Unity in the Sport

[StateWarsDir]

For the last week I have been thinking over and over in my head about this concept of "Unity in Our Sport" and what it really means. For many these days it seems that the focus of our sport in truly "unifying" it has become nothing more than insurance. It has become and AAU vs USAHIL debate in the past now RHA has become part of that argument. But should insurance justify unity?

My car is insured by Geico and my home owners insurance is through State Farm, does that make me not unified as a person? No the fact is one of these companies offered me something more beneficial to me in one regard and the other did with the other. You see I made these individual choices based upon what was best for me and my situation. Are rinks or is our sport much different?

I live on Long Island and there are 3 major rinks in the area, one of them Skate Safe America is insured by AAU, it is a great facility and I am close friends with the owners and it is also the home rink for the travel club I run, the Mission Snipers. Next there is Sportime, a rink that is close to my home that I play out of twice a week, it is privately insured. Lastly is Rapid Fire Arena, a rink I used to work at which is now operated by some of my closest friends, it to is privately insured and possibly may be by RHA in the future. But the main point is, they all made a choice as to what is best for their own personal business. Who are we to judge what they decide to do? But what can make them all UNIFIED is if they speak to one another, communicate about organizing events together, supporting one another and helping each other out when one needs it (example : an extra referee, a team contact, or a recommendation for a new flooring system). That is where true unity lies!

So when it comes to hockey tournaments or National events, does it really matter who is insured by who? Should that be a factor if you will support something? Heck if it is a good event, is positive for the sport and gets kids and families playing and excited, shouldn't we all support it?

I mentioned a couple of days ago that for 2 years I tried to get AAU and USAHIL to co sanction State Wars. I thought it would be great for all of the parents to not have to buy one insurance if they already owned the other. Both sides said it couldn't (or wouldn't) be done. Who lost out? Just the parent who had to buy another insurance.

If you go to my website and scroll to the bottom, you will see a big list of sponsors and supporters with their weblinks. I have tried hard to cross promote ANYONE who wants to work with us in the sport, regardless of who they are affiliated with. If people out there who SAY they truly want what is best for the sport and want to UNITE it, then they should contact me and get their logo on my site and get ours on theirs, that's a start. It shouldn't matter what insurance I use or you use etc.. Again that is an independent decision for what makes most sense for our business.

If all of the tourneys out there talked and discussed things like dates and locations and FINALLY had no overlap where KIDS would have to make a choice of one or the other, to me that would be the kind of UNITY I want to be a part of. To all have the same insurance but to secretly behind closed doors dislike one another or not communicate with one another, is not unity. That would be fluff.

As for the creation of RHA, the one step I immediately liked about it was that a bunch of us who do all run our own businesses (and are competitors) have agreed that we need to communicate and make sure that we spread our events out and don't over saturate the market, to me that is a HUGE step. I can only hope that others will realize the value in that and stop with the "your either with us or your against us" policy, that is not only getting old but not helping our sport one bit!

Tim McManus
Player, Coach, Hockey Director

[ACCCT2]

For the last week I have been thinking over and over in my head about this concept of "Unity in Our Sport" and what it really means.

Under whose "mandatory/certification" control?



My car is insured by Geico and my home owners insurance is through State Farm, does that make me not unified as a person? No the fact is one of these companies offered me something more beneficial to me in one regard and the other did with the other. You see I made these individual choices based upon what was best for me and my situation. Are rinks or is our sport much different?

Much different, as Geico isn't trying to establish a "mandatory/certification" cartel on the industry.



But what can make them all UNIFIED is if they speak to one another, communicate about organizing events together, supporting one another and helping each other out when one needs it (example : an extra referee, a team contact, or a recommendation for a new flooring system). That is where true unity lies!

Not exactly sure what this bunko-spiel-bs means? "UNIFIED" under who -- ONLY under the "mandatory/certification" controls, opinions and dictates of the RHA?



So when it comes to hockey tournaments or National events, does it really matter who is insured by who? Should that be a factor if you will support something? Heck if it is a good event, is positive for the sport and gets kids and families playing and excited, shouldn't we all support it?

It absolutely does matter "who is insured by who". And NO, we shouldn't "support" anything that the someone selling us its alleged virtues won't clearly and directly answer people's worries, issues or concerns about.



If all of the tourneys out there talked and discussed things like dates and locations and FINALLY had no overlap where KIDS would have to make a choice of one or the other, to me that would be the kind of UNITY I want to be a part of. To all have the same insurance but to secretly behind closed doors dislike one another or not communicate with one another, is not unity. That would be fluff.

The "overlap" of what -- exclusively RHA owners' events? That would be incredibly self-serving and potential restriction-of-trade "fluff".



As for the creation of RHA, the one step I immediately liked about it was that a bunch of us who do all run our own businesses (and are competitors) have agreed that we need to communicate and make sure that we spread our events out and don't over saturate the market, to me that is a HUGE step. I can only hope that others will realize the value in that and stop with the "your either with us or your against us" policy, that is not only getting old but not helping our sport one bit!

So who exactly have you talked to and "agreed that we need to communicate and make sure that we spread our events out and don't over saturate the market" with -- ONLY your RHA partners maybe? What kind of "certification" or "sanction" (approval, punitive or otherwise) could a player, team, game official, event or event organizer expect for scheduling themselves at the same time as an RHA event? Who gets to decide "who" gets what, and what size, and when, and how many "slices" of the inline hockey calendar "pie"? Would there be some kind of "over-saturation" penalty for an RHA event organizer cutting out their own slice of the pie whether it competed with other RHA events or not? As you can clearly see (and all of you at the clearly RHA already know) conflict of interest issues abound that RHA (so far) has refused to answer, clarify or deal with -- and until you do, it's all incredibly self-serving "bunko-spiel-bs" in my book.

[CUDangled]

I am NOT trying to be a jerk, just simply trying to get a question answered.

No one seems to disagree that the sport needs growth
No one seems to disagree that getting everyone on the same page is a bad thing
It seems like all the static the RHA has caused has been with the insurance.

So here is my question...how does aligning the insurance help with growth of the sport? So you take 3 of the largest tournament series in the country and pull them all under one umbrella for insurance. What has this done to promote "growth"?

Will the officials be "better"?
Will the coaches be more "knowledgable"?

The answer to all of these questions may very well be "Yes", but not because they all carry they same insurance. But because they are being held to a higher standard.

You mention you choice of home owner's insurance. I like this analogy. Let's say you just want the minimum insurance that your mortgage company requires. Fine, you go out and buy a standard policy from XYZ provider. But lets say you REALLY want to make sure you home is financially secure in case of a disaster. You can always go out and buy a supplemental policy. The same is true for hockey. USAIL says I am "certified" to coach. But to be "better", I read books, watch videos, talk to other coaches and bounce ideas off of each other. I am going "above and beyond" which it seems like you guys are also trying to do. Great. But then you put up the roadblock of the insurance barrier.

Let's say I own a rink and have selected USAIL because they have a long history in the sport and deep inside the legal mumble jumble of the policy, I like their coverage better (from a legal standpoint). I would now be alienating my teams/players from any potential benefits of the RHA because I elect not to carry their coverage. Right?

I guess what it boils down to, is why not create an "alliance of hockey players/teams/rinks/leagues/tournaments that work to promote the sport" and leave it at that? What advantage is there to adding the insurance?

[StateWarsDir]

Mike

I don't get you at all. I don't think your stupid so I wont accuse you of that, ignorant may be a term that fits more..not even sure. I guess one thing is for certain, where I come from you are called a fire starter. To me that's someone who really has nothing to gain or lose by the situation but likes to make smart comments and cause trouble. That's what you have been doing on here. These comments I made in this thread have nothing to do with RHA, that's why I started a new thread. But you continue to go backwards and bring up the same old stuff.

The point of my comments were to say that as someone who is involved (and has been for years) I'm tired of the you vs us mentality. And that goes for everyone, and I am not excluding anyone in this. We ALL need to work together or else this sport is done. And in my opinion an insurance group shouldn't dictate that. For instance if there was a rink that was sanctioned by "x insurance company" and the rink owner said hey Id love to promote State Wars or Narch or Torhs or Junior Oympics but because you are sanctioned by "y insurance" I wont. But if you switch to "x insurance" I will. That is STUPID. That is my point.

This sport is way to small to fight amongst ourselves like we do. There are plenty of players and teams out there that everyone working together can do fine for themselves independently and at the same time make the sport better.

