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.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.
Re: Interbet?
17As 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.
Re: Interbet?
18The meeting this evening was about the future ownership. Not about sponsorship.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.
I rather think you're trying to deflect.
Re: Interbet?
19The £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: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?Willthiswork wrote:I think he will make it the opposite of what anyone thinks it is to get a rise.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.
Strikes me that commercially sensitive equates to embarrassing.
Re: Interbet?
20Completely 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.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.
Re: Interbet?
21If 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.SJG99 wrote: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.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.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.
Re: Interbet?
22The 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: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?Willthiswork wrote:I think he will make it the opposite of what anyone thinks it is to get a rise.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.
Strikes me that commercially sensitive equates to embarrassing.
Re: Interbet?
23I 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.Stan A. Einstein wrote:The meeting this evening was about the future ownership. Not about sponsorship.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.
I rather think you're trying to deflect.
Re: Interbet?
24It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.
Re: Interbet?
25Brendan 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.Stan A. Einstein wrote: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.SJG99 wrote: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.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.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong.
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.
Re: Interbet?
26Whether 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.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.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.
Publishing what we recieve is sponsorship would be very commercially naive.
Re: Interbet?
27I 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.Exile 1976 wrote:It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.
Only real fact is none of us showed up.
Re: Interbet?
28Stan 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.Exile 1976 wrote:It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.
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.
Re: Interbet?
29And you chose not to go. As did over 95% of trust members.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.Exile 1976 wrote:It was. However those with the most to say about things were, as usual, the ones that did not turn up.
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.
Re: Interbet?
30Stan A. Einstein wrote:And you chose not to go. As did over 95% of trust members.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.
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Free beer, Kairdiff Exile