Lysaght Dancer wrote:
I should imagine so it’s not to create a benchmark for future negotiations with other sponsors.

If the deal is deemed to be worth £50k but Interbet negotiated it down to £40k (because there was no other company in the running) then it would be crazy to publish that fact.

All future sponsors would negotiate based on the published figure which would leave us out of pocket.

That a charlatan company are our sponsors is known to any company that might consider future sponsorship. Being sponsored by an internet betting company without a website makes us look cheap.

As you know Brendan,you could have asked the question by email in advance of the meeting and it would have been answered.Instead,you ask for the answer on an unofficial forum.The meeting date was announced well in advance so there's no excuse.

Percy plunkett wrote:As you know Brendan,you could have asked the question by email in advance of the meeting and it would have been answered.Instead,you ask for the answer on an unofficial forum.The meeting date was announced well in advance so there's no excuse.

The meeting this evening was about the future ownership. Not about sponsorship.
I rather think you're trying to deflect.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Willthiswork wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:I don't think Brendan is asking for how much £'s but how much % of the deal they have paid us.
I may be wrong though.

I think he will make it the opposite of what anyone thinks it is to get a rise.

No, I would like to know how much? If we are told that £700,000 was the profit from the Cup run then that wasn't commercially sensitive then how can what we received from Interbet be sensitive?

Strikes me that commercially sensitive equates to embarrassing.

The £700k profit was in the public domain already, a combination of competition prize money and additional ticket revenues (with both price and attendances known). Not quite the same as giving away to all possible advertisers the exact amount they know they can start negotiating from.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: That a charlatan company are our sponsors is known to any company that might consider future sponsorship. Being sponsored by an internet betting company without a website makes us look cheap.

Completely disagree, as long as the amount of the sponsorship is not known there's no way to know if we're cheap or not. 4 other teams are also taking their money, it's not a big deal to them either.

SJG99 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: That a charlatan company are our sponsors is known to any company that might consider future sponsorship. Being sponsored by an internet betting company without a website makes us look cheap.

Completely disagree, as long as the amount of the sponsorship is not known there's no way to know if we're cheap or not. 4 other teams are also taking their money, it's not a big deal to them either.

If you look you will see that the other clubs are only 'betting partners'. Dave Boddy used that ploy. It doesn't cost Internet. Only with us are they official sponsors.

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Willthiswork wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:I don't think Brendan is asking for how much £'s but how much % of the deal they have paid us.
I may be wrong though.

I think he will make it the opposite of what anyone thinks it is to get a rise.

No, I would like to know how much? If we are told that £700,000 was the profit from the Cup run then that wasn't commercially sensitive then how can what we received from Interbet be sensitive?

Strikes me that commercially sensitive equates to embarrassing.

The FA Cup money, per round, is widely available for viewing and it wouldn't take much to understand the gate cash figures etc. from the actual attendances.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:As you know Brendan,you could have asked the question by email in advance of the meeting and it would have been answered.Instead,you ask for the answer on an unofficial forum.The meeting date was announced well in advance so there's no excuse.

The meeting this evening was about the future ownership. Not about sponsorship.
I rather think you're trying to deflect.

I thought it was a Supporters' Meeting. I'm sure they had an 'any other business' section notified and that you should put your points forward before the meeting to ensure that they may be raised.

It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

SJG99 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: That a charlatan company are our sponsors is known to any company that might consider future sponsorship. Being sponsored by an internet betting company without a website makes us look cheap.

Completely disagree, as long as the amount of the sponsorship is not known there's no way to know if we're cheap or not. 4 other teams are also taking their money, it's not a big deal to them either.

If you look you will see that the other clubs are only 'betting partners'. Dave Boddy used that ploy. It doesn't cost Internet. Only with us are they official sponsors.

You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.

Brendan is correct, we do look cheap. The reason for this is that as a Trust run club within the world of professional football we are cheap. That situation is unlikely to change unless those among us who want it to realise and act upon the need for us to contribute more. We all need to contribute more, not only financially but in terms of our involvement with the club in any way that we can.

The club is cheap because we made it cheap by not doing enough and unless we do something about it or hand over control to somebody who can, it will stay cheap.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Lysaght Dancer wrote:
I should imagine so it’s not to create a benchmark for future negotiations with other sponsors.

If the deal is deemed to be worth £50k but Interbet negotiated it down to £40k (because there was no other company in the running) then it would be crazy to publish that fact.

All future sponsors would negotiate based on the published figure which would leave us out of pocket.

That a charlatan company are our sponsors is known to any company that might consider future sponsorship. Being sponsored by an internet betting company without a website makes us look cheap.

Whether that’s the case or not (and I do have sympathy with the view that it might not look good) it still doesn’t mean your original point is correct.

Publishing what we recieve is sponsorship would be very commercially naive.

Exile 1976 wrote:It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.

I didn't turn up because I live in a different country. You didn't turn up because it was wet. Westsider didn't turn up because Newport is too dangerous at night.

Only real fact is none of us showed up.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.

I didn't turn up because I live in a different country. You didn't turn up because it was wet. Westsider didn't turn up because Newport is too dangerous at night.

Only real fact is none of us showed up.

Approximately 80 showed up. A couple of those friends of mine, both stated that as usual no-one brought up any of the problems so many on here moan about but never seem to bring it up when they have the perfect opportunity.
You could quite easily have submitted your queries as has been pointed out to you by someone else. You chose not to.

Exile 1976 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.

I didn't turn up because I live in a different country. You didn't turn up because it was wet. Westsider didn't turn up because Newport is too dangerous at night.

Only real fact is none of us showed up.

Approximately 80 showed up. A couple of those friends of mine, both stated that as usual no-one brought up any of the problems so many on here moan about but never seem to bring it up when they have the perfect opportunity.
You could quite easily have submitted your queries as has been pointed out to you by someone else. You chose not to.

And you chose not to go. As did over 95% of trust members.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
I didn't turn up because I live in a different country. You didn't turn up because it was wet. Westsider didn't turn up because Newport is too dangerous at night.

Only real fact is none of us showed up.

Approximately 80 showed up. A couple of those friends of mine, both stated that as usual no-one brought up any of the problems so many on here moan about but never seem to bring it up when they have the perfect opportunity.
You could quite easily have submitted your queries as has been pointed out to you by someone else. You chose not to.

And you chose not to go. As did over 95% of trust members.

Correct, because I had nothing I particularly wanted to bring up... You have plenty that you complain and moan about but never take the chance to air your views, when you have the chance to do so to the right people, other than on here and your YouTube page.