Changes afoot south of the Fraser

[4_the_kids]

I think the challenge with smaller more geographical leagues is most areas are not big enough with the exception of Surrey , and Vancouver
Look at District 5 U13 Div1 from last year 17 teams , if i try and make this 2 8/9 team leagues based on geography I am left with :
Group 1: PUFC, CFC, NDS, SUSC, CFC, CCB, SFC, SUSC and South Delta. 9 teams all pretty close to each other, south Delta being the only real outlier.
Group 2: PMO, AMF, CMF, LUSC, PCE, MFC, AFC, AMF = 8 teams from Tricities , Langley , Abbotsford and Mission.+
For Langley average travel time 25+mins, traveling 27+km compared to 11 mins and 18 km for the 3 three newton based clubs in Group A ...or 25 mins and 28 km for South Delta
So it works great for some not so well for others....
I don't mind the travel providing the competition is good, traveling 45 mins to beat a team or lose to a team 8-0 is a waste of time for all.
More than anything we need better tier placement of all teams. ..when I look at the standings for this division as an example it could easily be a 8-10 team league as previously discussed.
Div 4 seems to have the best opportunity for smaller more district based leagues..

 

[TKBC]

In our country (and in any league) you'll have outliers that have a bit more travel than the rest. So be it. I live at the far end of the valley and there will always be travel. Such is life. But, like you, have no interest in driving 45-90 minutes (one-way!) to win or lose by a big score. Also, why drive 45-90 minutes 1 way when you can drive 20-35 minutes one-way and get the same level of competition. Playing repeat opponents is fine. Especially the travel consideration should be made for kids age 14 and under. As the kids get older there tends to be less teams (except in my teams case that had 16+ teams even in u17) so you will have bigger travel times to find oppo at your level of play. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

I stand by leagues of 7-8 teams. Less travel. Can re-tier after the first round of games.

 

[easoccer]

If the ideal is smaller divisions then I have no idea why they changed it from G1/G2, S1/S2, B1/B2 and B3 for house. Like District 4 is set up. And in District 4 there is ongoing assessments of the divisions so the divisions are competitive.

And if you have enough teams to keep it local, then so be it. Div 1 North, Div 1 South. If not combine.

 

[TKBC]

Well it wasn't me who changed it from G1/G2 to just 1 Gold! Who knows why they did that.

 

[WTF]

SMSA will prob not favour this option as they lose their power which they have used unfairly at times [ Example -suspension on CCB] . Going under the the new District set-up will make things very fair & transparent

Post in another topic by Lastman :
"South Fraser District will help to diminish the control within the SMSA and hopefully the district can get back to serving the players rather than their own egos.

It's funny how the same club - BCTigers was involved in the whole saga with CCB but yet were the ones getting the benefit of the Spring/Summer players once CCB was suspended and now the same club BCTigers is involved in the fiasco with PUFC "

 

[TKBC]

Well hopefully this opens the door for other districts to merge and then the idea is that everyone really truly starts working together. Fraser Valley and Alouette come to mind, Richmond joining someone else also comes to mind.

 

[socceroo]

The Governance Model implemented by the Clubs who make the districts is what matters and will decide how well the district will work.

Whether you 3 , 6, 10 clubs the model maketh the operational side of the district.

The culture of the group will decide the essence of the District.

It is no different than running a Company.

Hopefully BC Soccer will provide the Governance Model and the Clubs that make the District choose board that are independent of Club executive.

I do know that sometimes it is hard to find people to sit on boards that are not tied to Clubs but coming up with ratio of independent board members versus related party board members will be key to how political the comiittee's are.

I do see how volatile the districts can be in some city's but it is doable.

 

[CanadianSpur]

Does anyone know what district or governing body Metro Select teams and BCSPL teams fall under. There are teams of joint ventures that are not mentioned under any specific district:
Fusion FC
Mountain United
Fraser Valley Selects
Surrey Guildford United
Delta Coastal Selects
To name a few...

I believe BCSPL clubs are not bound to districts but register their players directly with BC Soccer

 

[TKBC]

I believe BCSPL clubs are not bound to districts but register their players directly with BC Soccer

I don't know where the players themselves are registered, but you are correct the BCSPL teams have open boundaries (as every club should at every level). Open boundaries at BCSPL is absolutely the right decision, and the same decision should be made for all levels. If your club isn't providing a family with appropriate services there should be an alternative in which your options are not restricted. In that way the cream would rise to the top. The top clubs would be those providing the best service and word of mouth (and on-field performances) would attract more and more families. Others would have to match that service or fade away (or provide a lower level of service - nothing wrong with that. Not every club can provide "elite" soccer).

But, most cities themselves, if not all, have rules about percentage of kids using their facilities that must be from their city. I think this issue came up in Langley and the outcome may have been that most of LFC's players were from Langley in the club as a whole, so the presence of non-Langley kids on the FVP teams didn't throw off the ratio enough. But, I can completely understand the concern with non-residents impacting residents access to facilities.

