Jack Lennard: So let’s start off by talking about the new roster rules and what they mean for intra-club movement. We spoke to Teams Director Andy Cooke, who tied the changes made to a desire to create similarities with other sports:
‘As Teams Director, my priority is always the growth of new teams and to help legitimize the teams we have in their current environment. Therefore we can only hope that by lining our club system up with the way many other sports work we can aid in that process.’
We have a statement here from Natasha Ferenczy, the President of Southampton Quidditch Club, who seems pretty pleased with the changes:
‘As a club who have been campaigning all year for more squad fluidity between teams within the same club, it's a really positive step for us. Having more flexibility with our squad choices better serves our players and their development, allowing us to reward those who perform well in training whilst also keeping those players who have earned a spot on the first team working hard to keep it. It also means we can give players experience with the first team at tournaments and fixtures if there's a spot available. These new policies will hopefully allow all UK clubs to establish strong development systems in the future as clubs expand.’
Fraser Posford: It’s interesting about the core players thing. It's good in that it stops players who are obviously too good to be playing for a secondary team play down, but creating a class of core players may create a bit of a division in some teams with certain people knowing they're guaranteed a place in the squad for the upcoming tournament and therefore not feel as great a need to train hard and fight for their place as the non-core players will need to if they want to get in the first team squad. On the other hand, I can't think of a better solution right now, so this is the best option from what I can tell.
JL: I see it as a double edged sword for the core players - like signing a contract. So the club would need to discuss the commitment it requires and have them accept that role, rather than just list core players. It would need to be a dialogue, and probably a healthy one for the team to have.
Ashara Peiris: Although it's definitely a commitment. What about the Captain and/or Vice-Captains - I imagine they’d be core players?
FP: Just because a certain player is captain or vice-captain, it doesn't guarantee that they are the best player(s) to be selected for a certain squad. This is something that was included in the job description for both the Captain and Vice-Captain position in the SQC AGM in that they may have to select an alternate player instead of themselves if it is to the benefit of the club. For instance, if Charlie [Taylor] is not playing well or someone is performing better in training then he would have to recognise that and select that player instead of himself. If he were a core player then he wouldn't be able to do this. That is quite a hypothetical situation though.
JL: Yeah, there's nothing that means the Captain or Vice-Captain have to be core players - the core players are the best players on the team, and I can definitely testify to the fact that my value in captaincy wasn't as an on-pitch chaser.
Now, onto financial matters. Looking at the new costs, £65 includes one team. And then it's £30 for each further team. So £95 in total. Last year they paid £40 for each team, £80 in total. Which didn't include the £40 team fees for regionals. So it actually comes out as slightly less for those multi-team clubs than it was last year. You actually have the more successful and established clubs paying less per member. The way I see it:
21 one-team club members = £65 / 21 = ~ £4 per player.
21 Chimeras + 21 Quidlings (taking OUQC as an example) = £95 / 42 = ~ £2.30 per player.
The numbers are so small that it doesn't really matter - but why should a big club pay less than a smaller club does per player? Especially when, realistically, a new team won't have twenty-one players. What are your thoughts on how QUK should balance this out - if, that is, they should?
AP: It's arguably just economies of scale, Jack. Having the admin of a team run under one banner could in theory make it cheaper
JL: Playing devil's advocate, if Durham University Quidditch Club Quidditch , OUQC, and SQC can all pay lower rates for having a second team, I don't see why a new team can't be either.
AP: Fair point, but do you define a new team by the players or the whole team? For example, Taxes Quidditch is aimed at mostly experienced players and you could argue that it shouldn't therefore get a discount.
JL: Why does that matter? The founder for any start-up team would still be fronting all the start-up costs at the moment, and they can guarantee there’ll have adequate numbers join to spread the cost or make it workable. Starting a team is always a gamble. I just feel bad for new teams who don’t have the luxury of sharing costs across forty-two or more people.
AP: I do think that there should be some more support for new teams, reduced fees for example, or help with equipment, but that would likely mean greater costs for other teams who might be less happy about it.
Sherrie Talgeri: Surely established teams wouldn’t object to paying slightly more if it helped further the sport they love and made it easier for new teams to emerge.
Claire Evans: I know in terms of actual numbers/potential cost difficulties (particularly for new teams) it doesn't make a difference, but the way I see it is effectively a club registration cost of £35, plus £30 for each team you have within that club. To me, it makes more sense to think of it this way, but I can also appreciate why QUK phrased it as they did. I think the idea of registering as a club rather than individual teams goes hand in hand with the changes concerning transfers and the idea of being affiliated to your club rather than team, making it easier to transfer between teams within the club - which in my opinion is a very good move, because as far as I know in no other sport is movement between different teams of the same club as complex and involved as it has been in quidditch.
JL: It sounds better that way.
AP: Yeah the way you've said it is way clearer to understand and would probably be easier to justify.
Alex Harrison: It seems to me like any club big enough to consistently field two teams doesn't need a(n effective) discount, whereas a lot of clubs which can only field one team are much less financially secure and could use any discount they can get. Having said that, a second team would require its own expensive set of equipment and various other things, so I can see why QUK wouldn't want to further financially burden clubs which establish a second team. I'd personally rather they kept a flat fee per team.
FP: Not really, SQC trains together and use all the same equipment, it's the completely new teams that need it.
ST: Same for Durham (including its QUK unofficial college teams) regarding equipment. I completely agree with Alex's point about new teams needing discounts more. Starting up and buying equipment is the most costly part of the process and it seems that community teams are being penalised to an extent as they can't apply for a university grant to fund this.
Sasha Burgoyne: I think it's difficult for new teams as well because whilst you can charge large membership fees in order to fund equipment and other expenses, that is likely to put a lot of new players off.
CE: I think the issue we might see with new teams is this: it's basically impossible to have a team without equipment. Thus, buying equipment is a priority, and player subscriptions or a grant of some description may be able to cover that, after which teams are faced with the decision of whether to be QUK official or not, which, compared to having equipment, is not essential. So if new teams are are unable to get money together, either through subscriptions or grants, the thing that has to go is the QUK membership, which is a shame because it will make it much more difficult for new teams to take part in matches and tournaments. If QUK were able to offer a discount for new teams, it might encourage new teams to get involved and attend events from the outset, rather than having to wait until they are more established and have more regular members to be able to take part (which seems to be what has happened recently with teams such as Preston and Liverpool).
ST: I think playing matches and going to tournaments is the main driving force of the sport: this is where you get to meet other members of the community and get excited about quidditch. Durham improved a lot following its first few matches against St Andrews Snidgets and the Hogyork Horntails from York - though some team members were put off by travel costs. The fixtures also give a team something to work towards.
SB: I agree with Claire. It is pretty tough for new teams to get the funds for equipment but at the same time getting gameplay is what gets new players hooked. Basically all it means is that it is very expensive to start a new team and that's that.
JL: What would you guys like to see? Discounts for first year of registration? How much of a discount? And how would you balance out that with the more established teams then having to pay more?
No comments:
Post a Comment