Steve, The Thundering Herd began as a work team - 3 years ago NONE of us had ever played the game, some of us were unaware it even existed. We were lucky in that RV & Carthorse both work here and took some time out from dominating European ultimate to teach us the basics. Our first ever tournament was Glastonbury - from that point on we were hooked, and RV & Cart began to play less and less.
The point is that the game is so enjoyable, all it really takes is a bit of effort from those that have played for years and years to teach the newbiews what it is all about. In terms of recruitment - get your players to talk to people they work with, get them to talk to their friends/family, get them to talk to people they play netball/tennis/basketball with. Get them to bring newbies along to practice. Then it is up to you and your team to coach them, make them feel welcome and make them enjoy it. You are unlikely to recruit an instant superstar, but they may turn into one with a bit of TLC AND you will have helped grow the sport. I often feel the question is not 'can we get enough women' it's more along the lines of 'can we get enough women we feel are good enough to play with us'. Message: 2 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:59:20 +0100 From: "Steve G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [BD] Re: Tour Qualifier To: "Tim Dowse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed That's hit the nail on the head Tim. It's all about having the right balance of female players vs male players. As it is, recruiting female players from outside of the unis is difficult. We welcome any successful suggestions/testimonials on how to bring non-ultimate playing, non university females into our squad and into the sport. That said, those who run our team aren't in University and as such rely heavily on the successful recruiting of female players by our University reps. If that doesn't go well then we're stuffed come summer as our male to female ratio will be unbalanced for Mixed and lots of male players will be left out...until open tour. I think the split of Mixed and Open is a great plan however I can't remember why (if their is a reason) the Mixed was first and the Open second and not the other way around. On 12/07/06, Tim Dowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not that it's necessarily applicable to all clubs (i.e. those with very few > women), but presumably having the entirety (more or less) of the mixed > season within university term time would enable heavily student dependent > teams to enter thir tour? and the atmosphere of that tour could (perhaps) > be even more suited to those who aren't yet "hooked"? Those who haven't > been hooked completely by the mixed season will then sign up with glee for > the rest of the Open season. > > If having a low number of female players is the problem, this can only > encourage female player recruitment, which must surely be a good thing? > > > Tim > > On 7/12/06, Steve G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd like to second Possum's comment on the Open Tour starting late and > > how it affects University based teams. > > > > Flyght Club are largely based on two Universities here. At Tour 1 > > since 2002 we have had no trouble taking 2 and sometimes 3 teams to > > Tour 1. This year if it weren't for Possum and his UTB friends we > > would have missed Tour 1B. > > > > With Tour 1 in April we were able to build up the Tour to the > > Universities and get them involved early, build that team spirit and > > keep it going all summer. This time they've all gone home already. > > It's kind of put a damper on our ability to transition the University > > beginners into the outdoor season. > > > > On 12/07/06, Darroch Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Here is my perspective about season length, which is > > > unlikely to be normative, but should be accurate for the > > > Birmingham context. > > > I have found that the timing of the Open Tour, in relation > > > to University terms, has had a much greater impact on > > > attendance than the length of the season. > > > UTB has always been a team that relies on a combination of > > > open players and students, and has never been at a point > > > where UTB would function without student input. > > > At Tours 1 & 3 we were able to take 2 teams, but when we > > > got promoted for Tour 4, we weren't able to get teams to > > > different venues due to transport. > > > Last year, we were able to gain some momentum with the > > > students, so that by the time their terms finished they > > > were already interested in the Tours, and willing to travel > > > from home towns to attend. This momentum did wane over the > > > Tour, but not because of the number of events. > > > This year we have been unable to enter any teams to Tours 1 > > > & 2, and are unlikely to get one to Tour 3 at this point. > > > This I believe (for UTB) has been because the Open Tour > > > started around graduation time. > > > > > > I do think that the splitting of Mixed and Open Tours has > > > helped players concentrate on each season, and has had > > > benefits for the Mixed Tour. > > > I think that for teams that don't rely on students, the > > > timing of the Open Season is less critical, but for teams > > > that do, it appears to have been detrimental, at least to > > > me/UTB. I'm not looking for a change, just commenting. > > > > > > Personally, I take the Open Tour seriously, whether I am in > > > the A-Tour or B-Tour