Reflections of Mt Buller: A realistic evaluation from An Organiser's point of view

[AES]

Hi all,

Let's compare apples with oranges.

Below i have provided my opinions on how the Mt Buller chess events were run as a direct comparison to Adelaide the previous year, which i have both been directly involved with. So let's look at what makes a good tournament and what makes a not-so-good tournament. This is just my humble opinion as a humble organiser.

INTERESTINGLY, both Mt Buller and Adelaide had the same time to prepare. So there are no excuses in regards to the amount of time.

Overall rating:
Mt Buller Australian Open [6/10] ("weaknesses exposed")
Mt Buller Junior [5/10] ("serious flaws")
Adelaide-Australian Championship [9 /10] ("a model tournament")

Criteria:

Location

Mt Buller: remote location, no shops around-shopping difficult, restaurants reasonable but limited, great views, bushwalking available. Limited activities for the kids. Make no mistake though-this was a great location as a ONCE OFF. It is a great location but only once you've got there. [7.5/10]

Adelaide: central location, heaps of restaurants and hotels, activites a-plenty. Always a winner. Having the venue at the University was great due to its location in the city and spacious grounds. The venue itself was exceptional. Ian Rogers described playing conditions as very good. [9/10]

Venue

Mt Buller: good [7/10] in the Abom Restaurant which was overall a good venue. It did have its problems like lighting and drips but there was a downstairs area for analysis which i liked and it was fairly spacious. No canteen was a problem.

Adelaide very good [8/10] 4th floor Adelaide Uni. Great venue because it was spacious and there were rooms next to the playing hall where people could talk, buy chess books, tvs, canteen etc.

Arbiting Team

Charles and Roly for both Mt Buller and Adelaide. A great team that has a lot of experience. Scott Colliver was great in Adelaide. Lee Forace and Shaun Press were impressive and professional in Buller. [9/10]

Organising Team

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] Poor at the top (where it's most important) with inexperience for both Garvin and George. For George, he is a friend of mine, a great people's person but doesn't do the hard yards instead he delegates duties which is fine. Garvin, what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in a keen desire for success. He did very well with setting up the live games. The Bulletin team was good with Andrew, myself and others doing the best they could however more help would have produced a much better result. It was also a problem that we had organisers from many different states. In Mt Buller, the organisers were PAID.

Adelaide: very strong. [9/10]. Andrew Saint, and Robin Wedding were the main organisers with help from George and myself and i thought we ran the tournament well. George was the Publicity Officer and he did a great job. In Adelaide, the organisers were NOT PAID.

Website

Mt Buller: good. [6/10] Fancy setup but hello, where is the information? Where were the pictures? Information was very poorly set out. We had to scroll through a huge word document

Adelaide: great [8/10] informative from the start. All information was provided and on time. There were photos and comments which was great to see.

Internet Coverage

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] It's a pity. While the live games were exceptional with 8 boards in total, thanks Karthick!, the lack of standings/crosstables was inexcusable. I think the blame lies faire and square with Karthick who was always sent the files. But that is just my opinon.

Adelaide: very good. [8/10] Only 4 games were put up live on the internet and it took a few rounds to get started. Standings and crosstables were always put up. The website was informative, reliable and complete.

Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament. Sure they stuck up 50k but they wanted 100k in return. Having the Chalet as a major sponsor was very difficult, it meant that certain organisers decided not to inform the chess public about other viable and more affordable options. In the end, who misses out? You-the chess public. Lidums of course wiht his 10k was great as always. They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event.

Adelaide: fantastic, no problems. [10/10] Lidums for his cash sponsorship and Adelaide University for hte free venue etc.

Bulletins

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] For the Open, they were great until the sponsors pulled the plug on handing out money for the bulletins. Bulletins had crosstables and standings, all games were entered. For juniors, I was in charge of the bulletins and at that stage we had to keep the number of pages down. THis meant standings and crosstables weren't put in which is understandably frustrating. If i had my time again, i would have added them anyway. For the Juniors and not the Open, there was not the proper infrastructure to ensure good bulletins ie computers in analysis room so ALL games could be added to the bulletins.

Adelaide: excellent [9/10] Everything a bulletin should be. They were informative, humorous at times, all games were included and the result was a great bulletin.

