| andyy
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 14
|
Hi all,
Andy Yevish here.
I haven't been on these forums in a very long time, and I don't plan to be in the future, but regarding the latest issue facing air hockey, I thought I could offer my perspective as a former promoter and USAA member, for what it's worth.
Without knowing all of the details, it appears to me that this controversy with Brian Accrocco and Chris Lee (who are promotional veterans and who are intending to promote an upcoming national event ) and the USAA (the traditional rules organization and sanctioning body of the sport) is basically about Promoter/USAA roles and boundaries.
Without getting into too many semantics, the sticking points seem to be:
1. Sanctioning fees needing to be paid by the promoter to the USAA.
2. Control of Media and Broadcasting.
3. Control of operational tournament procedures.
4. Role of the USAA
Let me address them one at a time:
1. Sanctioning fees: These were a bad idea to begin with. I am partly responsible for this scenario happening as back in the day, I was a big proponent of the USAA enacting a dues package so that the USAA could have some fiscal resources from their members in case they needed it for things like renting a room or buying supplies for a meeting, or perhaps even procuring some resources that could be offered to promoters who were doing USAA sanctioned events. The original idea was that USAA members would need to be current on the current year's dues or they would not be able to parttake in USAA business (voting, building status qualifications, etc.) We specifically did not want people incurring years of debt to participate again, so our idea was to have it so that if someone wasn't current it would only affect the current participation (in other words there were no back dues... you weren't paid for that year, you couldn't participate that year... if you were paid next year for next year you could participate that year).
The dues package was adopted, but against my vehement objections as a promoter, someone proposed that there would also be a $5 surchage for every player who was NOT a USAA member. The terminology changed from A surcharge to a sanctioning fee. The practice was that the promoter would tack on the extra $5 to non-USAA member players entry fees... (or simply figure it into the entry fees in the first place and offer a $5 USAA member discount for any member whose dues were current).
Now from what I understand this sanctioning fee is a flat fee. $300? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Bottom line. This is an overstep. The USAA should get its money from USAA members. Period. Why you ask? Well it should be obvious, but I'll get to it when we address some of the other points as it is the ame reason.
2. Control of Media and Broadcasting: continued on next post (running out of characters:
|
|
|
|
| andyy
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 14
|
(Continued)
2. Control of Media and Broadcasting: This is certainly promoter realm. The promoter certainly could consider using the USAA in this capacity if the USAA had something to offer, but should not be required to. If the USAA had something to make the promoter's job easier and cooperated wirth the promoter in this capacity, then promoters would likely want to take advantage of this. (I know I would have). But if they feel they have it covered or would rather use their own crew, then they should be able to.
3. Control of operational tournament procedures: This is a bit more of a grey area. There are some things like match format, seeding and things that directly affect play that are and should be USAA domain. However, on anything that affects the promoter's ability to conrol and execute the event, the promoter should have control. They have the agreement with the location and the sponsors, not the USAA. The kinds of things that are promoter realm are reasonable dress and conduct codes, a certain degree of latitude of accommodating players who may be late to a match so long as another match can be called that round (I always say to err on the side of accommodation... especially for newer players), arrangement of the tournament room (player and ref areas, watching areas, camera areas etc), and general policy which might affect safety, relationships to host or sponsors, and keeping the event running smoothly. (Remember, the USAA has a right after the fact to revoke sanctioning if the promoter does something that is not reasonable and affects the integrity of the tournamnet).
4. Roles of the promoter and the USAA: This is the biggie which encompasses all. I'm going to sum up here. The USAA should be a rules organization to see that the game of air hockey as we know it ON THE TABLE is preserved in the tradition of which it was founded. It SHOULD NOT be a mechanism used to force a promoter to have to work with or take direction from individuals they are not comfortable working with in any capacity. (your answer to #2).
The Promoter owns the event. He and his crew do the work and is ultimately responsible.
That being said, again, the promoter may choose to use the USAA as a resource if he so chooses.
The USAA should be a RESOURCE to promoters, not a strait jacket.
There should be healthy negotiation between the USAA and the Promoter... not a gun to the head.
Example: USAA wants to be involved with broadcasting, they offer the promoter their use of equipment and personnel for this purpose, and allow the promoter to veto any USAA team members they don't feel comfortable using.
USAA is NOT a promotional organization and could (and should) never operate as such.
Ok... I said my 2 cents worth, and I hope everything is resolved amicably.
I truly hope someone puts together a nationals in Feb or March or April when I can actually attend.
Best to All - Andy
|
|
|
|
| andyy
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 14
|
Oh... and I forgot to state my reasoning for no sanctioning fee... The USAA should be there to offer resources and incentivize those who promote the sport... not act as something that stands in the way and requires very scarce resources from the promoter.
The way it feels to a promoter is "I'm paying you to interfere with my event".
(Sorry... forgot to include that)
|
|
|
| TWeissman
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 210
|
Hi Andy,
Good to see you.
It''s been years!
I hope you are well.
Take care...
Tim
|
|
|
| TheAirHockeyGuy
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 472
|
This post is perfect Andy.
Chris Lee
Co-Founder, CEO
Air Hockey Players Association (AHPA)
|
|
|
| carolina phil
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 1084
|
Thank you Andy.
We would all love to have the Beast from the East back competing in the Nationals/Worlds!
All your points are well taken, and if players agree, next year changes can be made for future petitions for World sanctioning.
Best Regards,
Phil
|
|
|
|
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 658
|
| Don't want the USAA's endorsement and sanctioning stamp? Then keep your $300 and don't apply. And good luck.
|
|
|
|
| Slim
- 29 Mar 2015
Total Posts: 7
|
There are two adults in the room. I expect them to negotiate, compromise,
and figure out a course that would result in tangible benefits
for the players of Air Hockey.
Now is the time for a teachable moment for our new and young players.
Bending the rules to complete the mission works every
time it is tried.
When players of the future think back to who was the facilitator of
advancing through this current obstacle of our time, I would hope that
both sides could take the credit for doing so.
We the people want to be united and be able to play hard. We want the energy
of the Table to flow freely through our veins, feeding our passion-
while we are alive.
Don't stand there and recite the rules to me-Shoot!
|
First |
1 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / USAA/Promoter relationship
|
