LISA STIMULUS PLAN
Survey Committee Report to LISA Board of Directors
Committee Membership: Dan Perrin (Chair), Fleming Anderson, Bill Keserich, Al Reid,
Sharon Marejka, Andrew Latham
Committee Mandate: To develop and implement a year-end survey of the Lower Island
youth soccer community and to use the results of the survey to develop
options and recommendations for ways to address the issues identified
and to increase participation in youth soccer in the district.
The Survey
A web-based survey was opened for input for the period May 1, 2009 to June 15, 2009,
generating 649 responses. A summary of the results is attached.
Significant issues identified by the survey are:





Ability to form teams;
Ease of participation, fun and playing with friends;
Lack of rationale for club boundaries and disparate club sizes;
The soccer season;
Focus on the interests of teams and clubs rather than players.
It is suggested that annual surveys be held during the last month of the soccer season
to increase response and to track results over time.
Areas of Focus
Based on the survey, the committee recommends that the LISA Board recommend to
the Club Presidents that changes be considered in three areas:

Club Boundaries and Transfers – move to high school catchment boundaries,
with 9 clubs, down from the current 11 and generally 2 high schools per club

Soccer Season – move to two seasons: September to mid-November (10
weeks) and March to Mid-June (16 weeks) – minis would play only in the spring
season.

Recreational Soccer – re-brand silver and bronze as “recreational soccer” with
gold rebranded as “competitive soccer”; provide more flexibility and options in
recreational soccer
–2–
Club Boundaries and Transfers
The Issue
This is an area that has been a continuing and contentious issue for LISA and its clubs
for most, if not all, of the Association’s existence. The issue is widely viewed as being
impossible to resolve based on a general consensus because any boundary change will
generate winners and losers and there have historically been few, if any clubs that
would consent to lose any turf, so to speak. Nevertheless, the committee feels that this
is the single most important issue facing youth soccer in the District and that, unless it
can be resolved in a reasonable way, the loss of youth soccer participants cannot be
stemmed in the long run.
The immediate problem is that the small, urban clubs (PLSA, CBSA) are not financially
sustainable at current registration levels, other small clubs are unable to participate in
many age groups/skill levels and even midsized clubs are having trouble forming teams.
Large clubs are thus dominating many leagues and leagues are not available at several
age group/skill levels.
The transfer rule is regularly abused to the frustration of many. The transfer issue
complicates the matter and is a perennial source of friction among clubs and frustration
among players and parents, especially those who play mini for another club and run up
against the transfer rule at U12 or so.
Options
Option 1 – Eliminate Boundaries
Under this option, players would be free to register with whichever club they choose.
New clubs would continue to require approval of 75% of the existing clubs to join LISA.
Pros

Would eliminate frustration with the transfer rules
Cons



Would accelerate the demise of small and medium sized clubs as players
migrate to or are recruited by larger clubs
Would be expected to reduce rather than increase youth soccer participation
A legal argument for the “independent” adult clubs i.e. Castaways, Vantreights,
Vic. West etc. could possibly be made that they could register youth within their
organizations.
Option 2 – Fewer Clubs, Fewer Transfers
DRAFT #2
July 11, 2009
–3–
Under this option, small clubs would be encouraged to amalgamate with medium sized
clubs and the transfer rule would be eliminated or made stricter. Eliminating the coach
exemption, eliminating other exemptions, reducing transfers from 3 to 2, 1 or 0, could do
that. It would also impose administrative controls to enforce the transfer rule to prevent
abuse.
It would be up to the clubs to create merger opportunities and LISA and those clubs not
directly involved would have little or no influence, other than to indicate in advance a
willingness to approve mergers.
Pros

If mergers are successfully negotiated and approved, could resolve the small
urban club issue.
Cons

Would not resolve frustration of many families with the current boundary
configuration so would not increase participation

Tightening transfers would increase frustration as long as boundaries remain
without logical justification

There would continue to be considerable disparity between largest and smallest
urban clubs so team formation would still be an issue
Option 3 – Eliminate Clubs
Under this option, all of the Lower Island District would be one club. Teams would still
be formed by neighborhood for the most part but club identities would be eliminated.
This has been done in some other Districts in the name of fairness.
Pros

Would eliminate issues about the formation of teams
Cons

The experience of others is that loss of club identity reduces participation.