Numbers

Mt Buller Open: average [6/10] Only 70 odd players, but a strong middle group of players. Good at the top but where were the Aussie IMs?

Mt Buller Junior: excellent [9/10] 170 odd players which is a great result. But let's face it-juniors, and their parents!!!, will go wherever they have to go.

Adelaide Championship/Reserves: excellent [9/10] around 150 but i can't remember. A great number. The Championship was possibly the strongest ever.

Entry Fee/Prize Ratio

Mt Buller: excellent ratio [9/10]. But boy did it need to be.

Adelaide: average ratio [8/10]. A tad expensive.

Bottom Line

Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.

Adelaide: a repeatable process. Keep the tournaments in the capital cities where they belong. You get the home crowd, great location and people on the BB have nothing to talk about.

[Cat]

Hi all,

Let's compare apples with oranges.

Below i have provided my opinions on how the Mt Buller chess events were run as a direct comparison to Adelaide the previous year, which i have both been directly involved with. So let's look at what makes a good tournament and what makes a not-so-good tournament. This is just my humble opinion as a humble organiser.

INTERESTINGLY, both Mt Buller and Adelaide had the same time to prepare. So there are no excuses in regards to the amount of time.

Overall rating:
Mt Buller Australian Open [6/10] ("weaknesses exposed")
Mt Buller Junior [5/10] ("serious flaws")
Adelaide-Australian Championship [9 /10] ("a model tournament")

Criteria:

Location

Mt Buller: remote location, no shops around-shopping difficult, restaurants reasonable but limited, great views, bushwalking available. Limited activities for the kids. Make no mistake though-this was a great location as a ONCE OFF. [7.5/10]

Adelaide: central location, heaps of restaurants and hotels, activites a-plenty. Always a winner. Having the venue at the University was great due to its location in the city and spacious grounds. The venue itself was exceptional. Ian Rogers described playing conditions as very good. [9/10]

Venue

Mt Buller: good [7/10] in the Abom Restaurant which was overall a good venue. It did have its problems like lighting and drips but there was a downstairs area for analysis which i liked and it was fairly spacious. No canteen was a problem.

Adelaide very good [8/10] 4th floor Adelaide Uni. Great venue because it was spacious and there were rooms next to the playing hall where people could talk, buy chess books, tvs, canteen etc.

Arbiting Team

Charles and Roly for both Mt Buller and Adelaide. A great team that has a lot of experience. Scott Colliver was great in Adelaide. Lee Forace and Shaun Press were impressive and professional in Buller. [9/10]

Organising Team

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] Poor at the top (where it's most important) with inexperience for both Garvin and George. For George, he is a friend of mine, a great people's person but doesn't do the hard yards instead he delegates duties which is fine. Garvin, what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in a keen desire for success. He did very well with setting up the live games. The Bulletin team was good with Andrew, myself and others doing the best they could however more help would have produced a much better result. It was also a problem that we had organisers from many different states. In Mt Buller, the organisers were PAID.

Adelaide: very strong. [9/10]. Andrew Saint, and Robin Wedding were the main organisers with help from George and myself and i thought we ran the tournament well. George was the Publicity Officer and he did a great job. In Adelaide, the organisers were NOT PAID.

Website

Mt Buller: good. [6/10] Fancy setup but hello, where is the information? Where were the pictures? Information was very poorly set out. We had to scroll through a huge word document

Adelaide: great [8/10] informative from the start. All information was provided and on time. There were photos and comments which was great to see.

Internet Coverage

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] It's a pity. While the live games were exceptional with 8 boards in total, thanks Karthick!, the lack of standings/crosstables was inexcusable. I think the blame lies faire and square with Karthick who was always sent the files. But that is just my opinon.

Adelaide: very good. [8/10] Only 4 games were put up live on the internet and it took a few rounds to get started. Standings and crosstables were always put up. The website was informative, reliable and complete.

Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament. Sure they stuck up 50k but they wanted 100k in return. Having the Chalet as a major sponsor was very difficult, it meant that certain organisers decided not to inform the chess public about other viable and more affordable options. In the end, who misses out? You-the chess public. Lidums of course wiht his 10k was great as always. They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event.

Adelaide: fantastic, no problems. [10/10] Lidums for his cash sponsorship and Adelaide University for hte free venue etc.

