I was thinking a bit about the format. If this turns out to be popular (let’s say 70ish people), the correct format would be 5-6 rounds Swiss + top 4/8, which would be way too long for many people for a weekly event. People will burn out, attendance will drop, this of course will fix event length problems, but not in a good way.
The advantage of a weekly event where most likely majority of participants plays at least semi-regularly is the additional information you have from past events. This information can be used to seed the initial round draw (getting an effect similar to having 1-2 Swiss rounds played beforehand, and those are first rounds, which are least interesting due to uneven matchups being most likely there).
How could this work in practice? Let’s say each player has a rating score assigned to them, which is total of their 5 best Swiss scores during past half a year*. On a Saturday people sign up for an event, after the deadline TO takes the list and sorts by ratings. Bottom 20 people start the tournament from 0 points. Then further 20 people start from 3 points. Then further 20 people start from 6 points. And so on. With such system we can do 4 rounds Swiss + top 4 no matter how many people turn up and we still have meaningful results. And 4 rounds Swiss is very good for such event. Starting 6 PM GMT, it would finish around midnight in mainland Europe (while starting late enough that people will be back from small local tournaments they might attend), it would finish early enough in America to still do something else in the evening.
*5 results from half a year may seem very little, as 26 tournaments will happen during that time, but this rating is not an end result we need for some classification. It is used for seeding and thus should reflect playing strength correctly as often as possible, even for semi-regular players attending once a month, or someone who happened to go on a two months holiday in some remote wilderness