does Brentwood Soccer Club deprive Brentwood citizens from the park? If the City cares so much about protecting its parks for Brentwood residents only, why do they sell unlimited field access (unsupervised) to non Williamson County Adult Soccer leagues? If Brentwood Soccer Club left Brentwood, ask the City why there would be so many open fields at Crockett & Tower? Does the City embrace this same philosophy for the middle & high schools who use Crockett Park, when they “cut” players who are Brentwood residents? Does the City have any idea what the economic impact is from the club’s two annual tournaments, and the weekly influx of over 400 non city residents who drive into Brentwood 4 days/week over 10 months for soccer training (buying gas, eating dinner, & shopping), who otherwise would not come? If the city has no idea, why not? Does the City know how many young families have moved into Brentwood, as a result of Brentwood Soccer Club? If the city has no idea, why not? Does the City allow Blaze football to count cheerleaders towards its residency numbers? If so, is there any reason Brentwood Soccer club wouldn't add cheerleaders to meet their numbers? Has the City mentioned that the other Service 1 Providers are struggling to meet their residency numbers? Do the schools with ability based sports who use the fields for free and cut Brentwood players offer an alternative place to play? Answer, NO. However, Between the YMCA & Brentwood Soccer Club, no Brentwood resident is turned away from soccer. Has the City revealed to its Citizens the contents of Resolution 6-91-21 from Williamson County in 1991, referencing the County’s contribution of $1.1m to fund the development of Crockett Park to accommodate the growth of the “County”? Does the public know that the City advised Brentwood Soccer Club in May to proceed with its tryouts, and that they were committed to a reasonable solution after they looked at the numbers? Have they also revealed that the percentage of “registered Brentwood Citizens” before tryouts was only 44%? How does Brentwood Soccer Club meet a 60% residency number if only 44% register. Brentwood Soccer Club made enough cuts to exceed 50%. Does that mean anything to the City? For the Children of All Soccer Skill Sets, let the Adults be Reasonable and find a Solution. By: Keepersrule on 9/6/10
Having children that play multiple sports throughout Williamson county has given me the opportunity to see that not all cities or communities treat their youth sport organizations the same way. For instance, if a child from Brentwood wants to play at the Franklin Baseball club or on one of its select teams the city does not charge that child a tax to play at the local complex in Franklin. When a baseball team from Spring Hill plays teams at Granny White Park they are not charged an out-of-city fee. When a soccer player from Maury county wants to play at TNFC the county does not administer a fee for his chance to play. The focus should be how to eliminate the fees or reduce them. Thus, preventing other cities or counties from taking the same view as the city of Brentwood, and charging fees to keep "outsiders" away from their parks. By: soccerfav on 9/6/10
I am a BW resident and a BWSC parent. I see both sides of this argument. I have a proposal, but first we need to understand the driving forces behind both arguments. 1. The Brentwood soccer club due to their organizational success in recent years has attracted more non-Brentwood residents at both the U12 below level and the U13 and above levels. 2. The Brentwood soccer club has had a positive impact to many of its Brentwood citizens and provides to many Brentwood youth opportunities to gain skills, get fit, and enjoy all the positive benefits of youth sports. The club has been an unofficial “ambassador” and “representative” of the city while playing against other clubs across the state and outside the state. From a financial perspective, its two tournaments provide some tourism dollars to the City of Brentwood, as well as additional funds directly to the City for the use of the fields. 3. The Brentwood soccer club is a competitive club and has aspirations to be nationally recognized in its mission statement. As others have mentioned, placing residency restrictions on each team, goes against the philosophy of selecting the best players based on their ability and not on where they live. I do not want my club to have quotas based on anything but ability to play the game. 4. The City of Brentwood has an obligation to its citizens to provide parks and recreation services to its own citizens over those non-residents who do not pay city taxes. In order to preserve the rights of its citizens who help pay for the fields through taxes, the City has set up a tiered structure on who gets field scheduling priority as well what