From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Thu Sep 13 00:17:50 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8CNC6I25369
	for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:12:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8CNC2825346
	for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:12:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8CNC1H24409
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:12:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [62.7.37.5] (helo=si)
	by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6)
	id 15hJAm-0006eg-00; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:12:00 +0100
Message-ID: <007601c13be0$948769a0$0525073e@si>
From: "Si" <Si_B2001@btinternet.com>
To: "Wayne Retter" <wayne@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
References: <7165D5A55FC4D41184DB00D0B7B9E62D036D59FF@AURORA> <b$ybhaAMS8n7Ewtd@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Final Tour Rankings and Nationals Seedings
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:13:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Hi Wayne and Britdisc,
I see things slightly differently as their "a" team (Clapham 1) finished
lower than their "b" team (Clapham 2) at tour 3 shouldn't their "a" team be
withdrawn from tour 4 as if you don't have enough players for that event
(tour 4) the lowest placed team should have been withdrawn in this case
their "a" team not their "b" team
As I've seen this happen in other tennis leagues where 2 teams from the same
club have been in the same league, and the supposedly higher ranked team has
been relegated from that league, and the next year the following suffixes
have remained the same so that the "d" team has ended up playing in the
higher division to a "c" team.
If this is the case then Clapham must forfeit the points for their "a" team
and the points for tour 4 should goto their "b" team and penalties be
adjusted as such

Complicated I know but that's the way I see it

So what if Aram loaded one team at tour 3 that's your choice as members of
the Clapham club to go along with it !!!

And can I ask if each team needed a separate roster for the tour or just one
for the club?? and will this be the same next year??? U8c discuss

Si.b

Chevy



----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Retter" <druid#6@phidelta.demon.co.uk>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Final Tour Rankings and Nationals Seedings


> >>So if Clapham 2 dropped out then why did Clapham 1 get seeded 1st for
tour
> >4?
>
> I'd go with "Clapham Ultimate" being seeded 1 at Tour 4 because "Clapham
> Ultimate" (ignore the 1 or 2 - they're geo, so can mix their teams to
> play first and second, or equal teams) won Tour 3.
>
> Wayne Retter
> Fluid Druids
> PS: you can seed us @ 1 if you want!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Wayne Retter
> mobile: 07970-903420
> w.retter@bigfoot.com
> office: 01737-273655
>