They’re on the board with most of their coaches in place. See announcement here.
What’s the connection between SFSC and Soccer Travel Academy?
On the SFSC application process they were indicating they wanted “qualified” coaches. Good to see they have appointed one with CCY accreditation. Let the political games begin…….
This is all a bunch of politics if you ask anyone. SFSC doesn’t even have enough boys to fill those teams! If they just left the current Y-league teams to carry on with the program would have been much better. No one is here for the good of the kids its a big competition. SYSA would have generated more boys for tryouts because of the high calibre of players they have but they got screwed over because of politics and maybe a bit of ethnic discrimination. Good luck this is heading for failure!
Thought the idea was to have professional coaching at this level and not parents,as is the case with some positions with South Fraser
Certifications are not everything.
K, totally agree there are great coaches who arent certified and certified coaches that shouldnt be coaching kids. All I am saying is that this was a major piece for BCSA going forward.
The emerging irony which I alluded to earlier is that some of the most experienced coaches are not willing and/or able to take on coaching positions with BCPL teams.
SFSC have Mark McQueen and Greg Berry, both very good coaches, who due to TD positions are not directly overseeing teams. Jason Jordan is likewise going to have a hard time trying to find a way to coach a VR team. Same with Jeff Clarke at Surrey United and Sara Maglio and Alfredo Valente at Metro Ford. These are people who are already entrenched in organizations that have been given BCPL franchises and would all be considered A list coaches but I don’t think you’ll see many of them running teams.
Then all you have is a modified version of Metro/Selects with less teams, but at 3 times the cost.
Plus all of the headaches of asynchronous seasons among levels noted above. I have always thought that a process of quality control on the current Metro/Selects league would achieve most of the HPL benefits.
I wonder how many clubs have referred to the Paid Soccer Coaches Memo of 2007 –
So now we have hybrid Academies sprouting from HPL entities. Now we need even more sophisticated user pay worthy coaches. Hey anybody can do this coaching thing, it’s just soccer.
TSS announces new coaching program ” How to be a user pay coach for more than one intake of players”
And as Gregor said, all these TD’s stick handling around coaching teams for obvious reasons( even though most, if not all, were listed on these entities technical groups- more misleading info….) where are these people coming from? The soccer consumer will soon be showing their colors and it will be interesting to see the outcomes in the various areas. I would be asking lots of questions before I committed my children(and wallet) to any of this.
The sad fact is a lot of parents wont ask enough questions and will just write the cheque!
The other side a lot of parents wont write a chq way too much $$$, 1st year going to be a lot of things to iron out! Word on the street is it might not survive.
That would be my advice. Dont be scared to raise your issues. This is an open market now. These entities are operating like they have over the many decades where they are the only gig in town and at this level they are not. Many parents/players have kept quiet because of fear of retribution- that is not a barrier anymore. Questions, Questions, Questions….
Can someone please explain how an HPL club can have travel academy, but an academy such as TSS can not get an HPL franchise?
I’ve heard the for profit, not for profit stuff already. But seriously, as a parent my $2,500 is still paying someone. It makes no difference to me whether it is for profit or not for profit when my bank account has been debited $2,500.
Is it just me, or isn’t the thing handcuffing the MSL tier from really challenging BCPL (coaching aside) being the archaic out-of-district rule?
An Academy like TSS who I’ve supported for the past 3 years has unfettered access to any and all motivated players who want to improve their game and who recognize the value of the TSS program regardless of their address.
If however, I want my son or daughter to play for a particular coach, who’s abilities and technique I respect, and admire, and I’m willing to travel distance to take advantage of that coaches passion, BCSA says I can only do that if there aren’t already 3 other players traveling distance.
What is BCSA protecting? What are the pros and cons of this policy? We’ve already opened the borders for BCPL, why not do the same for MSL? Is the motivation to protect and encourage mediocre coaching and weak programs? Because that’s what I see as a result of that closed border policy.
Everyone realizes that fictional addresses, and “living with my uncle in…” scenarios exist. I know of one girl who has had 3 different addresses of convenience over 3 seasons. It’s ridiculous.
If the districts and BCSA can’t get their act together to change the OOD rule, I’d encourage Colin to take care of the second tier (at least 1 team from each age group)- form teams, train appropriately, travel to the US on occasion, play exhibitions against BCPL and MSL teams …and the community will beat a path to your door. No district restrictions, no address games, just quality coaching run as a business.
Quality coaches aren’t everywhere, but we seem to want to smother innovation and passion and support mediocrity. Time for a change!
