I think this is largely positive. Obviously it's not ideal on paper losing a bigger tennis event (the status of it anyway) pretty much at the same time as losing the ATP Finals on the men's side, so significant tournaments, attracting the better players, are moving away, nor is it great for the fans who do go every year - they'll be lucky to see 2 top 20 players rather than the 8 like this year, but Birmingham never really felt appreciated for some reason. I think the crowds were a bit better this year, but they have generally been poor, and 3 Premier (and above) events in a row in the same country isn't ideal, and that, along with competing with Queen's for general interest, probably didn't help.

Plus, we were just saying how a lot of our better players will struggle in the superior field and that some of them would have been better off playing at Ilkley, so it should be a more level playing field, and instead of Strycova and Putintseva feeling like relatively good draws (at the time) for Watson and Dart respectively, now they would more than likely be seeds in a similar type of field to Nottingham, and more chance of extended runs, like Boulter had at Nottingham last year.

With just a Premier and an international on the women's side, Germany to me felt like it didnt have enough events for the size of the country and the amount of decent players it produces, and this will give the grass a bit more of wider international appeal, rather than almost exclusively in one country, the bigger events anyway.

Had we got an additional event in return, like an extra indoor international around the time of Linz and Luxembourg, so effectively replacing a Premier with 2 internationals, then that would have been ideal, but as it is, at least Birmingham will still exist and in the current landscape, it's probably is more beneficial, and it also looks like the LTA have been pushing for this rather than a case of the AELTC spiting British tennis solely for the benefit of their grand slam.