From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Mon Apr  8 20:59:33 2002
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g38JxWd20915
	for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:59:32 +0100 (BST)
Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g38JpD724619;
	Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:51:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g38JmFQR028709
	for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:48:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g38JmFdJ028708
	for britdisc-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:48:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g38JmEQR028700
	for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:48:14 +0100 (BST)
Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g38JmEt27666
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:48:14 +0100 (BST)
Received: from phidelta.demon.co.uk ([158.152.248.177])
	by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
	id 16uf7c-0002KM-0B
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:48:13 +0000
Message-ID: <392whfAy$es8EwsY@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:30:58 +0100
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
From: Wayne Retter <druid#6@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: Wayne Retter <wayne@fluiddruids.com>
Subject: Re: The Tour/Relegation
References: <80256B95.004FA025.00@birmingham.gov.uk>
In-Reply-To: <80256B95.004FA025.00@birmingham.gov.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S <pjZRgFWDsQK5ViyP$l4rxVrb6a>
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk


>it just seems that the
>attitude is very much that the top teams can play in whatever tournaments they
>like but if there's not enough space then the lower teams have to miss out.

so long as the top teams pay their money before the deadline, then yes,
this is exactly how the Tour works.
This is how the Tour was designed to work.

The Tour is designed to improve British Ultimate, focussing at the top,
and the players that are most likely to play for the GB Open teams.

>  I
>wonder what would have happened if there were only 32 places at Tour 1 and
>Clapham forgot to get their cheque in in time, for whatever reason?

They'd not be allowed to play. They (and other top teams) came close to
this in the last couple of years.

>There must've been other venues considered for the Tour events, some even put
>forward from lower teams, so the potential was there to have this second
>division.

I'm not so sure that many of the Tour events received more than one bid.
I know that Southampton bid for a Tour event, but didn't get it, so are
holding a non Tour event instead.  Maybe it's just the publicity machine
that's not working?

I'm not sure that we were aware that we'd get as many teams wanting to
play this year - in past years 32 has generally been a struggle to
manage at any one given event.

>  I just don't think enough is done for those of us who don't play at
>the same level you do.

Your theories are sound, but lacking in persuasive substance to the top
teams (they're happy, right, so why should they help!?).

If you can come up with a well thought-out proposal, we'll try to help
you implement it.

Some points to give serious consideration:
~ How many leagues, of what size(s)?
        Can you definitely schedule dates/venues/organisers?
~ Are they separate, or do they interlock somehow?
        How do you justify separate leagues?
~ If they interlock - how does promotion/relegation work?
        a) annually, b)tournament by tournament or c) other?


>Also, 2 smaller divisions would give a chance for smaller venues to be
>considered.  Those which are more likely to be run by the lower teams.


True, and true again.

So, if you're fairly certain to be relegated from a Tour event, why not
set up a "not the Tour" event for the same w/e as a Tour event (2 or 3
sound ideal!) to cater for all those 'spare' teams ?

It could be point of evidence toward promoting a split Tour in future.

Wayne

----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Retter
mobile: 07970-903420
w.retter@bigfoot.com
office: 01737-273655