[AmiableLabs]

Would you support a rule change permitting a club to conduct a third licensed trial during a single year provided that such trial included both an Open and an Am stake, was scheduled to run on dates that conflicted with a trial that attracted 80 or more starters in the preceding year, and at a location within less than 400 miles of the large entry trial?

 

[B. A.]

What if the other club within 400 miles is happy with large entries and doesn't want a conflicting trial within that range?

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

What if the other club within 400 miles is happy with large entries and doesn't want a conflicting trial within that range?

I imagine that actual wording of any rule change would include written permission from the other club to hold an event on "their" date within "their" territory.

Much as AKC dog shows have now.

Lisa

 

[AmiableLabs]

Here we have a proposal that increases opportunity, not limits or reduces opportunity.

 

[Tim Carrion]

Clubs could have the option but IMHO this would do little to solve the problem since most clubs have trouble finding the grounds and people to work for 2 trials a year.

Tim

 

[kip]

Clubs could have the option but IMHO this would do little to solve the problem since most clubs have trouble finding the grounds and people to work for 2 trials a year.

Tim

exactly, you still have to have workers.

 

[W Knight]

Tim wrote:

Clubs could have the option but IMHO this would do little to solve the problem since most clubs have trouble finding the grounds and people to work for 2 trials a year.

Kip wrote:

exactly, you still have to have workers.

There you have it folks, what more is there to be said.

8)
8)
8)