Hi! I Am a Not For Profit Association

[Legend]

I was going to write a long drawn out, cynical post but decided to go another direction and just ask a question to gather opinions and comments.

If a not for profit organization has 1000 kids for example and sorts out the: Members, Coaches, Equipment and Fields however realizes that a QUALITY service should only operate with 600 kids, shouldn't they adjust their structure so that's the case?

Otherwise the organization becomes watered down and fails to follow what development over seas in Europe has been inputting for decades. A real life example would be KNOWING you shouldn't never have well-meaning parents or volunteers be the coaches of youth wanting to learn technical skill in order to develop. Full well knowing a variety of quality equipment helps the sessions, moral and vibe of the environment. KNOWING U13 and above need a half a field to train, knowing youth need to train more than twice a week and more than just 60 minutes. Knowing they need pre-season, in-season, and off-season styles of training and SAQ training. Knowing you need to send your coaches to courses, offer feedback and most importantly follow up with them.

But when you water down your product so much your mandate is worthless. How comes no one says anything? Everyone sits idle, behind their computers and complains! We need to make the clubs accountable, but how? We need larger budgets to run these programs in order to hire full time pro coaches, get better equipment and use other resources like futsal, but how do we collect this extra revenue?

Comments? Opinions? Concerns?

How do the communities fix this "problem" that has been around for over 30 years and seems to be not slowing down.

 

[TKBC]

You answered your question "has been around for over 30 years..."

To create this type of change you need sweeping systemic changes that require it. (ie, a BCSPL 1-2-3 that follows the BCSA standard charter, and if not following the charter teams can't enter). Even then you will run into field space issues.

So let's say you run your club with 600. But your city previously had 1500 registered. Where do you think the other 900 players are going to go in your city? New fields don't magically appear. You'll still have the issue of space because it's the City that allocates the field space, and they have to do so equally for all of it's constituents.

Your point is not wrong nor is it lost. But again, requires major systemic change to make this happen. I suggest the first step in this is identifying clear difference between competitive and rec soccer. Right now, there is barely a noticeable difference.

 

[easoccer]

Who do you turn away? All kids should play.

As for fields, new space doesnt appear, but grass fields have turned into turf fields and several fields have been renovated to allow more use and less downtime. At younger ages some games have been moved into gyms and indoor facilities.

There are lots of school fields, at least in Surrey, that could be renovated and used if the city wanted to.

 

[Admin]

There are lots of school fields, at least in Surrey, that could be renovated and used if the city wanted to.

This.

Where my kids go to school, there is a beautiful field with goals that I have never seen a soccer game on. Some flag football and softball games in the summer but that is it.

I've posted this elsewhere recently on a different forum: the cities have brainwashed everyone over the last 2 decades and are too lazy to come up with proper solutions.

 

[TKBC]

There are lots of school fields, at least in Surrey, that could be renovated and used if the city wanted to.

This costs millions of dollars. A City such as Surrey may not be able to justify that cost considering other issues the City faces. But I agree with your point, it can be done.

 

[TKBC]

Who do you turn away? All kids should play.
.

Certainly. An NFP wouldn't "turn kids away" but what I suggest is clubs provide a very clear distinction from competitive to rec soccer. Ie, competitive soccer is 3 sessions and a game per week plus some other things, and rec is 1 session per week. Comp soccer gets half field for every session, rec soccer would get smaller spaces. Comp soccer would get paid staff training sessions, rec wouldn't of course. And then the league play structures would be different as well.

So kids wouldn't be turned away, but they would have a clear choice to make based on what they want from the sport. And of course if the comp soccer club restricts spots based on whatever standards (ie, half field training sessions) those kids can go to another club for competitive or rec if they aren't successful in their trial at their 1st choice club.

Rec soccer wouldn't have trials either, for example. IE, just put teams together based on geography (like the old days when house teams were basically formed based on school registration).

 

[Legend]

You answered your question "has been around for over 30 years..."

To create this type of change you need sweeping systemic changes that require it. (ie, a BCSPL 1-2-3 that follows the BCSA standard charter, and if not following the charter teams can't enter). Even then you will run into field space issues.

So let's say you run your club with 600. But your city previously had 1500 registered. Where do you think the other 900 players are going to go in your city? New fields don't magically appear. You'll still have the issue of space because it's the City that allocates the field space, and they have to do so equally for all of it's constituents.

Your point is not wrong nor is it lost. But again, requires major systemic change to make this happen. I suggest the first step in this is identifying clear difference between competitive and rec soccer. Right now, there is barely a noticeable difference.

Because it becomes a water down system and doesn't match what is done in the rest of the world. Hence the 112th Fifa Ranking.

