User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 26
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,947
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default use Grand Slam to revamp the BWF annual calendar

    The existing BWF annual calendar is jam pack!!!

    12 super series (SS), 1 Masters Finals, many Level 1 events, continental championships, and multi-sports events.....

    there is already a thread on which 4 SS should be upgraded to Grand Slam (GS).. I won't add more to it:

    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...ad.php?t=75188

    I think BWF should choose the four based on the following criteria (other than the size of the prize money):

    1. global viewership of that tournament.. in this regard, how many people would watch it live is most important...
    2. whether top players would participate..
    3. the country's performance in the recent Level 1 events.
    4. quality of its facility, eg, lighting, air flow, wooden floor
    5. quality of its linesmen and supporting/technical staff....
    6. whether the event clashes with Level 1 events, Multi-sports events featuring badminton (eg, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games) and major sporting events (eg, World Cup, Olympics, UEFA Championships Final)

    No. 6 above is my point in this thread. In order to revamp the existing tight BWF schedule, i think BWF can only choose these four events as GS: Korean or Malaysian(Jan), All England (March), Indonesian (June) and China Masters (Sept). If these four are chosen, the annual calendar would be like this:

    January: either Korea Open or Malaysian Open, but not both... Whichever one is chosen, there should at least be 4 weeks interval of rest between Masters Finals and the chosen event.. and preferably, it won't clash with the annual Chinese/Korean/Lunar New Year holiday.

    Feb: Nothing, but hopefully European Badminton Championship would move to this slot.

    Mar: All England.. Commonwealth Games

    April/May: Thomas/Uber Cup and Sudirman Cup

    June: Indonesian Open... But World Cup is usually held in June and early July..

    July: Nothing.. summer holiday for badminton fans; but top players would probably spend the entire July preparing for the big August event.

    August: World Champ or Olympics

    Sept: China Masters

    Oct: Nothing, but hopefully Asian Badminton Champ is moved to this slot... I suppose if there is a fifth Grand Slam, we can have a Danish Grand Slam here if ABC is not held here.....

    Nov: Asian Games, SEAG, EAG,etc

    Dec: Super Series Masters Finals.....

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    18,460
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just some pointers:
    Typically, February will be a period when the Thomas/Uber Qualifications are held every other year (even-numbered at the moment). For odd-numbered years, it's typically blank, but Badminton Europe has been holding the European Mixed-Team Championships since 2009 to prepare the European countries for the Sudirman Cup.

    March is reserved for the All-England.

    April is usually when the Continential Championships are held, with the BAC and European Championships (every 2 years for them).

    May is reserved for Thomas/Uber/Sudirman Cup.

    June/July are now packed with the 2 SS in June as well as several South-East Asian GP Golds (Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines), and Oceania's GP (Australia & New Zealand).

    August is reserved for either the Olympics or the World Championships.

    November/December is also reserved for either the Asian Games/East-Asian Games and SEA Games.

    As for the SSMF, let's just forget about it first at the moment.

    The calendar looks packed at the moment, but, it will be wise to slot in a major tourney at the end of June/early July and end of September/early October.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,695
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think some of those points are quite valid.

    Shall we have a poll on which SS tournaments for Grand slam?

  4. #4
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default ...

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    ...
    1. global viewership of that tournament.. in this regard, how many people would watch it live is most important...
    2. whether top players would participate..
    3. the country's performance in the recent Level 1 events.
    4. quality of its facility, eg, lighting, air flow, wooden floor
    5. quality of its linesmen and supporting/technical staff....
    ...
    1. Global viewership watching it live at the stadium or through TV/cable/satellite/internet stream?..If it's the latter, then it depends on which tv broadcaster will carry them. As of now, BWF already has IEC to work hand in hand with to broadcast all of the SS tourneys as well as most of the GP Gold tourneys live (through Wob.tv) through the internet as well as through Astro (S'pore & M'sia region).
    For the other broadcasters, we all have to rely on Chinese based tv companies/broadcasters (e.g. CCTV5, GDTV, Shanghai Sports etc.).
    2. IMO, the only SS level (w/prize money) tournament where all top players would participate is the AE..
    3. Which country's performance? the host country?..
    4. Those will be hard to judge..
    5. IMO, again, the only one that comes to providing the highest linesmen/women and technical staff quality, combined, is the AE..

    yes, this is in a way a continuation from the above referenced thread..
    Last edited by ctjcad; 02-05-2010 at 04:49 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    5,893
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lightbulb Yesss, a poll! We get to pick 4... But give us more options...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung View Post
    I think some of those points are quite valid.