and would prefer 4 B Tours. I prefer > > > the longer games and did appreciate the 90min+cap games of > > > Saturday BTour1. These will no doubt be back again for > > > Tour2, but for Tour1 this should be balanced with the > > > desire for fairness through increasing the number of games, > > > and potentially having occasional back-to-back games. > > > > > > As to the comments about back-to-back games, I feel that > > > BTour teams are able to cope with the odd 1 or 2. FC2 > > > played their best game of the weekend by beating BPF2 in > > > our/their 4th game in a row. > > > > > > Possum > > > > > > p.s. It's clear that for Ultimate in Birmingham to improve > > > we need to go and promote the sport. If you have any tips > > > and advice, please send them me. Thanks. > > > > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > Just for the record, it wasn't for the GB/Top 8 players > > > > that the Tour was > > > > decreased from 4 to 3 this year. The reasons I seem to > > > > remember were: > > > > > > > > 1. The players who play both Mixed and Open/Women's > > > > Tour. If they attended > > > > all 4 Tours and Nationals for each division, that was 10 > > > > weekends of > > > > everyone's summer given up completely to 'required' > > > > ultimate tournaments. A > > > > lot of people thought that was too much. If you disagree > > > > with this point, > > > > then look at the numbers. Open Tour 1 had 48 teams but > > > > this decreased > > > > consistently throughout the season and there was only 31 > > > > teams at Tour 4. > > > > Same with Mixed Tour and Women's Tour. Both Mixed and > > > > Open Nationals were > > > > undersubscribed too. Mixed Nationals didn't even have 16 > > > > teams and Open > > > > Nationals (despite being the seeding tournament for the > > > > Tour) couldn't fill > > > > 32 spots. The UKUA made a reasonble decision based on > > > > these facts and > > > > shortened both seasons. > > > > > > > > 2. To give non-UKUA events higher profile and take some > > > > of the burden away > > > > from the UKUA volunteers. If people feel like they > > > > aren't getting enough > > > > tournaments through the year, there are still plenty of > > > > tournaments to play > > > > in or room in the calendar to host your own. The UKUA > > > > shouldn't be > > > > responsible for nearly every tournament in the summer > > > > calendar. Not even > > > > every 'competitive' one IMHO. > > > > > > > > Now I've addressed that point, I'll step back away from > > > > the rest of the > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > Aura > > > > > > > > womens(at)ukultimate.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben Heywood writes: > > > > > > > > > Earlier today, a couple of people mentioned a Tour > > > > qualifier, though > > > > > referring to it as Tour 0 seems to have led to some > > > > confusion. > > > > > > > > > > My idea, which a couple of people seem to have picked > > > > up on already, is as > > > > > follows. (Let the record show, by the way, that I > > > > suggested this a year > > > > > ago, not just as a response to the Tour 1B problems...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The top teams wanted only three tours for reasons of > > > > exhaustion. Most > > > > > people I know from lower teams were quite happy with > > > > four. We can use this > > > > > to our advantage by running the first tournament (Tour > > > > 0, Tour Qualifier, > > > > > something like that) without the top 8 teams from the > > > > previous year. > > > > > Everybody from 9th downwards plays in a tournament > > > > which then has 8 A-tour > > > > > spots available. This will give us a much better chance > > > > of having the best > > > > > 16 teams at tour one, without forcing the GB players to > > > > play too often. > > > > > > > > > > Advantages: > > > > > > > > > > - Teams like Fire 2 could miss nationals for squad > > > > reasons without then > > > > > making a mockery of the B tour the next year. > > > > > - Newly formed teams with real talent could get > > > > straight into the A tour > > > > > for tour one. > > > > > - The above means that there's a fair chance for teams > > > > who should be > > > > > ranked around 15th to 18th to actually get promoted at > > > > the actual B tour > > > > > one. With the current system, the likelihood of some > > > > really good misseeded > > > > > teams taking the promotion spots makes that tough. Last > > > > year, Discuits > > > > > didn't get promoted until tour 2, but ended up ninth. > > > > > - The teams who want more tour experience will get it, > > > > and those who want > > > > > just three a year will get that (if they're good > > > > enough). > > > > > > > > > > Difficulties: > > > > > - It's a bugger to schedule in such a way that the > > > > right 8 teams qualify > > > > > (octuple elimination anyone?). Nevertheless, it would > > > > be a great deal > > > > > fairer than the current system where a good new team > > > > must spend a minimum > > > > > of 1/3 of the season in the wrong tour. > > > > > > > > > > Can someone convince me this is a bad idea? > > > > > > > > > > Benji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > BritDisc mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > > > > > Staying informed - > > > > http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > BritDisc mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > > > > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > Fight back spam! Download the Blue