From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Apr 10 15:35:07 2002 Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3AEZ6d21405 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:35:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3AESp709931; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:28:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g3AEJLQR020113 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:19:22 +0100 (BST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g3AEJLY9020112 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:19:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g3AEJJQR020107 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:19:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from hotmail.com (f22.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.22]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3AEIut25916 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:18:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:18:50 -0700 Received: from 213.120.90.59 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:18:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.120.90.59] From: "Christian Nistri" <wigsy22@hotmail.com> To: ben@ravilious.net, britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Subject: RE: Geo teams etc Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:18:49 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: <F22MzfoV1qdiixjnzi9000027cc@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2002 14:18:50.0174 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2AA4DE0:01C1E09A] Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P><BR>I think it's very tricky ground if you are going to put limitations on who people can play for remember that this is a self-funded sport and as such, we should be free to pay to play for who we want.... I am very glad that I switched teams to go to Vancouver in 1997 and am going to Hawaii this year with Chevron. At the end of the day I am paying to play and as such want to play the best level of ultimate i can. </P> <P>If someone in the future turns round and says that for the growth of their team I am not allowed to play for them as i don't live close enough then i won't play for them. I would however be willing to travel considerable distances to fulfil their "practise attendance" criteria - it's about priorites and what you are willing to do/give up. I do think geo is a great idea, but we cannot be dictatorial about it. Should geo be considered on amount of practises attended at the "home" venue or your locality?</P> <P>wigsy</P></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: "Ben Ravilious" <BEN@RAVILIOUS.NET> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: <BEN@RAVILIOUS.NET> <DIV></DIV>>To: <BRITDISC@CSV.WARWICK.AC.UK> <DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: Geo teams etc <DIV></DIV>>Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:09:15 +0100 <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> >I do struggle to see why Ben is 'becoming more sceptical of the current geo <DIV></DIV>> >system' as the current system places virtually no restictions or offers no <DIV></DIV>> >real advantages apart from allowing 2 teams which doesn't apply to any of <DIV></DIV>> >the non-geo teams anyway. Ben? <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Yup - its out of date. Its a weak restriction as it stands and had it any teeth it would be a frustrating one. There are better ways of promoting local ultimate bases. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>(NOTE for the sound-bite politicians out there - I am not suggesting we scrap the ideal of geo teams - just that there are better ways of encouraging them than the present rules) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> > <DIV></DIV>> >>My suggestion is that we should encourage *loyalty* (by discouraging roster <DIV></DIV>> >additions <DIV></DIV>> >>for international clubs events, for example). I think this is more <DIV></DIV>> >palatable than <DIV></DIV>> >>annoying nanny-state regulations and would help local teams. <DIV></DIV>> >?????? Not sure exactly what you'd be hoping to gain from this. As far as I <DIV></DIV>> >can tell this has always been a way of talented junior players getting <DIV></DIV>> >experience that will greatly help their development, and thus the <DIV></DIV>> >development of the sport as a whole in the UK. Examples abound of how well <DIV></DIV>> >this has worked in the past: Dougie and Ollie from Bad Company (Cambridge) <DIV></DIV>> >playing with the Hombres abroad; Wigsy, Bowles and Sickboy playing with <DIV></DIV>> >Shotgun in Vancouver; bl**dy everyone playing with the Purple Scum ;-). It <DIV></DIV>> >happens the world over and to prevent UK teams alone doing it would only <DIV></DIV>> >hold development back in the long term as well as put us at a competitive <DIV></DIV>> >disadvantage versus the rest of the world in the individual competitions. At <DIV></DIV>> >the moment all it would mean is that someone way down the roster who is <DIV></DIV>> >probably far less committed to the sport and has far less potential would <DIV></DIV>> >get an opportunity to play at a level which is completely beyond them. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>I accept the need for some market forces (I'm not a communist) and I believe people have the right to do this but I would like make them think very carefully about what the ramifications of this are for their original teams. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Hawaii, where there has been some player flux, is a bit of an anomaly because of the cost of getting there but the point still stands. I hope soon we get to the stage where there are so many strong UK teams fighting for clubs spots that this stuff becomes a things of the past. Perhaps I'm being naive? <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>I certainly don't want to disadvantage UK performance by insisting on 'no tart' teams only. On the other hand if the tarts were more committed to improving their original teams then <DIV></DIV>>we would have more teams at international standard! <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>For the purpose of growth the latter would be preferable - No? <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>(And for the record, I tarted for Sharks at clubs 95 - however I did it with my Red's permission and *came back* to Red a stronger player) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> >This year's Tour should shed some light on the issue - will the honourably <DIV></DIV>> >geo Sharks be able to use that advantage over the more experienced but <DIV></DIV>> >dishonourable Druids? How well will less-than-geo Poco fare with their <DIV></DIV>> >strong roster but lack of weekly practice? What about the strongly geo <DIV></DIV>> >Leeds*3 without some of their main players? <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Looking forward to it! <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Ben <DIV></DIV>>No personal references intended - names have been change to protect the guilty! ;-p <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM505301/15'>Click Here</a><br></html>