c4countdown

Posted: **Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:03 pm**

Updated standings after what was apparently the joint-most attended event of the year but I didn't realise because I forgot Ned Pendleton signed up on the day FFS Ned Pendleton sort it out...

Posted: **Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:05 pm**

UPDATED STANDINGS AFTER DUBLIN!

3 events left before the finals... will you make it?

Sign up for 2016's final qualifying events, HUDDERSFIELD (8th October) and GLASGOW/GLASGOWONTHEN (12th & 13th November), before the final event on 3rd December - BIRMINGHAM, or THE FOCAL FINALS!

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:14 am**

UPDATED STANDINGS following our third-best attended event of the year!

Just three more events before the end of the year... sign up or miss out!

Saturday 12th/Sunday 13th November: COGLASGOW & COGLASGOWONTHEN
Saturday 3rd December: COBIRMINGHAM

Our 2017 calendar is now up on the website too - check it out!

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:07 pm**

Jennifer Steadman wrote:UPDATED STANDINGS following our third-best attended event of the year!

Just three more events before the end of the year... sign up or miss out!

Saturday 12th/Sunday 13th November: COGLASGOW & COGLASGOWONTHEN
Saturday 3rd December: COBIRMINGHAM

Our 2017 calendar is now up on the website too - check it out!

Nice work. By the way, would it be possible to have a list of results for each event? I know you can work it out from the points scored in the table, but it would also be nice to be able to see quickly who finished in which position for a specific event.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:39 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Jennifer Steadman wrote:UPDATED STANDINGS following our third-best attended event of the year!

Just three more events before the end of the year... sign up or miss out!

Saturday 12th/Sunday 13th November: COGLASGOW & COGLASGOWONTHEN
Saturday 3rd December: COBIRMINGHAM

Our 2017 calendar is now up on the website too - check it out!
Nice work. By the way, would it be possible to have a list of results for each event? I know you can work it out from the points scored in the table, but it would also be nice to be able to see quickly who finished in which position for a specific event.

ATM I don't have time to knock together something with scores/wins (IMO individual organisers should be putting those details out there, so you should really speak to them about it rather than me). But I'll C&P over the final standings for each event onto the Google Drive doc with this year's scores on it.

Going to make a push after my exams to make this side of the website much better for next year (including the overall standings, because the current method is ridiculously time-consuming), but it's simply not possible at the moment.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:29 pm**

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Nice work. By the way, would it be possible to have a list of results for each event? I know you can work it out from the points scored in the table, but it would also be nice to be able to see quickly who finished in which position for a specific event.

ATM I don't have time to knock together something with scores/wins (IMO individual organisers should be putting those details out there, so you should really speak to them about it rather than me). But I'll C&P over the final standings for each event onto the Google Drive doc with this year's scores on it.

Going to make a push after my exams to make this side of the website much better for next year (including the overall standings, because the current method is ridiculously time-consuming), but it's simply not possible at the moment.[/quote]
Cool. But just to clarify (in case you misunderstood), I just meant the outright finishing positions for each event rather than number of wins or point scored over the day. So for Huddersfield, it would just be a table with 1. Jack Worsley, 2. Stephen Read etc.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:32 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Nice work. By the way, would it be possible to have a list of results for each event? I know you can work it out from the points scored in the table, but it would also be nice to be able to see quickly who finished in which position for a specific event.
ATM I don't have time to knock together something with scores/wins (IMO individual organisers should be putting those details out there, so you should really speak to them about it rather than me). But I'll C&P over the final standings for each event onto the Google Drive doc with this year's scores on it.

Going to make a push after my exams to make this side of the website much better for next year (including the overall standings, because the current method is ridiculously time-consuming), but it's simply not possible at the moment.
Cool. But just to clarify (in case you misunderstood), I just meant the outright finishing positions for each event rather than number of wins or point scored over the day. So for Huddersfield, it would just be a table with 1. Jack Worsley, 2. Stephen Read etc.

