Okanagan Mission Youth Soccer Association
Questions/Concerns
Many of the following comments are based on feedback from our membership and are not intended to represent the views of any one person or group.
General:
The One Club Committee (OCC) acknowledges that a number of the items in their proposal are really a "wish list" and will not be known until after a one club is (if) formed. This is a reasonable expectation however some people felt that too much of the proposal was a "wish list" and would have preferred to have more facts to support the proposal. Some would like to have seen more information on field development, impact on players fees, and how this proposed change would ensure that every player would benefit.
The OCC is pressing for clubs to bring this proposal to a vote at their upcoming AGM. It is our position that a number of very important questions need to be answered before doing so. The OCC had nearly a year to formulate their proposal and we feel that it is only fair that we be given a reasonable amount of time to follow-up on our members questions and concerns.
The City has a 10 year plan for recreational development. Included in this plan is the provision for one artificial field and 2 grass fields. It is generally accepted that there is a shortage of 4 fields for soccer. Under the "One Club" proposal the City would put in a second artificial field instead of the 2 grass fields. Artificial fields cost an estimated $2.5M and grass fields cost $0.9M, a difference of $1.6M. As the City does not have the additional $1.6M in their development budget the OCC suggested that COYSA could provide this amount. In exchange for these funds COYSA would get an undetermined amount of priority booking on these fields. Regular booking fees would still have to be paid and any agreement would not exceed 5 years. We assume there would be a possibility for extension but nothing has been said with respect to this.
There are a number of concerns. The foremost is that artificial fields are of little or no use to house soccer which accounts for just over 92% of all registered players. These facilities can cost in excess of $40 per hour to rent. With 4560 (2005 registrations) house players needing fields for practice and play this is not an affordable option. In effect these fields would be used, as far as soccer is concerned, almost exclusively by select players or perhaps by the men's or women's leagues. Since house players make up over 92% of all the youth players they would be paying the lions share for facilities they may never use.
In addition, as we noted above, we are short 4 fields. The current development plan is for one of the Mission fields (field #70) to be removed to make room for baseball diamonds. If the City were to develop the two grass fields as noted above this would provide us with one additional field overall. If they were to put in an artificial field instead we would lose an field and then be short 5 fields.
Based on the estimated costs for the second artificial field each player would have to pay an additional $36 per year for at least the next 10 years. Some financial numbers based on information to date.
| Amount | Comment | |
| Total cost of a second artificial field | 2,500,000 | |
| Amount City has in their budget | 900,000 | For 2 grass fields |
| Amount needed to fund second field | 1,600,000 | |
| COYSA Land Fund | 300,000 | |
| Total amount of borrowing | 1,300,000 | |
| Cost per player/year for 10 years | $36 | Based on City's figures @6% |
The "One Club" committee often states that the City will only deal with one legal entity and not the 5 clubs separately. The OCC has implied that we must adopt their proposal or the City will not deal with us. What the City has said is that they will only deal with COYSA and not the individual clubs. They have not said that we need to adopt this "One Club" model. A quote from a letter from the Parks and Leisure Services Department to the OCC dated September 9, 2005 states:
"To ensure there is consistency and a clear approach in pursuing and developing partnership opportunities, the City will only directly work with COYSA as the parent organization, and not with any of the member associations."
A subsequent letter from the City in respect to this issue states that:
"The City of Kelowna will partner with one organization solely responsible for the streamlining of funds required to service the debt resulting from borrowed funds for the development. The City of Kelowna would not consider multiple partners for any partnership arrangement".
We feel that this is a reasonable request. The problem in the past has been that certain well meaning individuals have taken upon themselves to approach the City with proposals without the sanction of COYSA. It is our understanding that this is an old problem and has not occurred for many years.
COYSA already represents all clubs when dealing with the City on land use and development. What we need to do is ensure that well meaning individuals or clubs do not approach the City without the express approval of COYSA.
The "One Club" has stated that as a single club we would speak as one voice to the City and have a potential of 10,000 votes. First of all we must remember that we do have a structure for one voice, COYSA. The political influence should not be overestimated. In the last civic election the voter turnout was approximately 24%. It can be assumed that the issues involved in a civic election are far more important to the average voter than whether we get an additional soccer field. Minor sports are important to all of us however we also realize that the City has limited resources and there are other sports competing for existing and future facilities. We can make our needs known to the City however it is questionable whether there would be significant political influence.
Many people wanted to know what the overall impact on the registration fees would be for each player. The financial aspects of this proposal are quite unclear however the OCC anticipated administrative savings, lower costs for purchase of equipment and perhaps additional sponsorship money. Indeed there may be certain savings in some areas but how much is the big question. The OCC anticipated at least a $20,000 savings through administrative efficiencies. Total 2004 expenses for the 5 clubs and COYSA were $855,263. A $20,000 savings would represent a only a 2.3% reduction in overall expenses or just over $4 per player.
There is also a chance that overall expenses will go up to finance the following One Club proposals:
It should be noted that fees paid to BC Soccer and for field usage are going up. These fees will go up whether or not a single club is formed. We should keep in mind that the $115 cost per divisional player, for example, this year could go up to $165 (115+36+12) after a single club was formed.
