 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Geggster |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 07:44 AM
|
|
NAF Treasurer
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 170
Status: Offline
|
|
I can confirm that there were 18 voters with no coaches from Italy, France or the Netherlands, but otherwise from a wide array of nations. The voting was organised by our President after everyone had had time to view the venue proposals carefully.
If the largest venue had been in Russia, 300 miles from the nearest airport or in the middle of Paris (but extortionate), should that have been the winner? No - that would be crazy. There were many aspects to consider not just size. I know that Paco wants to know all the detail but I don't think that's appropriate at this time.
It's very disappointing that anyone misses out but the process was sound and the venue was selected democratically. |
_________________
NAF Treasurer
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Pako |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 09:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
I don't want to know the details. Right now, they are useless.
In the future, for WCIII, things like that should be consider. If any NAF chairman wants it, I am thinking about a document to start with in order to discuss future WC, NAF and membership organization.
Things like points to consider beside venue number of players allowed and its relative relevance. Process to select voting comitee and comitee members (publish it after decission is taken to avoid external pressures). Make application characteristics (venue, hotels, extras, etc) public...
I think we will improve it. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Lycos |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 09:39 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 1532
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi Pako,
I can understand that you and others are very disappointed. Of course I can appreciate that. You and I have had the chance to meet, have beers and a great time.... it would be great to see you there in Amsterdam. I think I know or have met most of that El Prat crew.
The First WC had 270 players and we had spare tickets not taken. When it came to plans for WCII we knew we could account for a growth in players in the NAF and game itself, but we also knew that many are feeling the economic effects of the last few years so allowing what is something like 50% increase seemed logical. So we started talking about 300 to 400 players. I don’t recall anyone saying to me this was not enough.
There was a point, we discussed up to 600. However, at that time (mid last year), most people thought this was almost ridiculous. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing but really, the idea of the 460 now was pretty much off the radar. But we did assess numbers, it was talked about. And one of things we had to consider was by going too big too fast the actual event itself could go badly wrong. There has to be a consideration that we need to ensure the event is as good as we can get it.
So having agreed criteria we asked for “bids†or “proposalsâ€. This was here on the site. Once the bids came in, it was clear we needed a fair and concise way of making the decision. A mass vote would lose control of it, too many voices; it could be distorted too easily. So the answer, fairly logically I would say, is pick a group of people in the game that had all got experience of tournaments and also travelled some distance in doing those events. By this process, the voters would the type who could take into consideration the travelling costs and logistics for players of their part of the world. (note, the voters were split absolutely level, 9 within Europe, 9 Outside from 4 continents. I think 14 or 15 countries so I really gave his some thought). Lastly, no one from the bidding countries so no cries of prejudice or favouritism and I myself did not vote. I gave myself the responsibility of the casting vote if it was level.
The winning bid was Amsterdam by a very clear margin. There was widespread agreement from all those asked to vote, all the bids were very good and I re-iterate my thanks to all three bid teams.
So everything was thought out. Yes there was the chance too many may want to go but we had to make sure we didn’t book a venue that was half full. That would be financial disaster and a risk we cannot take.
And now that we have what is actually just a few percent more than spaces, the only fair way is to give each country a sensible allocation up to a certain point. Then if it came to it, count every one as equals in their country in a random draw. Any other way is, in my opinion, unfair. I think the organising team have got this right and I completely back them on this.
Pako, I know the likes of yourself, Korgluk and others are good guys, supporters of the game and yes, very disappointed. But I can’t see how any other way, that is fair, was possible? When 2015 comes around and the NAF books a 1000 person venue but come the event only 700 turn up ... what then? Staff, food, insurance etc, it’s all booked and paid for. Who is going to find the 300 x €130 so about €40,000!! This is the sort of thing we had to think about.
Having said all this.... some teams may still drop out during the summer. |
Last edited by Lycos on Feb 24, 2011 - 09:46 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Lycos |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 09:45 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 1532
Location: Undisclosed
Status: Offline
|
|
Pako wrote: I don't want to know the details. Right now, they are useless.
