2016 VMSL AGM

[Soccer Coach]

You are a first class ass.

By your definition, there is only one city: Downtown Vancouver. Otherwise, from Vancouver proper, across the bridge to North and West Van, across the other bridge to Richmond, then across the other bridge and down the highway to Burnaby / Coquitlam / Surrey / Langley- basically everything else besides DT Vancouver- is rural to you, by your way of thinking. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the reality, even the actual geographical description provided by Metro Vancouver: http://www.metrovancouver.org/servi...entres/about-urban-centres/Pages/default.aspx

Which proves to me:

1. For a fellow that likes to come across as educated, you really are naive (you may look up the definition, as I suspect you are too naive to understand the meaning).
2. You live in your own little bubble, and have never actually explored the environment in which you live.

For some time, the Valley region in Surrey, Langley, Coquitlam, and Burnaby has been feeding the Metro Vancouver area as a whole (both leagues) with top players. No, I don't count your players in there, you are, after all, Div. 2, and a gift promotion to Div. 1. Maybe your players can one day polish the boots of the guys playing Premier across all three leagues.

Your argument also makes no accommodation for those playing in the Island Premier league, where true rural areas have been producing top level local players long before you came around to sully the place w/ your shite that doesn't stink.

Meanwhile, the City of Vancouver itself produces the fewest top level players in BC. Again, your players are NOT counted in those.

Whoa! I look forward to the day where you do not engage in personal attacks.
Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, Norvan, New West and even some pockets of Surrey are part of Vancouver Metro.People there are highly connected to Vancouver proper through jobs, entertainment and socializing. This is the core of the VMSL. the FVSL will never compete with the VMSL. It is an inferior league with inferior football.

 

[Dude]

It is the same argument as the origins of the Renaissance. Surrey United might have done well, but as other centres are becoming more sophisticated; they will have more difficulty competing. @Dude argued that the FVSL would become stronger than the VMSL. It is very unlikely; just by the fact of population density. As Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Norvan and Westvan increase their population densities they should improve faster than the Valley.

This isn’t a debate about the FVSL vs. VMSL. The VMSL has always had the edge in attracting top players. I can’t remember a time in the last 20 years that the gap / advantage has truly closed. Sometimes it’s been close, sometimes it widens again. Is it a huge gap between Premier leagues? Not these days. Are the VMSL Premier teams superior to the FVSL Premier Teams? Currently they are a notch better, results don’t lie.

That being said, this is now a discussion about what defines and Urban Centre, population migration, and of course, you once again making false reference to words I’ve written. I challenge you to show everyone where I stated, “Dude argued that the FVSL would become stronger than the VMSL.” I did argue a case that it should occur IF FVSL clubs (specifically, Premier teams) improved in strength in conjunction to growth in the urban centres the FVSL occupies itself in, but I also argued that is not certain because we haven’t actually seen this occure in 20 some years. Frankly, we haven’t seen that gap close as quickly as we HAVE seen the trend in growth in the FVSL urban areas. Part of the reason for that gap is simply competition: to beat the best, you need to compete against the best on a regular basis. It’s always going to be a challenge for the FVSL to be the best when they don’t have that level of competition to compete against week in, week out. Which is why I actually agree that it is possible for Surrey United to get dragged down a level, rather than the FVSL lifting itself up to theirs. Time will tell.

All that said, back to you being an idiot in a bubble…

“As Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Norvan and Westvan increase their population densities they should improve faster than the Valley.”

This would be true, if it were actually true. Unfortunately, growth in those areas is already behind their Valley counterparts, and that trend will only continue.

Go here for growth projections (starting in 2011): http://www.metrovancouver.org/servi...TableA1-PopDwelUnitEmpProjforMVSubregMuni.pdf

Metro Vancouver as a whole is projected to grow by 46%.