    Shall we have a poll on which SS tournaments for Grand slam?
    Oh great! We get to pick 4 tournaments, right?!? But give an option that's not in the current SS too... Like:
    India Open
    US Open
    Australia Open
    NZ Open
    Vietnam Open
    Philippine Open
    German Open
    Russia Open
    Dutch Open, etc.

    Why? Because some of the current 12 SS might not be considered a SS event starting in 2011. And some others like the US Open, Philippine Open, Vietnam Open are applying to be considered one of the SS... [and possibly straight to become one of the Grand Slam 'elite SS']....

    Please make a note to everyone that BWF's intention to hold this Grand Slam event is to foster further growth in badminton popularity worldwide, thus making the sport robust, attractive, etc. all the good things... BWF might even subsidize the event cost & prize money when that country is still having trouble finding sponsors. So, please do not be stuck with conventional paradigms...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    5,893
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post

    I think BWF should choose the four based on the following criteria (other than the size of the prize money):

    1. global viewership of that tournament.. in this regard, how many people would watch it live is most important...
    2. whether top players would participate..
    3. the country's performance in the recent Level 1 events.
    4. quality of its facility, eg, lighting, air flow, wooden floor
    5. quality of its linesmen and supporting/technical staff....
    6. whether the event clashes with Level 1 events, Multi-sports events featuring badminton (eg, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games) and major sporting events (eg, World Cup, Olympics, UEFA Championships Final)
    I agree with point 4, 5, and 6... those are must-haves...
    As for point 1, 2, and 3... let me remind everyone that past datas does not guarantee future results. The intention of BWF's grand slam elite SS is to grow badminton popularity worldwide. So, future growth potential should be the priority! All investments and efforts should support the priority.

    Imagine the Coca Cola company in the year 1980...
    Sales in the USA: 100,000 gallons. Sales in China: 0 gallon.
    Where should we put our marketing investments?
    100% in the USA, 0% in China? Because the consensus was "Sales in China is zero. No hope! Why bother?"
    or
    70% in the USA, 30% in China? "China is a huge future market, we have to start now! That's our new promise land!"

    Luckily, Coca Cola chose the 2nd route to invest in China...
    Nowadays, most of Coca-Cola's sales are not from the USA and their overall growth came mostly from non-US markets... That will not happen if their mindset was stuck in their 'supposedly safe' paradigm.

    When the overall systemic incentive-mix (prize money, WR points, prestige, etc.) are changed, then... the participation of top players will change, then... global viewership shall change (probably caused by the top level competition), then... eventually the country's performance in the recent level 1 event shall change too.

    Example:
    The total prize money of every badminton grand slam event is now US$10,000,000 and winning one means getting 20,000 WR points... while the normal SS stays at $200,000 and winning one means getting 5000 WR points... will the top players be reluctant to join the grand slam event? I highly doubt it!

    With massive (if not total) top player participation [which probably mean a significant increase in prestige of that tournament], will the global viewership stay constant compared to last year? I think there is a high probability we shall see a massive increase in TV viewership...

    Under the current BWF distribution of prize money policy, a $10,000,000 tournament will give the winner of MS-WS-MD etc. around US$800,000 take-home-pay. Most world citizens will see that as a lot of money [for 1 week's worth of competition] ... Definitely in India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc.

    When citizens of the host country (including prospective parents of talented kids from that country) see how much money can be earned by a winner, they will be more likely to allow their kids to further pursue a career in badminton. With a hugely larger talent pool, that country will be more likely to produce top athletes in another 10-15 years or so... These athletes shall become top performers in tier 1 tournaments in 10-15 years.

