31-01-2012, 08:11 AM
On a personal note I have considerable experience of waiving arbiter expenses in order to help the TD balance the books.
Balancing some books is a numbers game.
Running a top section which excludes half of last year's entry is the decision taken. It is unfair on those 4 players. But I'd consider it to have a near neutral effect upon the other 58 Scottish players above 2050 who declined to pay last year.
The grading cap should make the event more attractive for some players from amongst these
112 players in the 1600's
100 players in the 1700's
76 players in the 1800's
and generate mixed views from the 62 players players between 1900 and 2050
The assumption made (I understand) is that more than 8 players from those 350 will enter.
Which is 2.3% of the target audience .... seems a reasonable assumption to me.
Balancing some books is a numbers game.
Running a top section which excludes half of last year's entry is the decision taken. It is unfair on those 4 players. But I'd consider it to have a near neutral effect upon the other 58 Scottish players above 2050 who declined to pay last year.
The grading cap should make the event more attractive for some players from amongst these
112 players in the 1600's
100 players in the 1700's
76 players in the 1800's
and generate mixed views from the 62 players players between 1900 and 2050
The assumption made (I understand) is that more than 8 players from those 350 will enter.
Which is 2.3% of the target audience .... seems a reasonable assumption to me.