Bulletins

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] For the Open, they were great until the sponsors pulled the plug on handing out money for the bulletins. Bulletins had crosstables and standings, all games were entered. For juniors, I was in charge of the bulletins and at that stage we had to keep the number of pages down. THis meant standings and crosstables weren't put in which is understandably frustrating. If i had my time again, i would have added them anyway. For the Juniors and not the Open, there was not the proper infrastructure to ensure good bulletins ie computers in analysis room so ALL games could be added to the bulletins.

Adelaide: excellent [9/10] Everything a bulletin should be. They were informative, humorous at times, all games were included and the result was a great bulletin.

Numbers

Mt Buller Open: average [6/10] Only 70 odd players, but a strong middle group of players. Good at the top but where were the Aussie IMs?

Mt Buller Junior: excellent [9/10] 170 odd players which is a great result. But let's face it-juniors, and their parents!!!, will go wherever they have to go.

Adelaide Championship/Reserves: excellent [9/10] around 150 but i can't remember. A great number. The Championship was possibly the strongest ever.

Bottom Line

Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.

Adelaide: a repeatable process. Keep the tournaments in the capital cities where they belong. You get the home crowd, great location and people on the BB have nothing to talk about.

Great candour! For what it's worth the feedback I've had from the Queensland contigent so far has been positive. Good job in difficult circumstances, why didn't you post like this when a little pr was needed?

[Garvinator]

Since you have led first Alex, i will reply to your post as my analysis is very different to yours and is still a day away.

INTERESTINGLY, both Mt Buller and Adelaide had the same time to prepare. So there are no excuses in regards to the amount of time.

I disagree with this. Even though technically both bids had the same amount of time, I am sure the Adelaide bid has some background work done on it before putting it to the acf council. I am certain it was more than 9 days like Mt Buller did.

Also, Adelaide didnt have the Cordover hang over like Mt Buller did. This was a major negative which hindered all aspects of running mt buller, especially in the early stages. I was fielding phone calls and having to explain that David was no longer running the mt buller events, long after the organising team had changed.
Given a year or so to set up for mt buller and with some members of the organising team still around in two years, the mt buller events would have been much better organised and the events themselves would be even better.

Venue

Mt Buller: good [7/10] in the Abom Restaurant which was overall a good venue. It did have its problems like lighting and drips but there was a downstairs area for analysis which i liked and it was fairly spacious. No canteen was a problem.

There could have been a canteen quite easily as there was a ready made area for it. It was George's decision alone to not have a canteen and when the main organiser says it, that is how it is.
This was just one instance of George making a unilateral decision which was at odds to the needs of the players, spectators etc and also the opinions of the other organisers.

Organising Team

Mt Buller: average. [5/10] Poor at the top (where it's most important) with inexperience for both Garvin and George. For George, he is a friend of mine, a great people's person but doesn't do the hard yards instead he delegates duties which is fine.

I dont recall much delegation at all. We either had to fend for ourselves or leave everything to George. I was very afraid to give anyone a straight answer in case George didnt like the answer I gave ie Michael Lip being a perfect example.

The Bulletin team was good with Andrew, myself and others doing the best they could however more help would have produced a much better result.

George could have asked as main organiser, but he didnt. No matter how many complaints were received about the bulletins, George did nothing about them. It was like he didnt care how much you and I had to slave during the juniors to get games done for the bulletins. A simple request from him for ppl to help and we would have had help.

We actually managed to get some help without George's assistance and what happened, he abused the helpers. That was disgusting and made me ashamed to be second in charge.

Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament.

I think your rating is too generous. I think a hotel can sponsor a chess tournament, but these guys didnt have a clue this time. I was told by George early on that the chalet had told him that all accommodation enquiries were to be handled by the chalet/lodges etc. They didnt have the bar area open that would have been perfect for most ppls food and drink needs. This was pointed out to them and it still didnt change.

They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event.

Alex, you were involved in the bulletins during the open and also know Lidums more than I do. George was main organiser. Why didnt someone ask him to help sponsor the bulletins so we could have decent bulletins?
I did express an opinion early on that I didnt think one sponsor should bail out another, but after speaking to everyone else, I thought it a better idea than what we ended up with.