But you Mike, you go on these rants and make crazy comments and your not even involved. At least the people that sign their names to their comments are involved in the sport. I don't know Joe Noris too well and I may not agree with some of the things he said but you know what at least he is vested in this sport and I know he cares about it. And the bottom line is whether he thinks the sport should be one way and I think it should be another doesn't mean we should trash each other or try to ruin each others business, because in the end the only ones that lose are the players. But you don't care about that because you don't play, you don't coach, you probably don't have kids playing in these events (I live in NY too and if you were heavily involved out here we'd know each other)..so if it all blows up and turns to crap...you will probably get some sick enjoyment out of watching peoples jobs and careers go down the tubes.

I love the show Mad Men and haven't missed an episode of it, so does that make me an expert of the ad agency? Can I come to Manhattan to your job and critique everything that you do? Well I wouldn't because I know I don't know a damn thing about your job and quite frankly its none of my concern. So do us all a favor and worry about things that concern your lives and let the people who really care about this sport worry about what's right and wrong.

[StateWarsDir]

CUDangled

I guess we were typing at the same time so I didn't see this while I was ranting about my tiredness of the last post. I started this thread to pull away my thoughts from the RHA but I guess I will answer your questions (which are good ones) here where you asked them. I don't know how to do all that paraphrasing stuff on here like some do so I will just answer as best as I can.

Insurance as I have stated above is not what unifies things. The fact that a lot of the major tourney are going under one membership is helpful to mom and dad so they don't have to buy multiple ones. Right off the bat the RHA has a lot of groups using this membership and I have already been contacted by other regional type tourney series wanting to learn how to get on board as well. I would guess in 2010 almost all tournaments would be under one.

The fact of the matter is that you need a membership to be all inclusive, meaning being a one stop shop. You don't want to have to buy one membership for insurance and another for other added benefits. Listen, I for one do not want RHA to be about insurance and I do not want to be in the insurance business, that is a fact. That is one reason why we have met with both USARS and USAHIL in an effort to work together with one or both of them, this way the insurance would still go thru one of them and a small amount of the funding of that membership would go to RHA to allow us to do some of the things we feel the sport needs and isn't being done. But to date neither side would agree. This could change but as of right now unfortunately it has not.

A lot of it unfortunately comes down to ego, no one wants to admit that they haven't been doing a great job and we need more done or we need help. The formation of RHA indirectly knocks the job currently being done by others. Now we can even be nice and say you know what USAHIL and USARS are doing all they can, it's a lot of work and the average person has no idea how much work comes into this...we are trying our best. This may be true and if it is great, but we (RHA) want to help. We want to make the sport better, it needs more attention and some different direction.

As far as which insurance is better etc... What our group did was take the other insurance memberships out there, give them to an outside source and say price a new insurance out for us that mirror these. So we know that insurance wise things will be equal, that's the easy part. But where we feel RHA would differ would be the follow thru on other goals. But again in a perfect world, in my personal opinion I would think it could be great if some of these groups could join together and offer all the added benefits, RHA has wanted that from the start but we cannot make the others feel the same. There is a lot of bureaucracy involved unfortunately.

[quick_dry]

this last post was great Tim.

In some ways you could say the same that you said to ACCCT2 to me - I don't play inline hockey in the states, so what do I care? I'd say that I care because I'm interested in it, and bcause people can want things done better - even if it doesn't directly benefit them, or just acting out of principle.

Anyway, in your last post you talked about insurance going through one or the other - so my understanding is that RHA is really about being a value added provider and being a 'wrapper' of sorts around the NGB e.g. USARS. I think that would be great.

I think unity would be great - name one other sport that has mutiple sanctioning bodies both internationally, and nationally in many countries.

if you want to swim, you do it under FINA.
if you want to race cars, you're under FIA
ice hockey - IIHF
do clunky figure skating on roller skates - see FIRS.

play roller hockey - see IIHF, see FIRS, see RHA, see X,Y,Z... see confusion.

(in each country you'd be covered by a different insurance provider, and that might change from year to year. I'm fortunate that 30 bucks for insurance to 1 or 2 groups isn't a big deal - I couldn't care less (up to a point) about insurance costs - what I do care is about getting the sport in general under one banner. And then the leagues in whichever country and region can do what they want udner that, be it for profit or not, just get sanctioned and when new people come in they get 2 forms. 1 to join the governing body and get insured, 1 to give the league they're joining information/money.

[ACCCT2]

this last post was great Tim.

In some ways you could say the same that you said to ACCCT2 to me - I don't play inline hockey in the states, so what do I care? I'd say that I care because I'm interested in it, and bcause people can want things done better - even if it doesn't directly benefit them, or just acting out of principle.

Anyway, in your last post you talked about insurance going through one or the other - so my understanding is that RHA is really about being a value added provider and being a 'wrapper' of sorts around the NGB e.g. USARS. I think that would be great.

I think unity would be great - name one other sport that has mutiple sanctioning bodies both internationally, and nationally in many countries.

if you want to swim, you do it under FINA.
if you want to race cars, you're under FIA
ice hockey - IIHF
do clunky figure skating on roller skates - see FIRS.

play roller hockey - see IIHF, see FIRS, see RHA, see X,Y,Z... see confusion.

(in each country you'd be covered by a different insurance provider, and that might change from year to year. I'm fortunate that 30 bucks for insurance to 1 or 2 groups isn't a big deal - I couldn't care less (up to a point) about insurance costs - what I do care is about getting the sport in general under one banner. And then the leagues in whichever country and region can do what they want udner that, be it for profit or not, just get sanctioned and when new people come in they get 2 forms. 1 to join the governing body and get insured, 1 to give the league they're joining information/money.

Another BULLSEYE!!!

Ultimately, it all comes down to this for me: "UNITY" is one thing -- I'd be all for an "inline hockey mission statement/marketing" kind of "alliance" (with NO attendant "mandatory/certification" or "membership" fees). But unfortunately and very evidently, that's NOT what we're talking about with RHA, as (in my opinion) RHA is clearly all about we as players, game officials, leagues and event organizers blindly and willingly ceding infrastructural (and hence, NGB and financial) "pie-making" and "pie-slicing" (and "pie-tasting"?) "control" over the sport -- a badly-outlined ruse disguised as an allegedly "from the goodness of (their) hearts" effort to "grow" the sport. And honestly, people -- RHA has still yet to say otherwise. C'mon, prove to all of us I'm wrong about any of my assertions, allegations and/or impressions...!?!

As stated earlier -- you don't need "mandatory/certification" controls to "grow" the sport if you're even the least bit committed to actually "growing" it. You ONLY need one -- and just one ("1") -- well-written, well-thought-out-&-detailed document, press release, forum-post or website and this takes care of literally -- and 'virtually' -- tens-of-thousands of legitimate questions, issues and maybe even unexpoited 'partnering' opportunities -- and would do so on an ever-constant 24/7 basis. But RHA still won't 'write it down' in it's fully and legally detailed "mandatory/certification" completeness. Surely you RHA dudes have spent as much time posting here as it would've taken to actually "write" an all-inclusive, as well as fully and legally detailed "inline hockey mission statement/constitution/marketing" press release/website that could've easily reassured people of RHA's intentions and ability to inspire "UNITY" in 'unifying' the sport. But very evidently that simple and logical "writing-down" would've been way too fully and legally definitive, now wouldn't it, eh?

As I said before, we're not talking about the "atmosphere", quality or qualifications of the NARCh, TORHS, State Wars, etc., events or owners (FULL and deserving "KUDOS" to all of 'em there) -- we're talking about foolishly allowing an arrogantly non-transparent, non-accounatable, non-inclusive, non-responsive and non-democratic cartel-ish cabal of for-profit businessmen attempting a "coup d'état" on the various offical (read: NGB) "mandatory/certification" controls of our sport by sweet-talking us all into letting them have exclusive un-tethered and unfettered "control" of our game and its extremely critical "mandatory/certification" infrastructure, and hence, it's financial and (NGB) sponsorship "pie" controls as well -- it's that simple.

As Forest Gump might say 'bout the RHA: "My momma always said, 'Life (and the RHA?) is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.'" --

And in closing (for now, anyway) with my 2-cents-worth on this unfortunately going-nowhere subject -- "That's all I got to say 'bout that.";)

[TylerSollberger]

Another BULLSEYE!!!

Ultimately, it all comes down to this for me: "UNITY" is one thing -- I'd be all for an "inline hockey mission statement/marketing" kind of "alliance" (with NO attendant "mandatory/certification" or "membership" fees). But unfortunately and very evidently, that's NOT what we're talking about with RHA, as (in my opinion) RHA is clearly all about we as players, game officials, leagues and event organizers blindly and willingly ceding infrastructural (and hence, NGB and financial) "pie-making" and "pie-slicing" (and "pie-tasting"?) "control" over the sport -- a badly-outlined ruse disguised as an allegedly "from the goodness of (their) hearts" effort to "grow" the sport. And honestly, people -- RHA has still yet to say otherwise. C'mon, prove to all of us I'm wrong about any of my assertions allegations and/or impressions...!?!

