The Early Monday Poll: Reunification?

[Chicago]

You were sure I was wrong about reunification, but I wasn't.

You're confusing delegation or splitting of responsibility with control. You may believe NPPL and PP are separate; Chuck probably even believes NPPL and PP are separate, and he's really in the thick of things. And I'm sure PP is content to let NPPL deal with things that don't matter to PP one way or the other - they probably PREFER it if things like reffing appear to be the responsibility of NPPL, just like Chuck took advantage of the ****ty quality of events pre-2003 being the responsibility of PSP promoters.

You're missing the whole picture. Whether you believe it or not, whether you see it on a day to day basis "in the thick of things" or not, the purse is firmly in PP hands, and any point of contention will come down to Chuck needs a check and PP has the checkbook.

It's not whether Bart personally makes every decision, it's whether PP can veto NPPL, and NPPL can veto PP. You'll find that PP can veto NPPL, but not the other way around. Next time there's a conflict between the two when you're "in the thick of it", watch the dynamic.

Just watch, sometime down the road, Chuck is going to decide he wants more than PP wants to give, and Pure Promotions is going to say something like "Because are not satisfied with the quality of services, like the referees, provided by NPPL, we have decided to forgo NPPL sanctioning going forward in an effort to further improve the experience for our players." See that? Take credit for the good stuff, make promises about a grander future, blame all the bad stuff on the other guys? Sound familiar?

But it would be different this time - this time the guys making the promises would be the guys who actually were responsible for executing the improvements.

And even if that doesn't happen, that's the threat NPPL operates under. PP needed NPPL in 2002. PP doesn't need NPPL in 2006. That's control.



To bring this back on topic, this is why reunification would be bad for everybody. In 2002, the Promoters WERE responsible for producing crappy events. They didn't have any reason to put any effort into it, the events were an afterthought to setting up vendor booths and selling lots of product. The split brought apile of investment in from WDP and some of the other sponsors who felt like they were getting the shaft from the promoters, and it forced the old promoters to start caring about the quality of the events going forward. That's a dynamic we just don't want to remove until there's out-of-industry money, and we'll then at least have funded parties (sponsors and paid players) to keep the promoters in line. A reunified league where the promoters, sponsors, and "players" (sponsored teams) are all the same people is not a positive change - there's nobody to keep them honest.

 

[Chicago]

Here Missy, I realize you're having trouble with this concept of Chuck being allowed to make decisions but not being in control, so I'm going to throw you a bone.

Let's say there's a family with parents, a 16-year-old kid, and a dog. This kid can probably borrow the car to take his girlfiend out to dinner, gets to pick what kind of activities he wants to participate in, what he wants to do on the weekend, has some spending money from the parents, and maybe even a minimum wage job to get some extra spending money, which he can decide how to spend. The kid has some responsibilities, maybe mow the lawn, make sure the dog is fed, shovel the driveway, whatever. He probably believes he's in control of his life, and his parents are more than happy to let him make his own decisions, so long as they agree with them.

Kids will mostly make parentally-acceptable decisions and maintain their self-delusion that they're in control of themselves. But we all know what happens if the kid makes a decision the parents don't like - suddenly, the insurance, the car, the spending money, go away. If the kid wasn't smart enough to avoid this in the first place, they'll quickly learn to make more acceptable decisions to keep the cash flow on.

Despite being "in the thick of things", as far as the dog is concerned, the kid and the parents are all separate entities making their own decisions. The dog isn't going to have any idea that the parents are ultimately in control, cause, well, she's a dog. She just knows that they can both open the door and put food in the dish.


Chuck can decide to do whatever he wants, but Bart can take away the car, even though they can both open doors and feed the dog. Chew on that.

 

[Missy Q]

Chicago, you should find a new source for your info, or stop making this stuff up. Either one would be good. It doesn't matter how many dog/car stories you tell, its plain to me you don't know what you are talking about. Lets please move on to something that you can comment on with some authority, or drop it.
Even in the confusing mist of your ridiculous analogy you are blatantly and totally wrong. Sorry but you are. In some ways I wish you did know what was going on so that the **** you come up with wouldn't be so annoyingly incorrect, but you never fail to disappoint me.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Missy Q
Chicago, you should find a new source for your info, or stop making this stuff up. Either one would be good. It doesn't matter how many dog/car stories you tell, its plain to me you don't know what you are talking about. Lets please move on to something that you can comment on with some authority, or drop it.
Even in the confusing mist of your ridiculous analogy you are blatantly and totally wrong. Sorry but you are. In some ways I wish you did know what was going on so that the **** you come up with wouldn't be so annoyingly incorrect, but you never fail to disappoint me.

...so Missy, d'ya reckon Chicago's wrong, is that vibe I'm picking up???

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Chicago
Here Missy, I realize you're having trouble with this concept of Chuck being allowed to make decisions but not being in control, so I'm going to throw you a bone.

Let's say there's a family with parents, a 16-year-old kid, and a dog. This kid can probably borrow the car to take his girlfiend out to dinner, gets to pick what kind of activities he wants to participate in, what he wants to do on the weekend, has some spending money from the parents, and maybe even a minimum wage job to get some extra spending money, which he can decide how to spend. The kid has some responsibilities, maybe mow the lawn, make sure the dog is fed, shovel the driveway, whatever. He probably believes he's in control of his life, and his parents are more than happy to let him make his own decisions, so long as they agree with them.

Kids will mostly make parentally-acceptable decisions and maintain their self-delusion that they're in control of themselves. But we all know what happens if the kid makes a decision the parents don't like - suddenly, the insurance, the car, the spending money, go away. If the kid wasn't smart enough to avoid this in the first place, they'll quickly learn to make more acceptable decisions to keep the cash flow on.