Of those…

• Richmond / Delta / Tsawwassen is projected to grow by 38%
• North Shore: 32%
• Vancouver: 26% (largest current and projected urban population at 795,000)

While…

• Surrey is projected to grow by 59% (note: second larges urban population projected at 793,500, which should actually overtake Vancouver much sooner than 2041, as will dictated by real estate pricing and availability)
• Tri-Cities is projected to grow by 64% (yes, it’s in the Valley, even if CMF plays in the VMSL)
• Langley is projected to grow by 89%, the largest growth projection of any Urban area in the Province.

Sorry to hit you with a bag full of truth.

The FVSL also says “You’re Welcome” for your gift promotion.

Your results on the pitch this season showed you weren’t ready for promotion, but now it’s been gifted due to issues that have not occurred on the pitch. Lucky you.

 

[Dude]

Whoa! I look forward to the day where you do not engage in personal attacks.
Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, Norvan, New West and even some pockets of Surrey are part of Vancouver Metro.People there are highly connected to Vancouver proper through jobs, entertainment and socializing. This is the core of the VMSL. the FVSL will never compete with the VMSL. It is an inferior league with inferior football.

There may be a day when I don't refer to you as an ass when you don't come across as one. Or pompous. Or, truly, the dumbest smart-guy ever.

Until that day, you shall remain, an ass.

*Note: this isn't a personal attack, it is an exercise in truth telling.

 

[Soccer Coach]

omg. Now I have to give you math classes too. Population growth is not the same as growth density.

 

[Dude]

Density is USELESS in this argument. With density come challenges for young families to even live in the area. If they do, the next challenge is recreation. Frequently, they need to go outside their immediate surroundings to do things like play sports, due to lack of facilities.

Clubs need facilities. Certain areas of Metro Vancouver are rich in facilities, others are not. Some are well positioned for growth in young families, others are not. Young families living and working in the area are key to growth in football registrations, which is where it all starts.

 

[Dude]

Last link: http://www.metrovancouver.org/servi...tions/140509_RPA_Density_and_Urban_Growth.pdf

The only area with a substantially higher density is DT Vancouver. Not exactly your local footballing factory.

Again, back to you being a dumb smart guy.

 

[freddy]

 

[Canucks4Ever]

"
Why Living in a City Makes You More Innovative
Research suggests that the more opportunities you have to connect with different people--and fresh ideas--the more creative and productive you tend to be.
By Randy Rieland
SMITHSONIAN.COM
JUNE 28, 2013
image: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/ideas/files/2013/06/city-skyline-large.jpg




"...One of the better examples of this messy, but fruitful dynamic played out after World War II in a nondescript structure at M.I.T known simply as Building 20. In his book, “Where Good Ideas Come From,” published in 2010, Steven Johnson wrote about how, because the building was used to handle overflow from fast-growing science departments, it scrambled together an eclectic mix of nuclear scientists, electrical engineers, computer scientists, acoustical engineers and even linguists.

And that resulted in hallway conversations and random exchanges that made Building 20 one of the more creative places on Earth, a place that incubated an amazing sweep of scientific breakthroughs, from the first computer video game (SpaceWar!) to major advances in both microwaves and high-speed photography to the earliest attempts at computer hacking.

Social scientists will tell you it’s that same swirl of commingled ideas and constant interactions–albeit on a much larger scale–that makes cities founts of creativity. In fact, research published earlier this month by scientists from M.I.T. concluded that productivity and innovation in urban areas grow at roughly the same rate as population, largely because the greater density of people living in a city increases the opportunities for personal interactions and exposure to different ideas.

..The research team, led by Wei Pan, analyzed all kinds of factors to tabulate the “social-tie density” of different cities–that’s the average number of people each resident will interact with personally. They looked at everything from the number of call partners with whom a cellphone user will end up sharing a cell tower to the number of people connecting through location-based social networks like Foursquare to the contagion rates of diseases spread only through personal contact. And they found that the higher a city’s social-tie density, the higher its levels of productivity and patents awarded."

People that studied soccer history make parallel arguments. High density usually leads to better soccer.

