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?

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?

[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.