    Observe other sports for reference. Learn the patterns... Change the overall systemic incentive mix first! Then good things will follow.
    Last edited by Krisna; 02-05-2010 at 08:58 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,947
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    1. Global viewership watching it live at the stadium or through TV/cable/satellite/internet stream?..If it's the latter, then it depends on which tv broadcaster will carry them. As of now, BWF already has IEC to work hand in hand with to broadcast all of the SS tourneys as well as most of the GP Gold tourneys live (through Wob.tv) through the internet as well as through Astro (S'pore & M'sia region).
    For the other broadcasters, we all have to rely on Chinese based tv companies/broadcasters (e.g. CCTV5, GDTV, Shanghai Sports etc.).
    What I meant by global viewership is EVERYBODY!!!! watching it Live via TV/Cable/satellite and internet stream and at the stadium... One of the major hurdle USA Open faces is, if USA Open is held on the east coast, 80% of the global badminton population (ie, Asia) would be asleep when they play... If held in L.A. or S.F., it is slightly better; but still not entirely satisfactory...
    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    2. IMO, the only SS level (w/prize money) tournament where all top players would participate is the AE..
    everyone agrees with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    3. Which country's performance? the host country?..
    yes, i meant the host country... each host needs to prove itself before they it is promoted one step above in the ladder... It can prove itself by getting more sponsorship and funding as well as the six criteria I have mentioned in the original post. Leapfrogging is not a good idea, whether from GP to SS or GP Gold to Grand Slam...
    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    4. Those will be hard to judge..
    ok
    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    5. IMO, again, the only one that comes to providing the highest linesmen/women and technical staff quality, combined, is the AE..
    agree...
    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    yes, this is in a way a continuation from the above referenced thread..
    My original post was meant to suggest a way to revamp the existing jam-packed BWF calendar....

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,947
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    I agree with point 4, 5, and 6... those are must-haves...
    As for point 1, 2, and 3... let me remind everyone that past datas does not guarantee future results.
    I think the promotion of a SS to Grand Slam status ought to be based on three factors only: (1) total amount of its prize money, (2) past and existing performance of the SS based on the six criteria I mentioned earlier, and (3) how best to revamp the annual BWF calendar to make it less jam-packed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    The intention of BWF's grand slam elite SS is to grow badminton popularity worldwide. So, future growth potential should be the priority! All investments and efforts should support the priority.
    I entirely agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    Imagine the Coca Cola company in the year 1980...
    Sales in the USA: 100,000 gallons. Sales in China: 0 gallon.
    Where should we put our marketing investments?
    100% in the USA, 0% in China? Because the consensus was "Sales in China is zero. No hope! Why bother?"
    or
    70% in the USA, 30% in China? "China is a huge future market, we have to start now! That's our new promise land!"

    Luckily, Coca Cola chose the 2nd route to invest in China...
    Nowadays, most of Coca-Cola's sales are not from the USA and their overall growth came mostly from non-US markets... That will not happen if their mindset was stuck in their 'supposedly safe' paradigm.
    One of the major problem USA Open faces as a GP Gold event is, if USA Open is held on the east coast, 80% of the global badminton population (ie, Asia) would be asleep when they play... If held in L.A. or S.F., it is slightly better; but still not entirely satisfactory...

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    When the overall systemic incentive-mix (prize money, WR points, prestige, etc.) are changed, then... the participation of top players will change, then... global viewership shall change (probably caused by the top level competition), then... eventually the country's performance in the recent level 1 event shall change too.
    I think it is better that before BWF decides where to invest its money, each country should prove itself capable of (1) raising funds by itself without BWF's help, and (2) demonstrating exceptional performance in the six criteria I have mentioned. If the country can prove itself capable in these two area, BWF should invest money in that country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    Example:
    The total prize money of every badminton grand slam event is now US$10,000,000 and winning one means getting 20,000 WR points... while the normal SS stays at $200,000 and winning one means getting 5000 WR points... will the top players be reluctant to join the grand slam event? I highly doubt it!
    hmm??? don't understand what u mean..

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    With massive (if not total) top player participation [which probably mean a significant increase in prestige of that tournament], will the global viewership stay constant compared to last year? I think there is a high probability we shall see a massive increase in TV viewership...
    i entirely agree with this...