Frog. > > > http://www.bluesecurity.com/register/s?user=ZGFycm9jaF9yZWlkMTUzNg%3D%3D > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > > Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! > > Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > BritDisc mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > > > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > BritDisc mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > > > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:01:38 +0100 (BST) From: William Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [BD] Future Tour suggestions To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 As i wasn't there i can't comment on Tour 1B and I've never been a TD so don't know all the ins and outs although i do appreciate how much hard work it is, however as I'm always ready to put my foot in my mouth here's my tuppence worth; There appear to be two problems being discussed (wrt to organising the tour), the problems that occur when teams drop out + seeding Tour 1. here are a couple of suggestions from me to add to the discussion... 1) Drop outs Introduce a 'C tour'. So that: 1) A Tour = Top 16 2) Decide how many teams will enter the B tour and keep this fixed! i.e. 16, 18, 20 or 22? (but whatever number is decided upon it would be essential to ensure that the B tour event will always be oversubscribed.) 3) C Tour consists of the remaining teams that want to play. Have the B and C tours at the same venue so if a team drops out of the B tour at the last minute the top seeds of the C tour get promoted to B tour and will be there on the day anyway. This way the B tour schedule remains unchanged only team seedings change. The C tour set up can be a traditional tournament arrangement or if low on teams then a league arrangement. i.e. less than 6/8 teams = league, 8+ = tournament. As there will probably be fewer teams attending a Tour C event (at present) any last minute schedule changes should theoretically be easier. Also important is that B tour pitches and C tour pitches are kept separate at the venue i.e. no pitches at venue that have B + C tour games on them as any last minute changes to C tour would then affect the B tour. This form of progression could then potentially be re-introduced if/when tour C starts getting too large, and a D tour formed. 2) Seeding Tour 1 Base seeding mainly on final Tour positions the previous year (not nationals as not all teams go to nationals). But include some weighting from events prior to the start of the tour such as winter leagues. The seeding issue is clearly more complicated and honestly i doubt it will ever be 100% but i just wanted to put these suggestions out there for discussion/dismissal if not liked. Tony (Sheffield steal #3) my opinions not those of etc..... --------------------------------- Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail.From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 12 13:05:21 2006 Received: from web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com ([217.146.188.102]) by bethel.ranulf.net with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1G0dSy-0000j1-GX for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:05:20 +0100 Received: (qmail 55793 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jul 2006 12:06:29 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=btinternet.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Cont ent-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=awRO0qk4ABRN8/8bwpXJNsYoMdPGtkAFEAyn/OmLAKXoz6LcZuexRSdjgQuE2YjwSKC5He xNaJ/lL+Wi735Sv1aX8bajkdXGJ38v4hY/V4M4+BTUVGZQmDbqbus2T+8mR28QYWwAeQzJEI CuzgARBVMy2pak/30zC6iMMWp8HbE= ; Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from [193.133.226.4] by web86201.mail.ird.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:06:29 BST Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:06:29 +0100 (BST) From: ALASTAIR FINDLAY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [BD] Tour 1 B - Constructive criticism (honest) To: Jon Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.2 Cc: X-BeenThere: [email protected] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Information about UK disc sports <britdisc.ranulf.net> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://mailman.ranulf.net/pipermail/britdisc> List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At the risk of going drastically off topic, could the answer to this problem be regionlisation. For Tour 1B many teams were forced to travel large distances to play in the 2nd tier of British Ultimate. Was this really necessary? Could they have got the same level of competiton if they played in a tournament much closer to them. Quite feasibly you could split the B tour into a North and South division or an East and West, etc etc. The instant result would be smaller tournament which are far easier to organise and schedule and becuase they are smaller you can make them fairer. You could apply the same principles at the moment but only the winner of the North or South tour would be promoted. Two would still be relegated from the A tour. You wouldn't decide on some geographical nature what tournament a team could enter. You would just need to organise two tournaments. If a team wanted to travel 400 miles just because they thought one tournament would be easier then they can (the fools). The obvious problem with this at the moment is that we don't have enough people wanting to host a tournament. In some ways this would make it easier