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.
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?
wigsy
>From: "Ben Ravilious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Geo teams etc
>Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:09:15 +0100
>
>
>
> >I do struggle to see why Ben is 'becoming more sceptical of the current geo
> >system' as the current system places virtually no restictions or offers no
> >real advantages apart from allowing 2 teams which doesn't apply to any of
> >the non-geo teams anyway. Ben?
>
>Yup - its out of date.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.
>
>(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)
>
> >
> >>My suggestion is that we should encourage *loyalty* (by discouraging roster
> >additions
> >>for international clubs events, for example). I think this is more
> >palatable than
> >>annoying nanny-state regulations and would help local teams.
> >?????? Not sure exactly what you'd be hoping to gain from this. As far as I
> >can tell this has always been a way of talented junior players getting
> >experience that will greatly help their development, and thus the
> >development of the sport as a whole in the UK. Examples abound of how well
> >this has worked in the past: Dougie and Ollie from Bad Company (Cambridge)
> >playing with the Hombres abroad; Wigsy, Bowles and Sickboy playing with
> >Shotgun in Vancouver; bl**dy everyone playing with the Purple Scum ;-). It
> >happens the world over and to prevent UK teams alone doing it would only
> >hold development back in the long term as well as put us at a competitive
> >disadvantage versus the rest of the world in the individual competitions. At
> >the moment all it would mean is that someone way down the roster who is
> >probably far less committed to the sport and has far less potential would
> >get an opportunity to play at a level which is completely beyond them.
>
>
>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.
>
>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?
>
>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
>we would have more teams at international standard!
>
>For the purpose of growth the latter would be preferable - No?
>
>(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)
>
> >This year's Tour should shed some light on the issue - will the honourably
> >geo Sharks be able to use that advantage over the more experienced but
> >dishonourable Druids? How well will less-than-geo Poco fare with their
> >strong roster but lack of weekly practice? What about the strongly geo
> >Leeds*3 without some of their main players?
>
>
>Looking forward to it!
>
>Ben
>No personal references intended - names have been change to protect the guilty! ;-p
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
