Isn't It Ironic

[BWillie]

On one side of the pond people are a bit pissed because those in control of a series don't seem to want to get behind what many feel is the future of big time paintball. It seems they are not willing to take the financial risk involved.

On the other side of the pond, people are pissed because those in control have decided to embrace what they feel is the future of tournament paintball and invest huge amounts of money but they are trying to protect their investment by limiting where the players they pay for can play.

On one side, the players just want the opportunity to take a shot at going big time. On the other, the players want the people financing the program to simply pour their money in, but have no control over what they are paying for.

It seems to be the same in paintball everywhere, every time. No matter what the decision made, half the people involved get pissed off.

 

[Robbo]

Hmm, I noticed you created a new user name to post that and I have to say it was a real intelligent observation and one that I think could have come from only a handful of people that grows smaller the more I think about it.
Jerry or Lane is my guess.

And whoever it was, yes you are right, it is ironic and I would now ask you, coz I know full well you know wot you are talking about, wot do we do over here ?

Any ideas ?

 

[Wadidiz]

Better watch it, Pete. It might be Chris Raehl you're inviting to comment.

I wonder what Tony Montana thinks about all this?

Steve

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Better watch it, Pete. It might be Chris Raehl you're inviting to comment.

I wonder what Tony Montana thinks about all this?

Steve

I don't think Mr Raehl will be posting any more on this site !!

As for what Mr Montana thinks ?
He probably thinks he's wright if I know him
Oooops

 

[L J]

i dont believe they will be posting becuase americans are yet to understand irony

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by BWillie
On the other side of the pond, people are pissed because those in control have decided to embrace what they feel is the future of tournament paintball and invest huge amounts of money but they are trying to protect their investment by limiting where the players they pay for can play.

Excepting the players, for the most part, remain an uncertain equation. Until they are signed to individual contracts they are only restricted in what they choose to do of their own volition. Certainly an X-Ball franchise can cut a player that doesn't abide by the exclusivity rule but that's all the franchises can do. If the bulk of the players were to refuse to accept the exclusivity requirement it would disappear. As it stands now, while the NXL develops, the trick will be to see how many or how much of the legitimately best players in the world are really participating and during the developmental stage the best way to prove it is to allow them to play elsewhere.
And just how does player restrictions protect the NXL investors? Was Crossman just looking for a seat at the table or the best possible players? And I suppose Evil Factory was one of the ten best teams in the country? And what happens to these invaluable players if somebody decides they aren't pulling their weight? So is it the players who make the NXL or its hoped for media contracts and exclusivity?

 

[Rich S]

surely an idea would not be to restrict what a player can do but increase what a player cn do. make a player sign a contract to play a percentage of the xball tourneys but allow them to play other tourneys as well.

this will keep them playing - possibly making them better, improving the chances of winning therefore making more money in return.

get them known to other people/teams - they may aspire to be like them so train more therefore using more paint therefore more money to the paintball controllers;

they may see more talent to help strengthen their team.

it will reduce the aminosity that may occur between xball and 5/7/10man players

 

[Trinity]

I suppose as with any proffesional sport the restrictions are in place normally not to limit the experience of the player but to protect him - from an insurance point of veiw
If a player contracted to play in 10 game league only for example were to play other games out side the contract and be injured this insurance company may well not pay out anywhere near as much to the team or player or sponsor for having them removed from a high profile event.
Secondly often they don't want the players changing their game or disrupting any training patterns that would be in place, where bad habits could potentially be picked up playing in their non contract games.

It is ALL down to money isn't it?

I mean I understand about 1/10th of what's being said at the moment but takout all the bull **** and politics and it seems to be about Who has it, Who wants it , and How much there will be to go around.