From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Tue May 23 17:07:59 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4NG6ev15899
	for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:06:40 +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 e4NG6bp15881
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:06:37 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mailgw.chelt.ac.uk (mailgw.chelt.ac.uk [194.81.184.203])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4NG6aU02047
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:06:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk (unverified) by mailgw.chelt.ac.uk
 (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id <B0002800085@mailgw.chelt.ac.uk>;
 Tue, 23 May 2000 17:01:09 +0100
Received: by exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <HQTTQ874>; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:01:36 +0100
Message-Id: <8102C4585310D211858D0060B01A41330170E68D@exchpk02.chelt.ac.uk>
From: "HUGHES, Chris" <CHughes@chelt.ac.uk>
To: Britdisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
   "'Jonathan Pearce'"
	 <johnnyp_76@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Venues
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:01:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

>It's about time we start acting pre-emptively to
>ensure the smooth running of a great sport as players,
>and stop relying on an overworked and underpaid
>BUF/core few

UNDERPAID?!?!?  Oh, for the day when I'm underpaid to do this crap!

> ----------
> From: 	Jonathan Pearce[SMTP:johnnyp_76@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 	23 May 2000 16:52
> To: 	Britdisc
> Subject: 	Venues
> 
> Guys,
> Personally,  believe that the state of the tour is
> healthy and works well when it works well, like
> Swindon for example.  However, this obviously means we
> need decent venues that can handle such a large number
> of people.  It is all good and well saying that
> splitting into two is a great idea, but as it has been
> said, many people play for the social aspect (since
> I'm crap it's the only reason I turn up!) and for many
> other reasons.  About 32 teams is the optimal amount
> for enjoyment and capacity in my opinion. 
> 
> Admittedly, the sport is growing in size, and the need
> for leagues is not too distant.  But let's stop
> getting our knickers in a twist.  People are saying
> that there is a lack of large suitable venues, but
> have people really made a great effort to look?  I
> think not.  There's a whole country out there. I know
> for sure that Point Blank have great hopes to organise
> a tour event for next year, and we have several
> options in mind.  This has been a useful time to kick
> people up the backside and make them realise you can't
> always rely on other people to do everything.  Perhaps
> someone should post something on britdisc/BUF that
> COMPREHENSIVELY details what organising a tournament
> entails, and the incentives for teams/players to do
> it.
> 
> It's about time we start acting pre-emptively to
> ensure the smooth running of a great sport as players,
> and stop relying on an overworked and underpaid
> BUF/core few.
> 
> CONVOY - "I'd better get brownie points for this"
> Point Blank & Jedi
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
>