Rule 23- which is the out of district rule you speak of Sir Alex(nice moniker) would need to be removed and that would take a 75% vote at an AGM. The other way is to go the HPL route, set up a league (with its own rules and regs) and apply to BCSA for membership. Do you see that incredibly large hornets nest on the horizon? You would be in the middle of it naked if you took this on at present. The line in the sand on this may move, but not in the immediate future or without a lot of bee stings
I’ve heard that MSL is hoping to increase the number of OOD players but have not gone so far as to try to eliminate rule 23. I Don;t think that this can happen until the AGM in June though
I guess the problem is the apathy of the membership (by membership I mean parents of youth soccer playing children), or at least their lack of understanding in the process and governance and reluctance to get involved.
As for change, I’d be all over easing the OOD rule (Rule 23) to a larger number. I’m not saying it’s all or nothing.
Kudo’s to Gregor for providing what I think has become the first real venue for open discussion on youth soccer, it’s policies and hierarchy.
We need more of the parents to register their views, to get involved and to start driving this bus. Are we the silent majority and are we going to continue to gripe while holding our umbrellas field-side or are we going to contact club executives, voice our opinions and enact change that we see as worthwhile?
Sadly, for the most part (as witnessed with the creation of the BCPL) we’re mostly lemmings being led off the edge of the cliff!
Sir Alex, I so agree with your comment on parents asking questions, but South Fraser for example has an email address to get questions answered. I sent through an email, and received a very prompt response 2 days ago saying:
“No info available yet.
They have since posted their coaches on the site, but no other info, but I didn’t get a follow up email from them with this info…
Surrey United has a new BCPL web-site http://www.surreyunitedbcpl.com/
but as you will see, no real info there yet either, but you can register for some try-outs if you don’t mind not knowing how the coach is and what the cost will be…
It has been said before by many others but the simple fact is that the process has been mishandled from the beginning. Lack of consultation, lack of information, insanely tight timelines to implement, ignoring impact on lower tiers, and the list goes on. The general concept of HPL is good but the process is deeply flawed. The clubs have been placed in a terrible position of having to create a quality product with one hand tied behind their back. How can they set their programs and be ready for tryouts when they don’t even know the rules of the league. BCSA has pushed to get this done now and consequences be damned. There are members of the BCPL Board of Governors (the group tasked with making this work) who are not fully supportive of the concept in its current form and have been openly critical of the BCPL (including a person who was, for a time, a frequent contributor to the discussion on this blog).
As parents would should demand answers to our questions and refuse to sign our children up for tryouts until we get them.
Here’s one to mull over…
Vancouver Parks Board just gave out permits on the latest turf field in Vancouver (Memorial South; 41st and just east of Fraser). They were made aware of the desire of the VR franchise to have time on it but were told they weren’t getting any due to the fact they were a joint venture with Richmond and there are residency stipulations that tie permits to being a resident of Vancouver (probably the reason why the UBC Old Boys rugby club didn’t get time at Jericho turf).
This is a setback for VR because Richmond also have residency requirements for field usage (I’ve come up against that problem with my Y League teams over the years) and if Parks Board are serious it may poise a serious problem for VR to use Empire Field turf once it’s renovated at the end of 2011.
The plan for VR is two training sessions per week per team in Vancouver and one per week in Richmond. That means 10 teams getting half a field each for 1.5 hours twice a week need 15 hours of turf time.
Factor in that the second consideration for allocating time on Memorial South was strict adherence to the total number of teams you have (hence Kerrisdale got three hours, Killarney and Douglas Park got two etc). Not sure how much turf time 10 teams is going to get you when you still have a surplus of demand over supply in Vancouver.
Here’s another gem…
There was a hurriedly-called BCPL franchise meeting last night and one of the things that supposedly came out of it (and I can’t say this with 100% certainty and to be honest I really hope it’s not true) was that there are new caps on the number of MSL teams.
Previously what we’d heard was 14-16 for the younger age groups and 10-12 for the older ones.
The new cap? Are you ready? 24 teams per age group.
Please, if you know this is wrong, refute this and say it isn’t so!
been told by one person (who should know) that the 24 team MSL cap is news to him and probably not true.
I’ve bee told there are still sevel proposals for MSL being discussed but havn’t heard about 24 team limit.
What was discussed was adding a U17 to BCPL and having the U18 age only play March to July. Don’t know if this will go anywhere but at least our concerns are being talked about.
