North Shore – Burnaby (now Mtn United FC) name BCPL coaches


A lot of Mountain FC coaches popping up as MUFC BCPL coaches by the looks of it. First out of the gate to name a full roster of coaches so good for them. Congratulations to Amy Vermeulen who will be working with me on my Coastal U14 Girls Y League team this season.

Nice of Surrey United to post tryout dates…but no mention of coaches yet.
Mountain United FC – Technical Staff

Technical Director Frank Ciaccia
Head Coach – Girls Jesse Symons
Head Coach – Boys Andrea Agnoloni

Team Coaches

U13 Girls Amy Vermeulen & Ying Ying (Shine) Sun (Co-coaches)
U14 Girls Jeff Hodgson
U15 Girls Marcelo Zuge
U16 Girls Jesse Symons
U17/18 Girls Lee Tregonning

U13 Boys Ruben Castelblanco
U14 Boys Justin Thompson
U15 Boys Elio Ciaccia
U16 Boys Andrea Agnoloni
U17/18 Boys Tony Francisco

This entry was posted in BCPL, Coaching and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to North Shore – Burnaby (now Mtn United FC) name BCPL coaches

  1. K says:

    Love the acronym.

  2. K says:

    I was wondering if they would switch to black socks!

  3. Canadian Spur says:

    I’m more interested in what they are going to charge than what they will wear.

  4. Colin Elmes says:

    so now we have tryouts without coaches named and coaches named without cost. Does anyone here need a lesson on the free enterprise system of soccer here in the lower mainland?

    • K says:

      we’re just poking a bit of fun at their team acronym. Yes, there are more important issues.

      Maybe VR can go with an All-White kit and pretend to be Madrid? Just kidding around of course. Mountain United FC is actually a perfectly logical name considering the area.

    • Canadian Spur says:

      Obviously they do a little help. How hard is it to communicate the details of your program? Didn’t they have to supply a budget with their application? While I appreciate that you couldn’t enter into contracts with your coaches until the franchise was awarded, other than tryout dates, everything else should have been basicallly figured out when the application was submitted. And why are we getting info from TTP. Where is the official communication of these coaches?

    • Larry says:

      I think some HPL Clubs are scrambling to get things done and worried players will run to the first HPL tryout available, that they are not paying attention to business fundamentals such as branding, image, communications (i.e. websites), price, organizational structure, vision and strategy. Then during the execution of the plan, layer and stage the delivery of these items in the right order to the potential customer base and make an impact.

    • Coachrich says:

      This is a good exercise for the status quo as it’s forcing them to be business like by packaging their services to potential new members. If they fail the BCSA and the BCPL will have to face up to the negatives of not being business like.

      Of interest to me personally, is 4 years ago I suggested to the BCSA to have a certification or similar programs for club/district admins and key BOD’s. The program was to teach them how to run a club/districts so they could help guide a volunteers and other staff through the hoops of sport being business.

  5. Gregor says:

    Bits n bobs:

    *Heard Surrey United have several coaches in place and will be putting that out soon.
    *VR have extended their reg deadline for U13 but still don’t have fields/times. They approached, through an intermediary, Steve K and I about getting some turf at UBC for tryouts. We suggested they just contact UBC…
    *VR U13 boys numbers are healthy in terms of tryout numbers. Not so much on the girls side…
    *Several BCPL franchises expressing frustration/stress with trying to get this off the ground in such a short time frame now that they have franchises.

    • MJ says:

      Market research and communication strategies:

      We are talking 12 year old girls– do they actually want to play soccer for 9-10 months of the year? Do rank and file parents know what this is all about? They will need to appreciate the difference between 20 games of Gold with their local club for $300, and 22 games all over the place for $2500.

      I’m also interested to see how the Metro programs pitch their $1000 programs now that many of the players, coaches and TD’s have moved on….