organization gets additional fees for non-residents. Currently we have Category I and Category II service providers which have preferential scheduling over outside rentals. Category 1: (YMCA, Brentwood Blaze, etc.) U12 and below Min. 75% City residents U13 and above Min 60% City residents Category 2: (BWSC) U12 and below Min. 60% City residents U13 and above Min. 50% each age group level PROPOSAL: For field rental situations, the rental fees for a 2 hour block need to be on a more graduated scale. This new fee structure should be applied to all groups that may want to use the fields. This way, the more Brentwood citizens are on a team, the cheaper the rate charged. For organizations with multiple teams, percentages should be calculated by individual team. (after tryouts for ex.) % BW residents on team Rental Fee $ (No lights) Rental Fee $(Lights) ------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------ 60-100% 0 0 50-59% 10 20 40-49% 20 40 25-39% 40 80 0-24% 50 100 So in the case where a team has only 40% City residents, it would have to pay $40 for a two hour slot (lighted field). Assuming a 7 month season (56 practices), The team cost would be $2240. Divided by an estimated 15/team roster and you get almost $150 per player. Determining what organization get priority scheduling could be done in a similar way based on individual team percentages. Of course, I would like to see the City acknowledge some of the good that the BWSC gives to the community and continue to provide it priority scheduling over outside rentals. If a team has a high percentage of non-residents, then maybe the BWSC club should look at other field options other than in Brentwood. It seems to me that there are a lot of private and public schools in the area with excess field capacity. If BWSC is truly a “feeder” to Brentwood schools like Brentwood high school, and Ravenwood, why can’t BWSC establish a relationship with these schools in order to get additional field time? I am also curious how other travel select soccer clubs work with their communities. How much does TNFC pay for its fields (Cheek Park and the Rec Center) that are maintained by Williamson County? It seems to me right now, that the only winner in this is TNFC. By: et22720 on 9/17/10
I am a Brentwood resident with 3 children in the club. I have two related but distinct points that I want to make here. 1) I believe that favoring an athlete over another by religion, race, color, financial status or residency is wrong! If you choose to participate in competitive sports, as a first step you must be ready to compete for a spot in a roster. The coach should pick who he/she wants based on their own criteria –unimpeded by trivial politics that have nothing to do with playing soccer. If the kid wants to commute from Mars and he can play soccer I would welcome him to the BWSC. Parents that want to secure a spot in a roster for their children using artificial and political means are doing their children a disservice. They are simply limiting their child’s ability to grow on their own – a much needed life skill. 2) The city of Brentwood has a point. It must somehow assess a fee to non-Brentwood residents to use their facilities. So, I suggest that BWSC plans for the worst –i.e. Category 99 - Pay full price for the fields! (if there is such a category) . Who cares anymore… If the club wants to be successful by providing the best coaching and best competitive soccer for the children of middle Tennessee –which it has been doing successfully for the past few years, let’s go ahead and not expect preferential treatment from the city. At the same time the BWSC must invite everyone in middle TN to try out for the club. Let’s continue to recruit the best players wherever they are from…during the proper recruiting period, of course…you don’t want to ruffle any more feathers. Finally and most importantly, the club must drop the Brentwood name. Let’s call it something else. After all, these 50 teams of skilled, wonderful children, outstanding coaches, and (mostly) well behaved parents, travel across all the USA, as ambassadors to middle TN. The name of our club is being heard and admired by teams we compete against from Florida to the Carolinas. From Indiana to Mississippi everyone pays attention to our club. So let’s stop the free advertising to the city of Brentwood. As the city has effectively asserted nothing in life is “Free”. Better yet, the club should find a partner that will be willing to pay a fee for the naming rights of the club. Who knows maybe the city of Brentwood may be interested in purchasing it back. $20k a year sounds like a fair price to me…don’t you think? Login and voice your opinion! | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Email
Print
| Advertisements | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