  9. #9
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default On these..

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    ...One of the major hurdle USA Open faces is, if USA Open is held on the east coast, 80% of the global badminton population (ie, Asia) would be asleep when they play... If held in L.A. or S.F., it is slightly better; but still not entirely satisfactory...
    ...
    ..the rest of the 80% of the badminton world might be fast asleep, but which region of the world should BWF focus to expand and popularize the sport in?

    Take futbol, which is hugely popular all over Europe. A lot of their matches cater to the European community (to an extent, to the N.A. market), but at the same time are not so to the rest of Asian region (which i know has more followers than in North America).

    Or take professional tennis for example, the U.S. Open GS tennis, which has been held in Flushing, NY (east coast) for many yrs. Yet many folks from other countries would stay up awake just to watch even if their eyes are about to fall out...Or if one is to say the majority of tennis followers are in the U.S., consider the French Open GS and Wimbledon GS.

    Will there be a satisfaction from all corners of the world??..
    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    ...
    Example:
    The total prize money of every badminton grand slam event is now US$10,000,000 and winning one means getting 20,000 WR points... while the normal SS stays at $200,000 and winning one means getting 5000 WR points... will the top players be reluctant to join the grand slam event? I highly doubt it!
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    ...
    hmm??? don't understand what u mean..
    ...
    ..he basically meant:
    If you have a choice between participating in a tourney which offers $10 mil total prize money and 20k pts/winner vs. a tourney which only offers $220k total prize money and 5000 pts/winner, which one would you (the top players) choose?
    Last edited by ctjcad; 02-05-2010 at 12:04 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    5,893
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    ..he basically meant:
    If you have a choice between participating in a tourney which offers $10 mil total prize money and 20000 pts/winner vs. a tourney which only offers $220k total prize money and 5000 pts/winner, which one would you (the top players) choose?

    yes. Simply that... which one will a top player choose?

    All I am trying to point out is: do not assume that the top players will keep going to a certain event out of habit. A change in incentive mechanism will change human behaviour. Top player participation is something that can be managed with systemic incentives. It should not be a prerequisite for holding a grand slam. With the right incentives, it will be just a logical consequence.
    Last edited by Krisna; 02-05-2010 at 07:14 PM.

  11. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,695
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    Oh great! We get to pick 4 tournaments, right?!? But give an option that's not in the current SS too... Like:
    India Open
    US Open
    Australia Open
    NZ Open
    Vietnam Open
    Philippine Open
    German Open
    Russia Open
    Dutch Open, etc.

    Why? Because some of the current 12 SS might not be considered a SS event starting in 2011. And some others like the US Open, Philippine Open, Vietnam Open are applying to be considered one of the SS... [and possibly straight to become one of the Grand Slam 'elite SS']....

    Please make a note to everyone that BWF's intention to hold this Grand Slam event is to foster further growth in badminton popularity worldwide, thus making the sport robust, attractive, etc. all the good things... BWF might even subsidize the event cost & prize money when that country is still having trouble finding sponsors. So, please do not be stuck with conventional paradigms...
    Unfortunately, the poll option does not allow us to limit to max of four choices out of the group.

    As for the changing status of the grand slam tournament, I agree with your point.

    Therefore, I feel it is best to limit the choices to those tournaments which have had consistent sponsorship in the past and therefore have demonstrated a good track record of attracting sponsors. After all, it would be very embarrassing to have a tournament awarded grand slam status and then need "bailing out" for many years.

    We already have a good set of tournaments that can rotate around the world for publicity, i.e. world championships, thomas/uber cup, sudirman cup.


    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna
    All I am trying to point out is: do not assume that the top players will keep going to a certain event out of habit. A change in incentive mechanism will change human behaviour. Top player participation is something that can be managed with systemic incentives. It should not be a prerequisite for holding a grand slam. With the right incentives, it will be just a logical consequence.
    Exactly, Even the name of "All England" is not enough. There have been absences in the past.
    Last edited by Cheung; 02-05-2010 at 07:22 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    5,893
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    Imagine the Coca Cola company in the year 1980...
    Sales in the USA: 100,000 gallons. Sales in China: 0 gallon.
    Where should we put our marketing investments?
    100% in the USA, 0% in China? Because the consensus was "Sales in China is zero. No hope! Why bother?"
    or
    70% in the USA, 30% in China? "China is a huge future market, we have to start now! That's our new promise land!"