OK, cool, that's what I was going to do anyway.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:43 pm**

By the way, just out of interest I thought I'd compare the current top 8 with what the top 8 would be under my percentile-based system. Someone's score for an event would be 100-(position/(players+1))*100. The official current top 8 is:

1. Jack Worsley - 486
2. Tom Carey - 401
3. Zarte Siempre - 398
4. Jen Steadman - 388
5. James Robinson - 338
6. Eddy Byrne - 335
7. Giles Hutchings - 314
8. Callum Todd - 306

And under my system (scores rounded to the nearest integer):

1. Jack Worsley - 666
2. Zarte Siempre - 506
3. James Robinson - 501
4. Jen Steadman - 501
5. Tom Carey - 453
6. Tom Cappleman - 416
7. Callum Todd - 409
8. Eddy Byrne - 365

Assuming I've done it right, my top 8 has Tom Cappleman instead of Giles Hutchings, but the rest are the same people, although the order is a bit swapped. Tom Cappleman is 9th in the official list (284 points) and Giles Hutchings is 11th in mine (327 points).

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:55 pm**

Done.

(Red/bold means first event; orange/bold means first event and former event winner; yellow means former event winner.)

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm**

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Done.

(Red/bold means first event; orange/bold means first event and former event winner; yellow means former event winner.)

Excellent.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:45 am**

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Done.

(Red/bold means first event; orange/bold means first event and former event winner; yellow means former event winner.)

Is former event winner filled in retroactively? Otherwise, having won an event before your first event would be impressive, and I should only be yellow from St Albans onwards.

Also, Gevin's calculations show that the Focal points are clearly an outrage, and we should switch to Gevin's system immediately.

Alternatively, they show that switching would make basically no difference.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:09 am**

Thomas Cappleman wrote:
Jennifer Steadman wrote:Done.

(Red/bold means first event; orange/bold means first event and former event winner; yellow means former event winner.)
Is former event winner filled in retroactively? Otherwise, having won an event before your first event would be impressive, and I should only be yellow from St Albans onwards.

Also, Gevin's calculations show that the Focal points are clearly an outrage, and we should switch to Gevin's system immediately.

Alternatively, they show that switching would make basically no difference.

Yes, it is. It's been copied from another spreadsheet I have where I was interested to see which event had the most past/future event winners at. Also got a running total of # of past/future series winners on that document. I need better hobbies.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:19 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:By the way, just out of interest I thought I'd compare the current top 8 with what the top 8 would be under my percentile-based system. Someone's score for an event would be 1-(position/(players+1))*100. The official current top 8 is:

1. Jack Worsley - 486
2. Tom Carey - 401
3. Zarte Siempre - 398
4. Jen Steadman - 388
5. James Robinson - 338
6. Eddy Byrne - 335
7. Giles Hutchings - 314
8. Callum Todd - 306

And under my system (scores rounded to the nearest integer):

1. Jack Worsley - 666
2. Zarte Siempre - 506
3. James Robinson - 501
4. Jen Steadman - 501
5. Tom Carey - 453
6. Tom Cappleman - 416
7. Callum Todd - 409
8. Eddy Byrne - 365

Assuming I've done it right, my top 8 has Tom Cappleman instead of Giles Hutchings, but the rest are the same people, although the order is a bit swapped. Tom Cappleman is 9th in the official list (284 points) and Giles Hutchings is 11th in mine (327 points).

I thought I'd give this a go under my 100 points for a win scoring system. Someone's score for an event is (1-(position-1)/players))*100 and my rankings look like this:-

1. Jack Worsley - 686
2. Zarte Siempre - 622
3. Tom Carey - 560
4. James Robinson - 520
5. Jen Steadman - 514
6. Callum Todd - 495
7. Eddy Byrne - 458
8. Rob Foster - 437

Giles is 9th, Graeme 10th, Tom Cappleman 11th with points available for a shake-up after Glasgow. Only Rob is different to Giles/Tom Cappleman under my system although once again, places are swapped round.

PS - I've corrected Gev's formula for him.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:57 pm**

Chris Marshall wrote:PS - I've corrected Gev's formula for him.