as you wouldn't need 10+ pitches, but we would need to know this would be ok before we did it. I could also see that some might not like this as it would break up the national scene a bit i.e. You wouldn't see your mate from Northern Monkeys United as you played for Southern Shandies Athletic An different upside is that I think that this might lead to more teams (or more players) playing the tour. Like it or not people travelling large distances to play puts people off. If there was a tournament in your back yard (or at least in your half of the country) you are much more likely to play than if you have to travel the length of the country. Laters Ala Brighton Ultimate (views are mine not the clubs yadda yadda yadda) Jon Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BD, It must be a full moon or something, Benji and I seem to agree with each other. I think it's important to get a few things straight about expectations/standards at tournaments. Players(the Consumers) 1. Stop making unreasonable demands of the TDs. Running a tournament is hard, takes a lot of effort and most of it goes unappreciated. 2. You can't have you cake and eat it. It is unreasonable to expect to get up after 6am drive to the tourney, play several long games, not play back to back, have a shower, eat a chicken balti, drink ten pints, flirt with the locals in some dive bar, find you tent and still get enough sleep to play the next day. If you want longer non back to back games your have to start earlier and finish later if you want to time to party you'll play shorter games back to back. 3. Sort your teams out and stop dropping out at the last minute. TD's are planning the tournaments months and months in advance. Show them and the sport a little respect and get yourselves organized to have a team at the tournament ready to play. 4. Stop bitching about food and water. Yes its nice if they provided but learn how to use a supermarket and how to fill a water bottle. TDs/DoCs (the suppliers) 1. Don't try to do too much. 2. Get a good venue with enough good quality marked pitches, provide hot showers a source of drinking water and get yourselves a good robust schedule. Everything else is a bonus. 3. Don't adjust you schedule at the last minute to accommodate drop outs. Either write a few versions of the schedule well in advance or just write a good schedule that will adjust acceptably with dropouts. Last minute changes are almost always worse than the original schedule with byes for the missing team. Changing the schedule and getting it wrong makes it seem like your fault. It's not, the fault lies entirely with the team(s) that dropped out. 4. Don't me too nice with team that are struggling for numbers. Force them to commit well before the tournament and heavily fine/black list teams that dropout late. More specifically on Scheduling I have some other suggestions 1. Spend more time on it. Writing a schedule is part process and part art. The more time you spend on it the more likely you are to come up with the best solution. 2. Ask for help. Myself and others have considerable experience writing schedules and would be willing to help, just ask. 3. Write schedules that don't have a little dependence on the initial seedings as possible. for example triple elim as used by the students to great success over the past few years or more simply make sure there are crossover rounds. Changing the structure of the B tour would also help the problem. I suggested it before make a C tour. The benefits being: 1. There is a big gap in standards of play/expectation in the B tour. Some teams are happy just to be playing others are pushing hard for the top8 or qualification to the A tour. Let the structure reflect that. 2. you guarantee 16 teams in the B tour and can use a variety of very stable easy to schedule formats for 8 pitches that have long games, decent breaks in between games, less dependence on seeding and a fair chance for each team to progress. 3. Any drop outs don't affect the B tour numbers or format of schedule. 4. You can use more flexible formats for the C tour where longer games are less of a necessity. 5. It is much easier to write a few versions of a fair flexible schedule for a smaller number of teams in the C tour. Lastly on tiebreakers I really think its simple. Use points difference amongst tied teams (so for two tied teams use the head to head result). Using points difference across all common opponents is just nonsense, teams play other teams in a variety of conditions, time of day, weather, orientation of the pitch to the wind etc. etc. all of which affect the points difference. If two teams are tied on wins then the only thing that should matter is who won when the played the same game, on the same pitch in the same conditions. More than enough for me, thanks for reading. JP On 7/10/06, Ben Heywood wrote: > > > I have two points I want to raise: > > 1) The schedule was not good enough. > 2) Why not have a Tour Qualifier? (See next email, for people who > don't care about scheduling nonsense). > > 1) Schedule > > Two major problems - a) the format was completely unsuitable for > deciding the best three teams from a (necessarily) badly seeded > event, and b) the pitches were severely underused. > > a) We were in a pool of 3. We lost a game to the 3rd (I think) seeds, > and immediately we couldn't finish above ninth. We did finish ninth, > although I don't wish to claim that we could otherwise have got > promoted. That's not relevant - what matters is that