little late reply but...
Exactly, they lose money on tourney ball, but what MX-ball is doing with the 'Cancun-open' should come as a somewhat slap on the face to these "Site-owners"
UK Press Release
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Exactly, they lose money on tourney ball, but what MX-ball is doing with the 'Cancun-open' should come as a somewhat slap on the face to these "Site-owners"
Because there doing everything they can to promote the sport of paintball at a HUGE loss, which is what i dont see alot of the recreational paintball sites even for one second consider.
i was just trying to pull more out of what you said, that they will lose money and they dont want to do that so they wont
PG92 - I'm not sure I'd advocate anybody promoting an event at a loss, and there has always been a financial tightrope to be negotiated in running events that promote our sport, with the need to balance the books.
There are quite a few good guys who run sites and promote transitions from punter to tourney but my experience of the majority is somebody who only cares about bottom lines and has no care for the sport itself .... but then again, why should they?
I suppose I am being unreasonable in expecting these guys to promote the side of our sport that means so much to me, but let's be honest here, why the hell should it matter to them?
It's the way they earn their living, nothing more.
It seems to me that when the site owner themself becomes interested in the tourney side of things, this is what generally pre-empts that site nudging punters to play Sup' Air and it is exactly that opportunity that is the spawning ground for sport of tournament paintball.
Robbo- What exactly is there for us to do to reverse the decline of paintball in the U.K?
but at the end of the day i still think paint needs to be affordable
but at the end of the day i still think paint needs to be affordable
I think this new initiative that has most of the UK industry guys is gonna be our best chance, we got the next meeting on the 28th of this month and already we have fleshed out what we need to do.
Chris Pelling and Wendy have embraced the ideas we have suggested and that alone indicates to me we have come an awful long way already.
And I say this because Wendy had to trust me on a particular financial issue and grasp a nettle whereby she gave up an awful lot to come on board.
This is not a short-term commitment from these guys, it's a mid to long term one and if we all stay true to the cause, then everybody benefits, and here I am talking about the players, teams and vendors.
We got no players, we got no vendors; we got no vendors, we got no players, it's a symbiotic relationship which we are addressing as best we can.
I think a line has to be drawn to mark a difference between "Tournament" sites and "Corporate" sites.
I think the site that goes a little way to embrace tournament play even on a limited budget can be commended for that, but i certainly know of sites where the operate has absolutely no interest in our sport other than it pays his mortgage.
The fact of the matter is that these "mortgage" sites will probably not provide any throughput of players into our sport, and would not recognise any governing body unless they were forced to become compliant by law.
I for one feel that the steps that "The new world order" is taking, are steps in the right direction. It has baffled me how we have discussed insane idea's like paintball at the olympics, when across the world we are running 57 different types, of leagues, formats, rules etc etc and could not organise ourselves into a shambles even if we tried.
This whole affair will fray the whole fabric of paintball to a shred, but hopefully the shirts we'll be wearing on the other side will look pretty darn cool.
Bon voyage Mon amigo's
100% on the money Lucky !
Oh my, the 'darn' mighta flew over some but it had me in stitches
From my point of veiw the timing couldn't be more perfect, amist the chaos of a resession where getting things working will rely on providing everyone the best bang for the buck they can get to make playing attractive and affordable.
Lets hope as the economy picks back up it doesn't lead to more expensive tournaments, but higher quality ones with more teams being able to afford it and join in.
Lets hope as the economy picks back up it doesn't lead to more expensive tournaments, but higher quality ones with more teams being able to afford it and join in.
Let's hope that, but you have also got to understand that the change most likely won't come from the organisers charging less money for what they provide. The economics of running tournaments requires a certain amount of money that needs to be spent to put on an event of proper quality.
To give you an example, me and a friend decided to calculate the amount of money necessary to put on an event on par or better than what the Millennium is offering currently.
Assuming we would be starting from the scratch with no infrastracture on hand (no fields, nets, poles, tables, computers, chronos' and so on) the amount required to get the first event running was a whopping 200k Euros, and that assuming that we would cut the costs wherever possible without sacrifying quality, get the fields as part of a corporate sponsorship or on terms and sell them after the event to avoid having to foot the bill.
The next event after that in our calculations would have been much cheaper, just about 120k...
The only problem is that the income from teams would never be equal what would have to be spent to put on an event like that? Where should that money come from? Industry? Sure, but only if they perceive what we offer them as a good investment. And they don't have bottomless pockets from which to take cash out.