      • Canadian Spur says:

        I’m waiting to see what MSL fees look like this year. Should be basically the same as Gold but I’m sure some clubs will charge a lot more.

  6. Julie says:

    Where did Surrey United post their tryout dates? I can’t find any info online. Thanks for passing along all this info on HPL.

    • Canadian Spur says:

      Heard a rumour that Surrey United didn’t include any cost for their technical director in their HPL cost. I guess the rest of the club is effectively subsidizing their HPL franchise. If this is true then I’m sure there will be some parents questioning the non-HPL fees.

      • Gregor says:

        How about Surrey United charging $10 for BCPL evaluations for their own players but $20 if they didn’t play at Surrey United or Guildford this past season! Not exactly building bridges there Clarkey 😉

      • southofthefraser says:

        The government is building Surrey United a bridge (and a freeway) right to Cloverdale Athletic Park. ‘…just 20 short minutes from anywhere.’

      • Gregor says:

        Do the bridge and highway have tolls? $10 for Surrey United players and $20 if you’re an ‘outsider’ 😉

  7. Hank says:

    Where does one find out registration info for Vancouver/Richmond or any of these sites? How are the kids (and most of the parents) supposed to know?

    There is nothing on the site and it’s pretty limited at as well. South Fraser has but really that’s only about a meeting.

    In Vancouver Selects program, none of the kids or parents have been formally presented with any info to form any opinions. Lots of unknowns. Scrambling indeed!

  8. Bruce says:

    Free Enterprise n.: The freedom of private businesses to operate competitively for profit with minimal government regulation; conducting business primarily according to the laws of supply and demand. N/A applicable within the context of BCSA.

    A complete model for soccer development in BC is still missing. The LTPD very abstract; it is not a model. There is no implementation plan at CSA or BCSA. It has been decided to build a penthouse (BCPL), the penthouse is being built with only the vaguest outline in place, and it’s being placed on top of a structure that we’re not sure can properly support the penthouse.

    The award process has lead us to where we are today with newly envisioned clubs being awarded franchises seemingly based primarily on geographic player based and community club support. Neighbouring districts appear to have been pressured to join with each other or be left completely out in the cold. I imagine the newly formed clubs are busting a hump to get their act together and are likely revisiting many of the points made in their proposals… another reason why it’s unlikely most proposals will ever be made public.

    I’m glad there is a drive to improve youth soccer development in BC and I think the BCPL is generally a good idea, event though is was jammed into place via pressure from MLS & the Whitecaps, but it certainly wasn’t well thought out. Where’s the plan? Is there a plan? Could it or should it include elements of free enterprise or a market economy?

    I guess as long as there’s no plan, there’s no worry about accountability. We just end up where ever we end up.

    • scott says:

      It has been decided to build a penthouse (BCPL), the penthouse is being built with only the vaguest outline in place, and it’s being placed on top of a structure that we’re not sure can properly support the penthouse.

      Very well said.

  9. Colin Elmes says:

    Sportstown FC would have announced their rosters by now 😉

  10. Coachrich says:

    What’ going to be interesting about these new BCPL clubs is their 1st AGM as the present BOD’s and staff could be considered as interim BODs and staff. Hence some clubs might find after the AGM that things are quite different. If everyone was being guided to the same page things might be better as I suggested here –

    This BCPL model is not the best when compared to BC Hockey Junior A and B levels. BCPL clubs can never have owners like these hockey levels but only members.

    • Canadian Spur says:


      I’m not sure how the partnership BCPL clubs are set-up. Are they Not For Profit Societies like the commuity clubs with the player/parents as members or are they just partnerships amongst exisiting NFP clubs with BOD accountability only back to the member clubs. I beleive the initial BOD for BCPL clubs like MUFC was created from each partner club providing a director (correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t imagine that they would have had time to create and approve a constitution under the Society Act.