In the future, for WCIII, things like that should be consider. If any NAF chairman wants it, I am thinking about a document to start with in order to discuss future WC, NAF and membership organization.
Things like points to consider beside venue number of players allowed and its relative relevance. Process to select voting comitee and comitee members (publish it after decission is taken to avoid external pressures). Make application characteristics (venue, hotels, extras, etc) public...
I think we will improve it.
Ah, I was busy typing a reply to you when you posted this. Having said that, all the detail is here on the site already in different threads.
Even though we are eight months from having WC II, I really hope whoever does the next one does improve it. That has to be our aim, to keep improving. I think WCII will be even better than the first, and yes, we will no doubt learn from this one coming. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Joemanji |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 10:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
England
Posts: 298
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Lycos wrote: But I can’t see how any other way, that is fair, was possible? When 2015 comes around and the NAF books a 1000 person venue but come the event only 700 turn up ... what then? Staff, food, insurance etc, it’s all booked and paid for. Who is going to find the 300 x €130 so about €40,000!! This is the sort of thing we had to think about. This is the central point. The commitee could not guess exactly how many coaches would want to attend a year in advance. The consequences of guessing too many are far greater than in guessing too few, so that is the route we had to go down. It is rubbish for those who did miss out, but I don't think bankrupting the NAF is a risk worth taking in order to accomodate every possible person who might want to come. A shame, but sensible. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Pako |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 10:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
I get all your points. This is what I wanted from the very beginning...
Things for me, and thinking about my personal experience and about Barcelona meeting points, is that you can get prices for different number of people.
This is just and estimate cost that meeting place gives to you. I am wrong? For example, Barcelona Fira (http://www.firabcn.es) have different halls ready to use. You can ask for 300, 500, 700 or any rank of participants. They simply gives you the cost. I disagree with the concept "if you ask for, you should invest in".
You also could do a prospection of attendance in each country forum. For sure. maybe understimated, but enough to get a sense that 400 people was too small.
On the other hand, talking about comitee. I'm not saying at all that there is any doubt about decission took. I am not claiming for public vote nor for public candidates info, allowing people to through comments that maybe comitee did not take into account.
Morevoer, I still think that NAF should in any way to take into consideration the members who supported it in the past. Give they a chance to pre-register is fair for me. If "first come, first served" is going to be NAF official policy, let us to join NAF 2015 right now. I was the first ready to join WCII, and finally I am out.
Don't worry about my future place in WCII. Hopefully in summer I will invest money save for WCII in a non-freaky travel. That's it. I'm fine whith this.
I'm tired to be misunderstood. I consider things in the same way since "first come, first served" post was published, many time before we are out. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 12:08 PM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
Pako: I understand your disappointment. But I fundamentally disagree with you on any kind of preference or priority for some members over others.
I was there way back at the creation of the NAF. I took the first public sign ups at the first NAF tourney and handed out the first dice. I served as UK NTO, then Senior Tournament Organiser (what is effect now Tournament Director), then Vice-President and ultimately President. I spent 4 or 5 years shipping dice for the whole of Europe. I was obviously very heavily involved in the organisation of the first WC (as President at the time of the organisation) but was an ordinary member, volunteer referee and 'results-runner-between-venues' by the time of the event itself.
Here's the point. I don't believe any of the above should matter at all when it comes to a WC place. Fundamentally we are (and rightly should be) all equals as members, whether we've played in 100 tournaments over years or one tournament last week. A NAF member is a NAF member and all should be equal. The day we ever get to 'tiered membership' (based on whatever criteria) will be a sad day indeed.
I cannot disagree strongly enough with the idea that the NAF should be more elitist and less egalitarian. |
_________________
 Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
juergen |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 03:38 PM
|
|
Mekboy
Joined: Mar 05, 2004
Undisclosed
Posts: 321
Status: Offline
|
|
Lycos wrote:
The First WC had 270 players and we had spare tickets not taken. When it came to plans for WCII we knew we could account for a growth in players in the NAF and game itself, but we also knew that many are feeling the economic effects of the last few years so allowing what is something like 50% increase seemed logical. So we started talking about 300 to 400 players. I don’t recall anyone saying to me this was not enough.