    Luckily, Coca Cola chose the 2nd route to invest in China...
    Nowadays, most of Coca-Cola's sales are not from the USA and their overall growth came mostly from non-US markets... That will not happen if their mindset was stuck in their 'supposedly safe' paradigm.


    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    I think it is better that before BWF decides where to invest its money, each country should prove itself capable of (1) raising funds by itself without BWF's help, and (2) demonstrating exceptional performance in the six criteria I have mentioned. If the country can prove itself capable in these two area, BWF should invest money in that country.
    If the Coca Cola management in 1980 mainly looked at the 1980 China sales [which was ZERO], they would not have invested in China. Their argument could have been that Coca Cola China's sales had not demonstrated exceptional performance and could not raise their own fund from their own sales... but that kind of argument is flawed to the core.

    The right kinds of investments has to be done first [after careful calculations of course], only then exceptional performance can happen. You got to spend money to make money. Invest money in things that will bring future business!

    If BWF invest money only in things that has good past performance... that would be wrong. Hahaha, like if a person [in the year 2000 or something] investing in a Walkman plant rather than an iPod plant... Walkman had good sales, iPod zero... Only keep investing in Walkman...?!?!? Because iPod showed no track record, no exceptional performance, cannot even fund itself?!?! That's just bad business sense!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,947
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    If the Coca Cola management in 1980 mainly looked at the 1980 China sales [which was ZERO], they would not have invested in China. Their argument could have been that Coca Cola China's sales had not demonstrated exceptional performance and could not raise their own fund from their own sales... but that kind of argument is flawed to the core.
    I thought US Open has been running for a number of years... Their ticket sales performance is not ZERO. Total global viewership is not ZERO. A few good players go there to play, too. They are able to raise at least $120k for 2010 US Open.. up from the $80k from the previous year. They have demonstrated some performance, too (relative to other low-tier events)!!! US Open does have a track record!!!! If I am not mistake their 2009 event was quite good [sorry, i didn't get to watch]

    http://usabadminton.org/news/2009/06...ionships/13401

    If you are suggesting BWF should invest money in a country which has zero track record, I don't think I can agree with that... sorry!!!! i will say no more....

    The right kinds of investments has to be done first [after careful calculations of course], only then exceptional performance can happen. You got to spend money to make money. Invest money in things that will bring future business!
    Agree!! But where should BWF invest its money???? How should they decide? Based on what criteria?? Why invest $500k in USA and not Mozambique? why not Tajikistan?

    If BWF invest money only in things that has good past performance... that would be wrong. Hahaha, like if a person [in the year 2000 or something] investing in a Walkman plant rather than an iPod plant... Walkman had good sales, iPod zero... Only keep investing in Walkman...?!?!? Because iPod showed no track record, no exceptional performance, cannot even fund itself?!?! That's just bad business sense!
    Will BWF investing $500k in USA turn out to be a walkman investment???? USA Open now does have a track record!!!!

    I believe over 90% of all American enterprises which are doing businesses in China right now are in fact losing money in China. Big or small enterprises..... Since 1980, there are countless and countless American companies who were taken for a ride in China (by their local Joint-Venture partners or the local governments) and left the place without ever wanting to get back there ever again....

    Coca Cola and McDonald's are the most successful and profitable businesses since the beginning of industrialisation.... The people of China hugely wanted their products before these two companies decided to go there... that was why they are successful and profitable there now (i think).... These two companies knew beforehand (with good probability) that their investment would make a profit for them in China...

    Before Apple invented iPod, they had countless other unsuccessful products.... Other than iPod and iPhone, much (if not most) of Apple's current products are not so profitable...

    Hopefully, BWF would invest its money (actually our money) wisely.... I entirely agree BWF should do everything it can to expand the popularity of badminton worldwide!!! But how??? how????