As stated earlier -- you don't need "mandatory/certification" controls to "grow" the sport if you're even the least bit committed to actually "growing" it. You ONLY need one -- and just one ("1") -- well-written, well-thought-out-&-detailed document, press release, forum-post or website and this takes care of literally -- and 'virtually' -- tens-of-thousands of legitimate questions, issues and maybe even unexpoited 'partnering' opportunities -- and would do so on an ever-constant 24/7 basis. But RHA still won't 'write it down' in it's fully and legally detailed "mandatory/certification" completeness. Surely you RHA dudes have spent as much time posting here as it would've taken to actually "write" an all-inclusive, as well as fully and legally detailed "inline hockey mission statement/constitution/marketing" press release/website that could've easily reassured people of RHA's intentions and ability to inspire "UNITY" in 'unifying' the sport. But very evidently that simple and logical "writing-down" would've been way too fully and legally definitive, now wouldn't it, eh?

As I said before, we're not talking about the "atmosphere", quality or qualifications of the NARCh, TORHS, State Wars, etc., events or owners (FULL and deserving "KUDOS" to all of 'em there) -- we're talking about foolishly allowing an arrogantly non-transparent, non-accounatble, non-inclusive, non-responsive and non-democratic cartel-ish cabal of for-profit businessmen attempting a "coup d'état" on the various offical (read: NGB) "mandatory/certification" controls of our sport by sweet-talking us all into letting them have exclusive un-tethered and unfettered "control" of our game and its extremely critical "mandatory/certification" infrastructure, and hence, it's financial and (NGB) sponsorship "pie" controls as well -- it's that simple.

As Forest Gump might say 'bout the RHA: "My momma always said, 'Life (and the RHA) is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.'" --

And in closing (for now, anyway) with my 2-cents-worth on this unfortunately going-nowhere subject -- "That's all I got to say 'bout that.";)

What a tool!

[Mtour71]

Can we vote ACCCT2 off the Island?

[SPORTSPLEXJEFF]

Can we vote ACCCT2 off the Island?


What a tool!

Two statements from people who are truly one sided on this issue. I have no opinion and only wanted to throw my 2 cents in briefly. Let ACCCT2 and others who do not like this initiative speak their mind and also let the supporters and initiators speak their mind.

Then each person can develop their own opinion and make a decision.

[Mtour71]

I agree with you! Everyone is has a right to voice their opinions. Just adding a little humor!

[ACCCT2]

I agree with you! Everyone is has a right to voice their opinions. Just adding a little humor!

Hey -- "no harm, no foul", right? Actually, I took it as "adding a little humor" at the time I read it -- and besides, I've got much thicker skin (if not a thicker skull?) than some people who post here!;)

[TylerSollberger]

Two statements from people who are truly one sided on this issue. I have no opinion and only wanted to throw my 2 cents in briefly. Let ACCCT2 and others who do not like this initiative speak their mind and also let the supporters and initiators speak their mind.

Then each person can develop their own opinion and make a decision.

First of all, I am not one sided. I understand that people may have reasonable concerns or questions about a new organization. Saying that, Accct2 clearly is not on this site to better our sport. Anything that has been said from Tim or Daryn has been completely twisted by this guy. On the other hand, anything said negative about the RHA is a BULLSEYE. Its actually gotten comical. Clearly Accct2 is the one who is one sided. All along I have said that I do believe that the intentions of this group is to better the sport and lets give it time before everyone rips them.

It is a good thing that everyone has an opinion and hopefully we can all learn something from the people who have "reasonable" concerns. As a referee, I have a few questions, but I am not trying to hide behind a screen name and bash every thing this organization does. If Accct2 is this concerned about what the RHA's intentions are, he would privately call or send an email to the owners. As a matter of fact, they have invited him to conversation, but he cowardly denied.

This sport doesn't have time for jokers like Accct2, we need people to step up, be a leader and make solutions, and the RHA is at least trying. So I stand by my original post, unless Accct2 can get on here and come up with his own solutions or even a reasonable concern, he is a tool!

[ACCCT2]

First of all, I am not one sided. I understand that people may have reasonable concerns or questions about a new organization. Saying that, Accct2 clearly is not on this site to better our sport. Anything that has been said from Tim or Daryn has been completely twisted by this guy. On the other hand, anything said negative about the RHA is a BULLSEYE.

In my view and opinion, a "BULLSEYE" is a "BULLSEYE", that simple. You obviously don't have to agree with me, just as I obviously don't have to agree with you (ooh, would that be yet another "BULLSEYE"?). I would suggest you actually read (and comprehend?) ALL of my posts, as I give most of the RHA "owners" their proper and appropriate "KUDOS" where they're due -- just NOT where they aren't (in my own view and opinion).;)



...Clearly Accct2 is the one who is one sided.

Not "one sided" -- I'd say, doggedly consistent in maintaining focus in where I feel (in my opinion) it needs to be maintained.;)



If Accct2 is this concerned about what the RHA's intentions are, he would privately call or send an email to the owners. As a matter of fact, they have invited him to conversation, but he cowardly denied.

First-off, I'd never involve myself with the "owners" of an NGB (GEEZ, doesn't that make any of you give pause?).

Secondly, those "owners" never "invited" me "to conversation" -- the "conversation" has only been through IHC threads and was already on at the point that I joined in.

And lastly, the only "cowards" here are those who think the only way to counter or answer legimate, intelligent and thoughtful concerns and issues is to try and verbally and offensively 'name-call' someone -- yeah, a real professional, visionary and classy group, those RHA (NGB?) "owners" of your's, eh?:rolleyes:



This sport doesn't have time for jokers like Accct2, we need people to step up, be a leader and make solutions, and the RHA is at least trying. So I stand by my original post, unless Accct2 can get on here and come up with his own solutions or even a reasonable concern, he is a tool!

Hmmm...and that would be your free and unfettered opinion, right?:confused:

[TylerSollberger]

You have the right to any opinion you want, but once again, when asked what your solution to the sport is, you avoided the question. It's real easy to be negative when you're sitting in the corner doing nothing for the sport.

[ACCCT2]

Two statements from people who are truly one sided on this issue. I have no opinion and only wanted to throw my 2 cents in briefly. Let ACCCT2 and others who do not like this initiative speak their mind and also let the supporters and initiators speak their mind.

Then each person can develop their own opinion and make a decision.

Again, Jeff -- I hope I don't make you a marked man by wholeheartedly agreeing with you on the gist and spirit of this one!;)

[ACCCT2]

You have the right to any opinion you want, but once again, when asked what your solution to the sport is, you avoided the question. It's real easy to be negative when you're sitting in the corner doing nothing for the sport.

Ah, gentlemanly conversation! With all due respect, 2 things to consider --

1) I'm not publicly calling for an "owner" based "quasi-NGB" with "mandatory/certification" fees and financial/infrastructural "controls" that basically and financially benefits well, only the "owners". The day that I would start a "quasi-NGB" with "mandatory/certification" fees and financial/infrastructural "controls" that basically and financially benefits well, me you can totally rip me apart and scatter my 'virtual' limbs to the 'virtual' winds of cyberspace. Deal?

2) You have absolutely no idea of what I'm doing "for the sport" -- and this is basically because I'm not "doing" anything, nor announcing it, before everything is button-down-tight legally, logistically and marketing-wise. Are we agreed on at least this rather important and irrefuatble point?

Peace-out!;)

[TylerSollberger]

Still no solution?

[Berry_Bramble]

Another BULLSEYE!!!

Ultimately, it all comes down to this for me: "UNITY" is one thing -- I'd be all for an "inline hockey mission statement/marketing" kind of "alliance" (with NO attendant "mandatory/certification" or "membership" fees). But unfortunately and very evidently, that's NOT what we're talking about with RHA, as (in my opinion) RHA is clearly all about we as players, game officials, leagues and event organizers blindly and willingly ceding infrastructural (and hence, NGB and financial) "pie-making" and "pie-slicing" (and "pie-tasting"?) "control" over the sport -- a badly-outlined ruse disguised as an allegedly "from the goodness of (their) hearts" effort to "grow" the sport. And honestly, people -- RHA has still yet to say otherwise. C'mon, prove to all of us I'm wrong about any of my assertions, allegations and/or impressions...!?!

