We were given a set of criteria for selection, they were:
- Next NSW Club on the roster (currently – St Ives, Ryde, Castle Hill & Maitland)
- Ability to comply with the current EP10 OFR rules.
- Venue and facilities
- Officials
If St Ives have nominated appropriate officials, and shown that their track, venue, etc. can comply with the regulations then based on this criteria the choice was the one that complies with due process, and the right choice from that perspective.
I'm happy with the decision. If Maitland had been successful with this criteria it would have meant that St Ives either couldn't satisfy some conditions or that Maitland had far better facilities.
Michael H, I think your being a little defensive. Michael R's comment I think was just meant to mean that it doesn't matter who got the event as long as the decision was made in the correct way. He wasn't implying St Ives shouldn't have got it.
I'm ok with the other clubs being canvassed for their opinions. As we all know, the EP OFR President is a member of St Ives. He may have felt conflicted, getting the input of other neutral club officials helps him to be objective. It's a sensible and responsible thing to do. I don't think he meant there was a formal vote, that wasn't part of the criteria (and a vote of 2 clubs is hardly likely to be useful), but it seems he just asked for the comments of other clubs with reference to the selection criteria.
I wish St Ives all the best. I'm sure they will do a good job. I look forward to competing there next year.