From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue Oct  6 09:23:41 1998
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) id JAA20037
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:11:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk (exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk [194.66.194.6])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA20028
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:11:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: by exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
	id <4J9BWLLN>; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:11:30 +0100
Message-ID: <8102C4585310D211858D0060B01A41330A38E4@exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk>
From: "HUGHES, Chris" <CHughes@chelt.ac.uk>
To: "'Britdisc'" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Tour 99
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:11:21 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

I would just like to clarify something that came out in the BUF EGM minutes.
The suggestion that was put forward that the tour was reduced to 16 teams
was suggested as part of a splitting the tour into an A and B division; with
each section having their own events.

It was not suggested that the top 16 teams have their own tour and the rest
of the teams don't have any tournaments at all.

This was part of a discussion about the fact that we need to be able to cope
with at least 32 teams at every event, as the number of teams entering the
tour is increasing. This then requires venues to have at least 10 pitches
and ideally twelve or more. As there is a limit to the number of sites we
can get with this number of pitches we may be forced to continue as we are
and exclude teams from the entry list of each tour or split the tour into
two halves utilising smaller venues so allowing all teams to play.

Chris