As stated earlier -- you don't need "mandatory/certification" controls to "grow" the sport if you're even the least bit committed to actually "growing" it. You ONLY need one -- and just one ("1") -- well-written, well-thought-out-&-detailed document, press release, forum-post or website and this takes care of literally -- and 'virtually' -- tens-of-thousands of legitimate questions, issues and maybe even unexpoited 'partnering' opportunities -- and would do so on an ever-constant 24/7 basis. But RHA still won't 'write it down' in it's fully and legally detailed "mandatory/certification" completeness. Surely you RHA dudes have spent as much time posting here as it would've taken to actually "write" an all-inclusive, as well as fully and legally detailed "inline hockey mission statement/constitution/marketing" press release/website that could've easily reassured people of RHA's intentions and ability to inspire "UNITY" in 'unifying' the sport. But very evidently that simple and logical "writing-down" would've been way too fully and legally definitive, now wouldn't it, eh?

As I said before, we're not talking about the "atmosphere", quality or qualifications of the NARCh, TORHS, State Wars, etc., events or owners (FULL and deserving "KUDOS" to all of 'em there) -- we're talking about foolishly allowing an arrogantly non-transparent, non-accounatable, non-inclusive, non-responsive and non-democratic cartel-ish cabal of for-profit businessmen attempting a "coup d'état" on the various offical (read: NGB) "mandatory/certification" controls of our sport by sweet-talking us all into letting them have exclusive un-tethered and unfettered "control" of our game and its extremely critical "mandatory/certification" infrastructure, and hence, it's financial and (NGB) sponsorship "pie" controls as well -- it's that simple.

As Forest Gump might say 'bout the RHA: "My momma always said, 'Life (and the RHA?) is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.'" --

And in closing (for now, anyway) with my 2-cents-worth on this unfortunately going-nowhere subject -- "That's all I got to say 'bout that.";)

That Statement held true in like 1960. Now I know exactly what I am getting as I believe each chocolate is marked under the cover. At least the ones my grandma would bring over for the holidays.

[ACCCT2]

That Statement held true in like 1960. Now I know exactly what I am getting as I believe each chocolate is marked under the cover. At least the ones my grandma would bring over for the holidays.

"Touché" (although the RHA "chocolates" don't appear to be clearly outlined or "marked" anywhere, eh?)...!!!;)

[Berry_Bramble]

"Touché" (although the RHA "chocolates" don't appear to be clearly outlined or "marked" anywhere, eh?)...!!!;)

aaaa booooo

[ACCCT2]

Still no solution?

Listen, for the longest time that I can remember, I've been one of the people advising us (as mostly "grass roots" players, leagues and organizations) to take back effective infrastructural control of our sport from "political" do-almost-nothing "dictating" entities like USAHIL, USARS, the IIHF and FIRS. But I would never advise accomplishing a "take-back" from one self-serving and profiteering group of "dictators" simply to then turn around and grant even more un-tethered and unfettered "control" of our game and its extremely critical "mandatory/certification" infrastructure (and hence, it's financial and NGB sponsorship "pie" controls) to yet another even more self-servingly profit-motivated group of "dictators". Absolutely NO "friggin'" way.

The feel-good, "grass-roots/grow-the-game" objectives that RHA supposedly and allegedly expouses ("from the goodness of our hearts") can absolutely be accomplished without any RHA "owners" or "mandatory/certification" or NGB-like "control" or fees being handed over to anyone. Even critical insurance/liabilty issues could be done so in such a way (without any RHA "owners" or "mandatory/certification" or NGB-like "control"). And believe it or not, I myself would absolutely work-for and contribute my time, talents and expertise to that kind of "solution" -- but NOT to one that involves a "quasi-NGB" that has only "owners" at any kind of helm.:rolleyes:

[SPORTSPLEXJEFF]

[QUOTE=TylerSollberger;57127]First of all, I am not one sided. I understand that people may have reasonable concerns or questions about a new organization. Saying that, Accct2 clearly is not on this site to better our sport. Anything that has been said from Tim or Daryn has been completely twisted by this guy. On the other hand, anything said negative about the RHA is a BULLSEYE. Its actually gotten comical. Clearly Accct2 is the one who is one sided. All along I have said that I do believe that the intentions of this group is to better the sport and lets give it time before everyone rips them. QUOTE]

Tyler all I have seen out of you is pro RHA so yes you are one sided and that is my opinion. I however will not form an opinion on RHA as I do work at a rink as a director and rather than have my superiors have issues with what I say on here relating to it. I will stand in my corner with my own opinion and will tell my management how I feel about it.

Take that for what its worth and don't bother asking for which side I am on which is presently neither.

I will say this again Tyler the man is entitled to his opinion because you choose to disagree with it you say he is a tool.

I will tell you if you read back on posts of mine last year you will see I argued with ACCCT2 on an issue that I walked away from because he liked his and I liked mine. Personally I think he can be very narrow minded and not willing to hear what others have to say but this is AMERICA and he is entitled to his own opinion.

So in closing I will tell you if you don't like him simply hit the ignore button and then he is gone from your screen.

[SPORTSPLEXJEFF]

That Statement held true in like 1960. Now I know exactly what I am getting as I believe each chocolate is marked under the cover. At least the ones my grandma would bring over for the holidays.

VIO next time you are in Feasterville bring me some chocolate. This fat kid needs loving too!

[ACCCT2]

...Personally I think he can be very narrow minded and not willing to hear what others have to say but this is AMERICA and he is entitled to his own opinion.

OUCH!!!:eek: Hmmm..."narrow minded", eh? Actually, I prefer to think of it as "extremely focused" (and yes, sometimes "focused" like a pit-bull), as I only come to an opinion after reviewing the all of the facts, issues, questions, concerns and answers as presented -- and only then do I offer or opine my "extremely focused" 2-cents-worth (whatever the cost).;)

Anyway, Thanks for highly American "the man is entitled to his opinion" advice and the reminder of everyone's right to agree or disagree with (or even "ignore") whatever you do or "don't like" about someone else's opinion.

[TylerSollberger]

[QUOTE=TylerSollberger;57127]First of all, I am not one sided. I understand that people may have reasonable concerns or questions about a new organization. Saying that, Accct2 clearly is not on this site to better our sport. Anything that has been said from Tim or Daryn has been completely twisted by this guy. On the other hand, anything said negative about the RHA is a BULLSEYE. Its actually gotten comical. Clearly Accct2 is the one who is one sided. All along I have said that I do believe that the intentions of this group is to better the sport and lets give it time before everyone rips them. QUOTE]

Tyler all I have seen out of you is pro RHA so yes you are one sided and that is my opinion. I however will not form an opinion on RHA as I do work at a rink as a director and rather than have my superiors have issues with what I say on here relating to it. I will stand in my corner with my own opinion and will tell my management how I feel about it.

Take that for what its worth and don't bother asking for which side I am on which is presently neither.

I will say this again Tyler the man is entitled to his opinion because you choose to disagree with it you say he is a tool.

I will tell you if you read back on posts of mine last year you will see I argued with ACCCT2 on an issue that I walked away from because he liked his and I liked mine. Personally I think he can be very narrow minded and not willing to hear what others have to say but this is AMERICA and he is entitled to his own opinion.

So in closing I will tell you if you don't like him simply hit the ignore button and then he is gone from your screen.

Jeff,
I respect your opinion and your choice of keeping your opinion to yourself. I am not trying to blindly defend anything that the RHA is trying to do, nor will I blindly bash what they're trying to do. I am pro RHA when it comes to giving them a chance. Right away people are criticizing their motives. How is that fair? How does one guy know what 10 people are trying to accomplish? It may come off as to seem that I am one-sided, but like I said before, I understand that people have concerns and questions. The alliance is only 10 days old, lets give it time.

[ACCCT2]

[QUOTE=SPORTSPLEXJEFF;57143]

Jeff,
I respect your opinion and your choice of keeping your opinion to yourself. I am not trying to blindly defend anything that the RHA is trying to do, nor will I blindly bash what they're trying to do. I am pro RHA when it comes to giving them a chance. Right away people are criticizing their motives. How is that fair? How does one guy know what 10 people are trying to accomplish? It may come off as to seem that I am one-sided, but like I said before, I understand that people have concerns and questions. The alliance is only 10 days old, lets give it time.

Believe it or not, I TOO "am pro RHA when it comes to giving them a chance" -- just that it be a fully transparent, accounatable, inclusive, responsive and democratically-decided "chance", that's all. No one should ever be the "owners" of our sport's destiny except ourselves (meaning the actual players), as absolutely nothing happens, and no-one makes their "livelihood" or any money whatsoever off of the sport without "us". Fair?;)

And you're right to a certain extent -- how does "one guy" truly know "what 10 people are trying to accomplish?" -- especially when those "10 people" don't (or won't?) lay it all out in writing and basic "legalese", if you will, for ALL of "us" to see and imagine what they (those "10 people") definitively envision for "us" -- how are any of "us" supposed to 'see' the great (or gory) shining shinny 'chimera' that those "10 people" would have "us" (cash-money?) buy into? Why can't RHA do this? Why haven't they? What's so scary about actually writing down a real (and legal) outline/proposal of what position they as "owners" would occupy and how they see themselves operating in a fully transparent, accounatable, inclusive, responsive and democratically-run organization? Ask them, not me -- as I'm NOT attempting to self-appoint myself as a "quasi-NGB" with "mandatory/certification" fees and such.

