Love it or loathe it, the ballot has proved to be a fairly successful, and fair, way of allocating stand space at the exhibition. Those who remember the ‘old days' before the introduction of the ballot will recall that many exhibitors were then unhappy about the way space was apportioned and demanded a fairer way of doing it.

While in some ways it may always seem to be a case of ‘pleasing some of the people some of the time', I think that the way it is organised now is probably the best so far. It recognises membership of the two trade associations, AVA and EPDWA, and gives priority in the initial stages to companies which have shown loyalty to the event by exhibiting at past shows. Having said that, newcomers who act promptly can still be fairly certain of a choice of good stand sites.

What is important, I believe, is that companies act quickly to book their stands, which will relieve the organisers of as much of the sales pressure as possible, freeing up their time to concentrate on the all-important task of attracting specifiers and other important folk to the NEC next year.

It was good to welcome two more familiar faces as Members to the Vending 21 Club, at its Spring Lunch meeting towards the end of last month.

As tradition requires, after the meal the new members - Richard Blevins (until recently UK General Manager with Rheavendors Servomat) and Nigel Shaw (of Safer Systems) - gave the assembled gathering of more than 40 members, entertaining potted histories of their time so far in vending.

I found it to be something of a sobering thought that around the twin tables there was more than a millennium of experience, past and current, in the industry!

I have to apologise to the many exhibitors at the recent NIVEX SOUTH SHOW who I had promised to see on their stands, and subsequently failed to do so. I am truly saddened to report that, having pre-registered to attend the show, one of the organisers refused my admittance on the basis it would not be of any benefit me being at the event.

Quite clearly I would have loved to have met you all and to have had the opportunity to publish a comprehensive show review. Once again I apologise that I have been unable to provide you, my readers, a factual report of this show.

For the life of me I cannot see any logical reason why an organiser/competitor magazine would want to deny the opportunity of additional publicity, and hope that next year they will be more co-operative for the good of the show and the good of free journalism.

John Sewell