No, it's messed up now! You can do the 1- thing instead of 100- but you have to sort the brackets out.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:15 pm**

Chris Marshall wrote:I thought I'd give this a go under my 100 points for a win scoring system. Someone's score for an event is (1-(position-1)/players))*100 and my rankings look like this:-

1. Jack Worsley - 686
2. Zarte Siempre - 622
3. Tom Carey - 560
4. James Robinson - 520
5. Jen Steadman - 514
6. Callum Todd - 495
7. Eddy Byrne - 458
8. Rob Foster - 437

Giles is 9th, Graeme 10th, Tom Cappleman 11th with points available for a shake-up after Glasgow. Only Rob is different to Giles/Tom Cappleman under my system although once again, places are swapped round.

PS - I've corrected Gev's formula for him.

When I looked at our massively different scores, I knew someone must have gone wrong, and I checked mine and found that I hadn't added the St. Albans totals on! Also, I gave Tom Cappleman Tom Carey's Huddersfield score! So here's the real top 8:

1. Jack Worsley - 666
2. Zarte Siempre - 602
3. Tom Carey - 543
4. James Robinson - 501
5. Jen Steadman - 501
6. Callum Todd - 477
7. Eddy Byrne - 447
8. Rob Foster - 421

So ours is basically the same now, except that my formula is obviously better than yours.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:55 am**

FINAL STANDINGS FOR THE YEAR, albeit in a more readable and less static format than previously! Find out who the 8 finalists for the year are, see the final standings for each event, and maybe other stuff if I can think of any (and have time to do it).

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:56 am**

That Gev and Chris have applied alternative scoring systems and come up with different results from the official FOCAL results is, of course, not an outrage. But it does highlight the arbitariness of applying any given scoring system and, to me, weakens the case for FOCAL taking money in order to reward its top 8.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:12 pm**

Not quite sure I follow the logic on that one - sorry.

If it's accepted that all scoring systems are arbitrary, then that kind of suggests that anything, be it sports... politics... this etc. should have no rewards applied to it on the basis that if you scored it as 2 points for a win and 5 for a draw the results might be different?

If you're unhappy with how things are done, then you're very welcome to air those grievances (as you have done, on more than one occasion), but I would think it would be better to just state that you feel it a matter of principle, rather than implying that there is an issue with the general idea of people being rewarded for things based on scoring systems that someone at some time has had to invent

It will definitely be a feature of 2017. Beyond that, we'll see what happens - but your comments as usual, are noted and appreciated.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 4:52 pm**

If I want to air grievances, I don't need permission to do so or advice on how to do it. My logic is that the more arbitrary FOCAL becomes, the less I feel it has a right to take money from Co event attendees. But i doubt anyone but me will care so what's the point arguing.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:45 pm**

what's the point arguing.

I don't know, but you keep setting up new accounts to do it.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:49 pm**

I don't really see how this is different from the top 3 at Colin getting free entry into the next one. It's a nice reward, but I wouldn't be too bothered if nobody got it. But yeah, even though this scoring system may not be the best one (I personally prefer Gevin's, even though it puts me lower and takes Giles out the top 8), it's the one focal has been using since the start and it was clear that it would be the top 8 under that scoring system that get into the final, so I think that's fair enough

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:06 pm**

Also:

Zarte Siempre wrote:
If it's accepted that all scoring systems are arbitrary, then that kind of suggests that anything, be it sports... politics... this etc. should have no rewards applied to it on the basis that if you scored it as 2 points for a win and 5 for a draw the results might be different?