 

[Legend]

Certainly. An NFP wouldn't "turn kids away" but what I suggest is clubs provide a very clear distinction from competitive to rec soccer. Ie, competitive soccer is 3 sessions and a game per week plus some other things, and rec is 1 session per week. Comp soccer gets half field for every session, rec soccer would get smaller spaces. Comp soccer would get paid staff training sessions, rec wouldn't of course. And then the league play structures would be different as well.

So kids wouldn't be turned away, but they would have a clear choice to make based on what they want from the sport. And of course if the comp soccer club restricts spots based on whatever standards (ie, half field training sessions) those kids can go to another club for competitive or rec if they aren't successful in their trial at their 1st choice club.

Rec soccer wouldn't have trials either, for example. IE, just put teams together based on geography (like the old days when house teams were basically formed based on school registration).

I have realized this is the best solution by far... And actually love the idea. I'm tired of this system and my mission since retiring from the professional world is to change this in B.C. Soccer.

 

[4_the_kids]

I have realized this is the best solution by far... And actually love the idea. I'm tired of this system and my mission since retiring from the professional world is to change this in B.C. Soccer.

We need to make this the standard not just in BC but for all of Canada. I see Jason Devos has been touring the country having townhalls, has he made out here yet?

 

[TKBC]

We need to make this the standard not just in BC but for all of Canada. I see Jason Devos has been touring the country having townhalls, has he made out here yet?

I believe he has been here. I imagine he'll release a report in Spring?? Purely a guess on my part.

I think it's best to wait and see what nationwide recommendations Mr. Devos has before we make changes here in BC. I do think BCSPL is a great start, regardless of my and others criticisms of it. It is the first step forward and should be supported to grow.

 

[soccer mom]

I was going to write a long drawn out, cynical post but decided to go another direction and just ask a question to gather opinions and comments.

If a not for profit organization has 1000 kids for example and sorts out the: Members, Coaches, Equipment and Fields however realizes that a QUALITY service should only operate with 600 kids, shouldn't they adjust their structure so that's the case?

Otherwise the organization becomes watered down and fails to follow what development over seas in Europe has been inputting for decades. A real life example would be KNOWING you shouldn't never have well-meaning parents or volunteers be the coaches of youth wanting to learn technical skill in order to develop. Full well knowing a variety of quality equipment helps the sessions, moral and vibe of the environment. KNOWING U13 and above need a half a field to train, knowing youth need to train more than twice a week and more than just 60 minutes. Knowing they need pre-season, in-season, and off-season styles of training and SAQ training. Knowing you need to send your coaches to courses, offer feedback and most importantly follow up with them.

But when you water down your product so much your mandate is worthless. How comes no one says anything? Everyone sits idle, behind their computers and complains! We need to make the clubs accountable, but how? We need larger budgets to run these programs in order to hire full time pro coaches, get better equipment and use other resources like futsal, but how do we collect this extra revenue?

Comments? Opinions? Concerns?

How do the communities fix this "problem" that has been around for over 30 years and seems to be not slowing down.

With any successful organization, the club needs to establish its identity. Is it a recreational all-encompassing club where playing and fun are the main objectives or is it a club that puts a higher value on development, winning, competition or as most clubs do can it be a hybrid model of both.

If you choose the hybrid model which most clubs tend to do than you have to provide minimal services for minimal membership fee. That allows those to choose a recreational model. volunteer coaches, 1 game and 1 practice per week. Than offer up with value added services based on a menu system whereby those can tick boxes and pay additional monies for additional services. For example choose to try out for rep teams vs house teams. join a once a week academy with paid seasoned coaches. two practices a week and travel tournaments and on and on. Team training gear, team SAQ coaching and on and on it goes.

This hybrid model can work if communication is strong throughout the NFP and expectations for what is minimal services vs value added.

U13 at the recreational level doesnt need half a field to train twice a week but at the competitive level than sure thats reasonable. But there is a cost to that added service of playing rep and getting half a field.

without clear communication within the NFP club it can create problems as some parents that are paying recreational fees are seeing rep teams getting better equipment and more field time etc. however it is clearly understood as to why and give those same parents the same opportunity than all will be well.

 

[Legend]

Well, your post kinda proved what the issue is.... Standards on the performance / development side are weak. I say weak because I am comparing them to what other youth clubs do around the world. If we are talking about the "Performance Division" of the club than having 2 training sessions per week does not correspond with the word Elite or Performance. I don't understand how this even started and I don't know how someone would think it correlates to those words.

Performance at the lowest level would be 3 times a week plus a strength and conditioning or SAQ. I'd say that's at the lowest spectrum. At one point in my career at ages 18 / 19, I was going twice a day - 10 per week.

