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