Millennium rosterlock.

[Nick Brockdorff]

I have a problem with some weird exception permitting them to do anything not allowed to another team.

But Beaker - it IS allowed for any team - in what I suggest.... nobody should stop any team from building up their squad and run a 2nd team.

It is not a weird exception, it is a rule that would apply to all teams.

It would allow paintball teams to expand into real organisations, instead of random collections of individuals.

It would allow us to build professional sports organisations, where we get an actual benefit from doing it.

Because we cannot have full time professional players, in order to keep the players in an organisation, they need other benefits - and the most important motivation for any player (when not getting paid), is that if he works hard enough and does well, he will get to start for the 1st team.

Because of the lack of money in paintball, we cannot run rosters twice the size of what is needed at an event, because when players are not paid to sit on the bench, they will fcuk off and play for someone else.

I could easily counter what you are advocating, with saying that you seem to want to cater for the lazy and stupid - and make sure they are not outperformed by those that work harder or are smarter.

If the problem is that a team may move down good players to save the 2nd team from relegation (although it doesn't make sense, because the first team will suffer for it)... we can just say 2nd teams can neither be promoted or relegated.... I just want us to be able to PAY the MS to give our second stringers game time, in the right format, at the real events.

That is beyond some people to build up their roster and make it attractive to play for your team, shoul not really be a concern - you might as well say events should have no winners, because it was unfair to the less able.

Nick

 

[Milky]

see that rule makes sence but why have the 2006 stipulation

and the rule has changed the rule now states that you can only move up from a sister team

 

[Freddie Brockdorff]

see that rule makes sence but why have the 2006 stipulation

and the rule has changed the rule now states that you can only move up from a sister team

I know Milky.... Merely suggesting this shouldn´t come as a big surprise for people, since last year had almost the same ruling!

And yeah - for those interested - I HAVE emailed Ulrich on behalf of the IPPU trying to get a reply on when the new rulebook would be out, since mostly these days it´s all about rumours and speculations. So far - no reply!

 

[Beaker]

Nick,

To say that it rewards hard work and it's somehow 50x harder to run two teams is fallacy. Here's how you do it.

<ring ring>
"Hi mate, it's Beaker, we need some players, wanna be our sister team?"

"Yeah, we got spares, no problem"
<click>



All that would happen in you'd get 4 Smart Parts teams from CPL down to Div2 palling up and going "we're sister teams" or 4 Dye teams etc etc.

Sister teams don't add anything other than another team with a similar jersey, that team would still play if you were serious about it. It's nothing about professionalizing paintball, it's simply an advantage gained for no reason other than somebody calls themselves a sister team. What are you going to do, get Ulrich to attend practices to make sure the guys know each other?

If you think that the MS should give sister teams this special exception simply "because it's hard", it's hard for teams from Greece, or Eastern Europe, they should get +1 body count? If you haven't played a Millennium before you get a free bye to help you out?

Every team has to abide by every rule, no exceptions. I don't even really care what that rule is, as long as it's applied across the board and everyone knows about it.

Not allowing a supposed sister team transfer is no different from Syd's or AB's point about a team that has players injured/drop out or anything else. What you're saying is that if a guy was injured a week before an event, a partnered team can make a transfer because they have written down similar team names, but a "normal" team can't replace the guy with a friend who's played one event with another team in order to walk out with 7? If a sister team cuts a player, they can move another one up from another team with MS experience, a normal team has to hunt for someone who's not rostered anywhere? All this just for saying "we're sister teams"?

Don't buy it.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

All that would happen in you'd get 4 Smart Parts teams from CPL down to Div2 palling up and going "we're sister teams" or 4 Dye teams etc etc

Not at all - because it is a requirement that the ownership and name is the same! - That part is already in place in the rules, and insures against exactly what you are suggesting.

You seem stuck in the belief that there has to be something shady about sister teams?

I am not talking about different teams here - I am talking about ONE team/club, being allowed the flexibility that is allowed in other sports - and not being penalised for being good at attracting members and having a professional setup.....

- and to be honest, I don't understand why you are against it - I don't see how it can be a bad thing for paintball, that some of us want to get beyond it being a semi serious pasttime, and treat it as a real sport.

Nick

 

[Beaker]

that some of us want to get beyond it being a semi serious pasttime, and treat it as a real sport.

The bottomline is I disagree with your assertion that it's a good thing for the sport to have them treated differently.

not being penalised for being good at attracting members and having a professional setup

They aren't without your free transfers - they just aren't being handed a massive advantage on a plate over everyone else. I simply want an even handed approach.

You seem stuck in the belief that there has to be something shady about sister teams?

Nope, I have a belief that any system has its flaws, and paintballers are usually better than most at exploiting them . By artificially creating the haves and have nots you'll create more people abusing the system than you will those that might (if you think that way) have a genuine case. By having an even playing field it reduces any chances of people bucking the system.

Like I said, I don't really care what the rule is, I just don't agree with exceptions.

 

[Kevin]

why not make it if you switch teams you have to miss a leg ?

that way you couldnt hop from team to team on a whim, but also wouldnt miss the whole year through leaving a team.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

They aren't without your free transfers - they just aren't being handed a massive advantage on a plate over everyone else. I simply want an even handed approach

You don't get it Beaker

When you are on a team, you want the chance of playing in the first team, if you are good enough.

In any other sport, when you are moved up to the first team, someone else is moved down.... but in paintball we are not allowed that flexibility.... our only options (if we want to keep our second team in business), is to cut a first team player completely - and throw him out of the organisation (or bench him permanently) - and bring in an entirely new player on the second team.

To me it is insane that we are not given an option of keeping people in the organisation.... by allowing players not performing well enough for the first team, to play in the second team.

- and I still don't see how you could think that was unfair in any way?

NICK

 

[Beaker]

You are arguing that it's unfair on sister teams who want to move players. I agree, it is. BUT:

I'm arguing that at the moment it's EQUALLY unfair on everyone, by creating an exception you are being "fair" to teams with sister teams, and unfair on any normal, single roster team - generating an unnecessary inequality.


At the moment it's unfair that a single roster team can't bring in players who've left other teams of their own volition. Or a player on a team that disbands is prevented from playing anywhere else that year regardless of circumstance, single roster teams can't find last minute replacements due to injury/job/death, they can't replace players who are underperforming with someone who gives them a fighting chance. It's equally fair/unfair (as it should be).

Have a transfer window at the third event, have a fee, miss an event, whatever it is, I don't really care, as long as it applies across the board.

 

[Jeff Abbott - Dye]

You don't get it Beaker

When you are on a team, you want the chance of playing in the first team, if you are good enough.

In any other sport, when you are moved up to the first team, someone else is moved down.... but in paintball we are not allowed that flexibility.... our only options (if we want to keep our second team in business), is to cut a first team player completely - and throw him out of the organisation (or bench him permanently) - and bring in an entirely new player on the second team.

To me it is insane that we are not given an option of keeping people in the organisation.... by allowing players not performing well enough for the first team, to play in the second team.

- and I still don't see how you could think that was unfair in any way?

NICK

in soccer, the second team is in the same division as the first team in fact they are the same team. they do not have players coming from division 2 to play in div 1 and div 1 players going to div 2. real madrid has one team but has a big squad to choose best players.