[NSRCA-discussion] Speaking of the 2011 Worlds at Muncie . . . . .

[Anthony Frackowiak]

OK. I'm outta here. It has been decided and I wish the best for both  
the WC and the Pattern Nats!

Tony

On Sep 2, 2009, at 8:58 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:

> Tony,
>
> This has been discussed quite a bit previous to this conversation on  
> the officers list quite some time ago. Derek has done a huge amount  
> of work to make this happen as you must know. I believe it had been  
> discussed with the ama, and therefore the reason for the rough dates  
> that we have. I could be wrong, but this is my recollection.
>
> I know it seems odd to you, as it did me at first, but I haven't  
> been on the team before as you, nor have I ever had the chance to  
> witness a "Worlds" as you have. This is my chance to see it. If it's  
> right before the nats, that's great timing for me. And many that  
> were asked, feel this way.
>
> It is wished by many of us that the nats date didn't have to be  
> moved, but soaring could move up a week, and so on to make room for  
> the worlds. The nats will be poorly attended if the two are  
> separated IMO. A lot of people may want to see the worlds  
> competition.  If they are separated, not many of us will be able to  
> attend. Just my opinion though. Not discounting yours. I agree with  
> you about it being hard to find a hotel, but I don't think any of  
> the competitors will stick around for a local nats as they just flew  
> the worlds. I would think our own worlds team may not attend the  
> nats right after. Maybe the current team could chime in if they read  
> this to say if they would have stuck around for a local nats in  
> Portugal the week after the worlds.
>
> Think about a rotating nats. If it was held somewhere else in the  
> country, the dates would most likely vary up to a month either way.
>
> Not arguing with you here. This is said in a calm tone. Just  
> conversing.
>
> You coming to Hollister?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Anthony Frackowiak <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:32:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Speaking of the 2011 Worlds at  
> Muncie . . . . .
>
> Derek,
>
> Maybe I'm coming in late to this discussion, and for that I  
> apologize. But I would like to ask a few more questions just for  
> clarification.
>
> You have stated before that the Pattern Nats for 2011 won't be  
> scheduled until October of 2010. Has there been any serious  
> discussion with the AMA about the 2011 Pattern Nats and if it will  
> even be possible to do what you are stating? Can they can even be  
> held after the WC? It would seem that this will take a monumental  
> shift in the Center schedule.
>
> Are the dates that you have put out for the WC's the only  
> alternative right now? Do we even have the option of moving them  
> later?
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> Tony
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
>
>> Fluid meaning that the dates could move a few days forward or  
>> backward... yes, absolutely.
>>
>> Cast in concrete - when the 1st bulletin gets mailed out.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Anthony Frackowiak <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net 
>> > wrote:
>> No it has not been worked out. You are saying your dates for the WC  
>> are fluid, and the dates for the 2011 Nats are not set even  
>> tentatively. So there is a lot in the air.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Actually it had been all worked out until "everyone" started  
>>> chiming in as to their preference for when the wc should be held  
>>> and the Nats should be held... can't please all the people.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Anthony Frackowiak <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net 
>>> > wrote:
>>> I absolutely agree. IRCHA will not move their dates unless forced  
>>> to by the AMA. And I doubt the AMA will do so.
>>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that this has not been worked out yet.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Bill's Email wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anthony Frackowiak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Archie is absolutely correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 2, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IRCHA is a totally different animal though.  Kind of like  
>>>>>> having Joe Nall after the pattern worlds.  I’d say most people  
>>>>>> really didn’t care about the F3C worlds.  IRCHA does a lot more  
>>>>>> 3D stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And my point was that attracting 900 paid participants to an  
>>>> event is going to give them some clout when it comes to a  
>>>> schedule relative to the pattern NATS. The WC are a different  
>>>> thing, but IRCHA is not likely to budge for the pattern NATS if  
>>>> it came to that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090903/648450a2/attachment.html>