Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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 - interpreting the constitution Author: Ali [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 12:36:53 11/12/03 Wed In reply to: TimC 's message, "Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution" on 12:23:39 11/12/03 Wed "...This rule does not preclude any university from returning to independent status at any time throughout the year if able to do so" Key point => amalgamation was intended to take place throughout the year. The big problem with the old rule is that no-one wanted to use it - hence the expansion away from 'small unis' (i.e. <4 couples) to 'unis with spare couples' - at least as far as IVDC is concerned. If other comps wish to use the older version, then that is up to them, but as I see it IVDC have no power to subsequently deny couples entry if they have amalgamated before. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution Paul J 12:50:54 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution Ian 12:58:37 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution -- Tim C, 13:57:25 11/12/03 Wed This house believes -- Ian, 14:16:14 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution -- Joanne, 15:03:12 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution -- Justine, 15:15:09 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution Ali 13:56:23 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution -- Paul J, 14:52:38 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution -- Ali, 15:09:04 11/12/03 Wed Re: Amalgamated teams - interpreting the constitution -- Tim C, 16:24:13 11/12/03 Wed