Numbers

Mt Buller Open: average [6/10] Only 70 odd players, but a strong middle group of players. Good at the top but where were the Aussie IMs?

This has been flogged to death. I am sure the horse is well and truly been turned into glue before now.

George made a decision after receiving advice from Ian Rogers and others that offering prizes down to tenth would attract the IM's.
This proved to be incorrect. By the time this was realised, all the brochures had been sent out and nothing could be really done to change the prize structure.
George told me about how the prize structure was set out many times. If it is incorrect, then my apologies to all and sundry. I am just repeating what George kept saying to me over and over again regarding how the prize list for the open was structured.

Alex, you were more involved early on regarding title player negotiations than I was. What happened early on?

Bottom Line

Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.

I disagree about the repeatability. Every one is a lot smarter about the process. If we return, things need to be signed in triplicate and a signature must be gained from someone in more of a position of authority than Roman. Preferably from someone who is handing out the money.


Alex, I notice in your evaluation that you dont say a single bad word about the Adelaide Championships. No event is perfect and each event can be improved on next time. I am sure there were negatives about how the Adelaide events were run, but you dont mention them in detail, or with the same negative language that you used for Mt Buller problems.

Unfortunately, this gives a massive indication of bias towards the Adelaide events.

[Ian_Rogers]

I wish Garvin wouldn't keep repeating the myth that the prize fund used for the Open was the one I recommended - the only similarity was that I suggested that, if half a dozen GMs were to be present as planned, prizes should run down at least to tenth.

As I have posted before, the prize fund used was George's construction. When he put his model to me I suggested significant changes (reducing first prize and increasing the lower prizes, running prizes down to 12th) which were rejected. Fair enough - but George should take responsibility if he now thinks the prize structure was not ideal.

Ian

[shaun]

Hi all,

Let's compare apples with oranges.

Below i have provided my opinions on how the Mt Buller chess events were run as a direct comparison to Adelaide the previous year, which i have both been directly involved with. So let's look at what makes a good tournament and what makes a not-so-good tournament. This is just my humble opinion as a humble organiser.

<snip>

Mt Buller: this is an unrepeatable process. It was ok as a once off to be on top of a mountain playing chess-it kind of rolls off the tongue, but please don't ever do it again.

Adelaide: a repeatable process. Keep the tournaments in the capital cities where they belong. You get the home crowd, great location and people on the BB have nothing to talk about.

An excellent and honest summation.

[pax]

Sponsors

Mt Buller: very, very, very, very poor. [3/10] Sure they were generous but they wanted too much in return. I am giving this such a bad rating because this is the bottom line: a 5 star hotel can't sponsor a chess tournament. Sure they stuck up 50k but they wanted 100k in return. Having the Chalet as a major sponsor was very difficult, it meant that certain organisers decided not to inform the chess public about other viable and more affordable options. In the end, who misses out? You-the chess public. Lidums of course wiht his 10k was great as always. They pulled out on printing bulletins half way through the event.

This is a little ambiguous: Mercure pulled out of bulletin printing, not Lidums.

[Libby]

I disagree about the repeatability. Every one is a lot smarter about the process. If we return, things need to be signed in triplicate and a signature must be gained from someone in more of a position of authority than Roman. Preferably from someone who is handing out the money.

OK Garvin - of course it's not unrepeatable. The ACT kids have mostly come home happy. I have heard it was a little boring up there, but kids can - and did - make their own fun.

The question is more about the advantages of repeating it.

Leave aside the issues of who said what, who picked on who and who just didn't have a clue. You need to sell me the advantages of the Mt Buller deal above and beyond what is routinely on offer if we go elsewhere.

For all the money available this time - cash & kind - tell me, what did it actually mean for the children at the event?

The lower entry fee story was a furphy. Extra prizemoney is not (much as kids like winning it) integral to junior events. Extra big trophies are not essential, especially not if it means fewer are awarded than normal. The $4000 removed from prizemoney and set aside for junior development is nice, and appreciated, but not enough to fund significant programs. The Italian coaches were nice for the kids who stayed at the Mercure but "extras" like a welcome BBQ in Adelaide and a Zoo BBQ in Perth were put on for everybody and that's, personally, the only sort of sponsorship, activity or enhancement I would value and support from any organiser of any junior event.