[TylerSollberger]

[QUOTE=TylerSollberger;57147]

Believe it or not, I TOO "am pro RHA when it comes to giving them a chance" -- just that it be a fully transparent, accounatable, inclusive, responsive and democratically-decided "chance", that's all. No one should ever be the "owners" of our sport's destiny except ourselves (meaning the actual players, as absolutely nothing happens, and no-one makes their "livlihood" or any money whatsoever off of the sport without "us").;)

So no one should make any money for puting in a lot of hard work? Do you work for free? Who is to say that they would make money? If they do as they say, there will be a lot of expenses. Making a video isn't cheap. Referee and coaching clinics aren't free to perform. If they possibly get a magazine going, it won't be free. These are things that would be worth my $30.

[quick_dry]

I guess this is destined to be another thread about RHA - at least in some part. One thing that always sits well with me is when a non-profit organisation has a current copy of their constitution available online (and not in a "sure, just ask us and we'll send it to you" way). IMO the great thing about websites is that they can reduce the 'friction' in getting to information, and reduce the workload on the people involved in answering those sorts of questions/requests.

I did a quick check on google, because i wasn't sure if this was how you guys did things in the USA, it seems you do - but more usually call them by-laws and more commonly associate 'constitution' with 'USA constituion' - but anyhow... I came across this great quote from a non-profit law blog:

"Unlike a business corporation, in which, in very simplistic terms, the one who buys the most stock controls the organization, the Bylaws of a nonprofit corporation spell out the essential relationships of the participants. They are the power document of the organization."

I know that looking at an organisation I have questions about and thinking "hmm, i wonder what their constitution says" isn't a usual point of view, but I've found it handy. Without a basic understanding of it, making complaints is a little like those coach/player/spectator types who whinge to the ref without having a clue on the rules.

For the people out there who may be thinking that is anti-RHA (i'm not, I can definitely see a role for an organisation covering the ground they say they will) - and about to say 'who cares, we just wanna play hockey, shut the hell up"...

having a constitution published easily online would go a long way to shutting up people like ACCCT2 who are clamouring for "transparent, accountable, democratically decided,etc"... at least for a while/until it is shown that the organisation isn't following its own rules.

(that isn't to single ACCCT2 out and say I want him to necessarily shutup, but i think it might make the point more relevant to some people who would otherwise just go "by-law? consti-what? gah")

(also, for the office bearers of the NPO, its bloody important to know the constitutions requirements - I've been involved in a few clubs, and the people weren't aware of what the constitution said they had to do, and they could've gotten themselves into real legal trouble - as well as faced penalty fines paid from their own wallets.)

[ACCCT2]

[QUOTE=ACCCT2;57148]

So no one should make any money for puting in a lot of hard work? Do you work for free? Who is to say that they would make money? If they do as they say, there will be a lot of expenses. Making a video isn't cheap. Referee and coaching clinics aren't free to perform. If they possibly get a magazine going, it won't be free. These are things that would be worth my $30.

They already make their "money" (and "livelihoods") off the sport -- if they're really doing this "out of the goodness of (their) hearts" then lets see their words in action, as they themselves have already stated numerous times that they themselves ultimately stand to gain the most financially from a healthy and growing sport.

"Making a video" is definitely NOT what's in any way urgently needed in terms of "growing" the sport or providing "grass-roots" support vital to its exposure.

And indeed, "Referee and coaching clinics aren't free to perform." -- but making sure that there's an open and fair and accessible process surrounding the "evaluation/certification" process, as well as in 'bidding' for the right to conduct such "evaluation/certification" clinics and/or reviews, is extremely important (just ask any coach or referee who isn't an NGB official or RHA "owner").

And a "magazine" is quite frankly, a very costly adventure that in my opinion should only come about after, as well as will probably be one of the inevitable results of, an effective and successful "grass-roots" growing of the game.

Just 2-cents more of my 2-cents-worth.;)

[ACCCT2]

I guess this is destined to be another thread about RHA - at least in some part. One thing that always sits well with me is when a non-profit organisation has a current copy of their constitution available online (and not in a "sure, just ask us and we'll send it to you" way). IMO the great thing about websites is that they can reduce the 'friction' in getting to information, and reduce the workload on the people involved in answering those sorts of questions/requests.

I did a quick check on google, because i wasn't sure if this was how you guys did things in the USA, it seems you do - but more usually call them by-laws and more commonly associate 'constitution' with 'USA constituion' - but anyhow... I came across this great quote from a non-profit law blog:

"Unlike a business corporation, in which, in very simplistic terms, the one who buys the most stock controls the organization, the Bylaws of a nonprofit corporation spell out the essential relationships of the participants. They are the power document of the organization."

I know that looking at an organisation I have questions about and thinking "hmm, i wonder what their constitution says" isn't a usual point of view, but I've found it handy. Without a basic understanding of it, making complaints is a little like those coach/player/spectator types who whinge to the ref without having a clue on the rules.

For the people out there who may be thinking that is anti-RHA (i'm not, I can definitely see a role for an organisation covering the ground they say they will) - and about to say 'who cares, we just wanna play hockey, shut the hell up"...

having a constitution published easily online would go a long way to shutting up people like ACCCT2 who are clamouring for "transparent, accountable, democratically decided,etc"... at least for a while/until it is shown that the organisation isn't following its own rules.

(that isn't to single ACCCT2 out and say I want him to necessarily shutup, but i think it might make the point more relevant to some people who would otherwise just go "by-law? consti-what? gah")

(also, for the office bearers of the NPO, its bloody important to know the constitutions requirements - I've been involved in a few clubs, and the people weren't aware of what the constitution said they had to do, and they could've gotten themselves into real legal trouble - as well as faced penalty fines paid from their own wallets.)

Exactly!!!

[TylerSollberger]

[QUOTE=TylerSollberger;57149]

They already make their "money" (and "livelihoods") off the sport -- if they're really doing this "out of the goodness of (their) hearts" then lets see their words in action, as they themselves have already stated numerous times, that they themselves ultimately stand to gain the most financially from a healthy and growing sport.

"Making a video" is definitely NOT what's in any way urgently needed in terms of "growing" the sport or providing "grass-roots" support vital to its exposure.

And indeed, "Referee and coaching clinics aren't free to perform." -- but making sure that there's an open and fair and accessible process surrounding the "evaluation/certification" process, as well as in 'bidding' for the right to conduct such "evaluation/certification" clinics and/or reviews, is extremely important (just ask any coach or referee who isn't an NGB official or RHA "owner").

And a "magazine" is quite frankly, a very costly adventure that in my opinion should only come about after, as well as will probably be one of the inevitable results of, an effective and successful "grass-roots" growing of the game.

Just 2-cents more of my 2-cents-worth.;)

You dont think a video would help grow the grass roots of hockey? If you put a good video on youtube, it will take off and at least help get inline hockey promoted. I agree that the certification process needs to be fair. I dont know what the RHA has planned for coaching certification, but Rob Coggin is the perfect guy to have on board with the officiating.

[ACCCT2]

[QUOTE=ACCCT2;57151]

You dont think a video would help grow the grass roots of hockey? If you put a good video on youtube, it will take off and at least help get inline hockey promoted. I agree that the certification process needs to be fair. I dont know what the RHA has planned for coaching certification, but Rob Coggin is the perfect guy to have on board with the officiating.

"Help", yes -- but that could (and should) never be any kind of 'cornerstone' to build a "grass-roots/game-growing" program upon. It's gonna' take a real focused and concentrated effort in a lot of areas, at a lot of different levels, to say the least.

As far as whoever the "perfect guy to have on board" might be for whatever responsibilities and/or positions might be essential in such a "grass-roots/game-growing" program, it is an absolute imperative that all "bidding", "coaching" and "mandatory/certification" processes and "controls" be open, inclusive, accessible and fair, along with as democratic as possible (per "by-laws"?) wherever such 'consensus' is clearly called for.

See, we're not that different or far off in our points of view, are we?