The financial report used by the OCC for it's analysis may not be reliable in it's current format. The report presented to the OCC was in a draft form and needed additional work to ensure they were comparing apples to apples. During the compilation of the report it was apparent that not all clubs were categorizing their revenues and expenses the same way. Where it was obvious the categories were the same they were combined in one line otherwise a separate line was created. It was the intention of the author of this compilation that further work was needed to make it more reliable for analysis and to put it in a more presentable format. As a result there is concern that any financial conclusions based on the report may not be accurate.
Overall our Club feels that further analysis needs to be done to get some reasonable idea of the potential impact on revenues and expenses under the proposed one club. We realize that some answers will not be known until after a one club was formed. A number of people wanted to know more about how this overall change might impact our fees. There was concern that there could be significant overall fee increases which may reduce overall registrations thus putting additional financial pressure on the remaining players.
It is claimed that the existing structure does not work because each COYSA rep comes to the meeting representing their own club and not all the players in general.
We assume that all players (at each age level) under COYSA are more or less a homogeneous group with similar needs and expectations. If this assumption is correct then if each club has their own players best interests in mind they will also be representing all the players. For example, it is difficult to believe that mini player from Kelowna is any different than one from any other club.
Regionalization also allows for each club to have a more personal relationship with their players. For example, the Mission club hosts a Soccer Daze event each spring. Other clubs also have their own special events to help the players celebrate soccer. These “special events” may not survive under a larger one club administration.
Some members asked whether other options were considered by the OCC or whether the OCC would consider other options. It would appear that the committee is not willing to change their proposal or consider other options.
The OCC claims that there is a problem in getting volunteers and that their new structure would make that easier.
We agree that getting volunteers is a difficult problem at times. This is an issue the OMYSA addressed a number of years ago and has done quite successfully. We feel that the new structure may be less successful at getting volunteers than the individual clubs. The main reason is that many people have a sense of community and are more willing to volunteer at the club level than for a large umbrella organization. No doubt there are many dedicated volunteers that will help out wherever then can. We simply feel that the sense of community and personal contacts within each area assists in getting volunteers.
The committee proposes that we have a unified development program for the benefit of all players.
The current development structure was started an number of years ago, under COYSA, with the formation of the Okanagan Regional Training Centre. A regional head coach was brought in sponsored by all the clubs as part of COYSA. Unfortunately the resources gravitated to the very top and limited benefit flowed to the players who paid most of the initial expenses.
All the clubs are interested in developing their players and coaches. The Mission Club, for example, encourages it’s coaches to attend the Community Coach Youth and Senior clinics and coaches are fully reimbursed if they attend. Our Head Coach has put on a number of free clinics for the coaches. Development begins at the U6 level with coaches and players attending a mandatory development practice that continues into U7. Various clinics are offered to our players including a Goalie clinic that is free to participants. We are always willing to sit down with any group to discuss player and coach development.
The OCC claims that efficiencies would be realized by consolidating administrative functions, equipment and other resources.
As far as administrative efficiencies are concerned we have seen no details on how the new structure would improve on the existing system. We should keep in mind that we depend on volunteers to do much of our work so any efficiencies would not necessarily save administrative costs. The OCC proposal would be for each club to maintain certain functions for assisting the main office. This is currently done so it is not clear where the administrative savings would occur.
It was suggested, for example, that savings could be realized through bulk purchases or equipment for the players. If this is so then this could be done through the existing structure where it made economic sense.Our club has considered the bulk buying options in the past. To date none have been more affordable than what we are currently using. For example, we now pay, on average, just over $11 for each jersey and approximately $11 for soccer balls. None of the proposals brought forward to us in the past came close to matching theses prices.
Final Comment
There is no doubt that all the parties involved want to do what is best for the kids playing soccer. Where people may differ is on how to achieve this objective. The OMYSA has a reputation of being a very well run club (not to say we don't have issues) and we are proud of the support we have received from our members to make this so. If any changes are to be made we feel that it should be clear that it will ultimately benefit all the players. It would be a tragedy to take a blind leap in a new direction and then find out that soccer has taken a turn for the worse. We want to provide an affordable and fun environment for our children to play soccer. Many people have voiced concern that this new proposal with its artificial fields, paid coaches and additional paid staff is geared more towards the high end player and ultimately make it less affordable for the recreational player. Most people fully support the growth and development of those players wanting to develop their skills at a higher level but do not want it done so at the detriment of the recreational player. Concern has been voiced that there are no assurances that every player will benefit. As noted above with the ORTC, the resources gravitated to the top leaving the vast majority of the players with no benefit for their dollar. It should be noted that the Mission Club contributes a large portion of the players to the KU (select) program, approximately 25 to 35% of all the players. We also want to make sure that there is an affordable and effective program for those players wanting to move up.
We will continue to work hard to get as much information as possible for you so you can make an informed choice. We will be setting up a special e-mail account for you to send in your comments. Although we will try to respond directly to as many as possible shear volume may not make this possible. It is likely that many people will have the same questions so we may simply post our response/information on this website for all to read. We will provide further information with respect to this on our website.
Before becoming part of a "One Club" we would have to bring this to our membership and it would have to be passed with at least a 75% majority. At least 4 of the 5 clubs would have to vote in favour of the proposal for it to be adopted. Some of the clubs have chosen to take this to their membership at their next AGM this fall. Others have chosen, as we have, to do further research and get answers to your questions before doing so. We respect that each club Executive has the right to bring this to their membership in the manner they feel is best. We simply want to ensure you have all the relevant information and answers to your questions so before asking you to make such an important decision.
Last modified: December 03, 2005