Do Your Part to Help Reunification

[Chicago]

I think nothing of the sort. Pure Promotions does a great job putting on a series and running events, and their events are the standard for paintball.

But calling, or marketing, NPPL as a player's league is rubbish. And saying NPPL is better than PSP because one has player input and the other doesn't is rubbish. And saying that Chuck being President of NPPL and not having elections is legitimate is rubbish.

NPPL, which used to be a player's organization, has somehow become a corporation owned by Chuck, through no legitimate means.

If you want to say NPPL events have better locations, fine. I disagree with you, but that's personal preference about what I think is important for a paintball event. If you want to say NPPL has better marketing, better format, better reffing, better trade shows, or whatever, there is a basis for having opinions like that.

But to say that NPPL is a players' league is a flat out lie.

Please, tell us one thing that NPPL does that makes it a players league that PSP does not do.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Chicago:

I LOVE to disagree with Missy - and often find his rethorics distasteful.... but in this case I honestly think you have gone overboard.

I was in the league when all this went down - and quite close to one of the principal entities involved.

Fact is (at least as I perceived it), the promoters no longer wanted to work with Chuck or the NPPL as it was structured back then.... and went their separate way.

Now, you may blame Chuck for not, at that point in time, trying hard enough to rally the players and get a player run league on its feet..... but I think you know as well as I, that it would have been flat out impossible.

As such, I don't really think he stole anything - he just picked up something others left in the gutter, and made something of it.

That might technically be in violation of trademark laws in the US - or whatever.... but please tell me who were really harmed by his course of action?

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Depending on who you ask, the promoters refused to work with Chuck because they didn't want to meet his demands, or Chuck made demands unreasonable knowing the promoters wouldn't be able to work with him. And I'd certainly agree that there was nothing inherently bad about Chuck's actions in 2002, or maybe even 2003. I'm actually very happy Chuck did what he did in 2002, otherwise there's no way tournament paintball would have advanced to where it is now.

But that was then, and now it's going on 2006, and NPPL is still calling itself a players league, and at this point, I gotta cry foul. If NPPL really is NPPL, and really is the player's league started in 1993, then there should be elections. Or Chuck should just call it the new NPPL and stop trying to market it as a continuation of the old league. But to take the image/brand of the old league, and market yourself as the continuation of that old league, what was a player's league, and tell everyone it is a player's league, butnot actually give the players an opportunity to say "Yes, you should keep running this", that's stealing.

If ther's an election and the players vote and they say "Chuck did great, Chuck stays president", cool. But Chuck has STOLEN that ability away from the players. I'd like to see it given back.

Because ultimately, I'd like to see a REAL player's association - one with a board, and an executive, that's responsible to membership, just like most other major sports out there. Having NPPL pretend that they're already a players league when they're not is an obstacle to that goal.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Well ok - just visited the NPPL website and found this in "about us":

The NPPL is the National Professional Paintball League, the sole sanctioning body for all amateur and professional paintball players in North America. It is a league, where player representatives formulate league rules, make business decisions and sanction and preside over all aspects of any NPPL event. The NPPL was founded in 1993 and is the oldest such organization.

I was actually not aware the NPPL still marketed itself as such - and that obviously a bit rich

I am however unaware if the NPPL presents itself as such to media and companies outside paintball - because certainly within paintball, nobody is in doubt about the validity of that statement

If they do not, I'd call it an oversight on the website and move on - if they do, I don't really see that as a big problem either.... because I don't think any media or companies outside paintball really CARE if the league is player owned/operated or not

I do not see the NPPL standing in the way of a player organisation.... nobody is forbidding us players to form an organisation or union.... and none of the players organised in such an organisation would have any doubts about whether the NPPL (or PSP or MS) is player owned/run - or a commercial entity.

The only reason it has not happened, is because the vast majority of players don't really care and are too lazy to support such a venture.... and the few that do care, are too caught up in the politics and mixed loyalties of the sport, which makes it virtually impossible for them to agree on anything.

It has been tried numerous times on both sides of the Atlantic, and every time it has failed..... you can lead a horse to water....

I don't think well see a real player organisation until paintball becomes a truly professional sport..... because in the meantime most people just can't be bothered.... they have too little to gain and too much to loose.... which won't reverse itself until paintball is their livelyhood.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Well ok - just visited the NPPL website and found this in "about us":



I was actually not aware the NPPL still marketed itself as such - and that obviously a bit rich

It's a staple of their press releases that are sent out on a regular basis, in the standard trailing section "about the organization" that you'd see in pretty much any press release.

The downfall of player's organizations so far, including perhaps NPPL, is that it's never really been a player's organization. The people involved have invariably been fairly closely tied to the industry. It's also a critical mass issue - IPPA was close, but probably around too early in paintball's career. It's a lot more feasible to have a self-funding organization based around 10 million people than 2 or 3.