Code: Select all

1	Leicester City (C)	106
2	Tottenham Hotspur	103
3	West Ham United	102
4	Arsenal	95
5	Chelsea	94
6	Liverpool	92
7	Everton	92
8	West Bromwich Albion	85
9	Manchester City	83
10	Manchester United	83
11	Southampton	81
12	Swansea City	79
13	Sunderland	78
14	Stoke City	73
15	Watford	69
16	Newcastle United (R)	68
17	Crystal Palace	67
18	AFC Bournemouth	67
19	Norwich City (R)	53
20	Aston Villa (R)	46

That changed a lot less than I expected.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:39 pm**

Thomas Carey wrote:I don't really see how this is different from the top 3 at Colin getting free entry into the next one. It's a nice reward, but I wouldn't be too bothered if nobody got it.But yeah, even though this scoring system may not be the best one (I personally prefer Gevin's, even though it puts me lower and takes Giles out the top 8), it's the one focal has been using since the start and it was clear that it would be the top 8 under that scoring system that get into the final, so I think that's fair enough

Hear hear!!!!!!!!

http://giphy.com/gifs/primark-d2Z9MFIWUSCUiGDS

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:08 pm**

Mark Deeks, I came off the forum temporarily of my own accord and then asked to be reinstated, and I was. I do not have multiple acounts. I asked you before if you were interested in hearing my side of the story. You made plain that you weren't. So I have no reason to listen to you.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:11 pm**

I told you I wasn't interested in hearing ANY side of the story, you martyr.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:14 pm**

You know there's a story which surely means you must have heard the other side? Either way you didn't want to hear my side so I'm not interested in what you have to say.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:17 pm**

Doesn't mean I asked for it nor wanted to hear it. I say to you now the same thing I said you six weeks ago, back when you started a public rift then begged for private acquiescence, back when you didn't get the answer you wanted and decided we were no longer friends - in fact, I'll even use the same words. "Stop raking it over. It's making everything awkward."

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:57 pm**

Don't tell me what I can and can't talk about. If you don't want to get involved, don't. I didn't decide we were no longer friends; I figured it out from the unpleasant way you were talking to me.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:01 pm**

I didn't tell you what you can and can't do, you martyr. I am strongly encouraging you to let it go. Indeed, I say to you now the same thing I said you six weeks ago, same words etc: "Whatever happened happened. You did some shit, they did some shit, whatever. It's done. Walk it off."

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:22 pm**

I found what you said hurtful at the time and I find it hurtful now. I don't mind what you call me.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:26 pm**

As you wish. I am the same well-intended straight-talker whose counsel you have sought at the last two Co:Lins, and how you feel about that is up to you. But I remain hopeful that one day you will step back and see that I, and perhaps many others, are not trying to hurt you. They are trying to get you to drop this campaign.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:32 pm**

Guys, this doesn't look like a very productive conversation, and I don't think either party is really helping matters.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:56 pm**

Mark is just saying what he thinks. He's not wrong. Once again I am sorry for the hurt I've caused, I am not in a good place at the moment but that's no excuse.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:20 pm**

Mark's clearly an awesome guy, but clearly it's COLIN, not Co:Lin. That's what I was referring to.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:20 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:Mark's clearly an awesome guy, but clearly it's COLIN, not Co:Lin. That's what I was referring to.

Hear hear. This argument can now continue in private, which is where it should have taken place in the first place.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:43 pm**

Colin because COLIN.

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:09 pm**

The accounts have now been published for FOCAL 2016 in the Organisers & Attendees section on Facebook. They show a surplus of £120. Please feel free to have a look and PM me if you want your own copy (not gold-plated i'm afraid) or can't get on Facebook.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:03 am**

Thanks Chris. From what I already knew, I thought the surplus would be about that amount, so thank you for confirming it. It would be nice to think that this surplus would be enough to negate the need for further fundraising in 2017 (other than via the £1 per person per event levy). If attendance figures are similar in 2017 as they were in 2015 and 2016, the levy brings in about £350. Added to the £120, that sounds like more than enough to me.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:29 pm**

Chris Marshall wrote:The accounts have now been published for FOCAL 2016 in the Organisers & Attendees section on Facebook. They show a surplus of £120. Please feel free to have a look and PM me if you want your own copy (not gold-plated i'm afraid) or can't get on Facebook.

Thank you for the information.