IMO I think expecting around 400 players was perfectly reasonable for the bidding process.
Thinking back to Eurobowl in England (Shrewsberry) and Spain (can't remember name) or France this year - if this places like this (where you need to rent a car, is far from bigger cities, need connection flights,...) would have won the bid I suppose that you would have spare tickets left if you have planned for 350 people. When Amsterdam won and it spread the word many people (espacially Europeans) got interested because it is very easy to reach. Austria for example who couldn't bring a Eurobowl team this year, suddently can field 2 teams for world cup - just because of the location.
I think the huge number of coaches suddenly intrested could hardly been forseen and Dave,Lucy and all others did a great job to find extra space to compensate a little. Do I like two venues? - Not really, but even If I was one of the "walkers" between venues at WC I i had a great time there. |
_________________
NAF Tournament Organizer, Austria
NAF Membership Coordinator, Austria
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Pako |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2011 - 01:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
Deathwing wrote: Pako: I understand your disappointment. But I fundamentally disagree with you on any kind of preference or priority for some members over others.
For sure, we can disagree. I just pointed out my thoughs, but is NAF work to take decisions. IMO you deserve to have the first place in every NAF WC. You can think that there is not fair, but for me it is. No matter if I will be out as well, I think 7406 NAF members were here before me, so they did something else than me.
The critical point for me is that NAF sent two different messages about WCII joining. I think NAF just should perform a clear, handly document in which all considerations about NAF WC are typed. For sure, you will never cover all the situations, but you should (IMO) clarify important things to already have it clear when problems came.
In addition (and maybe I'm wrong) I have no doubt about the decission for Amsterdam was fair. Is such a good place, and they cover the requirements needed. But. I think that maybe NAF should make different polls in country forums to pulse estimated attendance to WC II. And also to ask for bids to present an "Action Plan" covering different problematic situations.
I think I'm not discovering anything new. Any starting bussiness or project application should have this kind of things.
My though about is, although all people involved (from NAF and WC organization) tried to do their best (and all we appreciatte that, me the first one) it is clear that reality overpassed expectations. That was an error and we should fixed it because I want to be in WCIII, not because I want to be in now.
I don't think I am smarter than no one. I just have some experience as organizer. When SkullCup started to grew up, I performed different considerations to be ready for the possible moment in which space was overpassed. Alternatives, methods of selection and so on.
The most important think is that I am not smarter than no one. So I supposed all those things were take into account. I just trusted in NAF, and somehow something was lost.
That's why I think NAF should start to work about in a more professional way, to avoid those type of problems. Also start to be more open to their members. Because not more about decissions was said. Still, we don't know who decided locations and why. This is not so important but, why this secretism? Is not a good policy at all IMO.
As I said before, from the very beginning. These were my two cents. I hope NAF could consider them. Some of them are very important to clarify that NAF is not a huge bulk of people who pay every year 8€ and forget about what a number of "elite" people is doing. If you want all members equal, people taking decisions should inferm all members:
- Firstable, in real-time communications (whithout need to ask for).
- About comitee membership and criteria to select them (objective criteria, things like "number of tournaments organized", "years playing BB", etc.)
- About money spending and treasury (I couldn't find it, sorry).
- ...
I can suggest some more, but just if someone is going to consider it nor just read and discard.
If we are members of an organization, which claims all are equal, we want information. We are not demanding decission power, just knowledge. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Dani112233 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2011 - 02:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 28, 2005
Spain
Posts: 6
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
i think that Pako is rigth.
this year, everybody knows that participation in WCII was underestimated... ok. let's try to improve things if we can, in order to get a WCIII better, when everybody who wants can play!!
i'm not saying that Pako is rigth in absolutely all that he said, but the principal idea of improve the election system, the way of estimate how many people want assist to the event, and, in rest, everything that could be better done... i think that only can give us profits!! so why can't we talk about improve the WC methods, or the NAF as global??
PD: sorry for my poor english  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Pako |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2011 - 06:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deathwing |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 25, 2011 - 11:50 AM
|
|
Former President
Joined: Feb 10, 2003
England
Posts: 1289
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
A point that juergen made is relevant. I believe many more people wanted to attend WCII because of both the location itself and the accessibility. I don't think that either of the other two bids would have drawn as many members.