The rubber is hitting the road and several tires have already born worn right through…
I must admit I’m very happy to see parents jumping in here asking questions as it’s something that is really important to the development of the club concept and what they do for the members.
The challenge for these parents is to spread the word and make parent groups that challenge BOD’s for information and accountability. Why??? It’s one of the few ways that change can happen as to bring change you need the numbers to challenge the status quo. To do that people have to ask or demand information that is being withheld to maintain power in serfdoms.
Gregor has done a simple yet effective job with this blog to help people be informed and to promote the exchange of information for the benefit of the sport in a civil and sometimes humorous manner. It’s a shame that this was not being done by each and every level in the soccer community.
It’s a frustrating situation when parents find out what is really going on but it’s even just as frustrating to the soccer admin’s who only have a very, very small group of supporters to bring change. Sometimes for admin’s it’s best to walk away as there is so much BS and control by people who have never played a sport let alone rep’ed their country in a sport.
Sadly for some reason, soccer in Canada has to be the most terrorized sport in the country when it comes to control freaks. Even going up to the CSA and FIFA levels it’s such a horror show at the expense of the players.
Just today the Alberta Courts of Appeal told the CSA in a judgement against them –
 Everyone in Canada has a constitutional right of access to Her Majesty’s courts as a litigant or as a witness. The punishment impending here (and imposed against the other litigants in the parallel proceedings) is for doing just that. Public policy dictates weighing that when considering the balance of convenience.
 One must also note s. 139(3) of the Criminal Code on obstruction of justice by attempting to dissuade someone from giving evidence, by means of threats.
This has to due with the CSA doing what is called administrative discipline or things that have nothing to do with the field of play. In this case it was ASA members who wanted to get rid of a bad BOD who was running the ASA but they has to use the legal system.
The judgement has huge implications at every level of sports adn I’ve covered some of them in a article along with the court documents here http://tinyurl.com/482l5zq
Yes, this is how screwed up the sport is from top to bottom and it all comes down to people controlling information, lacking in transparency and accountability.
Very well said, Coachrich. I’ve read several posts decrying the lack of involvement/interest on the part of soccer parents, but I believe many would be (far more) involved — if only they knew what the wizard behind the curtain had in store for their kids.
Yes, there’s a healthy degree of parental responsibility required to dig and probe, and to find out as much as possible, but at the club level there is often little to no assistance in guiding parents toward becoming informed members.
And I would say with the borders dropping and user pay the order of the day this is now a free market and free markets ask questions and dig around to find the best situation for them as a customer. If these entities are masking information and operating on timelines that are not efficient they will lose the interest and involvment of these consumers. The Clubs( and these new entities who are extensions of these groups) have NEVER had to operate under this type of microscope. I would say that what has happened( or not happened) in this BCPL process is a product of this lack of experience and attention to detail in this format.
Keep asking questions…..
I just had a regular poster on this blog tell me that he has gone quiet because he is now “on staff” with one of these entities. This is part of the problem everyone. No debate.
So the ‘knowledgable’ soccer guys have the information for the parents but are now going silent. Parents are asking questions but all we are getting is “we don’t have an answer for that right now”. God forbid they give up their ‘top-secret’ information in front of the other franchises. For f#%k sakes this youth soccer. Get over yourselves. I realize there is a lot of work to be done but release the information a little bit at a time.
This has been our problem for a very long time…..
One of the easiest things parents can do to put pressure on clubs to give answers is to refer them to the CSA Charter Club. Each franchise has to follow the points laid out in the Charter.
Also if you are not happy about the lack of information you can complain to BCSA who is suppose to listen. If BCSA gives you the cold shoulder, you then go to the Better Business Bureau and the press. You have a right to ask questions directly and through other sources available to consumers to get answers.
One of the key things I discussed with a HPL Committee member was the need for conflict of interest (existing clubs BOD or their staff can not run a new HPL club and their old club), transparency with information and financial accountability in the HPL to avoid getting the status quo of “The Clubs( and these new entities who are extensions of these groups) . Sadly, the silence is deafening as the status quo continues.
Antonio, Where did you find that info..Didn’t see iy on thier website. Any idea on full season or coaches?
Thanks – MSL fee also posted at $400, down from $495 last year.
SU have just posted their coaches.
South Fraser…Another inclusive club:
“There will be a BCPSL information meeting Thursday March 3 at 8pm in the Banquet Room at the Rotary Fieldhouse located at South Surrey Athletic Park.
