From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon May 22 16:02:25 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4MF0N508914
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 16:00:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4MF0K108886
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 22 May 2000 16:00:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ox.rmplc.co.uk (ox.rmplc.co.uk [194.238.48.39])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4MF0GV26796
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 22 May 2000 16:00:16 +0100 (BST)
Received: from dns0.rmplc.net ([194.238.48.13] helo=mail.rmplc.net)
	by ox.rmplc.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #10)
	id 12ttgI-0005SK-00
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:59:46 +0000
Received: from rmexchange.internal.rmplc.net (hercules.rmplc.co.uk [194.238.48.90])
	by mail.rmplc.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA16054
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 22 May 2000 15:59:46 +0100 (BST)
Received: by rmexchange.internal.rmplc.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <LHNKWZDF>; Mon, 22 May 2000 15:59:44 +0100
Message-ID: <41F16105E0DAD211AE8A0008C7A4F12703267E70@rmexchange.internal.rmplc.net>
From: ANDY COTGREAVE <acotgreave@rm.com>
To: "Britdisc (E-mail)" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Tour 2 results
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:59:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

hi,

as far as the money is concerned, this is a tough one, and i wouldn't really
want the debate to be opened up massively. i'd say wait for the
BUF/committee to make it's decision first.

the question about how did the situation arise in the first place?

Well, i guess we have to sympathis with the DoC a little here - he didn't
turn down any bids this year, and really tried hard to get some northern
tournaments in the schedule. What can be done if only four bids are put
forward? you have to accept them all, or reduce the tour. 

so, if you feel strongly that last weekend was no good, that's fine.
however, if you feel really strongly about it, the best things isn't to
criticise those who have devoted a huge amount of time organise tournaments,
but to put bids in yourself.

Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hannah.easter@philips.com [mailto:hannah.easter@philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 3:43 PM
> To: acotgreave@rm.com
> Cc: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Tour 2 results
> 
> 
> Andy,
> 
> reference "As for their refund, we felt that because this was 
> a BUF sponsored
> tournament, that this would have to be discussed with them. 
> We didn't get a
> decision on this by the end of the weekend, as far as I am aware."
> 
> I realise that it is difficult to say that money may be 
> refunded but as you said the pitches were a terrible (a 
> disgrace), I myself decided not to play( but changed my mind 
> as my team opted to play on as we need all the practice we 
> can get together 
> before worlds,) ...I agreed with Catch's boycote of the venue 
> and feel that more teams should possibly have followed suit. 
> Will the refund be to all teams, if there is one at all? 
> 
> How did it come about that such an unsuitable venue was selected?
> Even if the pitchs had been rolled, cut and watered I doubt 
> that the ridges all the way through the fields would have 
> been improved on.
> 
> I realise that it is difficult to find good venues (as well 
> as people to run tournaments), but I am sure we can do better 
> than this!
> 
> cheers Hannah (GBW)
> 
> ps Can we have more cones next time...
> 


STANDARD DISCLAIMER: This message is confidential. You should not copy it or
disclose its contents to anyone. You may use and apply the information only
for the intended purpose. Internet communications are not secure and
therefore RM does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this
message. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author and
not those of RM. If this email has come to you in error please delete it and
any attachments.