It’s an interesting time in the lower island district, and the reason for the interest revolves around the number of transfers that each club has per team. Since I arrived in Victoria in November of 2008 the transfer and boundary discussions have never been far from the surface and it doesn’t take too long for people to voice their opinion on the subject.
In this blog I would like to discuss the idea of unlimited transfers which equates to open boundaries, if you have as many transfers as you like then the boundaries cease to be relevant.
I would also like to make the point that this opinion is my PERSONAL opinion and not the opinion of the Lower Island Soccer Association.
From 1993 to 198 I worked in the United States where there are no boundaries or transfers. During my time there I saw many coaches work the system to recruit players for their teams in order to try and win a state championship. In time the recruitment of players morphed into recruitment of coaches who then brought their whole team into a new club. I keep hearing that open boundaries and unlimited transfers give players choice and is the best system for ‘player development’. Its true that unlimited transfers give people more choice but there is no guarantee that it leads to ‘player development’
Here are a couple of examples of things that I have experienced as a coach during my time in the United States.
Neighbourhood FC run a responsible program and their technical director and technical committee recommend that coaches work with a team for a period of two years and then the team is reassigned to a different coach who has a skill set that is compatible with the age group. The coach of the U13 Neighbourhood FC boy’s team doesn’t want to ‘lose’ his team and ‘his’ players, after all the game is about him, not the players! He whips the players and parents up into frenzy, calls are made, emails are sent and meeting are attended. Neighbourhood FC stick to their guns and bring in a coach who can help the players continue to develop. The soon to be replaced coach meets with his team and presents them with an option. “We can move our team to Big Club FC and we can all stay together! Let’s go”. Mean while Neighbourhood FC have lost a whole team even though they have a responsible player first policy to coaching appointments! That’s player movement and choice but it’s probably not in the best interests of the players, and what happens to the players and families who at the last minute decided to stay with Neighbourhood FC, where do they play?
Things are not going so well at Big Club FC, the technical director and board are at war and the TD is looking to leave the club at the end of the season. He has been talking with key coaches and parents in his club and they have decided that its time for a change and they will all be moving to Biggest Club FC next season. Big Club FC will be losing 6 coaches and 8 teams in the summer and now the integrity of the club is threatened as many more individual players are looking to land elsewhere.
Big Club FC are now in turmoil, they cant make teams and a number of players are left without a team to play as all the other clubs are full. They need to hire a new TD; do they hire a good coach who can put together a long term plan or a used car salesman who can recruit players into the club?
Now, I am not suggesting for one minute that if we instituted unlimited transfers in the LISA boundaries, these scenarios would take place, but there is no guarantee that they won’t and in time I think we will see this type of behaviour in our district.
The major downside to unlimited transfers is the lack of club stability it provides. Even the bigger clubs are not immune to losing a chunk of players and the lack of certainty means that clubs are not able to make major plans as there is no guarantee of their numbers from year to year. How do you plan to build a turf field or clubhouse when you can’t honestly project your registrations and revenues from year to year? What financial institution would lend money to a non for profit organisation with no real guarantee that the club can afford to make the repayments from year to year.
So, I don’t like the idea of unlimited transfers and I am not supportive of zero transfers as we do need to offer families a choice, and there is always the situation where a player and coach just don’t get on. My son Oliver is not involved in soccer as he had a poor coach and wasn’t able to move teams so restricting movement totally is not something that I, as a parent, could support.
We need to give players a choice, but at the same time preserve the structural integrity of all our clubs at this moment in time. If we lose a club, for whatever reason, then we will lose more players and we can’t afford to lose more players. In the future if clubs choose to merge as Cordova Bay and Gordon Head did then so be it, but that is a better option than clubs ceasing to exist.
We should provide choice for our families but if we were to open the boundaries and that led to a loss of clubs then all we have done is restrict choice. An equal number of transfers per club is, in my opinion, the way to go. That number needs to allow players who have transferred in past seasons to be able to stay where they are so that they can continue to enjoy their soccer, which after all is all this should be about.
In closing, our next coaches association meeting is this coming Friday, Match 9th at Braefoot. We will be looking at midfield shape in front on the back four and I hope to see as many people as possible. Remember to bring your boots!
Andrew: It is my understanding that within all other BC Districts [such as on the mainland] players are free to move between clubs, in fact I think that is the case in EVERY other jurisdiction except for LISA. You are asserting that the likely result of open transfers is club instability. If that is the case would you agree then that mainland clubs in Surrey or White Rock also suffer the same?
ReplyDeleteLISA has lost a club in the past two years (you mention CB/GH) and some would argue it has improved the level of competition (as witnessed by the huge success their new club has had in all levels of island competition). In fact the whole argument in favour of the 'zonal' model is that we have too many clubs.
What you have argued is that by treating players as club property ensures a stable funding model for a club but does not in fact lead to better player development.
Sure sounds like those who are in fovour of the status quo within LISA support maintaining what equates to an East German model of managed protectionisim.
respectfully,
Robert K.
