Also, coaches don't move teams. Coaches say "I want our team to join So-and-so club as a group." Parents then agree to register their kids at another team.
Changes afoot south of the Fraser
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Also, coaches don't move teams. Coaches say "I want our team to join So-and-so club as a group." Parents then agree to register their kids at another team.
District boundaries are governed by the BCSA Constitution. Any change to that (such as a merger) requires it be passed by the majority of the BCSA Members. It just needs to be proposed as a constitutional amendment. Whether it needs the approval of the districts involved prior to that, I am not certain. It would be sensible practice, but by letter of the law (the Constitution) it's not required. So with some politicking and garnering support amongst the membership, BCSA could conceivably force a merger (or dissolution of two districts and creation of one) without the consent of these clubs who supposedly would be against it.
I'm not sure why the clubs would be against it, since it's just aligning the boys with the girls (South District). I know from my experience on club boards, having boys and girls operating in different pathways is a nightmare. Never mind the fact, your club has to deal with two district boards, not just one (which is one too many anyhow!).
I'm not sure why the clubs would be against it, since it's just aligning the boys with the girls (South District). I know from my experience on club boards, having boys and girls operating in different pathways is a nightmare. Never mind the fact, your club has to deal with two district boards, not just one (which is one too many anyhow!).
SoccerMom
Member
- Jan 27, 2016
- 30
A friend told me SDGSA had a vote to accept District 1 and it was voted down. CCB was the only club who voted in favour.
SoccerMom
Member
- Jan 27, 2016
- 30
I think the name for the new district BC soccer is trying to create.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
District 1 is SMSA
I've never heard that the individual districts have numbers. I've heard of D4 and 5 which cover the Lower Mainland as a whole. I always assumed places like Okanagan, Van Island etc made up the other numbers D1-3 etc.
For the smaller districts like SMSA, FVYSA etc I've heard of them being given numbers....I've never checked. So now my interest is peaked and I'll check the FVYSA web site and see if it has a number associated.
I think it would be quite confusing if there was a D4 and 5 representing larger regions and then there is also a smaller district numbered 4 or 5....it's already confusing enough that Surrey is a district, but is also within a larger district.....(lol they need to change some of these descriptors!!)
rich
Active Member
- Aug 20, 2015
- 291
5 District is the league that the districts of Delta, Surrey, Alouette, Fraser Valley and Tri-Cities (??) play in. I think 4 District is the same. BC Soccer has proposed the new district be named South Fraser. If there's a way to make it more confusing...let's find it.... 
Its been mentioned on this forum and by people around the fields now that CCB is in favour of the merger while SFC , SU , BC TIGERS PUFC are against it .
Why would these 3 clubs oppose a merger that will help address the problems/politics within Surrey/Newton soccer and SMSA ??
5 District is the league that the districts of Delta, Surrey, Alouette, Fraser Valley and Tri-Cities (??) play in. I think 4 District is the same. BC Soccer has proposed the new district be named South Fraser. If there's a way to make it more confusing...let's find it....
LOL, right?
SoccerMom
Member
- Jan 27, 2016
- 30
Actually....
Ladner, Tsawwassen, Surdel, Coastal, Guilford, Pacific United, SFC, Surrey United all voted against it.
The only club not represented in this vote that would be effected by this merger is North Delta.
But if Ladner, Tsawwassen, and Coastal voted NO at SDGSA you would think their vote would be the same at the DYSA vote.
SMSA would be in the same boat.
So the real question is why did CCB vote in favour when every other club had issues and voted NO.
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
I believe the suggestion by BC Soccer is merging DYSA AND SMSA which would only represent the boys . but its confusing trying to figure who is what district.
South District already includes all those clubs. so it would not represent any change for them , i don't know why they would even vote on it. i don't think things on the girls side with south district are as dysfunctional as on the boys side, in particular with SMSA.
South District already includes all those clubs. so it would not represent any change for them , i don't know why they would even vote on it. i don't think things on the girls side with south district are as dysfunctional as on the boys side, in particular with SMSA.
rich
Active Member
- Aug 20, 2015
- 291
4_the_kids
Active Member
- Oct 20, 2015
- 312
well that makes some sense. I see little benefit for South District to merge itself with the boys side. The boys side needs to be merged though...
LFC
Active Member
- Aug 23, 2015
- 314
The proposed merger would be great for Surrey soccer and would go some way towards resolving the petty politics at NAP and SMSA .
4-the-kids - The SMSA chair is a USSL director and was one of the main guys of the BC TIGERS/CCB for the last few yrs and moved to Surrey Youth last year.
Another SMSA Executive is Chair of USSL and on the Surrey Youth committee and listed as Vice President of Temple Utd summer club.
SMSA Executive Committee
That,s a lot of conflicts of interest
The only way for a fair and transparent system in Newton/ Surrey is to merge the SMSA with Delta.
The situation in Newton/Surrey is different from any other District and there are so many conflicts of interest as shown above. Its all about control & power and that needs to be taken away from people like above and when that happens it will improve the situation in Newton/Surrey soccer and merging with Delta will make it even better.