Millennium/NPPL clash

[sjt19]

I do know what implications it might have, and you know my thoughts from the phone call, but I genuinely believe that the situation is down to the Board not wanting to concede ground to the NPPL rather than a concerted effort to sideline Nexus and Joy.

The MS board are not so blind as to fail to recognise that the absence of Nexus and Joy would SERIOUSLY undermine the validity of the league.

 

[Robbo]

I do know what implications it might have, and you know my thoughts from the phone call, but I genuinely believe that the situation is down to the Board not wanting to concede ground to the NPPL rather than a concerted effort to sideline Nexus and Joy.


100% agreed mate, I do not think for one second that they wish to sideline Nexus or Joy, I am certainly not implying that whatsoever ......


The MS board are not so blind as to fail to recognize that the absence of Nexus and Joy would SERIOUSLY undermine the validity of the league.

They are not that silly no but I think maybes if we were collateral damage to proceedings in pursuit of another goal, I don't think too much sleep would be lost (as is evidenced now)but I don't think in any way this is a deliberate attempt to do us down.

 

[Missy Q]

I see this as a one-off issue that needs to be dealt with as such. I know the events that led to the clash of dates and I can tell you (its up to you whether you believe me) that there was no malice involved, only a shocking lack of communication between both leagues, bad luck, and the total lack of compromise of at least one of the venue's involved.
That said, it should not happen again (except deliberately).
If it is not going to happen again, and if you believe the above, which I do, then it seems the ONLY reasonable thing to do is to allow an average score, or allow a disposable score. I do not feel it is in the leagues or the teams best interest to have substandard substitute teams in the first event. It makes no sense to me, excepting the format complications.
Alternatively, the games could be made up over the rest of the season as 'extra's'. In a league format there is ample precedent for this.

I feel for Pete and Magued. In todays climate the pressure is on teams to deliver increased return to sponsors. Substandard results are to be avoided more than ever, particularly in the first event of the season. It is an impossible situation that requires compromise to be made. In the bigger picture it IS important to do the right thing. Reputations take years to earn and moments to lose.

Pete, I don't know if I can help, and it seems unlikely given the personnel involved, but if you think I can, let me know.

 

[sjt19]

Missy, I was under the impression that the Millennium anncounced their date for Marseille before the NPPL announced HB. Is that correct?

The story I was told was that the Millennium annouced their dates first. Then NPPL released HB date which clashed with MS event. The MS then changed their date to avoid a clash. Then the NPPL changed HB to the date the MS had for Marseille, hence the clash.

Is that what you understood to have happened as well?

 

[Missy Q]

The way I understood it Sam, it was that the Millennium thought HB would keep the same date. That was the 'plan' at the end of the year to be fair. Although nothing was official or finalised.
Due to the event being moved to the south side of the pier (because of complaints from the apartment complex right next to the 'bone-yard', and with the restriction of space on the north side), the 'usual' date was not an option. The south side is traditionally the event side and there are volleyball/surf competitions there most weekends. In fact there will be a major surf contest the same wekeend of HB right next to us, and that took a lot of jigging to work out how to accomodate both (will be fun to watch though, and great for traffic). HB dates went back a week due to this. There was little or no communication between NPPL and MS when this happened, due to the MS working with PSP and cutting off communication with the NPPL. At the time NPPL made the decision to change the date to use he south side, the Millennium date was not known. In the millenniums defence, they had believed the date to be the week earlier because thats what they had been told. The cross-over of these events in time is what has caused the problem.

Should the NPPL have informed the MS of the date change sooner? Maybe so.
Would that have meant the NPPL could change date again? No.
Should the MS have told NPPL about thier choice of date sooner? Perhaps.
But if the MS have a locked contracted venue for that date then they are in the same boat as the NPPL.
Could more have been done to rectify this if the leagues were not at loggerheads? That's the unanswered question and the one that is driving Pete mad as a casualty of the situation. From the NPPL perspective I would say not. I do not have the benefit of the MS perspective and so I can't answer that one.

Truth is there are only 3 teams that this effects, and they are Nexus, Excessvee and Joy, because no other teams would have had the backing to play both. Thats what makes this so difficult for Pete to accept. Its like a targeted problem and he feels he is in the cross-hairs. Not that I am playing the problem down, but you can see how he has got himself where he is. He just wants common sense and fair play to prevail, and I agree wholeheartedly with him.

I would like to see Joy compete well in both leagues. This situation does not work for me either, but I am obviously a much greater distance from the ramifications of this than the captains involved.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Missy Q
In todays climate the pressure is on teams to deliver increased return to sponsors. Substandard results are to be avoided more than ever, particularly in the first event of the season. It is an impossible situation that requires compromise to be made. In the bigger picture it IS important to do the right thing. Reputations take years to earn and moments to lose.

I think the above paragraph puts into words much better than I have written, the exact priorities that need to be considered by all parties at this juncture ....... I'm impressed ... but then again Missy, you have always been full of surprises ...... See you in HB and thanks for the offer, it won't be forgotten !

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Missy Q
Could more have been done to rectify this if the leagues were not at loggerheads? That's the unanswered question and the one that is driving Pete mad as a casualty of the situation. From the NPPL perspective I would say not. I do not have the benefit of the MS perspective and so I can't answer that one.

I honestly think this situation would have panned out the same no matter how well you guys were, or were not getting on.
This was a problem with circumstances getting in the way of considered date allocations.

The real question should be, not 'How did this happen'? but 'Why did the MS choose an exclusion condition once they knew the dates clashed'?

If I take myself out this loop and a certain board member that I have had huge problems with before takes himself out of any decision making capacity on this issue, then there should be a sensible resolution....maybes ... it just depends upon how much, in their heads they feel it has become a Robbo v Millennium issue and they won't want to change their decision for fear of being seen to climb down .... but if you think about it, what the hell did they think I was gonna do? .. Stay quiet and watch my team get stiffed?

I had to get involved and maybe that involvement has cost me, and if that's the case, I was in a Catch 22 situation; I do nothing, I get screwed; I say something, I get screwed

 

[Missy Q]

yes, I agree, the exclusion condition AFTER the clash is insensitive at best, by design at worst, and as it only involves 3 teams, comes across as a punishment, and one that would be inadvisable to enforce given the delicacy of the multi-league environment.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Missy Q
yes, I agree, the exclusion condition AFTER the clash is insensitive at best, by design at worst, and as it only involves 3 teams, comes across as a punishment, and one that would be inadvisable to enforce given the delicacy of the multi-league environment.

So is the NPPL prepared to help out the teams caught in this Catch-22 then? Offer them an average score as make-up? Accept a one-time only roster for participation?

 

[Missy Q]

Good question, and one that has not been asked of the NPPL, or answered, because the teams involved have decided to go to HB and play.
The deal between the pro NPPL teams and the NPPL regarding eah teams guarenteed participation was in place before this problem emerged, and for this reason, or simply because the teams in question don't wish to miss the number one date in the pball callendar, that particular issue has not been tested. So whether they would do it or not remains unknown