[quote=Anonymous]It’s been one week since I looked atthis thread and it’s the same crap. . But for the record., BUD - 2 middis went to 2 way along with 1 attackman. 1 defenseman left for 2 way. But honestly who gives a flying F. Move on. Daddy coaches on any team at any sport is never a good thing. It doesn’t matter who, what, where It’s a common theme in youth athletics. And it’s a common theme it seems on every forum at every age group on this website. It’s youth sports Not every program is a good fit for every kid , coach or parent. Luckily every parent here has an option. To leave. Pt 24 happens to be a very tricky situation. You have kids that play box for Roy, kids who play field for Roy. Dads who coach box who’s kids play field for pt. You have coaches who’s kids play on pt older teams . Kids playing one or the other or both teams for free. Kids that play town for Daniello So you can see it could be massive conflicts of interest with no checks and balances. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain not being realistic.
Compared to the Yorktown situation, the PT conflict of interest situation is nothing. So, you should count yourselves fortunate.
Big difference. Parents pay to play for PT. Only to have the director stand up in front of all parents and say otherwise about dad ball and connected people . Totally two faced and full of it.
Some parents do not pay. Which instills loyalty to those parents. Those parents are not paying so they can't complain. If a kid wants his left attack spot back and the coaches kid is in that spot then there is no way that is ever going to happen and there is nothing that parent can say about it because their kid is playing for free. It's also about control. And they need parents they can control. Everyone is getting something out if it. Free tuition, free coaches, free fields at JJ that lewisboro residents pay and PT a for profit organization is using for free and they don't want parents who are vocal about these issues for obvious reasons