James Crouchet james at crouchet.com
Fri Nov 9 10:40:41 PST 2007

Ok, I was following all this up to here, but why would adding Crown to
Fall Melees be different from adding it to Seawinds Defender? I
understand the decision of the financial committee could have gone
either way (I think they did the right thing here) but is there some
fundamental difference between these two events that would have changed
the outcome of that decision? If so I don't see it.


bsmall at suddenlink.net wrote:
> Pug has already answered this one.
> To give further explanation, Kingdom Law does handle the issue of reoccuring Kingdom events as a joint event.  But only for a handful of the existing events.  When held in conjunction with a non-reoccuring event, the kingdom split seems to be 10%.  Kingdom Law is silent on what to do when Crown Tournament is held in conjunction with something like Melees.  The Kingdom Financial committee go together and decided not to require a split.  Had this been held in conjunction with, say, Seawinds Defender, the decision might have gone a different direction.
> Ansgar
> ---- Elizabeth Blackthorne <eblackthorne at gmail.com> wrote: 
>> Now, I have a question.  Crown Tourney was held and the group who held
>> it split profits with Kingdom, now we are having it again, so does
>> that mean that now Bordermarch Melees is a Kingdom Event and splitting
>> profits.  Just Curious, I have no opinion one way or the other.
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list