[mrdct]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-June-07, 12:35, said:

Do you know it hasn't happened? Do you know how many staff the EBU had 5 years ago, and how many it has now?
In 2008 they had 20 employees including 4 part time.
Now they have 18 includes 5 part time.

It's certainly gone down. Whether they are over-staffed or not I don't know (I would guess yes) but if we're going to discuss it, it would be fair to use accurate information.

I must say that even 18 including 5 part-time seems quite a lot. What do they all do?

As far as I know, the ABF (which is 40% bigger than the EBU based on membership figures on the WBF site) only has one employee at its national headquarters in Canberra; although it has outsourced a number of activities for things like running the masterpoint scheme, the website and convening the major national tournaments, and has quite a few people on small stipends for things like performing coordinator-type roles (e.g. me as the National Youth Coordinator).

[han]

Fluffy, to me good directors is more important than good prizes so I don't know why it is ridiculous to spend more money on directors.

[Codo]

But you are not a pro, Han

[AlexJonson]

If the ebu as 'sponsor' takes 7.5% from major tournaments I can't see that as a problem.

[gnasher]

han, on 2012-June-08, 02:44, said:

Fluffy, to me good directors is more important than good prizes so I don't know why it is ridiculous to spend more money on directors.

Me too. Prizes don't make much difference to my enjoyment of the game, but bad directors can ruin it.

[gnasher]

Codo, on 2012-June-08, 02:57, said:

But you are not a pro, Han

Nor are most of the people who fund the event via their entry fees.

[Fluffy]

I supose I won't be objective being mainly on the other side. When a director earns more from organizing than the players who win the tournament it is not a race to become the best player, its a race to become the best director... and its not like directors compete each other somehow. I find it much easier to be an excellent director than an excellent player but maybe its just me. Compared to whatever sport I know, it would be unthinkable for directors/referees to earn more from a tourney that top players. But then they are shown on TV while bridge is not.

[gordontd]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-08, 03:44, said:

When a director earns more from organizing than the players who win the tournament it is not a race to become the best player, its a race to become the best director...

Strange then that there aren't more people queueing up to become directors. Maybe it's not only about the money - for the players or for the directors.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-08, 03:44, said:

I supose I won't be objective being mainly on the other side. When a director earns more from organizing than the players who win the tournament it is not a race to become the best player, its a race to become the best director... and its not like directors compete each other somehow. I find it much easier to be an excellent director than an excellent player but maybe its just me. Compared to whatever sport I know, it would be unthinkable for directors/referees to earn more from a tourney that top players. But then they are shown on TV while bridge is not.

Yes, sponsorship is key here.

Anyway, the figures given were for all the directors and all the prizes, and did not indicate whether the top prizes were more than the directors' fees.

How do you feel about the fact that the world's biggest NBO doesn't give out prizes at all?

[Blue Uriah]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-07, 18:48, said:

LOL I had no idea what the prices were; I foolishly assumed that they were telling the truth on the feedback form.

I'm told there was a mix-up with the feedback forms. The bit about reduced entry fees and prize money was for the Cheltenham Midweek Congress the week before and this wasn't removed when they were reprinted for Bournemouth. So an honest mistake rather than an attempt to lie to you.

[Vampyr]

Blue Uriah, on 2012-June-08, 04:32, said:

I'm told there was a mix-up with the feedback forms. The bit about reduced entry fees and prize money was for the Cheltenham Midweek Congress the week before and this wasn't removed when they were reprinted for Bournemouth. So an honest mistake rather than an attempt to lie to you.

Oh I see.

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-08, 03:44, said:

Compared to whatever sport I know, it would be unthinkable for directors/referees to earn more from a tourney that top players. But then they are shown on TV while bridge is not.

I think that you are making a biased comparison. There is no doubt that top soccer or American Football players earn more than the officials. But if you go to amateur sports, or amateur sports with sponsoring (or endorsements), this is entirely different.

There are lots of sports where participants pay tournament fees, only very few (if any) can make a living out off being good at it, and some make a living out of of officiating. The officials make it possible for the players to have their hobby. This is also the case for all big sports at lower level. If my local soccer team plays a match then the costs for the referee (travel expenses and a small fee) will be higher than the cost for the prizes (one trophy at the end of the season and 20 medals).

Heck, it may well be that the price money that the league awards in our highest full pro soccer league (in The Netherlands) is less than the amount that is spent on officiating! (The players are, after all, paid by the clubs and their sponsors.) I think that may well be the same for the European Championships that are starting today (HUP HOLLAND HUP!!). I don't think the UEFA is paying a lot of prize money, compared to the cost for officiating.

Rik