      • Coachrich says:

        I was told by a committee member that the BCPL clubs are to be membership run and based. This to me makes sense as the Charter Club refers to club membership. Also, youth clubs in the CSA context also means the same when it comes to the amateur side of the sport. CSA exceptions are Pro clubs and For Profit academies where clubs have owners and no membership.

        My understanding is in the beginning there can be proponents or a reg’ed NPO that only has the basic corporate requirements ie: Executive Officers. Down the road they need to make the transition into proper membership voted BOD. Why?

        1. So there are no political and financial connections between BCPL clubs and existing clubs and districts.

        2. Club members of existing clubs where not afforded a vote at a SGM or AGM to give their existing BOD the mandate to form or be partners in BCPL clubs.

        3. Clubs and districts should not be subsidizing other clubs, district clubs, districts or making large capital expenses without the membership knowing and having voted.

        Comparison cases in point –
        – NSGSC let their membership vote at a SGM to get approval on their bubble. Good.
        – VYSA subsidizes MSL and then VFC $20K annually without club members of the 11 district clubs voting or knowing that about $2.00 per player out of their club reg fee subsidizes MSL programs or now a district club. Very questionable.

  11. mj2 says:

    It kind of makes you wonder what went into all the bids. For example, Van/Rich stated in their bid that the UBC fields “including thunderbird stadium” would be part of their field inventory (which also included Trillium or whatever its called which I thought had been given to adult users). Here they are scrambling around to get a field for a tryout and leaning on west side clubs for help. Additionally, the current two u13 coaches were not in the bid. Anyway, hopefully somebody at the HPL headquarters can create some degree of consistency and colloboration between clubs in making all these announcements otherwise we might as well declare complete and open season … the glorious 12th…. winner takes all.
    For parents and players. Do you hang on to see if the cots factors vary that much. Will the VR $2500 fee is hold up aganist the rumored $2000 in Surrey or ??? from South Fraser.

  12. Colin Elmes says:

    I will rent them Sportstown for a fee……

    Really, everyone, what did you actually expect with timelines and too many people involved with each of these entities. This was very easily predicted from my perch.

    Chaos has just begun. Without strong leadership sitting over the top of this whole process it was always headed this way. For the sake of the game I hope it all comes clean here soon. I am frankly tired of trying to keep up with it all(with limited info) and have had many of our Members coming to us for direction and advice on what they should be doing for their kids.

    We are set for our(Sportstown FC) feedback session this Thursday at BCSA offices with Paul Mullen, Steve Allen and Mike Findlay. I will gladly fill you all in afterwards when we are done.

  13. Colin Elmes says:

    Sorry, I meant Thursday March 10th

  14. Soccer Xtremist says:

    These “entities” are destined for disaster. This was attempted years ago when the Whitecaps tried to off-load SYL programming – which led to Coastal, Mountain, etc. There’s a leadership vacuum at the top of these entities. Where is the accountability? Is a club’s support for their entity concrete, or tied by a loose thread? In reality, for example, NSGSC’s support of MUFC (roll eyes) is at the whim of a parent board. If said parents’ little Johnnys and Susies don’t make the HPL, do they revolt and support Van-Rich? It’s a Pandora’s Box, and I’m not sure the long-term ramifications have been worked out. (More questions on that later.)

    In the meantime, I feel Surrey United, Coqitlam M-F, and even Abbotsford to some extent, have a significant leg up because they are already existing club with infrastructure and access to resources. For the life of me, I just don’t understand why the Van-Rich group just didn’t throw their massive demographic behind the Sportstown bid.

    Now as for the future of this BCPL world. I have two questions. Let me start by saying that I 100% support the BCPL concept. But there needed to be more forethought. And I think the soccer community needs some answers. The two questions I have are:

    (1) What have they decided to do with U18, since the 10-month schedule would take U18’s through the fall of their first year of university? I have heard rumours of a shortened U18 season. But just rumours.

