Your statement presupposes, I think, that there are more cost-effective sizes of rink to be built instead of a four. With the exception of rinks in cities where there are sufficient numbers of curlers to support them, I hope your wishlist can provide the figures to prove their viability.

For any curling rink to survive, it needs to provide not only good ice, but also good food and atmosphere. A four-sheeter in a rural environment can do this, as many Canadian models prove, and their working staff get paid better than they do here. It is, however, a fact that many ice technicians, bar staff, etc. will work for an hourly seasonal rate if necessary, if that is what it takes. I did for many years, and it never worried me much. Perhaps that's where I went wrong, I don't know, but my employers wouldn't let me work unless I got paid, so blame them.

I stand corrected, but the point has been made. Wikipedia is wonderful, isn't it!

John
Without wishing to continue this childish post Perhaps you should learn to stick to facts
Rubber was a natural product around the time of Dunlop no one invented it ,since then it has become more product of the petroleum industry.
The Scottish vet, John Boyd Dunlop is often credited with inventing the pneumatic tyre. He made some in 1888 for his son's tricycle.
However, it is now thought that he did not actually invent them, rather they were first invented by another Scot, Robert William Thomson, some 43 years earlier than Dunlop.
Vulcanized rubber was invented in June of 1844 by Charles Goodyear.
 In 1895, André Michelin was the first person to use pneumatic tyres on an automobile, however, not successfully. 
In 1911, Philip Strauss invented the first successful tyre, which was a combination tyre and air filled inner tube. Strauss' company the Hardman Tyre & Rubber Company marketed the tyres. 
In 1903, P.W. Litchfield of the Goodyear Tyre Company patented the first tubeless tire, however, it was never commercially exploited until the 1954 Packard.

John, This is just to prove the value of factual research in ones debate.
Perhaps the circle would benefit from a factual financial appraisal.

I would concede you have done a lot of worthwhile research which could be used, however the only chance a stand alone four sheet rink has is to built and ran by volunteers from the membership along perhaps the Canadian model with no direct employee costs..   

It was actually Robert Thomson that invented pneumatic tyres, but John Dunlop developed them into an economic and practical product. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

I believe Mr Dunlop invented the rubber tyre because it was necessary.

John
I have only been a member for short period but a reader from the beginning. I thought this site offered
an opportunity to members to air their views and eventually perhaps convince the RCCC management that it offered them another means of communication.
I am not on here to have a go at you, but to encourage the dedicated members to do something more about the real issues than just just post together about how badly treated we are.
One of the main problems of the site is its seen as your platform to keep whipping the RCCCs over the Circle, It is obvious to everyone else that you have reinvented the wheel for a Formula one car but cant get it fitted as standard on production models.
The Circle issue has now gone full Circle and should no longer dominate the forum, I will of course be delighted if there is more four sheet rinks built and if the can be done in the style of the Circle great but lets wait until that is likely to happen.
In the meantime take a reflective look at your strengths and encourage each other to something about the issues. It is as easy to email the RCCC, or even copy them in with your view as its to post.

Not meant to be a criticism but what have we collectively done with any of the following

The proposal to and the actual change in the rules of the Mens Qualification for the Europeans

The change in the date of the qualifiers to suit David Murdoch without considering what effect the change had on others.

The failure support Bob Cowans efforts to have the list of historical items published although it exists.

The failure to collectively support retaining ownership of the LEES painting.

Would we not be better trying do something about these and other issues than continually comparing them with the circle.

Okay, folks, I've had enough of this. Invicta, present YOUR facts. Having a go at me is not going to change anything, there are things I can make public and things I can't. I realise it is not how you might see the world, but I do my best. So, have a go at me if you like, but I certainly don't fall for the old anonymous cop out. If SS (a member of two months) wants to have a go like you did, and then learn to delete his/her posts a week later, fine. Been there, no evidence, no facts, just open season. Yeah, right.

Read Sandy's last post. Try to understand what he is saying, it's relevant. Now I'm signing off, back in the morning.

do I detect a hissy fit?!

SS - you have quickly learnt that certain people do not let the facts stand in the way of a good argument but JM presents a well balanced view -  chips on both shoulders the size of Maris Pipers

The HHY's are just other curlers like ourselves.

If you stopped and looked around you its easy to get into a Province Committee for a start.
Even easier to get on the ASC just ask Sandy Morton how effective the present lot are.

There is no way we are going to overcome any of the issues if we all remain outside the system
we have got to get younger people into the management structure now.

Things can only be changed from inside.

I am Sandy Morton.  imvho the RCCC started to go wrong when the old Council structure had to be abandoned under pressure from the funding bodies.  I do not believe in the Board structure since I think that it is too narrowly representative - the old structure gave greater representation to all Curlers and again imvho was fairer to all.

I enjoyed my first 2 years on Council when we were almost running the RCCC - I was happy to be finished with it when my term was up because by then the Board were in control and the ASC could not make decisions but only suggestion and the bottom line was when it became apparent that the "Board will decide" . 

Why did we continue?  I did it because I love the game and I suspect that most of the others did it for the same reason.

Fine.