 

[SteveD]

Chicago, you are mischaracterizing things.

in 1992 we had the original meeting with 24 teams captains. Braun was there as captain of Bo Peep & the Sheep (elected by the team just so he could legitimately attend the meeting); because of that little move, perlmutter and lively were invited to send reps - perlmutter did, lively did not.

The original 24 members (2 amateur teams, the rest pro) were invested with membership as a steering committee, executive oversite group, from which a rules committee, a promotions committee, a sponsorship committee and etc were drawn.

there was originally no by-laws, no executive officers, no formal organization.

at the end of 1993, it was suggested that the org needed to formalize and we had a meeting, at which time Braun suggested the 'shareholders' model, in opposition to the non-profit sports league model. By-laws were written and the corporation was (supposedly) registered in NY state. All the teams were promised a share of the profit, based on attendance and standing (pro/am).

Year one, shares were paid, and the proxy fight began (shareholders are entitled to vote, whether present or not, the powers-that-be disallowed proxy voting and thus disenfranchised the (majority) amateur teams.

Thus began the (planned) 'the teams don;t care or do anything so we'll just seize control.

The 'promoters group' was formed as a stated way to 'keep some organization' and 'to protect our investment'.

up through 96, there was a continual running battle between the 'promoters' and the few legitimate shareholders who cared over contracts. the final straw was bob long signing a contract with the promoters which he had been told had been approved by the membership, when in fact it had not been. (Not Bob's fault)

By that time, shareholders had received no dividends for several years, the vast majority of teams did not even know they were entitled to membership and no elections that were legal under the by-laws had been held for some time.

When the shenanigans over ownership started, the NPPL was, based on inquiries with NY State, where the corp had been registered, a dead, defunct, no longer active corporation.

The promoters (PSP) and Chuck (along with others) both sought to resurrect the name and claim the mantle of authority and control over it. I suggested to those on the (true) NPPL side of the argument that they register the NPPL trademark in their own names as one way to gain some leverage. Tom, Chuck and Scott Flint then took this fact into a meeting with the promoters and had the much-storied showdown.

The 'demands' made by Chuck & Company were not at all illegitimate: they once again sought the very thing that the NPPL needed from the beginning in order to be a real org, and that was, control of the money.

Let me ask this as an aside: if YOU own a sanctioning body - who pays out the fees - the people you grant sanctioning to, or the people doing the sanctioning?

That was it in a nutshell. If NPPL did not get the dollars first, it remained alive only so long as the promoter's consortium saw it as being useful.

So, here's the upshot. 1. NPPL did not exist as a corporation from 1996 on. Therefore, there was nothing to steal. Anyone could have taken the name and used it for whatever they wanted to use it for.

2. If you ignore that aspect, Chuck was the last legitmately elected executive officer of the NPPL at the time that everything fell apart. Therefore, he is the only person who had any 'right' to try and move forward with it.

3. If you ignore that aspect, Chuck used his association with the previous incarnation of the NPPL to start gen2, and has stated that the goals of the new NPPL are in line and carrying the mantle for the original intent of the NPPL.

4. Since the org is dead, there is nothing illegal or improper about using the old name with a new set of corporate by-laws and a new corporate structure.

5. the current NPPL has players who are appointed to various oversite committees. NPPL also has an annual meeting where team reps are invited to hear the plans and make their input.

Personally, I have found NPPL - and Chuck - to be very responsive to player/team concerns, if only because they recognize that its their customer base and their constituency, without whom the money flow ends.

The current state of affairs has actually created GREATER player/team participation in the organization than there has been in the NPPL, with the exception of the first two seasons of the organization.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by SteveD
A--That was it in a nutshell. If NPPL did not get the dollars first, it remained alive only so long as the promoter's consortium saw it as being useful.

B--3. If you ignore that aspect, Chuck used his association with the previous incarnation of the NPPL to start gen2, and has stated that the goals of the new NPPL are in line and carrying the mantle for the original intent of the NPPL.

C--4. Since the org is dead, there is nothing illegal or improper about using the old name with a new set of corporate by-laws and a new corporate structure.

D--5. the current NPPL has players who are appointed to various oversite committees. NPPL also has an annual meeting where team reps are invited to hear the plans and make their input.

E--Personally, I have found NPPL - and Chuck - to be very responsive to player/team concerns, if only because they recognize that its their customer base and their constituency, without whom the money flow ends.

F--The current state of affairs has actually created GREATER player/team participation in the organization than there has been in the NPPL, with the exception of the first two seasons of the organization.

Originally posted by Missy Q
Once more for the masses and to remind Loco:
PP = Flavor/Spectacle/Money/Venues/logistics/Television/sponsors
NPPL = Substance/Sport/schedule/reffing/rules/teams

Steve,
I have no reason at all, nor do I, doubt your reconstruction of general events as that's pretty much how I remember it from a remove or two but--none of that really speaks to Chi-town's principle dispute, at least as I see it--and that is the state of the NPPL today.