[SPORTSPLEXJEFF]

[QUOTE=SPORTSPLEXJEFF;57143]

Jeff,
I respect your opinion and your choice of keeping your opinion to yourself. I am not trying to blindly defend anything that the RHA is trying to do, nor will I blindly bash what they're trying to do. I am pro RHA when it comes to giving them a chance. Right away people are criticizing their motives. How is that fair? How does one guy know what 10 people are trying to accomplish? It may come off as to seem that I am one-sided, but like I said before, I understand that people have concerns and questions. The alliance is only 10 days old, lets give it time.

I will give you that and agree lets give them time. I just unfortunately feel you are defending something that you truly have no involvement in. I understand you are pro RHA and want to give it ime. I just have to say that there are people on that board I will never trust as they gave me the most sour taste in roller hockey of my life. Hence my signature on my profile.

You can contact around and find out what it means.

[StateWarsDir]

Jeff

Just so you and others know once again what my stance is here so there is no misconception. First off, I don't think there is anything wrong with their being two major organizations out there, whether it be USARS/AAU and USAHIL or one of those and RHA. Choice is good for people and as long as we ALL are working towards the common goal of making this sport better and trying to grow it, I'm all for it. There are some people in this world come November on election day, go into the voting booth and vote purely on what they are registered, if they are Republican, then its Republicans across the board etc.. They may not educate themselves on what each persons views are, they don't care. I see that as being somewhat narrow minded. In hockey many do the same, I'm an AAU guy or I'm a USAHIL guy so I believe this or that. That is bullsh%t. I am SO TIRED of it, makes me so angry. If someone in AAU is doing something good for the sport great, if USAHIL is awesome, if RHA does even better. The point is we should ALL be rooting for the sport and not caring who does what. In the end, I hope the other organizations out there work harder and do more, maybe RHA will give them the jump start to work harder, of that's the case then we all win don't we?

My other issue is that Mike Kramer comes on and keep rattling off the same stuff time and time again. And I'm sorry to me the fact that he hides his name and has little involvement in the things we are discussing, yet has the biggest mouth...makes him lose credibility in my eyes. He says he would offer his services to do this or that. You know what where were you yesterday or last year? Be proactive not reactive, everyone loves to be a Monday morning qb, well you know what I wish I didn't have to spend all of the time I have already on this stuff, I really do. I get no pleasure out it. I get pleasure out of organizing one of the best hockey events each year, that is my enjoyment, not this squabbling and arguing. He questions our intention and money stuff, I have spoken publicly and stated that I have no issue with the RHA "books to be open", I know I have zero to hide as I know I will not be making any money directly from this group. In fact I lost out on some great added benefits I had in the past to join this group, but did so because it is what is best for the sport. We need some sort of unity and we need organizations to work together, that is what RHA stands for. And if you don't like it go back to retouching photographs or whatever your specialty truly is.

[quick_dry]

Why do you think choice is a good thing at the governing body level? I think that creates division, uncertainty - and problems like we have now without a clear controller of the sport. (As much as I prefer the IIHF culture and rules - though i'm indifferent to the icing/offsides, IMO without a completely new international IOC recognised inline Hockey federation, it only makes sense to work towards integrating with FIRS - and getting 'our' own people into it to make changes from the inside for the betterment of the sport*)
I think choice is great in other aspects e.g. tournament series such as you and Daryn run, or at the coaching clinic level. You're all businesses, and competition is good between enterprises.

But I think unity is what the sport needs at the very top.

I agree on your points about people who just blindly follow one or the other party line, and never take the time to critically analyse and give credit or criticism where it is due.

But, I think that is the only application that idea has here - you only have one government. You don't have a republican government and a democrat government both making decisions - that just wouldn't work (even more so than the current govt doesn't work ;) ) Where choice is good here is in having a choice of elected reps - the same way you do when you vote in reps at an associations Annual General Meeting.

(* I realise that many may not care about the wider international scene - North America has enough people to happily play in your own sandbox, but it matters to the rest of the world)

[STEMM]

What is the title of this "RHA III" ??? I think Tim's intentions here were to talk about unity in the sport. And in the very first reply ACCCT2 posts a negative comment. Come on dude enough already.



2) You have absolutely no idea of what I'm doing "for the sport" -- and this is basically because I'm not "doing" anything, nor announcing it, before everything is button-down-tight legally, logistically and marketing-wise. Are we agreed on at least this rather important and irrefuatble point?


You're not doing anything for the sport ??? You have promoted your Euro-Tournament on IHC, thats something. Whenever that does happen hopefully you will have a change of heart and get sanctioned with the ROLLER HOCKEY ALLIANCE.:)

[quick_dry]

What would sanctioning a euro tournament under RHA cost, and what would it get you? Would the number of USA teams make it worthwhile?

(lets be honest, our player insurances are both impossible to claim on, and the amounts you can claim do not make it worthwhile anyway - I don't even know why I have to pay insurance when i've got private health cover, and if the venue is negligent in maintaining the floor and thats why I hurt myself, it is to them i go, not the dinky little sports insurance)

I think you've misread what ACCTC2 said there - I know I did the first time i read it. In his usual style it isn't the clearest sentence, but I believe I'm fairly accurate to paraphrase it as "I haven't done anything that has been announced, and i won't until it is all completed and lined up". IMO he's engaging in a bit of sophistry around the word 'doing' so I'm using it in the common way that you or might use it. ACCCT2, is that close enough?

(who understands these advertising people anyway? they don't "do" things - they "action" them, and "synergise" ;) )

As a final point, and as per Richards request - specifically while he's off being a serious author ;) - that we stop the petty name calling. Things like "the middle C stands for coward" is silly, it derails the conversation from debating ideas into personal attacks that serve no real purpose.

[ACCCT2]

What would sanctioning a euro tournament under RHA cost, and what would it get you? Would the number of USA teams make it worthwhile?

(lets be honest, our player insurances are both impossible to claim on, and the amounts you can claim do not make it worthwhile anyway - I don't even know why I have to pay insurance when i've got private health cover, and if the venue is negligent in maintaining the floor and thats why I hurt myself, it is to them i go, not the dinky little sports insurance)

I think you've misread what ACCTC2 said there - I know I did the first time i read it. In his usual style it isn't the clearest sentence, but I believe I'm fairly accurate to paraphrase it as "I haven't done anything that has been announced, and i won't until it is all completed and lined up". IMO he's engaging in a bit of sophistry around the word 'doing' so I'm using it in the common way that you or might use it. ACCCT2, is that close enough?

(who understands these advertising people anyway? they don't "do" things - they "action" them, and "synergise" ;) )

As a final point, and as per Richards request - specifically while he's off being a serious author ;) - that we stop the petty name calling. Things like "the middle C stands for coward" is silly, it derails the conversation from debating ideas into personal attacks that serve no real purpose.

Again, right-on with your impecably Auzzie good-sense! Good on 'ya, mate!

Yeah, us "advertising people anyway" -- "Mad Men" indeed!:cool:

As for the "petty name calling", 'guessing' at my identity, attempting to "dig-up-up-dirt" on me, etc., I think it says a LOT about people when that's evidently the ONLY way they can respond to even the most basic of logical and/or legitimate questions, comments or concerns, eh? Personally, I already know about the business and personal ethics, integrity and trustworthiness of at least one person at RHA, so I'm not taking-at-face-value nor worried about anything they have to say about anything anymore. They've already more than revealed exactly "who" they really are with their thin-skinned and incredibly unprofessional vitriol and, as you said, their pointless and "petty name calling".

In any event, don't worry about me, as I've got a very tough and thick skin from probably way too many years as one of those crazy, creative and killer-cool ad-biz "Mad Men" and quite frankly, none of 'em (these incredibly thin-skinned RHA twig-twips) would last even one day at a real "Sterling Cooper", and believe me, as so far evidenced, it's really NOT even much of a challenge to engage them as even remotely worthy intellectual adversaries (let alone as in any way "saviors" of our sport).:rolleyes:

And just so you know, our "million-billion-dollar" events (hmmm, "sophistry", eh?) won't ever be seeking any kind of "sanction" or "certification" from any national or international NGB (or "quasi-NGB") of any kind -- we're working, "actioning" and ultimately "synergizing" waaay beyond anything else in the game right now.;)

And finally, I agree -- let's all be GOOD little kiddies (as incredibly difficult as that will be for some) and let Richard write -- I'm pretty sure that all of us are old enough to maturely behave ourselves and NOT have to have him (or Mike) "breakaway" from far more important "goals" that need to be scored just to "BIG-babysit" us, right? And as long as we're at it, let's all try and make it a permanent "favor", eh...

[Berry_Bramble]

When you're telling these little stories, here's a good idea. Have a point, it makes is so much more interesting..... for the reader.

[ACCCT2]

When you're telling these little stories, here's a good idea. Have a point, it makes is so much more interesting..... for the reader.