While I do think it was a success, I do find it a bit strange that the final event was so much more expensive than the other events that it needed to be so heavily subsidised. The thing that made it stand out from other events (the Christmas meal) was actually just an accident, so not related to the extra price. Other than that, the general Christmas and "end of term" atmosphere don't cost anything, so there's no reason in principle why it can't just be run like any other event.

My point being that I still think that it is a little bit overly bureaucratic, and that the whole levy and accounts thing could probably be got rid of for a cleaner and more streamlined system.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:54 pm**

I think that the Focal end-of-year event should be self-supporting, ideally, and I would prefer not to subsidise it, but that's between me and individual organisers. I would like someone from Focal to explain why they think any extra fundraising is necessary or justified.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:23 pm**

The first thing that should be pointed out here, for if anyone can't see the actual accounts with notes on, is that £100 of that £120 was kept aside purposefully to cover expenses early in the year before any other income had come in. I see no reason not to continue that for as long as this continues. If it winds down, it'll get spent.

Gevin - This has mostly been brought up before. The bureaucracy comment to me is because you're staring at accounts, that have come after a year when it WAS in many ways too bureaucratic. Hopefully this year it'll calm down. I have always said that this would need a couple of years to settle into a groove, both in terms of how it runs, but also how it's run. WIth regard to the general Christmas and end of term feeling not costing anything, the decorations and the advent calendars didn't come for free. And with regard to both, people commented favourably on them, and that they were a good, fun touch.

Heather - The first thing to point out, is that any extra fundraising done is put towards only by people who are happy to. If anybody shares your view that we don't need any more money, then they can very simply not purchase a raffle ticket, or a cake, or any of the ideas that came up in 2016 or will do in 2017. The fact that people support those so well (for which we're very grateful) is clearly a sign that people are happy to do that.

Secondly, the numbers clearly point out the fact that without those, we would have made a loss. An £120 surplus at the end of the year against £244 money brought in by those additional streams says it very directly - without them, we'd have struggled.

Granted, there were things that in that situation, we could have chosen not to do. But the flipside is, with more money, the things we'd have liked to do last year but couldn't, will be possible. Furthermore, over time, it would be good to have the means to promote FOCAL in the future if the means arise to do so cost-effectively. If the potential to spend a small amount to give us some outreach arises, then it'd be good to do so. Now, could individual organisers do that off of their own backs, and foot the cost - well they could certainly do it themselves, but ultimately they'll only cover the costs incurred by raising their own prices. None of us are in this for financial gain, but we're all looking to make sure we don't make a loss. So ultimately people would be paying for it either way.

That is, at this time, some way off though. For now, we're focussing on making FOCAL 2017 run more smoothly, the FOCAL finals of 2017 better than in 2016, and continuing, with the best intentions, to get as many people as possible playing Countdown.

Not everyone's going to agree with how we do it, but we don't agree with them either, so oh well - can't please everyone. Very happy with how many people we can please though, so we'll just have to hope that we can disperse the negativity in others' minds over time.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:45 pm**

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Zarte. I know it might come across that the same people are being negative all the time, but I think it's good for people to be able to say what they think and then the FOCAL team can then decide whether it's something that needs to be taken on board or not. Obviously it's generally the same people so not necessarily a representative sample, but it's up to each individual whether they think they've got something to say. And if most people are happy you don't have to change things.

I can imagine you sitting there thinking "Not him again" when I posted, but overall I think the whole thing was a success and my feelings about FOCAL are overall positive even if it might not always come across that way! I suppose I just don't post about everything I agree with because it's already in place.

Keep up the good work!

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:55 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:Thanks for taking the time to respond, Zarte. I know it might come across that the same people are being negative all the time, but I think it's good for people to be able to say what they think and then the FOCAL team can then decide whether it's something that needs to be taken on board or not. Obviously it's generally the same people so not necessarily a representative sample, but it's up to each individual whether they think they've got something to say. And if most people are happy you don't have to change things.