To have registration fees at $400 to $600 is also odd to me. Performance Hockey is at $5000 - $6000, yes I know a lot of is because renting ice time is expensive. But if you want field time, with stronger coaches, 3-4 times a week its going to cost money. I've spoke to parents about this and they are dying for it and they don't care about the money. At least 9 / 10 don't.

Make it $1200 - $1500 and get these kids the proper training that mirrors Europe.

 

[Legend]

Your suggestion to have Performance Add on Features is interesting thou!

 

[TKBC]

Well, your post kinda proved what the issue is.... Standards on the performance / development side are weak. I say weak because I am comparing them to what other youth clubs do around the world. If we are talking about the "Performance Division" of the club than having 2 training sessions per week does not correspond with the word Elite or Performance. I don't understand how this even started and I don't know how someone would think it correlates to those words.

Performance at the lowest level would be 3 times a week plus a strength and conditioning or SAQ. I'd say that's at the lowest spectrum. At one point in my career at ages 18 / 19, I was going twice a day - 10 per week.

To have registration fees at $400 to $600 is also odd to me. Performance Hockey is at $5000 - $6000, yes I know a lot of is because renting ice time is expensive. But if you want field time, with stronger coaches, 3-4 times a week its going to cost money. I've spoke to parents about this and they are dying for it and they don't care about the money. At least 9 / 10 don't.

Make it $1200 - $1500 and get these kids the proper training that mirrors Europe.

and then you start cutting out loads of kids who can't afford that fee that have the ability.

 

[Legend]

Unfortunately it is that system here in Canada, this isn't Sao Paulo, Brazil or London England where there is ten clubs within 25km radius ranging from div 1 to 4. There is organizations that help pay for kids sports once a low income t4 is submitted.

 

[TKBC]

Unfortunately it is that system here in Canada, this isn't Sao Paulo, Brazil or London England where there is ten clubs within 25km radius ranging from div 1 to 4. There is organizations that help pay for kids sports once a low income t4 is submitted.

There are plenty of families who can't afford it but also don't qualify for subsidy. But it's more than the fees - lots can't afford the gas, or the travel fees etc.

I heard an interesting suggestion tonight. Start BCSPL at age 15. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[4_the_kids]

There are plenty of families who can't afford it but also don't qualify for subsidy. But it's more than the fees - lots can't afford the gas, or the travel fees etc.

I heard an interesting suggestion tonight. Start BCSPL at age 15. Sounds reasonable to me.

Costs can not be a stumbling block to building a better system, no matter what system we have some one is left behind its just the way it will be, the old 80-20 rule.

I agree with BCSPL starting at Age 15. - This is an age where the player knows how committed he or she is or willing to be , they are making the decision not the parent.
U6-U9 - house/ developmental age group - same for all
U10-U14 -development /rep teams are formed play Div 1 to div 3 ( add Metro at U13) , Div 4 is house or recreational. If one is in Div 4 and wants to play up come to evals, join academy to get noticed. Development/rep teams should be on going evals , teams change yearly based on merit. If you don't make your team to following you stay in the development system but might drop from Div 1 to Div 2 , div 3 players maybe dropped to house only when absolutely necessary and agreed to be best by player, parent and TD.
At U15 rep or development becomes BCSPL . Metro and Div 1 ( learning to win / competitive stream) , Div 2 to Div 4 fall into the recreational stream ( soccer for life)

 

[Legend]

Not saying your wrong but after seeing a multiple of people craft up their own level infrastructure I am now curious. Where does it come from? Are you just basing your level table from your knowledge of soccer and the lower mainland or does it stem from what another soccer respected country does for their youth?
I am posting this because I haven't heard one individual pike up and say, "This is what the dutch youth system looks like!" or "This is what the German youth system looks like."

 

[4_the_kids]

Not saying your wrong but after seeing a multiple of people craft up their own level infrastructure I am now curious. Where does it come from? Are you just basing your level table from your knowledge of soccer and the lower mainland or does it stem from what another soccer respected country does for their youth?
I am posting this because I haven't heard one individual pike up and say, "This is what the dutch youth system looks like!" or "This is what the German youth system looks like."

I would say by bias comes from my understanding of what Germany does, mixed with what I see could work for us. We do not have the infrastructure or resources to mirror these power house programs - so look at what seem reasonable and how it can be adapted here with our current infrastructure and resource.
The most simple of all is greater investment into coaches and coach training. Nothing is more important and this can happen regardless of the rest ...

This is great read: http://www.kthi.is/skrar/file/Fyrirlestur þjóðverjans.pdf

 

[Legend]

Top Class! Sprinkle some of the DBF criteria, infrastructure and mentality and we would be on the right path. Get all coaches to the National B or A level (I personally take USSF Courses) and over the next ten years we will start looking like what Iceland is today.