The conclusion of the Amsterdam Inccident...
- Thread starter goose
- Start date
Who cares?
The tournament organisers, that's who...no-one disagrees with your sentiments Nick, I'll just be interested to see what happens if/when a major (no Backlash or Shockwave) sponsored team have a star player facing a ban.
I ain't doubting tha board will try to take heavy action, but other factors can come into play...
The tournament organisers, that's who...no-one disagrees with your sentiments Nick, I'll just be interested to see what happens if/when a major (no Backlash or Shockwave) sponsored team have a star player facing a ban.
I ain't doubting tha board will try to take heavy action, but other factors can come into play...
Okay, here's a thought for all the people who like to wreck their brains over conspiracies and the likes.
Let's expand on what TJ said.
What if a player faces a ban, and he plays on a high profile team that's sponsored by one of the main series sponsors? Good chance that the sponsor people will try to get the ban dropped.
But what if the also high profile team that the infraction was made against, that caused the ban in the first place, is sponsored by another major series sponsor, and they start clamouring for the ban?
Either the series will have lost a number of sponsors pretty quick, or perhaps people will wise up (yeah right!).
Let's expand on what TJ said.
What if a player faces a ban, and he plays on a high profile team that's sponsored by one of the main series sponsors? Good chance that the sponsor people will try to get the ban dropped.
But what if the also high profile team that the infraction was made against, that caused the ban in the first place, is sponsored by another major series sponsor, and they start clamouring for the ban?
Either the series will have lost a number of sponsors pretty quick, or perhaps people will wise up (yeah right!).
Hmmm...
It seems to me that in this game, as in many others, teams are sponsored for what they achieve.
Do you think the sponsors will give two hoots if a 'star player' gets a tourney ban?
If the team continues to perform I think the sponsors will leave well alone. They may discuss it and decide to 'review' the situation at a later date should the behaviour continue, but unless it gets completely out of hand nothing will be done. John McEnroe was possibly the most obnoxious bugger to pass through Wimbledon but I don't think it affected his sponsorship.
Sponsorship is about getting the product seen in the public eye as being worth having, something to use because the best in the business do. It's not about a personal popularity contest, is it?
On top of all that, if a sponsor decides to drop a major team there are plenty of other sponsors out there that would jump at the chance of taking over. In business if you're going to give something up, you have to be sure that it will not benefit your competitors, and dropping a major team over one players actions... naaa, not fuffing likely.
All in my humble opinion of course....
Urban
It seems to me that in this game, as in many others, teams are sponsored for what they achieve.
Do you think the sponsors will give two hoots if a 'star player' gets a tourney ban?
If the team continues to perform I think the sponsors will leave well alone. They may discuss it and decide to 'review' the situation at a later date should the behaviour continue, but unless it gets completely out of hand nothing will be done. John McEnroe was possibly the most obnoxious bugger to pass through Wimbledon but I don't think it affected his sponsorship.
Sponsorship is about getting the product seen in the public eye as being worth having, something to use because the best in the business do. It's not about a personal popularity contest, is it?
On top of all that, if a sponsor decides to drop a major team there are plenty of other sponsors out there that would jump at the chance of taking over. In business if you're going to give something up, you have to be sure that it will not benefit your competitors, and dropping a major team over one players actions... naaa, not fuffing likely.
All in my humble opinion of course....
Urban
anybody over there ever heard of
game suspensions before? (I'm still having a hard time with an event ban given the infractions claimed )
What Urb says it probably true but doesn't really change the fact that as long as the organizers' profits come directly from the teams and certain industry sponsors the prospect remains for trying to influence events related to the play of the game (or actually influencing events). And I think while everyone more or less will acknowledge the potential exists what exactly to do about it is an open question.
game suspensions before? (I'm still having a hard time with an event ban given the infractions claimed
)What Urb says it probably true but doesn't really change the fact that as long as the organizers' profits come directly from the teams and certain industry sponsors the prospect remains for trying to influence events related to the play of the game (or actually influencing events). And I think while everyone more or less will acknowledge the potential exists what exactly to do about it is an open question.
I disagree with Urban, I think he doesn't realises the "importance" of some individual players within the industry. I can't see this happening to say Oli Lang or Lasoya say.
I agree that we could bring in game suspensions al-la NPPL but that (I think) is lenient at times - 6 Games for hitting someone, that's a joke.
Fining wont work as it doesn't actually "hurt" the right people, like the LA fiasco showed.
And then you raise the whole question of teams being punished against individuals.
I agree that we could bring in game suspensions al-la NPPL but that (I think) is lenient at times - 6 Games for hitting someone, that's a joke.
Fining wont work as it doesn't actually "hurt" the right people, like the LA fiasco showed.
And then you raise the whole question of teams being punished against individuals.
You may well be right. Though I realise that there are 'important' players out there, maybe I underestimate just how important they are.
I've always thought that, exceptions aside (added as I've just read PGI.. mm.. she's quite nice
), sponsors went for teams and not individuals. I see individuals as a very short term investment. La Soya, for example, has a few years in him yet, but I'd heard of Avalanche and BL Iron Men long before I'd heard the name La Soya. Again, it may be my ignorance showing but I was under the impression that 'lanche, Iron Men, and the like were top of the heap before La Soya was even heard of?
Sponsors didn't pull the plug on Man United just because their La Soya (Cantona) went drop kicking members of the public, and I can't see paintball sponsors doing it either, if only for the simple reason someone else would step with a new sponsorship deal if they did.
Maybe I don't know enough about the La Soya's of this world and their importance. They are just players after all, albeit good ones.. someone care to fill this gap in my knowledge??
Urban
the main difference between your Cantona analogy and paintball is quite how introverted the industry is.
In fooball the sponsors do look at the team (generally) except in the odd circumstance like Beckham.
However, in paintball 95% of the top dogs are caught up in the industry. Case in point - there was a very famous gun throwing incident at Campaign, which got no punishment at all, as the player is the owner of a major series sponsor. Plus we all seem to be forgetting the little incident of conflict of interest at Max huh
So basically in paintball you can't seperate the interests of "industry" from those of the "players" - they are often one and the same.
In fooball the sponsors do look at the team (generally) except in the odd circumstance like Beckham.
However, in paintball 95% of the top dogs are caught up in the industry. Case in point - there was a very famous gun throwing incident at Campaign, which got no punishment at all, as the player is the owner of a major series sponsor. Plus we all seem to be forgetting the little incident of conflict of interest at Max huh
So basically in paintball you can't seperate the interests of "industry" from those of the "players" - they are often one and the same.
I guess that kinda filled my gap!Originally posted by Beaker
the main difference between your Cantona analogy and paintball is quite how introverted the industry is.
In fooball the sponsors do look at the team (generally) except in the odd circumstance like Beckham.
However, in paintball 95% of the top dogs are caught up in the industry. Case in point - there was a very famous gun throwing incident at Campaign, which got no punishment at all, as the player is the owner of a major series sponsor. Plus we all seem to be forgetting the little incident of conflict of interest at Max huh
So basically in paintball you can't seperate the interests of "industry" from those of the "players" - they are often one and the same.
I guess were back to the age old discussion about how we can get marshalls who are independant of the sponsors and organisers. And we know how that goes...
Would be nice thou, just to see one group of marshalls do the business properly and hang the consequences...
Urban