From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed May 31 09:20:34 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4V8H5G14537
for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:17:05 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4V8Gtp14469
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:16:56 +0100 (BST)
Received: from congo.cherwell.com (mailhost.cherwell.com [193.82.249.202])
by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4V8GsU17375
for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 31 May 2000 09:16:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mann ([193.82.249.232]) by congo.cherwell.com
(Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-61953U100L100S0V35)
with SMTP id com for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>;
Wed, 31 May 2000 09:16:41 +0100
Message-ID: <002c01bfcad8$8ceb97e0$e8f952c1@cherwell.com>
Reply-To: "Paul Meaney" <p.meaney@familygenetix.com>
From: "Paul Meaney" <p.meaney@cherwell.com>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: finally - a reasonable response...
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 09:16:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> >
Hi Nolan,
thanks for your mail. I have a feeling that my suggestion
is
extreme but I do feel that there is merit in some possible middle ground.
> > I was in total agreement with you until you got to the idea of
penalising
> > TDs. I don't think any TD would organise an event if they thought they
> were
> > likely to suffer the verbal onslaught and humiliation that Nancy has
I don't think (IMHO) that Nancy has been humiliated - there has been a
general consensus that the pitches were substandard for a Tour event and
that something should be done.
It is one of the things that you do when you step into the limelight -
if you fall down, people will heckle!
> > impossible for me to spend further time and/or risk vast sums of money,
> > taking the Saffrons to court. SO, if the BUF were to undertake to punish
> > TDs, they would have to support those TDs financially (as a minimum)
when
> > matters become litigious.
> >
I was there when they started playing football in our end zone one year
and there was bugger all you could do about it.
<snip>
> > area was available for me.... I could go on!!!...
> >
IMHO - you did the right thing - you could not run a tournament to your
own (personal) high standards and to the high standards set by the Open in
previous years, so you did the right thing and abandoned it, rather than
running a sub- standard imitation.
The arrangement with Saffrons is one side to the coin and I concede to
your obvious expertise in this.
I'm coming from running 7 tournaments where I was on the phone
practically daily, ensuring that nothing (I repeat *nothing*) was left to
chance - and nothing went wrong!
And yes, that also came down to phoning groundstaff to confirm the
state
of preparation of the fields.
What I am really aiming at is the Tour as it is setting the standards
for Ultimate competitions in the UK. If an individual tournament is badly
run, it gains a bad rap and people stop coming (witness the attempt to
revive the fiesta without Paradise). Tournaments that are well planned,
well
run and have excellent facilitites simply go from strength to strength
(rotterdam, edinburgh beginners, ross). Unfortunately - that is where there
is a danger of complacency (I am not alone in feeling that the value for
money at Ross has diminished in recent years.)
> > Personally, I can assure you that anyone at the BUF attempting to
penalise
> > me for this would be lucky to get away with just an earbashing! in fact
> > they'd have to take ME to court to get the cash.
> >
again this was in the rant (a moment of madness). What I should have
suggested was:
say the BUF dictates a flat out fee of say £95 for each tour event.
If the TD cannot provide showers at all, that fee drops to say £85. If
there are showers but they are cold, that drops to say £90. And so on and
so
on.
It is not penalising TD's per se, simply cutting back on the cost of an
event for the subscriber should basic facilities not be available.
Why pay more when you get less?
> > Please consider this.
> >
> >
I am more than happy to. All I wanted is to get a discussion going to
see if such options are available and are achievable. You have pointed out
an instance where reducing the entry fee based on the goalposts being
shifted by the venue despite a priori agreements would prove difficult even
deleterious for the TD.
Would you have any objection to reposting your original note and this
response to britdisc?
cheers,
Paul
--- ---
Dr Paul Meaney | e-mail: p.meaney@cherwell.com
Java Developer | Phone: +44 (0)1865 784800 ext. 4839
FamilyGenetix Ltd | Fax: +44 (0)1865 784801
Oxford OX4 4GA, UK | URL: http://www.cherwell.com
--- ---