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    5,893
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    If you are suggesting BWF should invest money in a country which has zero track record, I don't think I can agree with that... sorry!!!! i will say no more....

    Agree!! But where should BWF invest its money???? How should they decide? Based on what criteria?? Why invest $500k in USA and not Mozambique? why not Tajikistan?

    Hopefully, BWF would invest its money (actually our money) wisely.... I entirely agree BWF should do everything it can to expand the popularity of badminton worldwide!!! But how??? how????
    You should not say anymore about that because I already know the US badminton is not zero. Just still under-represented... because the US GDP is US$ 11+ trillion per year! Unlike Mozambique and Tajikistan, the potential of the USA is huge!

    Why did McDonalds and Coca Cola prioritize China over Mozambique and Tajikistan? Because China's potential is also huge! 1.2+ billion people... and probably will eclipse the US itself [in terms of total GDP] in a couple of decades.

    I keep telling you the way for BWF to wisely invest their money... I already explain how. Prioritize the US and BRICI [Brazil Russia India China Indonesia] over other markets! They are the future of our planet. Of course a big undertaking will incur issues, problems, etc. But the logic of prioritizing these countries is solid. What should not be priorities are HK, SIN, Macau, and other puny states [and markets]. That will be illogical.
    Last edited by Krisna; 02-05-2010 at 10:20 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,947
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung View Post
    Unfortunately, the poll option does not allow us to limit to max of four choices out of the group.

    As for the changing status of the grand slam tournament, I agree with your point.

    Therefore, I feel it is best to limit the choices to those tournaments which have had consistent sponsorship in the past and therefore have demonstrated a good track record of attracting sponsors. After all, it would be very embarrassing to have a tournament awarded grand slam status and then need "bailing out" for many years.
    quite right... Hong Kong and Singapore probably don't need any subsidies from BWF. Even without BWF's money, I am sure HKG, SGP and Macau will continue to attract the best players to come and to play their best, too. They are able to do so because they are right in the middle of the strongest Asian badminton countries.... BWF didn't do much to help these three tiny city-states...


    We already have a good set of tournaments that can rotate around the world for publicity, i.e. world championships, thomas/uber cup, sudirman cup.
    The year-end Masters Finals ought to be rotated around the world, too.. even in non-Super Series countries....

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    came from the SAR
    Posts
    3,947
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krisna View Post
    I keep telling you the way for BWF to wisely invest their money... I already explain how. Prioritize the US and BRICI [Brazil Russia India China Indonesia] over other markets! They are the future of our planet. Of course a big undertaking will incur issues, problems, etc. But the logic of prioritizing these countries is solid. What should not be priorities are HK, SIN, Macau, and other puny states [and markets]. That will be illogical.
    HK/SGP do not need any priorities from BWF... In fact, I think HK/SGP should pay BWF money if they want to be a Grand Slam event... A Grand Slam event should not be a financial burden for BWF.... Grand Slam should be profit making for BWF, just like World Championship, Thomas Cup and Olympics.... With these profits, BWF can use the money to help expand the badminton sport around the world....

    I have been to the Macau Open for the last 2 years. It's a strange sight.. The stadium is almost nearly empty.... Even when Lee Chong Wei is playing against Taufik.... no crowd... no applause... no uproar..... i wonder where the Macau organizer get their funding from......

    i heard on TV that LCW and Taufik get paid just for showing up for the Macau event..... is it true??
    Last edited by pcll99; 02-05-2010 at 11:44 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member george@chongwei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    29,960
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    wow, so many suggestions and ideas going on here..

    I really really wonder whether BWF see this thread?
    that makes me LOL

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 58
    : 09-22-2008, 12:47 PM
  2. US Open Grand Slam 2008
    By Sandy in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 5
    : 08-29-2008, 01:13 AM
  3. Grand Slam winner
    By weeyet in forum Professional Players
    Replies: 70
    : 03-25-2008, 04:26 AM
  4. Badmintoncentral grand slam
    By Cheung in forum General Forum
    Replies: 52
    : 04-24-2007, 04:05 AM
  5. it's the grand slam now........
    By *GaDe~CaMiLlA* in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 27
    : 01-29-2005, 12:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •