| |
BGonline.org Forums
Chess was a wannabe
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Chess was a wannabe (Paul Vianna)
Date: Thursday, 8 October 2009, at 1:07 a.m.
In response to several of the above posts:
1. I think the olympic idea is highly secondary;
2. I think raising the fees at this time is counter-productive to getting more people involved...some day, a lot more could be raised is every player who enters a tournament pays $3 or $5 to the Association. That is how we started the USRA (racquetball assn.) and it provided a lot of funds.
3. To Neil's point about bickering, I think this would be largely eliminated when the association leaves the governing to the board of directors;
4. As for Daniel's response that many people are already promoting the game through their tournaments, web sites, and local events, I agree completely, and in no way do I mean to criticize their efforts thus far. But there is much more that can and should be done, and it can only be done well if it is done collectively and in a coordinated fashion. Major sponsorships are more likely to come when there is a true, national organization with numbers behind it. Committees of volunteers, like Joe Russell, myself, and others who have stepped forward and are willing to give some of their time and money, to help teach younger people, to help establish local clubs in schools, to help promote the game in total, need an organization and a group to help and support those activities.
5. I have already responded to David Rockwell's argument against any form of organization that has any kind of authority...better to have self-authority than authority imposed by others...or anarchy. "SOMEONE" has to set rules and guidelines for play...why not the players? "Someone" has to decide what is best for the players. Why not the players? This is the opposite of government.
6. Many people have not spoken up, and so far I am seeing mixed comments. Also, I have heard only comments for or against the establishment of an association, but no one stating whether they believed it was appropriate for me to just go ahead and do it or not.
7. Stick said he would like to wait until he is back so he can be more involved. If that means that if we wait, he will take the reins and do this, I'm all for it. Be my guest.
I ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO THIS ALONE or without a lot of support. If I move forward and don't get a lot of members, volunteers to serve, and approval, then any group that gets formed will not truly be representative of the players and would be doomed to fail.
I know this is needed, and I know this is a good idea. But if others don't agree, I have better things to do with my time than fight the crowd. I have no problem if this fails right now, but mark my words, in a few years we will be sorry we didn't organize sooner, and maybe then we will do it. I can wait. I've got a lot of other stuff to do. So if you are excited and passionate about this idea, let me and others know. And if not, that's fine too. (I'll call Joe Russell and we'll develop a plan of our own to promote backgammon locally and we'll try it in LA and Chicago and let the rest of you know how it goes.)
Phil
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.