And yes, the Mercure might offer lodges next time (small entry fee for players) and free entry if you stay at the Mercure and $250 entry fee if you choose your own accommodation etc. And yes, I hope, people will have learnt from this experience so it will run better on the ground next time.

And yes, I might not like going to Woomera if SACA run it there, or Broome if WACA run it there or Mt Isa, or Broken Hill or Thredbo even, but I would go - once - if that is where the Juniors are held. Just like my daughter went to Mt Buller. Do I want to go twice? Maybe. But I'd prefer to go somewhere different and somewhere a bit easier to get to. In the case of Mt Buller, I'd prefer somewhere with more facilities.

Kayleigh came home very sick and has been in bed for the last 3 days. This started in Mt Buller last Wednesday. Fortunately, it didn't start to peak until the Friday night and she was coming home Saturday. Sunday night I had to take her to the hospital after hours clinic. After that, I had 2 prescription and 1 over-the-counter medication to get at the after hours chemist several suburbs away.

How do I deal with that in Mt Buller?

Convince me there are significant, ongoing benefits to Australian chess - at both the senior and junior level - and I'll agree it's worth repeating. Otherwise, just let us take our turn travelling around the country to these events at major centres (it doesn't have to be a capital city but gee - transport and a shop are a big plus!)

Alex, I notice in your evaluation that you dont say a single bad word about the Adelaide Championships. No event is perfect and each event can be improved on next time. I am sure there were negatives about how the Adelaide events were run, but you dont mention them in detail, or with the same negative language that you used for Mt Buller problems.

I don't think he had to Garvin. Any major issues would probably have been complained about long before now. Alex expressed himself honestly on some smaller issues they had, and how they were tackled. I don't think he gave himself too many 10/10.

[jenni]

There could have been a canteen quite easily as there was a ready made area for it. It was George's decision alone to not have a canteen and when the main organiser says it, that is how it is.
This was just one instance of George making a unilateral decision which was at odds to the needs of the players, spectators etc and also the opinions of the other organisers.

Ah - I wondered what happened. When I was up for the schools I sat down with Peter (Mercure general manager) and went through the issue of a canteen for the juniors. He was quite happy to run a small canteen with basic hot food (pies, sausage rolls, etc). I just assumed he had changed his mind - I should have known George had a paw in it.

[Garvinator]

I wish Garvin wouldn't keep repeating the myth that the prize fund used for the Open was the one I recommended - the only similarity was that I suggested that, if half a dozen GMs were to be present as planned, prizes should run down at least to tenth.

As I have posted before, the prize fund used was George's construction. When he put his model to me I suggested significant changes (reducing first prize and increasing the lower prizes, running prizes down to 12th) which were rejected. Fair enough - but George should take responsibility if he now thinks the prize structure was not ideal.

Ian

thank you for the clarification Ian. We havent actually spoken about this matter in person. The only way I know that the prize fund was constructed was from what George kept saying and which is what I have repeated here. I will stop now that your position has been clarified.

Libby Ill get to your long reply in a couple of hours

[jenni]

I think the juniors could go back to Mt Buller again. It was OK - there were problems that could be fixed fairly easily with a co-operative main organiser.

The problems did get very annoying - I've just had an e-mail from Ian Rogers (who caught up with Manuel Weeks in Gibraltar), asking if it was true I was swearing like a trucker in Mt Buller and the answer is YES.

George's first response to anything was to say "no". His second response was "Hell will freeze over before I change my mind." His third response was to say "Parents can get stuffed.". It was enough to drive a saint to swear and I am no saint.

With someone else in charge, I think we could get a good juniors going. However I would want to see more tangible benefits for chess in australia. A proper development plan with long term benefits, not just bringing some big names out every couple of years. The juniors are giving up development opportunities. Having a local Aus juniors is a big plus for the states. It gives the local juniors a chance to play without having to pay for transport and accommodation. This can lead to many new juniors moving into the elite ranks. A good example is Ronald Yu - his first Aus Juniors was the one held in Sydney in 2002 - he had never travelled prior to that. Since then he has gone from strength to strength.

