Tournament Prize Structures

[ifm]

what is the problem?
If you are happy with the existing structure then fine, if not you can change it via a deal.
It's our money let us do with it as we will, APAT has already tried to f**k this option up and it is plainly wrong.

[ifm]

Shockingly bad poll, please put in the option that "whatever the structure we can do deals"

[TightEnd]

and if participants cannot agree a deal or even more frustratingly one person objects then we put up with it?

[ifm]

and if participants cannot agree a deal or even more frustratingly one person objects then we put up with it?

Of course, doh!!

[TightEnd]

Constructive as usual 

[ifm]

You enter a comp knowing the structure, tough shit if it you dont like the structure or do a deal to change it.

[TightEnd]

You enter a comp knowing the structure, tough shit if it you dont like the structure or do a deal to change it.

would you support flatter prize structures in principle?

a) in major festivals they currently aren't on offer and

b) there's no certainty of getting a deal in the latter stages anyway as some, for valid reasons, won't consider deals

So the players don't have a lot of clout or choices do they?

[Ironside]

ian just cause APAt say no deals and use cheques to pay people doesnt mean you can do a deal

same as any comp if you do a deal behind there back that doesnt include the trophey and the added seat they cant stop you

[ifm]

NO, there will always be deals, rightfully so, it is OUR money, end of.
Doesn't even matter what the structure is if it makes sense people deal.
Even if you add money you are wrong to impose no deal rules because you didn't add all the money.

[TightEnd]

I have known competitions where deals made perfect sense but, for example, a sponsored pro refused the deal for his own reasons.

Re your added money point, without the organisation negotiating to get the sponsorship with added money, there would be no added money. Both directly and indirectly, the sponsor and the organiser (by negotiation) add all the money

[ifm]

If the sponsor or organiser added ALL the money then they can of course dictate, if not then they surely have no right?
APT for example, they add a prize, fine but they should NEVER dictate on others money, stick the ADDED prize wherever but my money should (rightfully) be the posession of the people actually in the comp.

[ifm]

You have a warped view on this stuff as does tikay so little point arguing

[TightEnd]

You have a warped view on this stuff as does tikay so little point arguing

ok, we'll agree to differ.

[totalise]

I think APAT have every right to dictate the terms of the tournament/association as they see fit, if people dont like it, as you alluded to earlier, they can play elsewhere. What I dont think they should be doing is doing it based on the demands of a sponsor. Yes its great that theres money added, but that shouldn't let the sponsor force the entire policy of the association (I got no idea if they have forced this or not btw, just saying in case they have)

Also when APATs board gets elected, cant the members demand a vote on things like payout structure/deal making possibilities? you would think so, being a peoples organisation


Anyways, back to the topic at hand, can someone give a good example of what a flatter payout structure would be? and for all the people saying they want it flatter... how flat do you want to go?

[ifm]

You have a warped view on this stuff as does tikay so little point arguing

ok, we'll agree to differ.

I'd actually like to hear your rationalisation of stopping people from dealing with their own money as you do with APT.