Autum Congress
It is a shame that the Autumn Congress is to be run online rather than face to face. I undestand that economically low numbers must make it difficult to plan such events but wonder if the hotel might have considered a conference room rental rate proportionate to the number of players? Although I suppose other costs, directors etc, had to be taken into account. I feel guilty that I never registered in advance - perhaps it is time to strongly encourage pre-entries. i would have liked to play f2f at xmas; perhaps a smaller venue, such as YC, might work?
Comments
It's not going to change back now. Numbers for these three online congresses will give an indication of how we should plan for the future.
I too was planning to go to the f2f YE, and I know many saw that as the leapfrog back into f2f congress events. There's no doubt in my mind that online events will remain popular, and perhaps just as well attended, going forward while cutting costs. Equally, these events will bring less experienced players into national competition and that's no bad thing. On the other hand, congress events are typically designed for those that take the game that little bit more seriously and that player group strongly prefer face-to-face. To lose that is a big loss for the game which is designed to be played in person... ultimately the EBU is a not-for-profit organisation so as long as costs can be covered (even if that involves a necessary rise in entry fees), these avenues should be explored or at least discussed with players.
As you say, too late to change back now and I hope the congresses are successful, but I think there needs to be a clear plan of the return to f2f at national level, other than using online congresses as a measure of how to go forward (which inherently will give a biased suggestion).
Also, as per https://www.ebu.co.uk/newsletters/Summer-2021, a proposed change to the masterpoint rules restricts the number of events that counties can hold online (masterpoint-wise anyway). This combined with the f2f announcement this week would suggest that the EBU is trying to dominate more of the online events, while requiring county associations to invest in f2f options.
I can understand the rationale for this - after all, in theory people may be more willing to travel locally to events with familiar names. On the contrary, as I have advocated throughout the year, there is an element of people wanting to have an experience - travelling somewhere new, playing new and stronger players, being in a large room of like-minded players etc. just doesn't happen / isn't really possible at lower levels.
To be clear, I can totally understand the cancellation of the remaining f2f events for this year given the uncertainty and I don't blame the EBU for that. Where I think the problem lies is in the communication, transparency and opportunity for stakeholder views, which has shone a bad light on the EBU on this occasion.
Finally, as a few suggestions going forward, a deposit-based entry system, an entry tally on the EBU website and reminders to past players would all provide added reassurance to the organisers that demand will be sufficiently high. Deposits ensure or at least test that it's viable (and on this occasion I think that would have been proven financially viable), and having a tally of entries gives the most committed members that extra incentive to enter early (if there's a deadline for a minimum entry number, for instance). Whether or not an online alternative is viable is not in itself material to the discussion, although will carry some weight for less significant competitions.