From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Wed Feb 27 00:33:31 2002 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 g1R0XUC21105 for <suaaz@mail.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:33:30 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@agave [137.205.192.52]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1R0SfE20343; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:28:41 GMT Received: from agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g1R0PF0K023183 for <britdisc-outgoing@agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:25:15 GMT Received: (from daemon@localhost) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0/Submit) id g1R0PFab023182 for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:25:15 GMT Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30]) by agave.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g1R0PE0K023177 for <britdisc-real@majordomo.csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:25:14 GMT Received: from mail4.svr.pol.co.uk (mail4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1R0PDE20153 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:25:14 GMT Received: from modem-3230.wolf.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.134.92.158] helo=ben) by mail4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16fruB-0000kh-00 for britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:25:11 +0000 Message-ID: <007b01c1bf25$cee083c0$265886d9@ben> From: "Ben Ravilious" <ben@ravilious.net> To: "BRITDISC" <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202262245060.4959-100000@moriarty.atm.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Participation in the UKU Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:29:17 -0000 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 Ben, UK Ultimate was always intended to be inclusive and as long as I have anything to do with it that will remain the case. However to do what we are doing requires money and the only people to whom we can reasonably (or practically) charge fees are the 'serious' players which at present are mainly Open division players. This is more a problem with who plays than anything inherently wrong with the association itself. You will find a similar situation in pretty much any amateur sports organisation. The association only really became a financially viable idea a couple of years ago when players numbers seemed to swell considerably. We're still at the stage where we need all members (for members read 'cash') we can get to break even. We're very confident that this will happen this year. With continued growth in numbers we should find ourselves in 'profit' so that we have extra cash to subsidise worthy causes or just reduce the players fee. Personally I would like to see the former happen. In effect the Open division may be called upon to support other less established divisions until they are more self sufficient. I'm sure that as long as this is done carefully we will have the support of the open players in this. I think however that your concern about the democracy of the sport is a fair one so lets hear what people have to say. Do we want to make the democracy open to anyone who plays? It is feasible but how could it be acheived fairly? Consider the truism which gets rattled out from time to time: "If you want something done do it yourself." Perhaps we sometimes say this rather spitefully but it can be meant in a very positive way. I would love to see a groundswell of 'fun' tournaments just like the ones which got me hooked but it will require motivation by individuals. I actually think that the abolition of tournament tax and the current 'hands-off' approach towards these sort of events are actually very constructive first steps . However these still need organisation and representation as you said. Who will stand up and say "we need more effort put into division X and I'm going to get involved" ? I actually think there are a lot of people out there who do care enough do get involved and I'm happy to say that there quite a few of them on the current board of directors. Finally, I would encourage *anyone* who plays ultimate to join the association. If the current offering isn't relevant to certain people then please tell us about it. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Booth" <booth@atm.ox.ac.uk> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> Sent: 26 February 2002 23:32 Subject: Participation in the UKU > > Ultimators, > > I've been thinking about the UKU and were it will take the > ultimate community (always dangerous). When the discusion > occured last september about moving from the BUF to the UKU > we talked about pros and cons. I think there are many > benifits of the UKU (better interaction between players and > uk body and admin support, etc). I also think that Ben and > the rest of the Exec are doing a great job. But.... > > My concern is that UKU ONLY targets those players who play > in the open tours. Great - keen, involved, lots of > enthusiasm and serious about the sport and developing it. > But it is not in the interests of players who wont compete > in the open events to register (finacially anyway) to join. > I have a fairly full ultimate year planned. I'm playing in > the coed tour this year. I've been intrumental in setting > up a local student frisbee league, involving over 140 > ultimate players. I'm going to Portugal for the hat and > will probably play in a couple of the friendly tournaments > (glastonbury, chipping norton etc). I can and probably will > register even though i don't need to to be able to play the > frisbee that I want to play. But my point is that there is > a huge number of players, commitment and enthusiasm out here > that isn't targetted and are likely not be registered and > hence not involved with UKU. > > The old BUF had links with EVERY team in the country. OK so > nobody turned up to the AGMs, but the governing body > represented UK ultimate. While I have no problems with the > ultiamte community as a whole at the moment, and I feel the > executive broadly reflects the ultimate community - I think > that the future of the UKU will see a increasing enthasis on > the Open, or more 'serious' portion of the calander. Just > because the future UKU will only be selected by the section > of the ultimate community which plays in the Open events. > > OK so what?!? Open players have the interest of ultimate as > their priority as well, don't they? I don't think this is > currently an issue, but I think that it will in the longer > term. People who are involved in ultimate in other non-uku > events will not have the democratic strength to be able to > influence future directions in UK ultimate. That will mean > that Mixed sides, Womens teams, social teams, less serious > teams, school teams will not naturally be members of UKU > unless they also play open or actively deciede to make an > active role in uku. I think these people also have alot to > give to ultimate. > > So whats the point of this email? I want to ask: Is it > correct that only registered UKU players will be able to > vote for future UKU positions? (If not sorry for worrying > you all). If this is the case I think that is something > that needed to be raised. I didn't realise when I voted > last year that, due to required registration rules, it would > lead to such a split between registered and non registered > membership. Would there be a way to bring in the rest of > the ultimate community? > > Hope this gets you thinking, > > Ben > Mootones > >