 

[CanadianSpur]

We have that issue in the Tri-cities but the ratio of individual teams are not considered, it is the overall club registration. The younger age groups enrollment is predominantly local so the ratios are easy to maintain.

 

[easoccer]

There needs to be catchments or district boundaries. If not then there needs to be specific transfer rules in place to restrict full teams from moving. An individual player fine, but if there werent rules in place there would be huge movement and full team poaching on a regular basis.

 

[TKBC]

There needs to be catchments or district boundaries. If not then there needs to be specific transfer rules in place to restrict full teams from moving. An individual player fine, but if there weren't rules in place there would be huge movement and full team poaching on a regular basis.

I doubt it would be as big an issue as some might think. In a place like Surrey, yes, but it's my understanding that happens now. If a "whole team" is leaving a club, the club needs to examine what kind of services it's providing, and they'll be more accountable, but also if "whole teams" are leaving then do you really want that group to be a part of your club anyway?

 

[4_the_kids]

I doubt it would be as big an issue as some might think. In a place like Surrey, yes, but it's my understanding that happens now. If a "whole team" is leaving a club, the club needs to examine what kind of services it's providing, and they'll be more accountable, but also if "whole teams" are leaving then do you really want that group to be a part of your club anyway?

In Surrey whole teams leave because the needs of the teams are not being met. Usually that means the team wants to control who coaches, the player selection, training times, they want technical coaches or the ability to pay for technical coaches but they absolutely do not want o buy into any club program. They keep their kids frothe try outs to keep their teams together etc... Quality programming, boundaries etc none it matters it doesn't change those egos... eventually these coaches or managers running these teams get exposed for what they are but in the mean time they create lots of problems. Most clubs won't allow these teams to play at higher levels without going through the evals... they keep shopping around until they find one that will... I have even seen a coach fighting with club executives because their star player went to evals and got selected to a rep/ select team and the existing team lost this player as a result, well that coach felt the club had poached his player...
I have no idea how unique this is to the Newton area but if you can think it , it happens in this area particular in the last few years and its stronger in some age groups than others. Slowly it is getting broken down but its a long road...
Parents / families leaving Newton clubs leave the BS caused by these teams more than anything else, and most do not want to be stereotyped by the community they play in...

 

[easoccer]

It works in all directions. Unhappy parents. unhappy clubs, unhappy coaches. Parents pulling kids, coaches moving teams, clubs taking teams away. And everyone is doing it for their own agendas. Rarely for the player(s).

Sometimes I wish I was just a parent, ignorant to this whole mess..

 

[4_the_kids]

Sometimes I wish I was just a parent, ignorant to this whole mess..

I am with you on that... though i will say switching to a club out of Newton has been a way less stressful and my kids are 100x happier .....

 

[socceroo]

From the reads and sound of above it appears Newton based Clubs created their own head ache.

The drive for numbers is probably allowing teams and parents to negotiate their way into system. Thus systemic problem.

The price points are same for SFC and CCB, PUFC has more aggressive pricing though.
Then the next is level of service - which is subjective.(uniform, gears, accessibility etc)
Then is devlopment program at club, team and player level.

What would be another element other than above?

perhaps; Clubs cutting individual deals with coaches (teams) and on faulty promises.

Parents today are smarter and move on to better organized clubs as they get to 11, 12, 13.

 

[TKBC]

It works in all directions. Unhappy parents. unhappy clubs, unhappy coaches. Parents pulling kids, coaches moving teams, clubs taking teams away. And everyone is doing it for their own agendas. Rarely for the player(s).

Sometimes I wish I was just a parent, ignorant to this whole mess..

Glad I live in a one-club town that works really well together with the parents, players, and coaches!

 

[4_the_kids]

Glad I live in a one-club town that works really well together with the parents, players, and coaches!

Its unfortunate that politics are always part of organized sport, and its saddening when it comes to youth sport. Sometimes options are good, sometimes it only creates more problems.
The issues in Newton speak to a much larger issue in that community that goes far beyond the world of youth soccer, that is for another forum ...

 

[rich]

Glad I live in a one-club town that works really well together with the parents, players, and coaches!

Same here, any petty squabbles are settled quickly. Sure, every club has their egos, their "cowboy coaches"...we're lucky enough to have decent communication lines btwn club exec, tech staff, coaches, and parents. Could it be better? Of course. Working on it!!

 

[easoccer]

Same here, any petty squabbles are settled quickly. Sure, every club has their egos, their "cowboy coaches"...we're lucky enough to have decent communication lines btwn club exec, tech staff, coaches, and parents. Could it be better? Of course. Working on it!!

How do you think that will play out with the merging of Tsawwassen and Ladner? Smooth sailing or growing pains?