A--please see Missy's quote above. Please see who controls the money. If Missy is honest and accurate, which I personally do not doubt, then by your reasoning the NPPL is in exactly the same boat it was before. Nor is it unreasonable for Chitown to claim that ultimately the NPPL can't act in a way contrary to the wishes of PP because the real power resides with PP.

B--he can state whatever he wants but until the NPPL conducts itself in the claimed manner it's merely propaganda, a posture--not a reality.

C--True, but that still leaves the misrepresentation of the league that seems to be an intentional part of its promotion and marketing.

D--Maybe it's just me but I find there to be a distinct difference between appointed and elected.

E--Since Missy has already identified where the money flows from, though it would be fair to say some percent of that comes from the players, I think a case can as easily be made that it is the current competition between the leagues that has compelled both of them to be responsive to player concerns.

F--there remains a significant difference, again, between participation and ownership.

And, no, I'm not advocating player ownership of the NPPL, I'm simply pointing out that Chitown's basic premise about the current state of affairs and the nature of both leagues is fundamentally correct even if some take offense at the way he has characterized things, and/or peeps involved.

 

[Chicago]

Steve,

I don't agree on the trademark issues, but I do agree that NPPL/PP are obviously providing a great league for the players. But that's not the point - how things work when times are good isn't the issue. It's what is going to happenwhen times are bad that's the problem with the current league structure. Fortunately, NPPL has been able to provide some improvements for theplayers while providing a nce salary for Chuck, but if something comes down to the players or Chuck, the players will lose. They probably already are losing, although it's tough to see it because even with the way things are now it's still a lot better than it wasbefore. How much does Chuck make? How much does NPPL spendon the reffing program? Would it make sense to have the President make less money per year and spend more money on the reffing program? It's not good when the only person involved in that decision is the person whose salary is in question, and the only people he has to make happy to ensure that he keeps getting membership fees and sanctioning fees is not the players, but PP.

The current setup is bad both because ther's no mechanism, given tough choices, that would make Chuck inclined to pick what's good for the players over what's good for PP or himself, and worse, even if there were, it's PP that ultimately controls whether NPPL continues to exist or not, so you've got the same problem there: Given a choice between making the players happy and making PP happy, it's PP that NPPL has to please.

Again, we've been lucky that so far, especially due to the competition between the two leagues, that PP has done a great job in making improvements for the player, but there's no mechanism in place to preserve the players' interests in the future, yet NPPL (an PP thorugh them) continue to advertise to players that the league is "theirs" when we all know it isn't - the league is Ged's. The players' ability to have any say at all is entirely by the grace of PP.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

The current setup is bad both because ther's no mechanism, given tough choices, that would make Chuck inclined to pick what's good for the players over what's good for PP or himself, and worse, even if there were, it's PP that ultimately controls whether NPPL continues to exist or not, so you've got the same problem there: Given a choice between making the players happy and making PP happy, it's PP that NPPL has to please.

I don't see how it is "bad"?

It's a company providing a service - and doing a fairly good job at it.

Yes - they should stop advertising themselves as the "players league" - but in truth, that bit of propaganda has very little relevance to anyone - inside or outside the sport.

Those inside the sport are not duped by it, and those outside don't really care.

All that aside - it WOULD be cool if our entire sport was organised like for instance soccer.... but we are years and years away from that happening:

- Teams have to be organised in "clubs"
- Clubs have to be organised in national (and state) federations
- (state federations have to be organised in a national federation)
- National federations have to be organised in an international federation
- Everyone has to send money upwards, to allow national (and state) federation - and the international federation - to pay for events.

You don't "just" do this kind of thing... and maybe paintball has actually outgrown the point where it will ever happen.... it would probably be a near impossible task to get it organised.

The other route is for paintball to be organised like many US sports - where commercial entities own the leagues - and their counterparts are the players, organised in a union.

That might still happen... but definitely not until it is worth while for the players to get organised... and today that need is simply not felt amongst the players.

In the meantime, we have the current leagues - which most players enjoy, except maybe for the skill level of refferees - but they don't dislike that enough to pay MORE for getting better refs.... so all in all, the status quo is apparently pretty much ok for most players.

So - what are we doing here - in ths thread?

To me, we are discussing Utopia - and how it should be organised... but NOBODY is really putting out any ideas as to how we REACH Utopia.... which should really be the important part of the debate....

Honestly - I think it is a waste of time - we might as well debate how cool it would be if the world was a peaceful place where everyone got along - without anyone making suggestions on how to reach that point.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

It would be very cool if the world was a peaceful place where everyone just got along.

As for bad, being privately held isn't by itself bad. It's bad because NPPL says "Give us your $35, because we represent you." when they don't actually represent you.

If it's going to be a privately held company, then it should market itself as such.