It also gives local administrators the chance to be involved in running a national event, it allows media opportunites and to publicise chess in the local environment. All this will now happen once every 12 years, instead of once every 6 years. If we are going to give up a major development tool, we need to be convinced of the benefits of the new strategy and to be quite honest I don't see them at the moment.

However the focus really needs to be on the Open. Juniors will go to all sorts of places and put up with major inconveniece (or at least the parents will - I am not convinced the juniors even notice). But will the adults? A lot has been said about the Open being small, because it was advertised late etc etc. We were in Mt Buller for the end of the Open and talked to a number of participants (particularly Tony who was partying until very late ). Everyone seemed to be saying they wouldn't come back, because it was boring. Do we really want to have an Open of 70 or less in the future? I just don't see how you are going to get the numbers.

[Oepty]

Garvin. Yes there were things that went wrong in Adelaide. Things such as the best time to do maintinence at a University is during the time it is largely empty. This lead to a workman using a drill right out side the venue disrupting players. This was dealt with and the workmen agreed to do the work outside of playing times. This is something a good organiser can do.
There was a problem with printing the Bulletins on one day but that was quickly dealt with and the bulletins were produced that day, even though a little late.
There were a few other things I could mention, of similar size, but players are prepared to overlook the odd thing going wrong if it is obvious the organisers are going out of there way to do everything right and are prepared to work very hard to meet there needs. This is what happened in Adelaide with Andrew Saint, Alex Saint and Robin Wedding being always available to get things done that needed to be done. They were also helped by the consistent availability of Tristom Cooke and Valerie Moore to enter games for the Bulletins.
Bill Anderson-Smith was the fourth member of the arbiting team and handled the Senior Championships throughout the tournaments without hitch. He was a far, far more important member of the arbiting team than I was and this was only another example of the consistent excellent work he does for chess in SA.
George played a vital role in what happened in Adelaide, but it was in a different role than the role he had to undertake in Mt Buller.

Thankyou Alex for your excellent post.
Scott

[firegoat7]

I disagree about the repeatability. Every one is a lot smarter about the process. If we return, things need to be signed in triplicate and a signature must be gained from someone in more of a position of authority than Roman. Preferably from someone who is handing out the money.

Well George resigned so the next one will be different. What probably is important GG is to document all your concerns and to archive them for the ACF. You gave it a go which is always a good thing. Stand back and look at what you achieved, make it better next time.

Whether you got paid or not is irrelevent, since ideally it would be great if the ACF could pay organisers appropriate manager fees in return for professional organisation. It is a double edged arguement however. Maybe the structure of payement needs to be debated. It seems silly not to reward the efforts of volunteering contributors by at least offering them some sort of grant for funding. For example, Adelaide uni puts on the Aus champs, how about the ACF forking out the cost for two sponsored display boards in recognition of their collective work. Reciprocal benefits ought to work for volunteers and professionals.

Furthermore I thought Adelaides internet coverage was poor. I gave it a 4/10. In fact I am yet to see an Australian event where the Internet coverage was not flawed. This may be a problem the ACF might want to address. A dynamic archive for Internet coverage would be an extremely useful resource for all organisers.

In hindsight maybe Cordovers actions were actually reasonably legitimate. I'm sure George must have been caught in a double bind as to wanting to talk up the event, while secretly hiding some serious misgivings about the organisation structure. Still there is the old saying "fools ruch in where Angels fear to tread"

Only it is not actually clear who the actual fools are....is it? Maybe the bidding process is actually the legitimate problem, with everything else being smoke and mirrors.

I still think the ACF made the right decision by running the event themselves. It just goes to show everyone how difficult it really is to run an event dosen't it.

Cheers FG7

[jenni]

Well George resigned so the next one will be different.

George was telling all the junior parents that it was definitely back in Mt Buller in 2007 and that he would be running it......

[shaun]

George was telling all the junior parents that it was definitely back in Mt Buller in 2007 and that he would be running it......

And George and Garvin were trying to convince Roman to sponsor the Aus Champs in Brisbane in 2006. I had assumed that this meant they were working together on this as well.

[jenni]

And George and Garvin were trying to convince Roman to sponsor the Aus Champs in Brisbane in 2006. I had assumed that this meant they were working together on this as well.

Graeme Gardiner is involved in Brisbane 2006 - with or without sponsorship from Accor.