it is OBVIOUSLY > possible for the best 2 (or even 3 !! ) teams to be in the same > group, and only one could come close to promotion. This is clearly > wrong. There is no way that the first B tour of the year can be > decided by giving each team only five matches. Long matches between > equally-good teams are great, but they are not more important than a > fair tournament. > > Solutions: > Obviously, more games. If that means shorter games, so be it. My > personal suggestion would be to have loads of 45 or 60 minute games > on the saturday, and then three proper length QF SF F games for each > group of 8 on the sunday. The short saturday games are necessary so > that more teams play each other and the placings are more fairly > decided; and anyway, a lot of such games will be severe mismatches > that won't need 105 minutes to decide. Those few games which are > close and are tight for time are a small price to pay for having a > tournament structure that's anywhere close to fair. > > b) There were 12 pitches this weekend, and 24 teams. That's plenty. > Pitches were in use from 9am until close to 7pm on saturday - 10 > hours. In that time (I still find this hard to believe) THREE games > were played on each pitch. People have complained earlier today about > not getting great facilities for their fees - pitches cost massive > amounts, and if they're underused in this way it's no wonder it > doesn't look like value for money. Would you believe that 2 pitches > had ZERO games on the saturday? I'm still struggling with that one. > Surely it's blatantly obvious that if we have a tournament that > requires more games to generate a fair result, AND we have a shedload > of spare pitch time, there's a plausible solution not far away...it's > frankly a disgrace that crossovers, as a bare minimum, were not added > to the schedule. > > The idea of trying to guarantee that no team ever plays back to back > games in the way used this w/e (leaving a 2-hour gap between games on > each pitch) is in my opinion wrong. The cost of this is too high - no > games to watch when you're not playing, but far more importantly the > waste of pitch time. Back to back games are a necessary evil of > weekend tournaments. They should be minimised, and there should never > be 3 games back to back, but it's daft, at B-tour level, for everyone > to be sitting around for a couple of hours with nothing happening. In > pool play, there is NEVER any need for back to back games - half the > pools play a game, then the other half. On the same pitches. If a gap > is to be included in a tournament schedule, it should be placed after > pool play and before crossovers, and/or after crossovers and before > QFs, which are the only times that back to back games are sometimes > inevitable*. It absolutely need NOT be shoved in between pool games. > > Where's the constructive criticism in (b), you ask? Well, there's not > a lot that can be said - it's been done now and nothing can change > it. The only constructive suggestion is that this situation can be > avoided easily by asking for help. It isn't easy dealing with three > schedules at once, I'm sure, but people can help. As indoor DOC, I'd > have been more than happy to help sort out some outdoor schedules, > and I know at least a little about it. Both Rich Hims and Jon Palmer > have had extensive theoretical and practical experience of scheduling. > > So, two main points: > - Don't put huge gaps in the tournament schedule > - 90 min games are not more important than giving everyone a fair > chance in the tournament > > ------------------------------------------ > > And a few very minor points that vexed me also this weekend. > > - We came ninth, but for some utterly inexplicable reason the plate > went to 17th. I always thought that everyone who won all three sunday > games got a wee trophy (cup, plate, bowl, etc... for 1, 9, 17, 25 > etc). No fair. (boohoo) > > - The most important game (1st v 2nd in the pool) was first up for > us. Normally, that would be the last pool game, so that everyone can > get into the tournament playing the bigger (expected) mismatches. > > - Fire 2: I understand the thinking behind 'punishing' Fire for not > entering later tours last year. But not only did they get punished, > so did all the teams in their pool who were demolished by a blatantly > A-tour team. Surely a better solution to this can be found - in fact, > see my next email... > > > > * In a tournament with reasonable numbers of teams, that is. If > there's something daft like 27 teams then sometimes that will lead to > back-to-back games. Otherwise, it'll be (after crossovers) top 8 QF; > bottom 8 QF; then top 8 SF etc. No problems. > > > __________________________________________________ > BritDisc mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc > Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp > __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp --------------------------------- Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? Get Yahoo! Mail ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp End of BritDisc Digest, Vol 34, Issue 19 **************************************** The contents of this message and any attachments to it are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message in error you should delete it from your system immediately and advise the sender. dunnhumby may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not dunnhumby. __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