This info session is closed to PASC, SSC, TSW and LAD members”
Shouldn’t this have been open to everyone since there are no boundaries?
That should be brought to the attention of BCSA as it is violating the CSA Charter Club and the RFP commitment.
Yes South Frasers website did state that the info session was closed to “PASC, SSC, TSW and LAD members”. I simply sent an email to the Pres and asked if I could attend even though I am not a member of any of those clubs and his response was “no problem”, he didn’t ask who I was or where I was a member. The meeting seemed quite open and my impression was anyone could likely have attended, no one was taking names or anything.
Perhaps the site should have stated that the meeting was “intended for SouthFraser members” rather than “closed to”?
The 1/4 field for training was discussed yes however I think this was their plan during “peak times”.
Surrey United BCPL coaches posted by the way:
South Fraser. Was told by someone who attended their meeting that HPL will be training on a 1/4 turf cause of the demands on those fields( I am guessing this is just for Sept to Nov?). If this is the case, there is no program for this level of players- I would not run a team in a space like that frankly at any level.
But of course a similar size space under a bubble is more than sufficient for academy groups…
We play out of the Vancouver Selects system and it’s still pretty surprising how little information, email discussions, guidance, clarity, etc. we’re getting from the organization. Only a few parents who are digging know a little about this and the players themselves (remember, the players!) really know absolutely nothing about all of this. Given there are great volunteers in our organization, my sense is that the communication challenges are largely due to the timeline expectations.
Here’s an idea now that the water is well under the bridge – why not do this HPL thing incrementally and start with 1 maybe 2 teams at the U13 or U14 level. They seem to be first out of the blocks already so let’s just stop and start there. Try that out, work through the glitches, pass on the lessons-learned, add another age tier the following year and so on. This “Big Bang” approach in a short timeline really smells like a recipe for a lot of problems and heartbreak.
This will be interesting competition for the HPL clubs when they are forming their Adult programs –
UBC Metropolitan Tryouts
UBC Metropolitan FC is holding tryouts for the 2011 Summer and 2011-2012 Winter Season on Tuesday March 15th. Spots at all positions are available on all three teams (Div/CAT/U21). Interested players are encouraged to contact Adam by email with their full name, age, position and a brief description of their relevant playing experience: email@example.com. Players should have either select/gold youth experience or relevant Men’s League experience.
Hopefully Westside, UBCMFC and others will form a large adult both gender club to dovetail in with BCPL adult programs. In a couple of years both East and West Van side youth clubs will be consolidated into a East and West clubs. IMO way overdue as there are way too many serfdoms in Van. Great political power to deal with the lack of artificial fields. Next the BCSA should do away with Districts and give every club member a vote for who sits at BCSA.
All the BCPL clubs are required to have adult male and female progams already, CoachRich.
Oh really??? My understanding is they have to create them and will do down the road after the youth side is up and going. The question is at that time will the adult players want to leave their existing teams and leagues.
Any links to support this?
Coquitlam coach and fee info on their website now:
Not sure if this has been covered but here’s a question; if my kid were to make a BCPL team to play this fall ( condensed season ), she will have to try out again for 2012 season, presumably these tryouts would happen in Dec, Jan?
Now, if she does NOT make the team for the 2012 season and is advised of this in December or January, where does she go? “down” to the Metro or Gold team? Would they be required to keep a spot open for her and others? Would they in turn bump kids down to Gold or Silver???
Of course these teams will all be in the middle of their season.
Anyone know how this would work? This will be a constant situation every December / January right? Presumably most BCPL teams will be “cutting” at least one player between one season and the next?
The CMF website says that re-evaluation will happen in Novemeber (Not sure if this is accurate but will assume it is). If a player does not retain their place on the BCPL squad we can only hope that there will be room for that player on an MSL team. This could be further complicated if the player not making the BCPL squad would be considered as out of district on the MSL team.
If the BCPL club also operates an MSL team then it would make sense that they would keep at least one roster spot open for players that get cut but I suppose that is up to the individual club and coach.
I doubt that any MSL team would force one of their players down to gold to accomodate a new player coming down from BCPL.(Imaging the parents response to that!)
Not sure this helps much.
another item not either thought through or it has and no one is revealing process here in this regard.
Believe one of the intents of HPL was that there was to be a Fustal season during these winter months so that the teams would be busy there for four to six weeks. The info we got back from BSCA was that when the season is over in Nov for HPL players, they do not drop down into MSL. That is part of the winter break period.