Don't disagree with this at all, Gev. My phrasing to you was just that some of this is a well-trodden path. I'm happy to respond to new stuff, but to have the same conversations over and over isn't a sensible use of either of our times, and I was just choosing to respond to the parts that hadn't been previously covered, as my feelings on other matters hadn't changed

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:21 pm**

Zarte Siempre wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Thanks for taking the time to respond, Zarte. I know it might come across that the same people are being negative all the time, but I think it's good for people to be able to say what they think and then the FOCAL team can then decide whether it's something that needs to be taken on board or not. Obviously it's generally the same people so not necessarily a representative sample, but it's up to each individual whether they think they've got something to say. And if most people are happy you don't have to change things.
Don't disagree with this at all, Gev. My phrasing to you was just that some of this is a well-trodden path. I'm happy to respond to new stuff, but to have the same conversations over and over isn't a sensible use of either of our times, and I was just choosing to respond to the parts that hadn't been previously covered, as my feelings on other matters hadn't changed

I suppose it was just because the accounts had just come out and it was my gut reaction. But you'll be pleased to hear that I've probably said everything now and there probably won't be much more for me to say until another year has passed! (Although I make no guarantees.)

Edit - But also it was a clarification of my thoughts given the new information rather than just retreading old ground.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:05 pm**

I really don't feel like Focal affects me whatsoever, I don't feel enough about it to have much of an opinion but most people seem to like it so that's nice. I'll try and come up with a few questions though.

Is the general feeling that organisers have just put up their prices by £1 to cover the FOCAL donation, or is this supposed to have come out of the existing event entry costs (bearing in mind these costs may rise by £1 coincidentally from year to year anyway)?

I have no interest in Birmingham at all, so I can see why it might annoy some people a bit having to put money towards it. For me personally though that usually represents an added outlay of £2 in a year across entries for myself and Heather (will mean £6 this year, woo!) and no one is poor enough to need to give a fuck about that kind of money. Also it gets messy if that £1 becomes optional per entrant, yeuch.

Does the £2001 accommodation need to be listed when essentially it acted like a refundable deposit? Maybe a faux legal thing, I dunno. Did you guys pay £500 for everyone's lunch then?

Shouldn't the Top 8 (7) entry costs be at cost, not at RRP of £14? (if there's any difference)

What is the £98 of "other"? Real boring shit?

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:23 pm**

If others are happy to pay a £1 per person per event levy as well as more in order to subsidise an event they don't go to and on publicity, they are possibly more stupid, and definitely more generous, than I am.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:34 pm**

I know you can't please all of the people all the time, and it's quite an achievement even to please most of the people most of the time, so respect for that. Until/unless the whole thing is properly democratised and the elitist set-up altered, you'll always have an awkward squad, and it'll probably be mainly me.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:03 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:I really don't feel like Focal affects me whatsoever, I don't feel enough about it to have much of an opinion but most people seem to like it so that's nice. I'll try and come up with a few questions though.

Matt - I don't believe most people HAVE put it up to cover that, I did put my price up by £1 last year, but that was because my venue put their prices up - I would have put it up more, had I not made some profit the year before. Ultimately, I was probably too cautious, and so my price (assuming venue doesn't up prices again) will go down by £1 again. If any have though, that's their decision. It was something that was agreed, we didn't insist on how they'd handle it.

The whole idea of FOCAL was to grow the community. As I said with the publicity point - if each organiser publicises their own event to the max, then they'll fork out for that, and change their own costs to reflect that. If FOCAL is working collaboratively to find ways to publicise the idea as a whole, then that money goes further. So I think in the end, people would be putting the same into the same goal, only a more fragmented dynamic. Likewise, when we pool skills together to help each other with say, sourcing things cheaper, or making an aspect of our events more efficient, the collaboration is valuable. As I said the other day, if people want to talk to individual organisers about whether they're happy to waive the fee for that player for their event, they're welcome to. However anyone attending any event run by me, will pay the price I set. What other organisers decide, I respect either way, providing they pay the amount which they've agreed to.

Chris is better to answer the financial stuff, I'll let him do his thing.

People paid £14 in advance for the most part, to secure their place for the finals. Those were refunded to the 7 people who wanted their money back.

