Ben, I think that part of the problems that were apparent at Daventry could be solved by the inevitable splitting of the Tour into two divisions. The fact that we have roughly 40-50 teams wanting to play Ultimate this summer, shows that we have outgrown single venue tour events. A split will things a lot easier by enabling smaller venues to be used, or existing venues to be less crammed. Hopefully this will also make more people bid for events, and get a greater geographical split between events. It should also make matches a lot more competitive and make that "25-26th" place play-off a nail-bitter. I am sure that the DOC has mentioned this before, and I hope we here some proposals from him soon, seeing as he was going to present it to the board in April. (See website meeting minutes)
Andy Slipdisc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 June 2003 15:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BritDisc digest, Vol 1 #389 - 7 msgs --__--__-- Message: 5 From: "Ben Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:38:51 +0100 Subject: [BD] Organising Tour Tournaments Here's a long winded e-mail to discuss a very simple question that Si Hill's recent e-mail made me think of....... Can UK Ultimate sustain a full-time tournament organiser, and would this be a good thing? Points in Favour of a single organiser: Consistency - All UKU tournaments would be as standardised as possible, and organised properly and well in advance. Continuity - If something IS wrong, it can be fixed for next time; it won't be a different TD each time. Improvement - There's every reason to expect that someone hosting tournaments so often would get better at it, both in terms of organisation and finding better facilities and amenities. Also, it would be worth that person's while to purchase useful equipment, like for example a PA system for announcements and prize-givings, which would be available at every tournament. Responsibility - If, for example, the cones go missing, then there's only one person to blame; rather than roadworks on the M6 that stopped the previous Tour TD from arriving with them etc.... Accountability - Such a person, employed by the UKU, might reasonably be expected to produce accounts available to all members detailing exactly where the money goes. Time - Such an organiser would be able to devote plenty of time to the little things that make tournaments easier: a good, up to date website; good maps; relevant accomodation lists; choosing sites which are easily accessible by train, plane and car, and lists of bus times from airports and train stations; early schedules; up to the minute results and updated schedules displayed in the pavilion so teams can see who they play next, and how others are doing; etc... Sonsorship and Coverage - One person could consistently deal with these issues over the range of UKU tournaments. It should surely be possible to find a lucrative overall UKU Tour sponsor from among the global industries who advertise to 18-30 year olds. Points Against: Loss of revenue to clubs - As far as I see it, the only losers under this system would be those individuals or clubs who currently run Tour tournaments, who would miss out on the chance to earn some cash. Competition - The holder of the position would constitute the sole bidder for tournaments, and hence hold something like a monopoly position. This can be dealt with in lots of ways - most simply a contract with the UKU which specifies minimum facilities and a limit on maximum profits for tournaments. Alternatively, the post could be salaried, with any surplus going to UKU funds. Could the UK ultimate scene sustain such an employee? I think it could. Each year, there are four tours, nationals, and indoor nationals; and Student Indoor and Outdoor nationals; held under the auspices of the UKU. That's eight tournaments, and it would be modest to budget for an average �1,000 profit from each. (Note the 'average' - tours may be more lucrative, and student indoors less so, for example). I think �8,000 a year to devote oneself to ultimate would be plenty. Problems: Firstly, the loss of revenue to clubs. Note that all clubs would of course continue to run their own tournaments as they do now - the only ones who would lose out would be those who host tours and Nationals. These tournaments have not been allocated for 2004, so that centralising them would remove, at most, the EXPECTATION of raising money, rather than the money itself. Very few people host such an event every single year as it stands now, and even fewer guarantee to plough the funds back into their club. I don't believe that any clubs would suffer unfairly. Secondly, there is the problem of what the organiser does for the rest of the time. 8 tournaments is not really a year-long business. I'd guess that 25-30 hours a week is reasonable for �8,000, and this would of course be much more than is needed to organise the tournaments. However, time could be spent on producing and updating a useful and worthwhile tour website; on attracting sponsorship and coverage, as I mentioned above; on any tasks suggested or requested by the UKU board; on designing useful software (e.g. using .net and such for online databases which update game scores in real-time for those who can't be there, or whatever); and on promoting Ultimate in general. Anyway, that's enough of this. Let's get some opinions going. Benji STD_Ultimate _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