Which is preferable? An event with 480 coaches and a small percentage unluckily missing out? Or an event with 350-400 where everybody who wants can attend? A location that's going to draw more international teams or a location that is liable to have a greater percentage of national teams?
I cannot understand the worth of 'pre-guaging' interest in attending a future WC before either location or cost is known. For all but the very hard-core who would pay 5000 to play on the moon, it's going to be the first and most important two facts to base a decision on. Where is the value on asking somebody whether they will attend the WC if you don't know where it is or what it costs? Any answer would be meaningless from all but the hard-core. The horse has to go before the cart.
Of course there's lessons to be taken from this WC, both now and doubtless after the event itself. It is obviously a learning process, we really are in unchartered waters again. Perhaps discussions are best left until after the event when emotions are less high and we can all be more rational.
Don't forget that Staff turnover is a huge factor in whatever plans are made for 2015, there will be Tournament Director elections in Spring of 2012 and 2014, Treasurer elections Feb 2012 and 2014 and Presidential elections autumn this year and 2013. A lot could happen between now and 2015. I would suggest that specific questions and points to be raised about the organisation of WCIII are probably best asked of the Presidential candidates running during the autumn 2013 election. Whoever holds Presidential office from autumn 2013 to autumn 2015 will bear the ultimate responsibility for WCIII. |
_________________
Ex-UK NTO,ex- Senior Tourney Co-Ordinator, ex-VP and ex-President....because Lycos says that new members don't know who I was..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Pako |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Feb 28, 2011 - 02:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 15, 2005
Spain
Posts: 471
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
|
|
Deathwing. You are absolutely right about is better to have a popular location for WC. Saying so, bids for WCII were receipt arround January 2010 (posted here). Decission was taken August 2010 (and many people demanded news about it a number of times).
I think was NAF fault to not decide the venue earlier. Reading the posts of "World Cup II?" thread someone can find a gap between Jan2010 and Aug2010. Eight months. I think decission should be taken arround march, giving Organization time to prospect attendance and to change venue if necessary. A'dam people done a great job improving WC in two months. But we could do it better if timing was enhanced.
I agree also that we are in a learning process. Unfortunately, I have no other job related to WC than think about 2015. This time I just trusted in NAF and they fail me (I guess no one can doubt it if I am out, even if finally all we can attend, this is not an optimal situation), so I don't want to ear just "well done!" comments. For sure, I decided to be more proactive for 2015 than 2011, because some things should clearly be improved.
If bidding process should end two years before WC, you have time to prospect (knowing final venue), time for improve, and also for change allocation if necessary.
One of my key points related to that is, even do NAF was doing things with their best ideas, more people than me felt that WCII process was too much unprofessional. Although very qualified people were taking decissions, seems that those decissions were taking most of times too late. We had no enough info and also it seems that bids did not present such accurate informs of the venue.
I think (and maybe I'm wrong, but no clues from NAF came) that all WCII process was made in a "very friendly" but not professional way. Talking about the biggest BB event, involving transcontinental travels and big amount of money, it seems we should take NAF WC in a more serious way.
Finally, I disagree with NAF staff point. I think NAF WC should be organized from the very beginning, not from the last 2 years before tournament date. By this way, you will have again a reduced timing to proper organize the tournament. I think NAF WC stuff should overpass elections and who is NAF prez or whatever. Because of that I think critical points should be adressed in an "official" document ready to be followed every NAF WC. Timing, requirements, etc very well defined in a "WC handbook". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
generaljason |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 14, 2011 - 07:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2009
British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 439
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Less than 48 left for the pre-reg deadline and 12 spots are still in black on the Registration page. I read some posts that half of these are already paid but not received yet or updated, so there might still be a chance for El Prat to play after all. Cross your fingers Pako - 78 teams, 468 coaches somebody is bound to bow out. Next few days will be interesting....
Hope to see you on the other side of the pitch in 8 months.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sann0638 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 15, 2011 - 08:41 AM
|
|
President
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
England
Posts: 1113
Location: England
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
