Opus Finale .... A Warts an' all Exposé of Paintball's Very Own Megalomaniac

[Rebel Tackleberry]

We were told on the Sunday morning, after playing on Saturday with it.

The event was Tim's, not Nicks. It was Tim's responsibility to deal with the problem. His contract was with Nick. The players contract was with Shoreline. That's business I'm afraid.

 

[Missy-Q]

I think Tim has proven (pretty well) that he really doesn't care what paint gets shot. The paint restriction would have 100% come from the field owner. Therefore, I don't see how this one can be laid at the feet of shoreline. If anything, it can be argued that tim sorted your problem out so that the field owner would allow you to stay and shoot paint that he had banned. Therefore what you are actually saying, is that tim helped you out. For sure this can be argued successfully. The more examples posted that can be successfully argued against, the weaker the case against shoreline becomes. This is my point. Choose to disagree with it if you wish.

 

[Missy-Q]

Tack is correct games had been played through the saturday with Frostbite and only i would say an hour from game on Sunday it came to light that the site owner had issues.

You are successfully making my point in the last 6 words of your post. Don't you guys see?

 

[Ian Mac]

The ban on Frostbite only happened on the Sunday as that's when I arrived. I spoke to Nick about the problem first thing in the morning before play started.

 

[Missy-Q]

We were told on the Sunday morning, after playing on Saturday with it.

The event was Tim's, not Nicks. It was Tim's responsibility to deal with the problem. His contract was with Nick. The players contract was with Shoreline. That's business I'm afraid.

Ok. So Nick banned the paint. I will take you guy's word for it that he banned it halfway through the event (probably after inspecting the mess on day 1).
Teams were told, there was a 'revolt' (player power wooo), and the problem was that if Tim didn't get Nick to allow the paint to be used, you guys walk.
As you state, this was tims problem to deal with. The net result is that he dealt with it, you stayed, and shot oil-based paint against the field owners wishes.
Is any of the above inaccurate? It shouldn't be, as it was you guys that have said it...
So my question stands. This is shorelines fault why?

 

[H]

I'm completely with Missy

The frostbite did genuine damage to the fields, being a regular at the site and having known Nick since I first started playing I can honestly say that he acted appropriately to protect his site. It was the event organisers responsibility to make sure vendors were bringing paint suitable for the environment. If that didn't happen then I don't think it's viable to blame the site owner or act against their wishes.

Of all the BS that SL have been up to recently, jeez..

 

[Robbo]

All I know is, barnett's a prihk no matter what happened at Nick's site .

 

[Missy-Q]

All I know is, barnett's a prihk no matter what happened at Nick's site .

Thats more like it! Lets get back to brass tacks.

 

[Sally@skirmish]

So as there plenty of speculation going on its only fair you hear the truth from the site owners so here goes.

In august prior to the D10 event the request to use the site again was made and a meeting was set up with both Tim and Suzy Barnett on site to iron out a few details.

One of these was to show both Tim and Suzie paint that was still clearly visible from the previous years event 9 months prior,

It was agreed between Tim Suzi and Nick that any heavy stainy paint would not be used at any further events and they would ensure that all paint vendors were aware of this.

However as a hugely busy rental site with lots of players booked for the Saturday and based on the fact that there were only supposed to be a handful of players for the d10 event on site (as this is what we were told by barnett) we did not realise that once again this problem paint was being used.

Once we were aware of the situation we immediately spoke to Tim and asked him to resolve the issues for the protecion of our site which we take great pride in.

Mr and Mrs Barnett failed in their undertaking to ensure that stainy paint was not used on our site despite out meeting 5 months prior to the event and its was totally their fault that this issue came to light on the day of the event.

If they had done their job properly there would not have been a Problem end of!

We have been running a paintball site with great sucess since 1988 and NEVER had a problem like this. We have always and continue to work well with everyone in the paintball industry.

One footnote: anyone who subsequently had a problem with paint they had to buy from Barnett should understand that his trailer of sterling paint had been parked on site overnight outside unattended and unheated, whist other paint suppliers had made arrangement with us to use our heated paint store!!!

As a final comment
It was great to see so many players enjoying our site and we would love to see it again as long as the Barnetts are not involed in anyway shape or form

 

[Sally@skirmish]

Ok. So Nick banned the paint. I will take you guy's word for it that he banned it halfway through the event (probably after inspecting the mess on day 1).
Teams were told, there was a 'revolt' (player power wooo), and the problem was that if Tim didn't get Nick to allow the paint to be used, you guys walk.
As you state, this was tims problem to deal with. The net result is that he dealt with it, you stayed, and shot oil-based paint against the field owners wishes.
Is any of the above inaccurate? It shouldn't be, as it was you guys that have said it...
So my question stands. This is shorelines fault why?

Because Shoreline were fully aware of the problem 5 months prior to the event and it should never have occures in the first place thats why!