Would be administratively ungainly

It would not likely result in the gains in fairness some people would expect
Option 4 – School Catchment Boundaries
This option, recommended by the committee, was suggested by a relatively large
number of responses to the survey. It would realign all urban boundaries to be
DRAFT #2
July 11, 2009
–4–
consistent with high school catchment areas, all of which include elementary and middle
school catchment areas. By making each club equal to roughly two high schools, the
difference in club sizes would be reduced and youth that attend school together would
play soccer together. Instances of mini players having to play soccer across town (i.e.
Ten Mile Point having to go to Beacon Hill Park) would be reduced. There would be a
logical justification for boundaries and changes in demographics over the long run
would be automatically adjusted as the school districts adjust.
The following table shows how this might be structured:
Note that Peninsula’s boundary would not change in a material way, but its student
catchment for Parkland and Stelly’s is 5,835, consistent with the other clubs, giving it
the same potential as the other clubs.
DRAFT #2
July 11, 2009
–5–
Issues to be addressed:

Students attending school out of catchment – proposed that player can choose to
play in catchment or with the school they attend, except private schools;

Small clubs – would leave Sooke and Saltspring unchanged and small –
proposed is to allow unlimited transfers in from any club and to allow unlimited
transfers with the small club’s approval to the adjacent club (i.e. J de F for Sooke,
Peninsula or Cowichan for Saltspring) to facilitate team-making

Approval – would require 8 clubs to approve boundaries, approval of clubs being
dissolved to create new club and creation of a new club

New Club – to be a totally new club, with different colours and name from the
existing clubs

Field Allocation – would require an agreement amongst the clubs about use and
control of fields to ensure fairness and roughly equal access to turf and grass
field

Transfers – arguably transfers would be less important with equal sized clubs
and could be eliminated or restricted to enhance fairness. Increased
administrative scrutiny of registration may be needed to avoid abuse regardless
of whether transfer rules are changed or not.

Transition – proposed that there be a grandfather provision that would allow
players to continue to play with their existing club for a period of time
Pros

Would result in 7 equal sized clubs and two small-community clubs

Would continue to remain balanced as demographics change

Would be easy to explain

Would keep friends playing together
Cons

High approval hurdle i.e. 8 out of 11 clubs

Significant change for the urban portion of the District
DRAFT #2
July 11, 2009
–6–
Soccer Season
The survey suggests considerable support for a change in the soccer season. The
committee believes that the change would make soccer more attractive to a number of
people who do not play now for a variety of reasons.
The committee proposes the following:

Two soccer seasons for Super 8 and Full Field soccer, with separate league
results and opportunity to have different teams for the two seasons. The
seasons would be September to mid-November (10 weeks) with a wrap-up
district jamboree and March to Mid-June 15 weeks – 16 weeks of competition (to
include cup games plus District Cup).

For minis, there would be only one season, March to mid-June (16 weeks)
This implies that LISA teams would not be able to participate in the Coastal B Cup
unless the Lower Mainland changes its season as well, but would be able to play right
up to the time of the Provincials, allowing our qualifying teams to be better prepared
than Lower Mainland teams left without real competition for several months.
Metro/Select and Super Y would be unaffected by the season change. Super Y and
club games would be scheduled to avoid conflicts, allowing players to play on both
teams (the BCSA rules already allow this).
One of the common concerns about changing the season is the competition for fields
with baseball. With the decline of baseball and the increase in soccer specific turf fields
with longer usable daylight in the proposed season, the committee believes that there
are sufficient fields.
Players would be able to choose to register for either season or both seasons. There
would some additional administration to deal with two seasons. It would be the decision
of the clubs as to how fees would be set for one or both seasons.
This change would be expected to generate considerable interest in soccer and new
registrants, especially if the change is given considerable profile.
If approved quickly, 2009/10 could be a transition year with a single season split
according to the two new seasons, with full implementation in 2010/11.
Recreational Soccer
The committee also proposes that, in line with suggestions from many survey
participants, that silver and bronze levels of youth soccer be rebranded and replaced
with a more fun focused, flexible “Recreational Soccer” division. It is suggested that
recreational soccer continue to have different skill and development levels reflected in
its design as playing with players of a similar skill and motivation level is crucial to
DRAFT #2
July 11, 2009
–7–
players having fun. However, there is enough of a stigma attached to the gold, silver
bronze names that more descriptive names may be needed. Two ideas floated are:

Competitive (gold), intermediate (silver) and novice (bronze) – some may not like
the use a term used by hockey; and

Advanced development (gold), intermediate development (silver) and
fundamental development (bronze)
Other suggestions would be welcome.
Types of flexibility proposed include:

Having both small-sided and full field leagues (perhaps in different seasons)

Having organized drop-in sessions within and outside seasons run by paid
referees

Having a night league and/or Futsal league

Having short duration leagues with few teams and a promotion/relegation system
Conclusion
The committee feels that fundamental change is needed to reverse the loss of
participants being experienced by soccer. The changes proposed here would be a
major adjustment to the structure and operation of youth soccer in the district. By
making it easier, more convenient, fairer, keeping friends together, providing more
choice, reducing the stigma attached to silver and bronze and moving the season to the
better weather, the committee feels that soccer would become considerably more
attractive. The committee therefore recommends that the LISA Board recommend
these changes to its member clubs and begin the process of implementation.
DRAFT #2
July 11, 2009