>Should we start exploring the use of more remote locations to limit
>our attendance?
no!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ochi <jochi@ricochet.net>
> At 03:00 PM 12/18/2000 -0500, John Kelly wrote:
>
> > While you may prefer the present Marina site* over other sites,
the
> >goal is scheduling events as close to the Bay Area as possible, to
provide
> >as many events as possible to our members in a convenient location. By
> >having events inside the Bay Area, more people get interested in the game
> >and, eventually, some of them seek other venues.
> > Without us keeping events inside the Bay Area, the sport
shrinks.
> > With fewer people attending events, several things happen:
> > 1) we don't clear as much money to buy equipment,
trophies,
> >etc.; (which is why we raised the entry fee beginning in 1999); and
> > 2) the clubs in outlying areas also lose attendance
because
> >their base comes from the Bay Area population center. Catch 22.
>
> I have a question regarding this. At the steering committee meetings that
> I've attended, one of the main concerns that we've been dealing with is
> that we have too many participants at our events. Thus, the decisions to
> limit attendance by making the SFR events members only, and then to only
> allow card-carrying members. Yet, it appears that the goal of event
> scheduling is to provide many events inside of the Bay Area, so that we
can
> attract more and more participants. Are we working at cross-purposes
> here? Should we start exploring the use of more remote locations to limit
> our attendance?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
|