From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu May 27 20:25:03 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05979
for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 20:24:21 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05969
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 27 May 1999 20:24:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9])
by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA08139
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 27 May 1999 20:24:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from p56s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.87] helo=cow)
by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
id 10n5lH-0000X4-00; Thu, 27 May 1999 20:24:16 +0100
Message-ID: <005f01bea876$72a6e4a0$57a393c3@cow>
From: "Iain Roberts" <iain2@ministryofsound.net>
To: "Ben Ravilious" <bravil@webleicester.co.uk>,
"BRITDISC" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Drug Debate - my point explained
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 20:23:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
I agree with the people that take the view about playing ultimate because
it's different, the whole essence of the sport is that it has the element of
non-conformitism about it. The lack of referees and the spirit make it the
sport that it is, if this changes in the future then so be it - but while
it's the way it is; accept it for what it is. Hopefully changes in the
sports future won't mean the removal of the SOTG, maybe it will be the
enhancement of it.
Worrying about the tabloids reaction to the names of the teams won't do you
any favours either. I know we have the worst press in the world for tabloid
slander - recent case history proves the point - but if you compare the
names of our teams with the names of teams in America then hopefully/should
have nothing to worry about. Although there are many tabloid articles out
there waiting to be written, there are also the articles from the more broad
minded papers that support the facts and are more likely to influence the
views of the nation (should it go that far).
Coming from a team that has sponsorship already and going to a team that is
well established I feel that it is important to promote ultimate as much as
possible. However if people are going to be that draconian about the names
of ultimate teams then surely every team in the country must think twice.
Surely you get many permutation's and combinations out of Skunks, Mohawks
and Phat Ed's to list just some student teams. The deciding factors about
our sponsors and the reasons why the same sponsors increased their input was
because they were interested and that in return for their money we drunk a
lot of beer at their pub. This may not be the same for all sponsors but the
theory still applies - if you make the offer attractive then they only have
financial reasons not to support you. If they don't support you because
they heartd some nasty runours about some names then you haven't explained
the game properly.
Finally it's good to see a debate rising on Britdisc, that's what it's there
for
Iain
Skunks
>A debate on Britdisc - Wow!
>
>I think my point - which has been somewhat missed in this debate - is what
>a tabloid newspapers will make of our sport. Its almost certain that the
>Worlds
>will attract national press coverage given the amount of effort Jon Hope
&co
>have been putting in. It would only take one sneering News of the World
>article to waste it all (unless you liked the Time Out article and believe
>any publicity is good publicity)
>
>I recently did an interview for a magazine in Leicester and the moment they
>saw a list of ultimate team names they jumped on the drug culture
>references. When it is published, I want to use the article to approach
>potential sponsors - if it suggests in any way that we're not entirely
above
>board then you can forget it and you can forget getting any schools in the
>area to start playing too - my fingers are crossed.
>
>Personally I don't give a fig what names teams have - I love the weird and
>wacky names traditional in our sport and I'm not serious about censoring
>anything. I also *personally* don't care what people get up to in the
>privacy of their own homes - I am not a big Jack Straw fan either!
>
>
>All I am suggesting is that it would not be too much to ask newly forming
>teams just to be a bit careful about what names they choose. Being sensible
>about this does not have to involve the infringement of civil liberties or
>any huge compromise with the culture of our sport. You are quite within
your
>rights to name your team 'Paedophile Ring' if you want, but you wouldn't do
>it because it would get bad press. Likewise, I am suggesting that overt
>references to drug culture might also not be in the sport's best interest.
>
>My reply to the 'keep it cosy' traditionalists out there is next time you
>run a freshers fair and someone joins having seen "that Channel 4
>documentary" or "this website" perhaps you should reflect on how you first
>heard about the sport and how lucky you are to have found it. That is what
>good publicity can do for you.
>
>
>Fair enough?
>
>Ben
>(my own opinions throughout)
>
>PS: Red Leicester is not only a cheese but also a powerful hallucinogen
>which
>causes the abuser to see players, discs, endzones, etc which are not
>actually there! Particularly popular in the Bristol area - Pete? ;-)
>
>
>
>