My personal thought is I think a reasonable analogy for “transfer limits” is “salary caps” in professional sport. Salary caps prevent teams with deep pockets from stacking their teams. This leads to parity in the teams which creates competitive leagues, which leads to good competition, which contributes to player development. I think this is a good argument for having transfer limits.
ReplyDeleteI think the real problem is that the good players are too spread out because we have too many Clubs. I think that if unlimited transfers result in some clubs collapsing then (in a roundabout way) we’ll get to the best scenario which is fewer Clubs and better players concentrated on fewer teams.
I also think we should move to dual age leagues (U12, U14, U16, U18) and go to a HPL, VIPL, Gold, House structure.
great discussions.
ReplyDeleteHere my take........
right now we are in the beginnings of a very clever and powerful shift in soccer in Canada.
It is an initiative driven by the professional clubs and the associations to draw the line between recreation soccer and elite soccer. The victims of this will be the small clubs and hence all the up roar as the player movement starts - and players are getting caught in old rules- not rules that reflect the shift that has and is occurring.
This shift- model is the consequence of the Long player development model roll out - this is something I fully support- however it creates a very clean line in the sand between those that will go on to elite opportunities and those that will not. And this shift is occurring earlier than ever before. This is why there is upheaval because we are not adjusting to the shift.
this shift started with the money injected from Whitecaps (EA Sports) into HPL and BC soccer to drive the professional clubs agenda- not saying it is wrong- but the rules have changed for the better for elite players.
Locally it is creating anxiety as some kids are on the wrong side of a fence line - and therefore are not able to get to the level of play they want to simply because of geography and history.
This is grossly unfair and equally confusing for the clubs- the presidents and the association because the rules have changed - well they haven't actually thats the problem, but the structure has.
Transfer rules now do not reflect reality with VIPL and what is right for kids.
Equally clubs need to recognize that some now are best to not even consider VIPL - as they are too small and their aspirations to that level lie in linking with other clubs- to create opportunity for their players to transfer to a VIPL team.
Here my new rules ...... (I run the risk of getting my head chopped off in dark allies )
HPL ...... no boundaries except the island.
VIPL ....... allow the large clubs to combine with the smaller clubs to have combined boundaries to create large VIPL catchments not the existing club boundaries.
The smaller clubs need to recognize that times have changed and their market is recreation soccer- aspiring to VIPL excludes too many kids- every kid should have an option to try out for one of these teams - not just the VIPL club teams. The present model isn't sustainable.
Until we all realize that the ground has moved the old rules don't work anymore there will be poor choices for kids and declining numbers in soccer.
The Whitecaps have invested in HPL and BC soccer heavily and are pulling the strings now = EA Sports etc.
The model has shifted to carve off elite soccer from the rest.
This shift is reflected locally in our problems with boundaries and exclusion of players from the opportunity to play higher levels through old rules and protectionism and fear - turfs to pay off etc.
Transfers should only occur at club level and be limited for rec. soccer to 5 per team.
Otherwise you play for the VIPL team in your district north- south- east -west for Victoria.
Big clubs inherit the best players from the smaller clubs - and partnerships begin for clubs geographically
Rec soccer survives - pathways for progress exist - and we all move to a model of player first. This way those that are comfortable playing rec can - and those that aspire to for higher levels can also.
Now the challenge is the grown ups!!!
Interesting comments Stef, so what happens at u16-u18?
Deletetake the '96 girls for example, no HPL, no VIPL so they only get 3 transfers? or no transfers? We already saw what happened in this scenario..small clubs can't compete because they often combine multiple age groups just to get a team!
The big clubs have lots of players so they should do well at Gold but it comes down to the coaching players receive!
Now look at u17/u18...fewer players, fewer teams, combined divisions.. competritive at Silver , but competitive at Gold (look at u17Gold Girls: only 2 teams!!!!)
The answer would appear to some (myself included) to that LISA should operate like it is in the ENTIRE PROVINCE...namely, open transfers, let the clubs who are able to attract players do just that, it will force everyone to focus on player development.
Small clubs can become niche teams and have success.
But there is another element to all this, we need to fix recreational soccer as well. Look at the u13/u14G Bronze division. The bottom two teams are in the District Cup final by virtue that there were just two teams in contention! Flatten rec soccer to one level, go dual age groups, have a 5 goal rule where, by all means score, but only a 5 goal differential is ever posted in the standings.
But back to transfers, setting it at 5 is just like setting it at 3, it is an arbitrary number that does not take club size into consideration. It rewards the big clubs at the cost of the small clubs. There is only one plausible solution IMHO: open up transfers. It will force clubs to treat the parents and players as intelligent consumers! Clubs need to attract players with good programs and not treat players as 'in catchment property' with no real district wide standards on player development. Currently players get a very different development experience at the different clubs. Some clubs do a lot for their rec players others treat them as an after thought but charge the same fees as if they were on a VIPL or Gold team.
If readers favour Open Transfers: sign the petition at: http://petitiontolisa.blogspot.com/