What's a "reader"? Oh wow, I thought this was an interactive journal...or some kind of 'virtual rant' therapy...!?!;)

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

This post is not pointed directly at anyone... but there is an IGNORE function on this great Forums section, enabling you to not see posts by people you don't like. Just sayin'! :D

[SPORTSPLEXJEFF]

Hi Folks,

This post is not pointed directly at anyone... but there is an IGNORE function on this great Forums section, enabling you to not see posts by people you don't like. Just sayin'! :D

Richard I was already thinking for you and mentioned it in post # 23 of this thread.

[deno94]

Geez folks. It is very rare that I come onto the forums to comment on much, however, I will and it seems as if I have to. I am getting sick and tired of people coming onto the forums to try to destroy and bash everything done with the sport. I am sure these forums were not created to start trouble in any way, shape or form.

As everyone knows, I am not interested in advertising myself or my teams, just making the sport of roller hockey better for everyone. Over the years I have entered teams in every tournament series under the sun. I have seen tournament ownership and direction change and it has gotten progressively better. State Wars, AAU, Narch, Torhs, Airhs, Tour Cup just to name a few. It seems as if the one thing the entire tournament circuit seems to be forgetting is, without a customer base all of the tournaments will not survive. With that said, listen to something you should all have to hear.

Whatever it takes, whatever needs to get done, however it has to happen, the sport of roller hockey needs unification. If it was AAU that attempted it with Narch and Torhs and State Wars, Great, but they did not. So State Wars,Narch adn Torhs decided to put their heads together and try it, awesome. As everyone knows I am a State Director for New Jersey and State Wars, and that travel with the ISCA Grizzlies, so I have come across many people during my years. I have been involved with some of the best and some of the worst people in the industry....and yet and still around.

What I am saying is simple, Daryn Goodwin, Tim McManus and Ron Billstein(however you spell it, sorry Ron) have finally put their foot down and said, hey lets try this. So instead of everyone bashing something that should have been done a long time ago, ask them how you help, what you can do and how we can make this sport better.

Again, the ISCA Grizzles enter whatever tournament series they choose and where they choose. I have been to England with Narch, I have gone to Disney with AAU and I have been to Buffalo with Torhs, so I am no favorite to anyone. However, until we decide to all put our egos aside and realize once we all give in, everything will get better, it will never improve.

I think Gary Bettman said it best, the last second before the most recent strike in the NHL shut down the season permanently a few years ago...We will do whatever it takes to make sure this sport benefits everyone...and its about time we all see that and cut all the other crap out.

Thanks fore listening. Now go do it.


Denis Jelcic
NJ ISCA Grizzlies
New Jersey State Wars Director
Roller Hockey Enthusiast

[quick_dry]

Where is everyone bashing the RHA? overwhelmingly its people saying: "they're trying, so like, just say its great and ask how you can help"

On my part I've tried giving constructive criticism or tips on how things might be improved. IMO, that is helping - I actually think it is _unhelpful_ to spot potential problems and not raise them. Mroe often than not they bite you in the bum harder than if you got to them early.

This isn't necessarily directed at you Denis, but it does seem that some people like to take a "you're either with us or you're against us", and anything critical is taken as being in the "against us" camp.

[ACCCT2]

Where is everyone bashing the RHA? overwhelmingly its people saying: "they're trying, so like, just say its great and ask how you can help"

On my part I've tried giving constructive criticism or tips on how things might be improved. IMO, that is helping - I actually think it is _unhelpful_ to spot potential problems and not raise them. Mroe often than not they bite you in the bum harder than if you got to them early.

This isn't necessarily directed at you Denis, but it does seem that some people like to take a "you're either with us or you're against us", and anything critical is taken as being in the "against us" camp.

RIGHT-ON yet again!

"Asking" is NOT "bashing". Only an insecure or 'guilty' conscious responds the way too many of RHA's people have responded to legitimate "kick-the-tires" questions, issues and concerns. In my mind RHA has revealed exactly who they are and I'm not wasting any more time on whether they're worthy or not, as truly worthy 'leaders' inspire -- they don't derisively or "smack-down" demand.

[Berry_Bramble]

RIGHT-ON yet again!

"Asking" is NOT "bashing". Only an insecure or 'guilty' conscious responds the way too many of RHA's people have responded to legitimate "kick-the-tires" questions, issues and concerns. In my mind RHA has revealed exactly who they are and I'm not wasting any more time on whether they're worthy or not, as truly worthy 'leaders' inspire -- they don't derisively demand.

The fact that you use that analogy makes me want stick a pen in my eye...

Just say'n. Enjoy the snow.

[ACCCT2]

The fact that you use that analogy makes me want stick a pen in my eye...

Just say'n. Enjoy the snow.

Enjoyin' the snow. How's the pen feel?;)

[Berry_Bramble]

Enjoyin' the snow. How's the pen feel?;)

It hurts. But I will live. Sort of annoying. Just there. Sticking out. Blood.

[ACCCT2]

It hurts. But I will live. Sort of annoying. Just there. Sticking out. Blood.

I guess I really am "annoying", eh?

[Berry_Bramble]

I guess I really am "annoying", eh?

Not as much as this pen I now have lodged in my eye. Wait, that wasn't the pen. Sorry, yes...yes you are.

[thebenchman]

Just curious, Tim/Daryn

Is this RHA in anyway in its body still with USA Hockey, USAHIL?
If not, did you approach them with this idea? What is their part to be in this program and how was their response?

Same questions with AAU and USARS. are they any part of this?
Were they approached and what was their repsonse and what part would they be involved?

To me if that was done in a REAL honest heart and integrity, that would show a step in the unification of the sport. I understand free enterprize as I stated earlier, but as long as both of those organizations are there and USARS (roller)having the inside track and direct contact to USOC, USA Hockey (ice)having the USOC contact, it could bring unity.

What do others think?

Roy Warren

[ianmackie]

Roy,

I think they were both approached and they both took a wait and see outlook with it. I hope the end goal is true unification.

Ian

[ACCCT2]

Not as much as this pen I now have lodged in my eye. Wait, that wasn't the pen. Sorry, yes...yes you are.

OK, since I've evidenced at least a modicum of respect and admiration for you (or at least your posts), tell me -- is it my 'formatting' or what I actually have to say (once you actually decipher my "formatting", that is)...eh?:confused:

[ACCCT2]

Just curious, Tim/Daryn

Is this RHA in anyway in its body still with USA Hockey, USAHIL?
If not, did you approach them with this idea? What is their part to be in this program and how was their response?

Same questions with AAU and USARS. are they any part of this?
Were they approached and what was their repsonse and what part would they be involved?

To me if that was done in a REAL honest heart and integrity, that would show a step in the unification of the sport. I understand free enterprize as I stated earlier, but as long as both of those organizations are there and USARS (roller)having the inside track and direct contact to USOC, USA Hockey (ice)having the USOC contact, it could bring unity.

What do others think?

Roy Warren

Correct if I'm wrong (as I'm sure somebody will if I am), but I believe that from what RHA people have so far posted on this subject that they did indeed try to 'unify' and/or work with USAHIL and USARS in this achieving this objective, but that both entities basically declined to 'see' things RHA's way, right? Personally, this 'decline' by USAHIL and USARS makes absolutely perfect sense because they would essentially be clearly agreeing-to and hearkening their own demise and infrastructural/NGB control of the sport (key in any Olympic sanctioning and/or truly professional sponsorship money support).

Further, what RHA has since that "decline" by USAHIL and USARS essentially decided to do is to basically take a "with-us-or-against-us" approach to "saving' the sport that essientially involves them being allowed to get away with their NON-democratically self-proclaiming themselves a "quasi-NGB" ("out of the goodness of thier hearts") that is somehow destined to 'rule' the sport their own "mandatory/certified" way.

That's my take on things, anyway (especially since they haven't outright denied it or outlined, disclosed or presented anything to the contrary).

[StateWarsDir]

Accct2 for someone who stated you weren't wasting anymore time on this topic, you've responded three times already. Please don't get our hopes up and then disappoint so quickly!

Roy I appreciate your questions but ALL of those questions have already been discussed and answered in these two long threads. At least take the time to read what has been talked about if you are going to join the game in the 3rd period. :)

[ACCCT2]

Accct2 for someone who stated you weren't wasting anymore time on this topic, you've responded three times already. Please don't get our hopes up and then disappoint so quickly!

Roy I appreciate your questions but ALL of those questions have already been discussed and answered in these two long threads. At least take the time to read what has been talked about if you are going to join the game in the 3rd period. :)

Sorry to disappoint.

"ALL of those questions" have obviously NOT "been discussed and answered" in an any way satisfactory basis for a LOT of people here (and I admit, I've already made up my mind, but this doesn't preclude me from helping others in keeping focus and on-point discussion or still having input on the subject, now does it?).;)

[StateWarsDir]

The questions about if we have previously contacted USAHIL or USARS about working together HAVE been discussed numerous times.