    (2) Is there a plan to add clubs? I ask that because rumours abound that Langely Boys are planning to be BCPL in the future. And the Pacific Athletic group (the abomination of a partnership between Pitt/GEUSC and Central City Breakers) is publiclt stating their plan to move forward with BCPL style programming. Are these groups doing this because they expect expansion in 12-24 months? Or will failing clubs be dropped? If they’re going to add franchises, doesn’t that lead us down the slipper slope of watering down the talent, the whole reason this HPL thing started in the first place?

    Food for thought. But there just seems to be a whole lot of questions. Not alot of answers.

  15. Colin Elmes says:

    U18 stuff is a train wreck for sure. One of our TSS parents asked from their Club an initial HPL committee member (and their teams coach) what exactly were the plans for the grade 12 players. This person responded ” I cannot answer that question at this time”. This was a couple of days ago. When are they going to answer it? Who is going to answer it?

    Adding Clubs- well, you know that the two entities left out( Sportstown FC discluded) will be anticipating this sometime in the future- my bet is there are 10 teams within 36 months and one of the main objectives of this entire HPL concept will fall away quietly.

  16. m says:

    I said it before and I will say it again… This league will come and go faster than the Vancouver grizzlies.
    You will have tier 2 teams stronger than BCPL teams due to cost as well as local areas wanting to stay together.
    You will see relationships crumble..
    Langley and Abby come to mind first as they won’t field strong enough teams which is already evident in current metro standings.
    You will watch sfc continue to be P..sed off as they didn’t get a franchise.
    I still want to see all the other bids… Sportstown fc was one I liked as it was laid out for everyone to see and understand.
    Will the island and interior be able to produce teams at every age group and will they lose their franchise if they don’t field a team in any one?
    No one knows what will happen with the u18 age group and lets be honest, the u13 age group just came off the small field and you now want them paying over $2000 for a season that interferes with the other sports they love to play.
    How much time and space do you guys want me to use up here cuz i can keep going.

  17. Colin Elmes says:

    M- let it rip

  18. K says:

    The u18 issue isn’t such a big one, in my opinion. Keep in mind it is a combination of ages. Also keep in mind not all u18-aged kids are going to up and leave soccer/the community come September of their u18 season. Carry a larger squad and adapt as necessary/appropriate. Carry extras for a tournament team over the summer who then move into the BCPL team in September as appropriate. Bring in MSL players to supplement the BCPL team at the u18 level over the summer. Loan the extra players out to a PCSL team potentially at the u21 level….? etc etc etc etc.

  19. Colin Elmes says:

    K- you are just looking at it from the Clubs perspective.
    Universities recruit Nov to March- low and behold these players are not playing in this period…… Plus I believe the lens you are looking through does not consider the female side of this equation very well- where the only realistic goal for them is college/university
    So these players in grade 12, who have been dedicated to playing soccer in this Province since they were 6 get to finish their youth soccer on bloated rosters( what do they pay?)
    where they are being used as mentors to U17 kids?

    Why dont you ask a parent of one of these likely University bound players what they think of your plan?

  20. Canadian Spur says:

    As a parent of a ’94 I hate what is happening with the combined U17-U18 age group both in the BCPL and as I now understand also in the MSL. My Daughter is very concerned that she may not have the opportunity to play at the top level as she has for many years as she hears all the talk that the coaches will fill their rosters with ’95s at the expense of the ’94s. She also hates that the team she has played with for many years may be forced to break-up due to these changes…This is s big deal for girls.

  21. Colin Elmes says:

    Spur- without a doubt. lots of unhappy faces here. and no clear plan on how to deal with it(yet). feel free to contact me on this by email….

  22. MJ says:

    As disruptive as it is, I would think the 94s have it the simplest as it would seem best to retain their teams for a traditional season of U18 Metro/Gold etc. rather than bother with the HPL.

    The situation for 95s (and younger) is far messier as they could be finished their HPL U17 season half way through Grade 12 with no obvious option for the remainder of the season. Not sure how the system will be able to absorb 6 teams of players in November of the U18 season.

