Re: amalgamated teams - apology -- universitydancesport.com forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]

Subject: Re: amalgamated teams - apology

Author:
TimC

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:06:04 11/12/03 Wed
In reply to: Olivia 's message, "Re: amalgamated teams - apology" on 09:47:06 11/12/03 Wed

Rachelle,
My interpretation of the constitution here is that 2.1.4.4 refers to universities rather than teams and is therefore irrelevant, unless Cambridge is proposing to amalgamate with uni X permanently, which seems unlikely. 2.1.4.5 has been updated to cope with the new team match format 2.8.1.5.1, and that is why the caveat is there about amalgamated teams. I don't think it was ever the intention to simply allow amalgamated teams throughout the year.
Anyway, apologies for not flagging this earlier. I think if you want to continue with this course of action, you should move this discussion to the standing committee list now.

>Sorry Rachelle,
>
>I wasn't being facetious by saying it was obvious, I
>had no idea before this discussion!! I just meant that
>given the points raised to date here, it was obviously
>no longer an option, which is a real shame.
>
>Olivia xx

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]