From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Jan 11 19:53:22 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA11711
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:52:42 GMT
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA11704
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:52:40 GMT
Received: from post.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA25609
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:52:40 GMT
Received: from [158.152.248.177] (helo=phidelta.demon.co.uk)
	by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1)
	id 0zznOA-0006os-00
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:52:39 +0000
Message-ID: <GegIbCAHZlm2EwgV@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:51:35 +0000
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
From: Wayne Retter <wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tour 99 Update -Reply
In-Reply-To: <3FEEBE10F61BD2119B0100805FB7A2E41EB24B@LONSEX02>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Trial Version 3.05 <pjZRgFWDsQK5ViyP$l4rxVrb6a>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Colin Wagstaff>Now that the idea that of holding a tour event in
Colin Wagstaff>Aberystwyth have been disbanded (were we all really
Colin Wagstaff>going to go there? I think not),

Rob Mitchell>yes, col, we were all going to go.

Have to agree with Rob, really... if they are willing and able to host a
tournament, and the BUF considers it fit to be a Tour Event (and maybe
even if they didn't) then people would be going. Some may grumble a
little, but they'd go.

How would you feel about trips to Norwich, Colchester or Middlesborough?
On the map they all appear to have areas that might provide suitable
venues for Tour events.

Colin Wagstaff>I don't think UTI were!

I think you'd have to consult the Tour Rules before you made such a
(executive?) decision for your team... (I know) amendments are being
considered by the BUF,(note: this next part merely _my_ conjecture)
amoungst which may be the removal of the "deduct the worst result from
the total ranking points" from the final ranking calculations, and
revision of theory of the seeding of the next event. Therefore the
possible scenario is that missing one event may remove your chance of
winning the Tour.

This could seriously affect whether your team should be bothered to make
such a trip!

With the way things are going, one less team ain't much of a worry,
replacing you will be easy!

As for the numbered kit - if there's the possibility of some sponsorship
(i.e. an external cash source which would translate through to meaning
reduced player costs... and enhance your savings towards the cost of
your international campaign...) and it required the top teams to be
wearing numbered (apparently, it looks more "serious" then!) kit for
promotional/publicity purposes (photos/videos/TV?) and the further
possibilities of future/additional sponsorship, couldn't you pull your
finger out enough to organise something, even temporary, and help us
all?

I suppose that it's possible that rules could be established (by a vote
by all attendees at a quorate BUF AGM - i.e. democratically) to prevent
teams from playing if they can't meet any official dress requirements?
(It seems to work in Sweden, where at certain competitions a player can
be suspended for not having the correct socks...)

Petty, maybe, but would _you_ want to be the arrogant upstart with the
odds against you?

that's more than enough childishness from me for today

Wayne

----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Retter
at home: 0181-663-4856                wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk
 mobile: 07970-903420
at work: 01737-273611             wayne_retter@watsonwyatt.co.uk