OK this is a major wind up for me. I REALLY did not want to go another round with this guy but I can't let this go by unchallenged.

You have presented one piece of "evidence" and essentially are using it as a "drop-the-mic" moment saying the rest of us are all uninformed. However, your "source" is actually an editorial, opinion based blog post. The first source she cites in her piece an anecdotal account in a book that recounts the interactions that took place at MIT during WWII. Nothing scientific about this information, just one guy's recollection and musings essentially.

Her next source is an actual published, peer reviewed study and this IS a good source. However, if you read the study itself, it observes that there is a mathematical correlation between population density and productivity (ie GDP) as well as STDs and crime. Like all good science though it also identifies the study's limitations and shortfalls. For example, and the blog author even includes this in her piece though you conveniently cut your quote short of including it because it does not support your purposes, the math does not work in large Arfican cities and Eastern cities like Beijing. The researchers speculate this may be due to infrastructure deficiencies in these cities that limit interactions between people. This study raises several questions and is by no means difinitive. It is certainly an interesting study, but it would need to be replicated and developed before we can say that it is hard science.

This is what I (so now this is me being editorial...) like to refer to as a "FOX News" arguement. That is, you are taking one small piece of evidence and inflating it to seemingly wholly support your position. Classic examples are "Drinking red wine can decrease your liklihood of getting cancer" or "Eating chocolate can improve cognitive function." These studies are all of varrying degrees of accurate but you really need to read the methods and results of the reasearch to determine the validity of the conslusions. One cannot simply take bits and pieces and fit them to one's argument.

It's called CRITICAL THINKING, but surely someone as "obtuse" as myself could never understand the nuances of science...

 

[Soccer Coach]

@Dude,
I do not make the data or the studies. Population density is one of the key variables to predict innovation and better productivity and performance. VMSL teams are based on higher density areas than FVSL teams. Just in this demographic alone, the FVSL will never surpass the VMSL. This is the whole point. My grandkids will play better than your grandkids just by the mere issue that you are on the valley and I am on the city.

As for you never implying that the FVSL could surpass the VMSL; please refer to your own writing:

"The latest Provincial results are obvious...the VMSL is still the top dog, and I'm sure will remain so, as far as number of top level squads, for a while. But maybe, with a couple of savvy shifts / acquisitions, the power will start to shift.

Maybe by the time I have grandkids..".

 

[Dude]

Idiot,

Explain how this (your incorrect paraphrasing of my words): "@Dude argued that the FVSL would become stronger than the VMSL. It is very unlikely; just by the fact of population density. As Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Norvan and Westvan increase their population densities they should improve faster than the Valley.”

Is the same as this (my actual words): “The latest Provincial results are obvious...the VMSL is still the top dog, and I'm sure will remain so, as far as number of top level squads, for a while. But maybe, with a couple of savvy shifts / acquisitions, the power will start to shift. Maybe by the time I have grandkids.."

?

The words WOULD and MAYBE are very different, especially in this particular case.

Never mind your failure to recognise some TTP humor (it's OK, not the first time you've missed the obvious). Never mind that you are actually dead wrong about the increasing population densities. The areas I highlighted are increasing in both population and population density (because, you know, as one increases, the other must as well).

Your grandkids will most certainly be better soccer players than my grandkids, as I won’t be in the Valley, or the City, but up the Coast. But I can assure you, my grandkids will be better skiers, and cyclists, because, who the fcuk cares…

 

[bandcamp]

Perhaps I am wrong.

Go with that

 

[Soccer Coach]

Idiot,

Explain how this (your incorrect paraphrasing of my words): "@Dude argued that the FVSL would become stronger than the VMSL. It is very unlikely; just by the fact of population density. As Richmond, Vancouver, Burnaby, Norvan and Westvan increase their population densities they should improve faster than the Valley.”

