BritDisc article #6803

From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Thu Sep 13 18:52:16 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id f8DHltM21571
	for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:47:55 +0100 (BST)
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 f8DHlr821564
	for <britdisc-real@pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:47:53 +0100 (BST)
Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f8DHlq223638
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:47:52 +0100 (BST)
Received: from modem-318.awesome.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.129.62] helo=ben)
	by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0)
	id 15haac-0003Tw-00
	for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:47:51 +0100
Message-ID: <00c901c13c7d$6bc47420$3e81193e@ben>
From: "Ben Ravilious" <ben@ravilious.net>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
References: <C3517E8D620CD411B3FC00C04FA164E91541D4@GATEWAY>
Subject: Re: New Association and the coed tour
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 18:49:18 +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 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Hedge & others,

You're right that visiting foreign teams shouldn't have to have to pay Ł10
per player per event, I've got no problem with that and I doubt anyone else
would have. Looks like I missed that issue out.

As for foreign *individuals* thats a different matter. If they're here for
just a month of so then a per tournament fee isn't going to hurt them. If
they're here for several months then they should join properly. I'm sure we
can work out some sort of compromise if they're only going to be around for
6 months.

The Ł10/event fee I suggested isn't by any means set in stone - it was just
that - a suggestion. Unfortunately if we lower this considerably then we run
a real risk of large numbers of UK resident players not joining which could
jeopardise the whole project.

The Ł10 suggested amount was deliberately high as it is not far off paying
for full membership (which we would rather people did)

Given that.....

a) students and unwaged get a large reduction
b) the eligibility requirements only apply to certain tournaments
c) new players can have a free year of eligibility
d) members get a newsletter, insurance, ISP, etc
e) student competitions will be exempt from membership requirement.

... I feel that this proposal bends over backwards to accommodate everyone.

I don't actually believe there are many people out there who only attend one
official event each year. Even if there are, they're going to get the full
range of other benefits from membership. I reckon for most people, once
they're hooked they're not going to mind

There has to be a balance struck between obtaining sufficient income and
avoiding alienating players. I *thought* the proposal achieved this but I
would be interested to hear from others who disagree

Ben

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jakob Donkersloot" <jakob.donkersloot@co-activ.com>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Sent: 13 September 2001 17:06
Subject: RE: New Association and the coed tour


> To everyone else who may want to point this passage out to me:
> I did read the document, but missed that bit.
>
> It'll only make me comment on it though.
> Hahaha, you can't silence the voice of insanity (surely reason..?)
>
> Anyway,
> Ł10 is an exorbitant amount for what is appropriately called being a
> 'guest'. If people are 'ducking the main membership fee' then they
obviously
> do not feel they get their money's worth. If 'large numbers of existing
> players' are only wanting to attend one 'official BUA event' then either
> charging them twice as much for that event (normal tournament fee divided
by
> usual number of people on a team) or getting them to become a member of
the
> BUA can hardly be called inclusive and certainly not reasonable. People
> playing as guests are exactly that, they can at most be expected to pay
some
> administration fee. It would be fair though for there to be restrictions,
> such as number of non-members on a team (exeptions for student teams..?)
and
> also number of times a person can be a guest in a year (say once or
twice).
>
> That's it for the moment (expect more to follow when I discover more
> "hidden" sections in the proposal)
>
> Hedge
>
>
> ------------
> Hedge,
>
> I think that pick-up player part of your second point is covered in
>
> Provisional Membership
> An existing player who only intends to attend one ?official? BUA event
> (e.g. a foreign guest player at a Tour event) will be offered a per-event
> Provisional Membership fee entry. The tournament director might be given a
> cut from this in order to encourage collection. This Provisional
membership
> will require the player to register their details (for rostering purposes
> if nothing else) and will be set at a high enough rate to prohibit large
> numbers of existing players from ducking the main membership fee. We feel
> that a provisional one-event fee of Ł10 is reasonable.
>