Other includes things like stationery, decorations etc.

I hope perhaps that playing in a few events gives you a bit more of a taste for it - if not competing yourself, at least getting a bit of the buzz off of the people to whom it's important

But thanks for taking an interest

Heather Styles wrote:If others are happy to pay a £1 per person per event levy as well as more in order to subsidise an event they don't go to and on publicity, they are possibly more stupid, and definitely more generous, than I am.

Heather - We are thrilled, and humbled by the generosity of many people. It's brought the best out of so so many of the community. I at least, would also defend their intelligence though, however I'm sure some of them are capable of answering any doubts on that trait themselves.

Heather Styles wrote:I know you can't please all of the people all the time, and it's quite an achievement even to please most of the people most of the time, so respect for that. Until/unless the whole thing is properly democratised and the elitist set-up altered, you'll always have an awkward squad, and it'll probably be mainly me.

The democratisation was axed not because of any power play, or lack of respect for the opinions of others, but because when we mentioned it to other people, the reaction was nearly always "Eww, no, you guys just get on with it".

As for elitism, I'm not sure what elitism is meaning to you... elite at the game? Because we have plenty of organisers who would openly admit to not be the best at that. Or by elite are you referring to the fact that you think I and my friends hold ourselves in some sort of higher regard? And there are a few of them who are organisers? Because first of all, there are organisers who I'm not close to, but will support in any way I can to make their events a success - and I believe they would all vouch for that, but secondly, I think it's more likely that the reason that a few of us are quite tight knit are because we value each other's desire to work hard, and harmoniously for something we all believe in. If that counts as elitism, then I'm DELIGHTED to be elitist, and will continue to be so. Or, you're going back to the free entry for the top 8. Which I don't believe is elitist, I believe it's a thank you to those who support the events on a regular basis. The fact that we also gave free entry vouchers to people who attended a LOT of events, but didn't make the top 8 suggests we're not being elitist about it. You need no permission (as you keep telling us) to state your views, and so I have no doubt that you'll continue to provide them, however, as with Gevin, I'm not going to continue treading old ground at this point.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:14 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:I have no interest in Birmingham at all

Harsh...

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:24 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote:I can imagine you sitting there thinking "Not him again" when I posted

This doesn't apply to just him, or just this post.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:32 pm**

Heather Styles wrote:If others are happy to pay a £1 per person per event levy as well as more in order to subsidise an event they don't go to and on publicity, they are possibly more stupid, and definitely more generous, than I am.

Thansk u 4 calling me and otfer count down peepz stoopid, i fink u r well right. I onlyz learrned 2 wiep after poo poo time lazt weeek.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:35 pm**

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I can imagine you sitting there thinking "Not him again" when I posted
This doesn't apply to just him, or just this post.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:01 pm**

Matt Morrison wrote:
Does the £2001 accommodation need to be listed when essentially it acted like a refundable deposit? Maybe a faux legal thing, I dunno. Did you guys pay £500 for everyone's lunch then?

Shouldn't the Top 8 (7) entry costs be at cost, not at RRP of £14? (if there's any difference)

What is the £98 of "other"? Real boring shit?

The £2,001 is put there just to show that all the money that was taken for accommodation actually went to the hotel for accommodation. There was no FOCAL "cut" to this. With the money taken running into thousands, I felt it important to show all of what went in and out to avoid the opposite question of yours like "X of us paid £XX for accommodation, where is that in the accounts?"

There were 40 people attending who had lunch at £12.50 each so yes £500 was the cost of the buffet lunch but also acted as a replacement for room hire.

The Top 8 (7) just got what they paid in refunded to them. Sort of like a prize.

The £98 covered advent calendars, sweets, stationery and decorations. The decorations may be used again in the future along with the PA system, although that will have to be tested every year.

Posted: **Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:07 am**

Elite at the game, I meant, but if you want to take it to mean having a high opinion of yourselves as well, I won't contradict you.

Posted: **Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:47 pm**

lolz drama. About time too.

c4countdown

FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016

Re: FOCAL 2016