[MR] other kingdoms' solutions?

[Patrick O'Keefe]

I think there was also a 6th suggestion

2 locations, one northerish, one southerish.  Each tourney is always
at a fixed location (ex - spring in the south and fall in the north)
each year making it easier to negotiate with the site (guaranteed of
one each year at same time each year)

Bjorn

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Alan MacNeill <gormofberra at gmail.com> wrote:
> I *believe* these are the different proposals that have been floated
> around...in no particular order:
>
> 1.  Do Nothing, continue keeping the current bid model
> - Pros:  Status Quo, every group can bid and have an event locally
> - Cons:  Doesn't seem to be working well, Kingdom Bid Deputy ends up
> faced with impossible deadlines.  hard to get sites in some areas only
> 5-6 months out.
>
> 2.  Keep the current bid model, but change the window to 12-18 months out
> - Pros:  Eliminates short time pressures, theoretically opening more
> sites to possibility
> - Cons:  Crowns no longer get to pick the sites for their events,
> groups in periphery of Kingdom still face "You're too far" issues when
> they bid.
>
> 3.  One Central Location Site for all Crown Tournaments, no
> exceptions, hosting group varies around Kingdom
> - Pros:  Known site, cost, and facilities for CT's.  Central location
> means minimal number of folks have constant 8 hr+ drives.  Crowns/Bid
> Deputy no longer has to scramble for bids.  Probable site cost savings
> due to "volume purchasing"
> - Cons:  Groups not near the chosen site never have a CT "in their
> backyard", Increased diffficulty of coordination/feast food
> acquisitition for remote Autocrats/cooks.  Crowns no longer get to
> pick the sites for their events. stress on group near chosen site
> hosting majority of crowns for logistical support.
>
> 4.  One Central Location Site by default, other bids allowed
> - Pros:  Default site in place.  Remote groups can still bid if they
> have a suitable site.  Probable cost savings due to volume purchasing.
> - Cons:  Inertia will tend to favor "Central" site over remote group's
> site, all else being equal.  Loss of certainty of location of Crown
> until 5-6 months out.  5-6 month determination window may still
> disadvantage many sites.  Potential "cancellation" charge needs to be
> baked into remote site bids, disadvantaging them financially.  stress
> on group near chosen site hosting majority of crowns for logistical
> support.
>
> 5.  3 Set locations, rotated
> - Pros:  Keeps at least 1/3 CT's "near" each region, Certainty of site
> for Crowns over time.  Less stress on groups near the sites, as CT is
> only near thern every 18 months (+/-)
> - Cons:  Crowns no longer get to pick sites for their events,
> occasional "long drives" for extreme Northern/Southern Kingdom folks
> when Crown is at the other end.  Less probability of extremely
> favorable site terms due to less frequent rentals, groups not "near"
> any of the determined sites still don't have a crown in their
> backyard.  Uncertainty if suitable sites for this plan can be found in
> all three regions.
>
> I think those are the ideas being floated around....of them, really
> only #1 is unfeasible.
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Becky McEllistrem <bmcellis at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm getting confused by some of the ideas passed around as alternate possibilities.
> ========================================================================
>                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>  Submissions: Atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org
>