    • Canadian Spur says:

      MJ – If MSL is also combining U17 and U18 and is restricting the number of teams then there is no guarantee that these temas will be accepted in tier 2. For girls who have played in top tier for thier entire youth playing career the thought of now playing in tier 3 in not very appealing.

      The 95’s don’t have a problem this year as the current scheduling talk is that the U18 division will play September thru November 2011 ( mini season) and March thru July 2012 (first competition phase) and then play from September through November 2012 (second competition phase).

      • Phil Hernandez says:

        In the same way that there is an entrance strategy (a perennial mini-season) for players transitioning from U12 to U13, the league will have to develop an exit strategy for the U18s.

        Of course it is complicated by the fact that U17s and U18s will be combined into one level/set of teams. But let’s say that in the same way that U12s will play a PL mini-season during the second competition phase (Aug-Nov) of the year in which they finish community U12, U18s would play a PL mini-season during the first competition phase (Mar-Jun) of the year in which they would have finished U18 under the other calendar. In effect, this means there would be six levels of PL and not five but the truth is that this is already the case: every year after this one, the incoming U12s have to be coached and managed in the fall as separate (eleventh and twelfth) teams. What I am suggesting extends that concept to the other end of the spectrum but at a different time of the year (so as not to have to deal with a seventh level.) In this way, the U18s would not play together with the U17s. And they would only play half a season. The half-season they don’t play is exactly the one that most of are thinking they wouldn’t have played anyway because it overlaps their first post-secondary semester.

        Here is another scheme that does not increase the number of coaches/teams required: Combine U16 and U17 instead of U17 and U18. Make U18 a half-year program only (as above). Yes I know it transfers the roster selection problem one year lower, but it allows for a more “graceful” exit from the league.

        From what I understand there are on-going discussion about this issue. Hopefully some helpful information will be forthcoming.


  23. Colin Elmes says:

    Gee, so now we need 96 coaches( or maybe 112). Better water the coach tree today….

    PH- you are starting to sound like an insider. Next someone from MUFC will politely ask you to stop posting

    • Phil Hernandez says:

      Well the truth is we’ve always needed 96 coaching roles because we were always going to have to look after the 16 incoming U12 teams for the mini-season. Somehow this just seemed to get glossed over. The second option listed would only require 80 coaching positions.

      “Insider”? These are just some ideas I’ve had. I don’t think anyone knows what the the league will do. Least of all a back-bencher like me.

      • Mitch says:

        Phil, I think your right nobody has a clue what they are going to do, including the league.

        As parents we all want what is best for our kids, but with so little information being made available to us we are left to guess. It also seems like those of you who are on this blog ( who are heavily involved in the soccer community) don’t have a clue either whats going on. So how is a parent supposed to make heads or tails of this, but we are supposed to just trust that they will work everything out and ” oh, btw that’ll be $2500.00 please” thank you come again…

      • K says:

        Did you guys think to contact one or all of the franchises with some specific questions regarding your son or daughter?

      • Canadian Spur says:


        I’ve asked and most don;t have answers yet as the league rules are finalized for either the MSL of BCPL yet.

  24. G. Gordon Liddy says:

    Just a comment on fees… I know that players in MSL in Richmond are facing $825 for the 2011/2012 season, and the coaches are the same coaches that are currently in place this season. This is almost double what the district charged for the current season. I don’t know how they are justifying the huge jump in fees given there is no change in coaching staff.

    Someone above noted that Van/Richmond had extended the signup period to the end of day March 3rd (today), and there is a link on their website that will take you to a secure page to register. They are charging $20 to try out.

    • Coachrich says:

      Wow, that’s a huge jump and pretty scary to say the least!!! Been expected though as with RGSA not getting their usual $100K in gaming money they have a huge short fall to make up. In years past they had to use $120K of their revenue to cover just their DOO and Head Coach. Also they have plans to build a clubhouses which members have not voted on even though the club socked away $100K into a fund.

