There is a new twist to 'ghost club' and co-hosting tournaments in flyball.  At least that's what I've heard recently.  So, I checked it out a little and discovered one example that looks a little odd to me.

The example is a well-known, long-time flyball club who had just co-hosted a tournament along with another club.  The 2nd club is owned by the same people associated with the 1st club.  Thing is the 2nd club has no actively racing dogs (the few dogs on their roster were all listed as 'retired' or 'deceased' in the database).  In addition, the 2nd club (the co-host club) had no entries at the specific tournament.  

In essence, it appears one club co-hosted a tournament with themselves.  A fact only made clear if one looks closely at the two clubs and their information.  

I get the purpose of co-hosting with a different, perhaps small club since that may provide the help a new club needs to get off the ground as well as help teach them the ropes about how to host a tourney.  I also get the use of a (ghost) club name in order to organize a team and send some entries to race in the Open class since this may allow dogs and handlers from different clubs or who are free agents to come together which may help grow flyball in some fashion.

But, the same club, made up into two clubs and then co-hosting with themselves with no racing dogs or handlers in the one club...do you see the same things I do with this scenario?

Some thoughts I have are that this co-hosted-by-the-same-club tournament:

a) does not help a new club get off the ground since there technically were no new dogs or handlers, and

b) had nothing to do with additional team entries that allow free agents or dogs from different clubs to run together so it does not help grow flyball.

I can only surmise there is some other motivator here.  I truly have no idea but a couple of things jump out at me as possible outcomes of these actions:

1) There are now two clubs rather than one club being tallied under the organization's numbers; this means the numbers may be artificially affected/inflated with respect to number of hosting clubs and growth trends.

2) It is possible that one club now garners additional delegate votes since technically it is treated as two clubs hosting and both clubs therefore may earn a vote for this tournament.

  > The maximum a club is allowed to earn in a year is capped at 15 votes; so the scenario in this post may actually allow the 'ghost club' to also earn a vote for co-hosting.  However, since it is actually the same people in both the ghost club and the first club, it is potentially a round about way for the first club to earn more votes and to have more voting power than the max allowed. 

[Note: I do not know specifically how co-hosting affects delegate vote accrual and I have not sent a formal inquiry to the organization, yet.]




3) It appears this scenario has been able to 'fly under the radar'.  Fishy?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Definitely interesting.  

Sincerely,
I Like Flyball!

PS - If you'd like to read my original 'ghost club' post, please see 5/17/12.