Not sure many (any?) of the BCPL franchises have facilities for Futsal. I think J was referring to a situation where the player gets cut in the Novemeber tryouts sop would no longer be part of the BCPL set-up.
A bit scary that no one ( here at least ) seems to know for sure eh.
Seems implausible that a cut BCPL player would have nowhere to go.
While I can certainly envision ( and empathize with ) a parent of a kid on Metro / Gold / Silver getting “bumped” down to make room, I wonder if this could happen?
A bad scenario would be for a kid to get cut from their BCPL team, and get “sent down” only to sit more than they should because that team is mid season.
The BCPL player who’s been cut should presumably end up being in at least the top 1/4 of talent on the next team down squad…and if so, will need to play, in essence “bumping” another kid. ( either to the bench or down a division ) Either way, somebody’s mum is going to be some pissed.
One extra thought. If a player is being cut then in all likelihood the player replacing them would be coming from MSL so a roster spot is opening somewhere. The replacement player is leaving a hole on an MSL roster so the MSL team would likley be better off taking the cut player than promoting a player from gold. Obviously it’s not as easy in the real world with disctrict restriction at MSL but not BCSPL but I suspect the cut player would find a place to play and not be left sitting out.
A couple of points:
First, not every club is re-evaluating in early 2012. Some are selecting players now for both the mini-season and the entire 2012 season. CMF has chosen to treat this fall as a condensed season which I presume is their prerogative. Some, however are treating it as an extension of the 2012 season. Thus rosters chosen now for the mini-season this fall will stay in effect thru the 2012 season.
Second, the mini-season for all age groups (except U13) is this year only so re-evaluations will not be happening on an on-going basis.
Third, it seems to me that a more optimal player release point would be at the end of the first competition phase which ends the first week of July. Indeed, coaches should be on top of the situation in terms of discussing a player’s progress – a coach should know by the end of the first competition phase whether or not a player is capable of continuing at the PL level or if their development needs would be better suited to the MSL, say. The coach shold be sensitive to the timing of the delivery of this information. This will allow any released players to apply for entry into either a lower-tiered league. Not ideal as that team’s roster would have been chosen in the spring, but better than being cut loose at the end of a PL season. Another possibility is that the player could seek entry onto another BCPL team.
Fourth, as Spur has pointed out, absent Rule 23 issues, released players will typically be replaced by a promoted players from a lower-tiered league. This is not a certainty but should provide reasonably minimal logistical issues.
Fifth, it is perhaps just as valid to argue this problem in the reverse: players who wish to try-out for a PL level team will be doing so at their own MSL team’s expense, i.e., if accepted, their will be rosters gaps left on their former MSL team. To be sure, this is not nearly reason enough to prevent such players from testing the PL waters, and MSL coaches should be attuned to the possibility of players ‘graduating’ to PL in January; in fact they should be encouraging their players to do so. But for every player from MSL that successfully transitions to the BCPL, a previous BCPL player will be making the return trip.
Is the pick the players now until Nov 2012 a MUFC policy? In my humble opinion- particularly at the younger ages- a massive developmental error. Thats 21 months. 21 months in a young players soccer career is closing in on 20% of their lives? Why would anyone commit to a player( and subsequently not commit to any other improving, maturing player) for this length of time. Where are the leaders here? This should not be an avenue for any entity to pursue. Its just silly
Have to agree with CE that selecting the u13 squad in September and keeping them until Nov 2012 is …. too long. Having coached that age I am certainly attest to monthly developmental changes….in all areas, outside and within soccer related development.
Yes it would. And it would be just as silly to assume we have had the time to sort all of this out given the extra logistics involved in setting up a club formed from approximately ten existing clubs, involving three districts, spread across two geographic regions, and extremely tight timelines, but we’re trying.
I think CMF has the right idea in terms of there being a re-eval after the mini-season, for the inaugural season. It is not without its own set of difficulties however, like many other facets of the league. But, again, we’re trying.
Said like a true “insider”
Keep trying and working hard. Just change the policy quick before anyone else finds out.
Fully agree that picking players now and staying with that squad all the way through Nov 2012 is crazy. I run evaluations for over 1100 kids every spring (just had our first three last night) and we are fully cognizant that picking U11 teams now is problematic in that some will look considerably different as players even by the fall.
I know we’re talking kids that are two years older but I think it still remains true that U13 players can look entirely different over the course of that season and to freeze out kids who are improving over that period while those selected now are kept in the fold for 20 months is not the best decision.
To take the concept even further there should be reevaluations after each competion phase each year at all age groups.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.