      As parents the best thing to do is work as a group and ask questions. Especially of RGSA as they are one of the only clubs that don’t let the parents of the players vote.

  25. mj2 says:

    Coach Rich. Good points but you are just mixing your acronyms a little. The team in question charging $825 is a Richmond Boys team (RYSA). The RGSA is Richmond girls who have to date disclosed very little information to its members. You are correct, recently the RYSA did not get its gaming grant. You are correct that the clubs dod not allow individual members to vote – very middle eastern approac and look what is ahpeening there!! The interesting thing about the RYSA (boys) program in richmond is what they climbed on board with the Van/Rich HPL bid they are doing all they can to keep their players and promote their programs, hence all the announcments of what they are doing ahead of what the vancouver HPL bid announcing what it is doing. Its all very confusing…. or is it?

    • Coachrich says:

      In 2007 guidelines for hiring paid coaches were put in a memo that you can find here –

      As a parent you should be allowed to vote for your son or daughter as it’s a right and it’s something the parents have a right to bring to the attention of BCSA.

      There are many regulations, policies and guidelines in the soccer structure to insure members have rights to point their club in the right direction. Problem comes when clubs don’t communicate these items to the member hence the members/parents have to empower themselves to insure they have a say in how the club is run.

      One of the problems in soccer in Canada is that there are very few clubs that are actually run like membership based clubs. It’s the reason the word serfdom is used so much at every level in the sport.

      Presently clubs are just programs where member pay for that program versus having a annual fee to belong and vote in the club and then decide on a program in the club they want to participate on.

  26. Post apocolypse says:

    Your combination of age groups is an interesting idea, but how do we send a team to the club nationals if only some of the team qualifies?

  27. Optimistic says:

    A couple of comments on the RYSA fees after doing some asking around:

    – The proposed fees include training kits and warm up suits which were not included in previous years. As many boys were buying new kits each year they added the kits in at that level, with that and the previous year fee and the gap is suddenly much closer.
    – Annual inflation…like it or not it happens. Annual pay increases for paid coaches probably take place as well. I work for a living, I like my modest annual increase I would expect that a paid coach would like a modest annual increase as well.
    – The previous two team program at U13,14,16,18 is going away (only one team at 18 last year) and will see a one team program at 13,14,15,16,18. Do the math, two less teams represents a significant loss in registration fees so the balance of the players will pick up some of that difference. Asking around and there seems to be a strong sense that the paid coaching in that program is as good or better than players could receive going to some of the HPL teams or to some of the academy programs and private programs.

    Fortunately I won’t have to worry about HPL costs, my kids aren’t even close to being good enough to even bother trying out. I think I’m a pretty good father so I had that discussion with them already and let them know that we would not be enrolling them in a tryout. Quite truthfully I think the HPL teams should institute a higher assessment fee, partially refundable to successful players and non-refundable to everyone else. Its one thing to support your son or daughters dreams to achieve a higher level but another thing entirely to waste everyones time attending a tryout session for a division that might be two or three tiers above your current level of play. I’m all for positive support of your kids but if you are one of those parents who thinks your kids should try out just for the sake of trying out please reconsider your motivations.

    If my kids were at that level I look at the cost of soccer at its top tier and have no problem with the cost of an HPL registration, I would have to pay close to that for metro registration and a Y league team or private academy so I would much rather pay even a small premium for an “all in one program”. The RYSA program isn’t outrageous if the quality is as high as its reputed to be and for many kids it might prove to be a very good alternative for those HPL calibre players that still want to play another sport (and make no mistake there are lots of them out there that like soccer but when they have to choose between soccer and basketball/hockey/volleyball/baseball,etc,etc choose the other sport first) If our club raised its fees to that level but offered a program that was run at a high level and consistently offered quality coaching I would have no problem paying it.