Acct2 I don't know what your agenda is or the purpose of your questions. Nor do I know why you have a specific problem with me or others in the group. I know that you have never been to my event and do not know me personally, if you did you'd probably have a different perception of me. That may be the same for you, but again I have made who I am public knowledge and I am always willing to talk to anyone to make this sport better.

I have even reached out to Keith Noll to meet with him to discuss certain matters as I am willing to do whatever it takes to make this sport better.

I am done with the negativity and the child's play. Quite frankly I don't have time for it.

[ACCCT2.5]

Sorry to disappoint.

"ALL of those questions" have obviously NOT "been discussed and answered" in an any way satisfactory basis for a LOT of people here (and I admit, I've already made up my mind, but this doesn't preclude me from helping others in keeping focus and on-point discussion and input on the subject, now does it?).;)

What he means and/or "is trying to say", is that his opinions/beliefs/views/perspectives of the issues/topics/concerns and/or matters at hand are in need of clarification of the motives of the RHA and it's non-democtratic, non-demographic, non-geographic, non-photographic, non-hydromatic "mandatory/certification" and "self-serving" system of unification and/or calaboration through the regeneration and application of the multiplication and participation of the members and/or "kool-aid drinking" supporters of the RHA and it's founders. And that's all he's trying to say folks. ;)

Or in other words, can't a guy just change his mind, dammit? ;)

[ACCCT2]

The questions about if we have previously contacted USAHIL or USARS about working together HAVE been discussed numerous times.

Acct2 I don't know what your agenda is or the purpose of your questions. Nor do I know why you have a specific problem with me or others in the group. I know that you have never been to my event and do not know me personally, if you did you'd probably have a different perception of me. That may be the same for you, but again I have made who I am public knowledge and I am always willing to talk to anyone to make this sport better.

I have even reached out to Keith Noll to meet with him to discuss certain matters as I am willing to do whatever it takes to make this sport better.

I am done with the negativity and the child's play. Quite frankly I don't have time for it.

Just because someone sees things differently than you do does not mean it's "negativity" -- it's simply a different opinion, that's all. Do what you have to do, dude -- just don't expect all of us to buy into whatever "mandatory/certification" proposition/program that you happen to be selling.

[ACCCT2.5]

Just because someone sees things differently than you do does not mean it's "negativity" -- it's simply a different opinion, that's all. Do what you have to do, dude -- just don't expect all of us to buy into whatever "mandatory/certification" proposition/program that you happen to be selling.

What he means and/or "is trying to say" is that "reality" is a state of mind and/or of one's perception and/or misconception of his or her own direction which can often lead to the objection or rejection of one's selection and/or choice of a "self-serving"/"quasi-NGB and/or Quazimoto "/Mandatory-Certification System of Negativity. And that's just his opinion. ;)

Let me leave you all with a quote from a great philosoper.

E. Fudd - "ABADI, ABADI, ABADI...Ah, That's All Folks!";)

[STEMM]

ACCCT2, Why are you talking to yourself ??? (ACCCT2.5)

...and did you here about this ... The Tour Cup Series & RHA Unite!

[Doug Jones]

The questions about if we have previously contacted USAHIL or USARS about working together HAVE been discussed numerous times.

Acct2 I don't know what your agenda is or the purpose of your questions. Nor do I know why you have a specific problem with me or others in the group. I know that you have never been to my event and do not know me personally, if you did you'd probably have a different perception of me. That may be the same for you, but again I have made who I am public knowledge and I am always willing to talk to anyone to make this sport better.

I have even reached out to Keith Noll to meet with him to discuss certain matters as I am willing to do whatever it takes to make this sport better.

I am done with the negativity and the child's play. Quite frankly I don't have time for it.


Tim:

Don't waste your time. ACCT 2 will post, post and repost but maintain his anonymity. ACCT 2 lives to keep the soap opera going.

The next time we go out and use the men's room, let's forget to drop the buck in his tip basket after he gives us a towel and peppermint.

[Doug Jones]

What he means and/or "is trying to say" is that "reality" is a state of mind and/or of one's perception and/or misconception of his or her own direction which can often lead to the objection or rejection of one's selection and/or choice of a "self-serving"/"quasi-NGB and/or Quazimoto "/Mandatory-Certification System of Negativity. And that's just his opinion. ;)

Let me leave you all with a quote from a great philosoper.

E. Fudd - "ABADI, ABADI, ABADI...Ah, That's All Folks!";)

ACCT 2 it's Porky Pig...get your idols and heroes right

[ACCCT2.5]

ACCCT2, Why are you talking to yourself ??? (ACCCT2.5)

...and did you here about this ... The Tour Cup Series & RHA Unite!

Do not be confused. I am not ACCCT2. I'm ACCCT(2.5) or 2 and 1/2 for short and I am here as a translator for ACCCT2. Just think of it as a public service. ;)

Oh and about the Tour Cup/RHA Unification thingy......buncha "self-serving kool aid drinkers" ;)

[ACCCT2.5]

ACCT 2 it's Porky Pig...get your idols and heroes right

Your right. My bad Duggy. Pork it is! ;)

[ACCCT2]

What he means and/or "is trying to say", is that his opinions/beliefs/views/perspectives of the issues/topics/concerns and/or matters at hand are in need of clarification of the motives of the RHA and it's non-democtratic, non-demographic, non-geographic, non-photographic, non-hydromatic "mandatory/certification" and "self-serving" system of unification and/or calaboration through the regeneration and application of the multiplication and participation of the members and/or "kool-aid drinking" supporters of the RHA and it's founders. And that's all he's trying to say folks. ;)

Or in other words, can't a guy just change his mind, dammit? ;)

"ACCCT2.5" -- cute (and some weird kind of compliment, I guess, eh?), although I clearly (or would that be un-clearly?) think I would've said things in a much more trying and text-taxing way, don't you think?;)

In any event -- hey Richard, can I have an "editorial/discretionaryspirit-of-the-darn-thing" ruling on what I might call an IHC "forum-ID/moniker" ("quasi-tradmark"?) infringement here, as clearly the "ACCCT2.5" IHC forum-ID/moniker is in my mind waaay too close to "ACCCT2" (as it clearly devalues my already valueless posts)?:eek:

[ACCCT2.5]

"ACCCT2.5" -- cute (and some wierd kind of compliment, I guess?)! Though I think I would've said things in a much more trying and text-taxing way, don't you think?;)

In event -- hey Richard, can I have an "editorial/discretionaryspirit-of-the-darn-thing" ruling on what I might call a IHC "forum-ID/moniker" ("quasi-tradmark" infringement here, as clearly the "ACCCT2.5" IHC forum-ID/moniker is in my mind waaay too close to "ACCCT2"?:eek:

Oh come on now. All Real Super Heroes have a sidekick. We could be a team and rid the "rollerblade" hockey world of all of the "kool-aid drinkers." Together we can do anything. At least give a chance, eh! ;)

[ACCCT2]

Do not be confused. I am not ACCCT2. I'm ACCCT(2.5) or 2 and 1/2 for short and I am here as a translator for ACCCT2. Just think of it as a public service. ;)

Oh and about the Tour Cup/RHA Unification thingy......buncha "self-serving kool aid drinkers" ;)

LOL!!!


Oh come on now. All Real Super Heroes have a sidekick. We could be a team and rid the "rollerblade" hockey world of all of the "kool-aid drinkers." Together we can do anything. At least give a chance, eh! ;)


LOL!!! Hmmm...Batman & Robin...the Green Hornet & Kato...ACCCT2 & "2.5" -- yeah, I like that (although that "2.5" part actually makes me appear to be quantitatively the 'lesser', uh, "sidekick" and you 'more' the "Super Hero", eh?)!;)

[Berry_Bramble]

ugh, where is my 2.5. Ahhh boooo.

[ACCCT2.5]

LOL!!!




LOL!!! Hmmm...Batman & Robin...the Green Hornet & Kato...ACCCT2 & "2.5" -- yeah, I like that (although that "2.5" part actually makes me appear to be quantitatively the 'lesser', uh, "sidekick" and you 'more' the "Super Hero", eh?)!;)

Yeah, you're right! But look at it this way...we all know that "KATO" was the "REAL" Star of the show....now, don't we? :p

[ACCCT2]

Yeah, you're right! But look at it this way...we all know that "KATO" was the "REAL" Star of the show....now, don't we? :p

Touché, "2.5" -- very good umm "point" there! I'll take being compared to "Kato" anytime (but definitely NOT "the Boy Wonder")!;)