From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Wed Mar  5 22:23:47 1997
Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP
	id WAA21718; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:23:42 GMT
Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk
	id WAA14233; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:19:23 GMT
Received: from pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP
	id WAA14228; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:19:15 GMT
Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk with SMTP
	id WAA21255; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:19:13 GMT
Received: from chevronaf.demon.co.uk ([194.222.81.132])
          by relay-6.mail.demon.net  id aa0618779; 5 Mar 97 22:00 GMT
From: rich@chevronaf.demon.co.uk, ich@chevronaf.demon.co.uk
MMDF-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at relay-7.mail.demon.net
To: C.J.Goldberg@sheffield.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:04:22 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Disappointed to have to rise to the bait (long)
Reply-to: rich@chevronaf.demon.co.uk
CC: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
X-Confirm-Reading-To: rich@chevronaf.demon.co.uk
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)
Message-ID: <857599261.0618779.0@chevronaf.demon.co.uk>
Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

> 
> To begin with I accept that the organisers were the only people
> who came forward to organise the tournament and for that they 
> deserve full credit.

This will be my main point.....
> 
> HOWEVER
> 
> The complaints about the hall are quite simple. (a) the hall was 
> small to begin with, but when it had to be divided into 2 for pool 
> games it became a farce. (b) it was dangerous, metal hooks hanging 
> off the walls at head height, plus nowhere for people to stand meant 
> frequent clashes with the crowd (c) there wasn't really anywhere to sit between playing, or to 
> leave you're stuff. (d) irratic scheduling

(a) yes, but with a smaller hall it makes it more important to be 
structured and do things properly.  Liverpool FC practice on a tiny 
pitch, thus giving less room for error.  When you got on the big 
pitch did you find your play had improved and that there weren't 
double cuts?  

A smaller hall also enables the zone to come into play. 
Again this is a further test of your ability and patience with the 
disc.  As a member of Chevron we certainly learnt a lot about playing structurally and 
especially against the zone over the weekend.  I make a point later 
about the timing of entries.

b)true, but it was the best (only?) hall available in the short time
to put the tourney on.  Clashes with the crowd occurred primarily cos
poeple were ON THE PITCH watching other games.  While there is clearly
a need for teams to watch and support others this was made more
difficult by the lack of viewing space, particularly for one pitch. 
This problem was, however, eliminated by the merging of the two mini
halls for the _really_ important games.

c) but there was.  Did anybody not leave their stuff just outside the
hall?  There were lockers in the changing rooms.   There were also
pool tables and seats/tables/ food and drink machines and pubs nearby.
They even had a swimming pool if you wanted to use it.

d) yes, there were a number of changes to the schedule, but they were 
fairly well communicated and I only saw two incidents of teams not 
been ready to play.  No team to my knowledge had to forfeit a game 
cos they weren't there.


> 
> Obviously none of this is directly the organiser's fault, and I am not looking 
> for a lynch mob to reproach them about the weekend. The important 
> aspect I think that needs looking at is that the Indoor Regionals are 
> a fairly important tournament on the circuit, and one which, of all 
> the tournamnts, deserves to be well organised and well run. As 
> coverage increases of our sport, which it surely will, it is 
> essential that it presents a respectable image. Obviously if people 
> are not forthcoming in organising tournaments then little can be done 
> to remedy this situation. It is clear however from this weekend that 
> some sort of standard needs to exist to regulate the conditions, 
> sizes etc.. under which a regional qualifier should be held.
> 

Paul Meaney is probably the best person to answer this one, but I'll 
put my 2 penneth in.  The invites to hold the tourney went out ages 
ago.  Nobody came forward with a bid and so Paul rang round asking if 
anyone could put the tourney on.  Zebs agreed to do this (with about 
4 weeks notice) and did the best which they could in the time 
available to them.  There were about 12 clubs represented at the 
qualifiers, how come nobody put a bid in to run the tournament? 
[Sneeeky's are excepted from this cos they're running finals and Jedi 
for their work the previous weekend]  

With a range of bids available then quality of venue etc. can be 
considered, and congrats are due to Simon Hill for all the work he 
has put in to try and achieve this.  The way forward is to have more 
teams who wish to put on Indoor Qualifiers and Nationals, then the 
standard of all venues will inevitably increase.

> 
> As to the pricing of the tournament that I feel is the main problem. 
> The story was that only 8 teams had registered a week before and 
> therefore the cost was set at 70 pounds , fair enough. But when 20
> teams turned 
> up this should have signaled a price cut rather than an increase in 
> profits to a a vast amount. I am not against paying 70 for a tournament, and I'm sure 
> the finals will be well worth 75. However, you are paying for a 
> service, and at that price you are expecting the Nike of tournaments, 
> rather than the Dunlop Green Flash.

Do you know how much Zebs made?  I don't.  A similar charge has been 
made against Druids and Newport, but if you don't like it, don't go 
(or run the tourney yourself).

In the South East, there were only 12 (?) teams and each team had to 
pay more in order to not leave the organisers out of pocket.  When 
you organise a tourney you estimate how many teams will come and then 
price it accordingly.  On the Monday before qualifiers took place 
only 8 teams had entered in the North.  By Sat this had moved to 19, and the 
schedule had been rewritten 4 times.  If you have any experience of 
this happenning (and it's happened to me three times) it drives you 
up the wall.  If the teams who were coming had registered with Zebs 
earlier then a price reduction could have been negotiated.  The fact 
that over 10 teams entered in the last 5 days made it too late to 
book alternative accomodation.  Zebs did contemplate booking another 
hall for the Sunday but felt that it would have been unfair to 
pack the lesser teams off to another venue and deprive them of the 
chance to support and be supported by other sides.


A lot of the things I've spoken about involve planning.  Until many 
teams get their acts sorted out this kind of thing will happen, and 
the sooner people realise this the better.  Personally I think Zebs 
did a great job of putting the tourney on at all and for making it 
run [relatively] hitch free given everything which was going on in 
the background.  Cheers Tim and John!

I only have one other thing to say: if you can do it better, go on!


Rich (Chveron)
rich@chevronaf.demon.co.uk