    With respect to the HPL, its very easy for the establishment and/or those clubs and teams to dismiss the process of selection, the viability of the league, and all that negative rubbish but when push comes to shove if you have a top tier soccer player and want them to play at the highest level possible with a group of other top quality athletes many people can and will find ways to make it work in their budgets. I have spoken with many parents at our kids fields and for those very few parents that have talented kids who are already enrolled in multiple programs they see this as a really good thing, but a little confusing at the moment and not made easier by the other parents and coaches who are citing “inside sources” that it will never work or its going to be a huge problem. It should be totally expected that the first year will be a little rough for the HPL but the theory behind why its been created and the goals its set out are sound. I find it tremendously funny and also very sad that the very quiet supporters of this league are the parents of kids who are most likely to be selected to play on these potentially elite teams (and believe me, I wish just one of my kids were in that group and I’m not ashamed to admit it) and the majority of the detractors are the parents whose children are not at that level, especially the current coaches whose kids are not at that level, and most especially the leagues who think they are “losing” their best players, and to the ever negative clubs and/or organizations that did not get a franchise.

  28. mj2 says:

    Dear Optimistic, word on the street is the Richmond coaches and the program offered are good. As to if its worth the $825 remains to be seen. What is significant is that there can be little doubt Richmond as a club has set itself up to challenge the HPL. In a free market this is reasonable and fair I guess. But why would the club involve itself in an joint HPL bid and then do all it possibly can to hang onto its players and create confusion for parents. In many respect its the perfect example of all that is wrong with the sport. Everybody trying to create their own piece of the pie but in the end nobody contributing to the overall meal. By the way, the only people rubbing their hands with glee at all this are adidas! More new kits and warm up suits to sell.

    • Canadian Spur says:

      CMF Metro Select fee is $400 (just posted) The only thing that is not included would be the track suit so add $100 and this is still alot less than Richmond. CMF does not have paid coaches at MSL.

    • APL says:


      We play in Richmond and have not experienced any attempts to hold players back from HPL. While there has been discussion that HPL may not be perfect, the program has been discussed and at the end of the day it’s been left up to the player to decide what they feel is best for them.

  29. Sir Alex says:

    Just cause I want to keep flogging this issue.

    This taken from an Island soccer blog discussion on Tier 2 (MSL) I was too exhausted to paraphrase. Isn’t the CSA model supposed to be player-centric? Why aren’t we following through with the player-centric philosophy when it comes to MSL…?

    “any suggestion of boundaries places the club before the player. All options should be evaluated against player development. Holding players to a particular club because of where they live is counter productive to those players ability to improve as soccer players. The BCPSL (aka HPL) has clearly identified open boundaries is key to creating an environment for players to reach their full potential. Players should be allowed to play in a system that offers them the ability to reach their full potential. Club soccer doesn’t have the ability to offer this to our players”

  30. The Kop says:

    MJ2 now I may be mistaken but at last nights U13 girls HPL tryout it appeared that only 2 girls from Richmond showed up.
    It appears your conspiracy theory has some merit.

    • Gregor says:

      The report I heard on what was, I believe, the first BCPL tryout, was as follows (for VR U13 girls):

      *Strong physical group.
      *No weak links. 25 players out, apparently 28 registered.
      *They ran long warm up with and with out ball.
      *4 v2 possesion in 15yd box.
      *Then 6v6 scrimmages on about 3/4 size mini 8’s field with pug nets.
      *4 evaluators, teams randomly assigned,

      I was actually on the next field over at UBC but was running my own evaluations for Pt. Grey players and couldn’t get over to have a look for myself.

    • Colin Elmes says:

      MJ2 keeps dossiers like Don Revie. When he doesnt have the League Cup in the carrier on his bicycle on his way to school.

  31. Colin Elmes says:

    25 players at age group with deepest numbers. yikes.
    Gregor, what is “no weak links”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s