Is the same as this (my actual words): “The latest Provincial results are obvious...the VMSL is still the top dog, and I'm sure will remain so, as far as number of top level squads, for a while. But maybe, with a couple of savvy shifts / acquisitions, the power will start to shift. Maybe by the time I have grandkids.."

?

The words WOULD and MAYBE are very different, especially in this particular case.

Never mind your failure to recognise some TTP humor (it's OK, not the first time you've missed the obvious). Never mind that you are actually dead wrong about the increasing population densities. The areas I highlighted are increasing in both population and population density (because, you know, as one increases, the other must as well).

Your grandkids will most certainly be better soccer players than my grandkids, as I won’t be in the Valley, or the City, but up the Coast. But I can assure you, my grandkids will be better skiers, and cyclists, because, who the fcuk cares…

@Dude, I guess it is really hard for you to accept that there are flaws in your arguments and position. An equal increase in population in two districts does not translate in a equal increase in population density.
Extreme example of an increase of 2: (10 + 2) / 1 is not equal to (20 + 2) / 2 . Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and others would have to receive more than a million people just to achieve similar density numbers. This is simple not going to happen. Just by this limitation alone the FVSL can not catch up to the VMSL in terms of quality.

In any case, the arguments is exhausted for me.

An issue that I would like to explore is the future of the CAT system. It seems that Westside is leaving the CAT league. I heard rumours that NorvVan too. Surrey United is gone. We were considering to CAT with the Div 2 team, but if all those teams leave; there might be no incentive for us to CAT.

 

[Regs]

An issue that I would like to explore is the future of the CAT system. It seems that Westside is leaving the CAT league. I heard rumours that NorvVan too. Surrey United is gone. We were considering to CAT with the Div 2 team, but if all those teams leave; there might be no incentive for us to CAT.

START A NEW THREAD.

 

[Dude]

Idiot:

1. How many valley based teams are there in the VMSL Prem?

2. What team won the Provincials?

At issue is you made statements to support your argument that are actually not factual, that are wrong. You won't admit that, fine.

On population and population density, Surrey will surpass Vancouver inside 20 years. The surrounding areas will continue to grow at a faster rate in the same time. Young families will continue to set roots in the Valley at a faster rate than in the immediate Urban areas surrounding Vancouver.

Vancouver itself is NOT a hotbed for footballing talent, also a truth supported by registrations to BCSA.

As to the FVSL vs. VMSL argument, you seem to think I care. I don't. But what I do get wound up about is you attesting statements to me that I didn't make, and you trying to support your arguments with falsehoods.

As for me, I've argued here quite successfully that you are indeed the dumbest smart guy ever, and an idiot, and now a mule.

I hope you and your shitty little club can continue to take the local amateur footballing world by storm, aided by gifts from the FVSL, of course.

 

[dezza]

This is a stupid argument. Canada is NOT a hotbed for footballing talent. We're talking about different levels of shite, but guess what... we're all shite!

Dude, just for the sake of argument, how many players from the current Men's National Team pool are from the Fraser Valley?
Here are 3 from Vancouver proper: Callum Irving (Marpole / Vancouver Selects), Marcus Haber (Dunbar / Vancouver Selects), Ben Fisk (Marpole / Vancouver Selects)

 

[SmartCoach]

Just cleaned my screen with a used
Dryer sheet best clean ever
After reading this absolute rubbish from soccer coach
I wished I didn't

 

[Dude]

Dezza- fair point, and it is a stupid discussion. I allowed myself once again to get drawn in by his nonsense.

I could go way back and point out all of BCs best pros, and overwhelmingly they are from the Valley area- and yes, Coquitlam is the Valley.

But it's nonsense right now. I just get my back up when idiots like this try to support an argument with untrue and inaccurate information.

I have nothing against the VMSL. I played there once, and most of my teammates over the years had at one point, too. I switched because I moved from New West to Cloverdale when I bought my first home. As is the case with many players who settled in the Valley. It has been a great place to play; great facilities, well organized clubs, and dozens of very good, top level teammates over the years. And a couple of championships with fond memories. Over those years, there was no point where I yearned to be back in the VMSL.