Despite being "in the thick of things", as far as the dog is concerned, the kid and the parents are all separate entities making their own decisions. The dog isn't going to have any idea that the parents are ultimately in control, cause, well, she's a dog. She just knows that they can both open the door and put food in the dish.


Chuck can decide to do whatever he wants, but Bart can take away the car, even though they can both open doors and feed the dog. Chew on that.

So if Chuck is the 16 year old and Bart is mom and dad (and I know he'd like to be both), then does that mean Ged is the dog?

Or is the player base the dog?

Or is there no spoon?

 

[Chicago]

The dog is a big, well-fed, Harlem dog.

 

[Missy Q]

There is no dog, mom, dad or any other rubbish.
But if there was a dog, and that dog was from Harlem, then it would be a particularly nasty dog with very sharp teeth and a bad temper, and would not be the kind of dog to antagonise any further with false assumptions.

of course, I am not anything to do with the PP organisation, or the NPPL, so the fact that Chicago wants to fit me into the equasion further demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of things. Not that this utter lack of comprehension prevents him from making statements to the contrary of course...

Chicago - you are ridiculous, and I am rapidly losing patience with you, so 'Beware of the dog!'

And Pete - Yes, I think he's wrong. he's wronger than Jehovahs witnesses knocking doors at 8am on Christmas morning. In fact I would rather invite one of those fxckers into my home than listen to any more of his drivel.

 

[Chicago]

Well, make up your mind - either your incredibly aware of what's going on or you've got nothing to do with NPPL/PP. You've spent so long telling everyone that you were so intimately aware of the situation that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about that I was starting to believe you.

Hell, even read Lane's post - people to pay attention to? Him, Bart or Ged. Didn't mention Chuck - wonder why that is? Think there will even be a NPPL if there's a reunification? Think ANYONE cares what Chuck thinks about reunification? Even Robbo can tell you that the two people who were doing most of the talking were Bart and Dave, with some Ged thrown in. If NPPL is on equal footing with PP, how come their involvement in the reunification talks is so... minimal?

If there's a reunification, who do you think the owners are?

NPPL can't force a reunification, because there can't be one if PP and PSP don't agree to it, and NPPL has nothing to make them agree to it. NPPL can't stop a reunification either; if PP and PSP agree to it, Chuck has no where else to go.

I just don't see why you can't see what is obviously staring you in the face: Chuck is helplessly along for the ride. His presence is by the grace of PP only. Chuck's position is that of a vendor, or maybe an employee, not a partner.

 

[Missy Q]

Well, make up your mind - either your incredibly aware of what's going on or you've got nothing to do with NPPL/PP. You've spent so long telling everyone that you were so intimately aware of the situation that I couldn't possibly know what I was talking about that I was starting to believe you.

I am not a part of the PP organisation, and so cannot be catergorised as the dog, however insulting you think that might be, in that relationship. I do have adequate and intricate knowledge of the workings of the PP/NPPL relationship though my actual role. If you know who I am then this should not be difficult to understand - if you actually wish to understand it. And for the record, No, you do not know what you are talking about, so its perfectly OK to believe me.

Even Robbo can tell you that the two people who were doing most of the talking were Bart and Dave, with some Ged thrown in

Thats not actually what Pete said, at any stage, and he knows better than that, and better than you for that matter, not that that is much of an acheivement. You really are ridiculous!

If NPPL is on equal footing with PP, how come their involvement in the reunification talks is so... minimal?

There has been one person from each league entity talking, because its sensible to do that, and the people talking were the best ones for the job. That does not mean that anyone elses involvement is minimal. There is no 'footing', equal or otherwise.

I just don't see why you can't see what is obviously staring you in the face: Chuck is helplessly along for the ride. His presence is by the grace of PP only. Chuck's position is that of a vendor, or maybe an employee, not a partner.

No Chicago. I know that this is what you think, and I don't care that you think it, I really don't, the world is full of people that have wrong opinions and are consequently full of ****. Just say that its your opinion and don't say it like its true, because it isn't, you are wrong, and I refuse to explain the relationship between NPPL and PP again to you.
You do have one thing right though, the situation IS staring me in the face, which is the reason I do not understand why you don't take my word for it. I am not a liar, and I don't make **** up. You do that well enough for everyone.

As for Lanes Post - that was good advice, if only to prevent people from paying attention to you.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Chicago
Even Robbo can tell you that the two people who were doing most of the talking were Bart and Dave, with some Ged thrown in.

Robbo can do no such thing Chicago; the prime negotiators in the most significant stage (beginning at the Campaign Cup) were Dave and Ged.
These two guys sat down many times for many hours up until and during the Miami tournament with integration on the agenda.
Bart was referenced during those talks but make no mistake about it Aaron, it was Dave and Ged all the way.

Missy is fully aware of what is going down here Aaron, much more so than yourself (no disrespect intended here) so either, he is mistaken (which I doubt), he is lying (which I doubt even more) or you may be mistaken, which I have to say is probably the most likely.

I think the pre-eminence of Dave and Ged during this negotiation period was more to do with those people making the time available and in all probability, everybody realized maybes that to get any more people involved at that stage of affairs would have unnecessarily complicated maters.
No point in having people like Jerry and Chuck sitting there at the prelim talks when we all know that would have been counter-productive.
Much better to let Dave and Ged get a base agreement and then go back to their respective parties for approval and tweaking than allow too many cooks to spoil proceedings, I don't think you can read any more into it than that.
Leastwise that's my opinion.