Dear BD Having followed much of the recent discussion, I think one issue has been missed so far - namely that the majority of posts in defence of increases in tournament prices are coming from players at 'big' clubs. Should this be a surprise? No, because bigger clubs have more players and possibly some kind of treasury/subs system. As a consequence, the cost per capita (to use another choice economics phrase) is considerably lower both in terms of actual cost per player and ease per player to get entered. At some 'small' clubs I can guarantee from experience that somebody will have to front up the £180, then try and collect as much of it as possible back on Saturday night from his 9 teammates - assuming the club can pull together enough players to even enter the tourney without offering to pay for other player's portion of the costs. My point is that higher fees can hurt players, particularly at smaller clubs. Yes, they should become more organised, but with a limited players and/or commitment this can be difficult. Is this not also one of the reasons the Tour split came about - to allow cheaper, smaller venues for both A and B tours? Incidentally (an apologies for another economist having a say) the most interesting point made over the last week or so IMHO regards branding and inelastic pricing. Now I've always enjoyed April Tour 1 at Bristol, but last year when Adam and Matt tried to run a similar event at the same time without UKU backing they had to cancel due to a lack of interest. The UKUA branding issue is therefore key. Think about a situation where you could go to UKUA Tour 1 for £200, or another tournamant on the same weekend for £150. Which would your team go to? Now think about how much extra per team the UKUA 'brand' must be worth given your answer to the above. Just my opinion and I hope it promotes further discussion as this is a really interesting issue. Any Keynesians out there care to comment? Luke (Revolution) Wayne Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A long britdisc discussion has been going on but I feel many of you have missed the real costs and impact.
Tournament fees are a small part of the cost of attending a tournament. Typically the larger costs are travel, accommodation and (sometimes) time off work. If cheap tournaments with no accommodation provided were held the 'far ends' of the country they may prove to be less welll attended than an 'expensive' tournament with free camping in a 'central' location. Also, I believe, the total cost of events does deter participation. The travel and accommodation costs involved can mean that the team may still go but some players will not. This means that squad sizes may be smaller and some clubs can only field one squad rather than two. Wayne PS. Good luck to Adam and the other Tour organisers - I hope you all make enough money to encourage you to bid again next year. __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