The VMSL will likely continue to hog all the Premier level Cups for the forseable future. Of not. Either way, it really doesn't matter to me.

Anyhow, I'll do my best to let this one rest.

 

[Soccer Coach]

There is really no need to descend into insults. If anyone does not agree, then just move on. I do not make the research, nor the inferences. There is no need to get angry with me. In summary, the proposition is that higher population density leads to more innovation and creativity in almost all facets of human activity including soccer performance. This clearly applies to the VMSL vis a vi the FVSL. Both leagues have been in operation for decades, but one has clearly dominated the other, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Population density alone can explain most of the difference in performance.

Yes, you can find individual examples or overlaps, but this does not weaken the argument.

 

[akslop]

There is really no need to descend into insults. If anyone does not agree, then just move on. I do not make the research, nor the inferences. There is no need to get angry with me. In summary, the proposition is that higher population density leads to more innovation and creativity in almost all facets of human activity including soccer performance. This clearly applies to the VMSL vis a vi the FVSL. Both leagues have been in operation for decades, but one has clearly dominated the other, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Population density alone can explain most of the difference in performance.

Yes, you can find individual examples or overlaps, but this does not weaken the argument.

SHUT THE F U C K UP!

 

[Ballbaby]

There is really no need to descend into insults. If anyone does not agree, then just move on. I do not make the research, nor the inferences. There is no need to get angry with me. In summary, the proposition is that higher population density leads to more innovation and creativity in almost all facets of human activity including soccer performance. This clearly applies to the VMSL vis a vi the FVSL. Both leagues have been in operation for decades, but one has clearly dominated the other, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Population density alone can explain most of the difference in performance.

Yes, you can find individual examples or overlaps, but this does not weaken the argument.

Well the population base, density, demographics, is definitely changing and moving east. Surrey is a big city, rural or not, and has always been able to replicate the density dynamics you speak about Soccer Coach. Historically, many of the top players in the VMSL came from Surrey and found teams to play in within the VMSL and PCSL. No one has even discussed Langley and Abbotsford. There are so many good players developing there. Surrey United has never been know to follow along. Surrey United has pioneered many practices in the soccer community. The move to the FVSL will allow us to progress in the most efficient manner. Whether we were winning or not in the VMSL is a moot point. We are more sustainable to function within the FVSL and solidify the path of our very talented youth. When I look at the VMSL, I don't see many "clubs". I see quite a few rogue entities that are as viable as the one or two people running them. Those one or two people leave, the rogue entity becomes vulnerable. The VMSL and FVSL or PCSL are only as good as the teams within it. The Fraser Valley will continue to produce top quality players, and Surrey United is one example of this. We have proven that. We are simply stating that we wish to compete closer to home with the population densities in this region. Times have changed. The young families of Vancouver and Burnaby are not the same young families of yesteryear. Much different demographics. Most mainstream families are moving out this way and that is where the future densities will plant themselves and grow. Surrey United will facilitate that.

Competition will be key and we will have some challenges. I will never accept the comment that we didn't want to compete with CMF and didn't want to draw comparisons. That is especially insulting to me since the present VMSL CMF team is filled with 92 borns, the same 92's that my National Champion team competed against, and the same 92 born team that I ultimately sent 10 players to Whitecaps full time. Our continual support of the soccer pyramid actually hinders populating our own men's team because we move so many players at younger ages that they lose that critical connection formed through the U18 levels. We need to resolve this. CMF has the same challenges, but they also aren't competing against multiple clubs within Coquitlam like we do in Surrey.

Lastly, this population density leading to creativity growth theory? Can't argue with basic human dynamics, but Soccer Coach, don't mistake Surrey as merely a rural area. Historically even when Surrey was "more rural", it was amazing to see how some of these farmers played the game. Regs and Reedie are SU products and participate on this forum. I can give you countless examples.