Jump to content

How much would you be willing to put in?  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. How much would you be willing to put in?

    • £5
      18
    • £10
      9
    • £15
      0
    • £20
      0
    • £25
      0
    • £30
      0
    • £35
      0
    • £40
      0
    • £45
      0
    • £50 +
      0


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It costs £700 to sponsor a player. It wouldn't take much for us to gather enough money together between us so the Saints Web Forum can sponsor someone. Included in the sponsor is the players signed shirt, 2 tickets to season players award dinner and I'm sure a few other bits and bobs. SG put forward a good idea that these bits should be put up to some kind of raffle/draw. Obviously depending on the amount you donate, the better chance you have of winning them. (Minimum £5 - Maximum £50) There were a few people on the other thread who showed interest and it sounds good to me! (Thanks for the idea GM/LS)

 

If the player we decide leaves for whatever reason, then the next most voted for player would be chosen. You won't necessarily get the player you choose if the most voted for player is someone else!

 

The players left available are:

 

Wayne Thomas

Grzegorz Rasiak

Paul Wotton

Lee Holmes

Michael Poke

Jack Boyle

Andrej Pernecky

Jamie White

Oscar Gobern

Jack Saville

Anthony Pulis

Lee Molyneux

Ben Reeves

Callum McNish

Questions:

 

Are you interested?

How much would you be willing to donate?

Which player would you like to sponsor?

 

Sticky please mods?

Edited by thesaint sfc
Posted

Not sure this is going to work on a democracy. For a start, you'd need everyone to agree to put the money to one player, and plenty wont want to put their money into the pot for a certain player.

Secondly, it needs to be fixed cost, else someone who puts in 50 should be allowed 10 times the chance of winning the tickets to someone who puts in £5

 

lastly, no, we can't afford this from the saintsweb budget :p

Posted

Used to contribute to the SaintsList player sponsorship, I'd be up for it. Should it turn out to be worthwhile, there should be a vote between the donors as to who gets sponsored.

Posted

Good idea ! Count me in for £5. I'd be happy to go with the majority decision on who to sponsor but my choice would be either a young player coming into the first team from the academy or wayne thomas.

Posted
Not sure this is going to work on a democracy. For a start, you'd need everyone to agree to put the money to one player, and plenty wont want to put their money into the pot for a certain player.

Secondly, it needs to be fixed cost, else someone who puts in 50 should be allowed 10 times the chance of winning the tickets to someone who puts in £5

 

lastly, no, we can afford this from the saintsweb budget :p

 

I thought Granty's idea was £1 shares up to a max of £50, so your name goes in the pot once for a pound or 50 times for £50 etc.

Posted
Not sure this is going to work on a democracy. For a start, you'd need everyone to agree to put the money to one player, and plenty wont want to put their money into the pot for a certain player.

Secondly, it needs to be fixed cost, else someone who puts in 50 should be allowed 10 times the chance of winning the tickets to someone who puts in £5

 

lastly, no, we can't afford this from the saintsweb budget :p

You missed the earlier thread, by the look of it.

 

My idea was:

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=379968&postcount=49

Posted

Also, a bit pointless listing the players "available" right now, IMO.

 

1. Some of the existing players not on that list might become available if last season's sponsor doesn't renew;

2. Some of the players who are on the list might be taken by someone else before we've got the money together;

3. Some of the players who are on the list might be sold by the time we get the money together;

4. We might make some more signings;

5. We might not get enough money together to cover the cost of one player.

 

Also, as far as I'm aware it's not necessarily a fixed cost for every player - in the past, players who were first-team regulars were more expensive than reserves. And don't forget the price quoted is excluding VAT.

Posted
Wouldn't work any other way really, so a good idea. However I think it would be good to get the player to be sponsored sorted out now rather than later, as if it drags on for a few days people are more likely to be unreliable.

Disagree.

 

I would suggest that only those who contribute should be eligible to vote on who the money is spent on.

Posted
Also, a bit pointless listing the players "available" right now, IMO.

 

1. Some of the existing players not on that list might become available if last season's sponsor doesn't renew;

2. Some of the players who are on the list might be taken by someone else before we've got the money together;

3. Some of the players who are on the list might be sold by the time we get the money together;

4. We might make some more signings;

5. We might not get enough money together to cover the cost of one player.

 

Also, as far as I'm aware it's not necessarily a fixed cost for every player - in the past, players who were first-team regulars were more expensive than reserves. And don't forget the price quoted is excluding VAT.

 

At least this way we'll get some idea of who people would like to sponsor rather than having no idea at all. As I said above, if the player is unavailable for whatever reason then the next most voted for player will be chosen.

Posted
Disagree.

 

I would suggest that only those who contribute should be eligible to vote on who the money is spent on.

 

Agree. Collect the money first within a fixed time frame (say a few days), then those people are the ones eligible to vote.

Posted
Disagree.

 

I would suggest that only those who contribute should be eligible to vote on who the money is spent on.

 

That's what I'm saying. If people pledge their money now and who they want to sponsor, it kills two birds with one stone rather than dragging things on. When things drag, people become unreliable. Best to get it cleared up now.

Posted
Agree. Collect the money first within a fixed time frame (say a few days), then those people are the ones eligible to vote.

 

I'm not sure how that would work unless we PM'd each member individually. Is that easy to do Steve?

Posted
That's what I'm saying. If people pledge their money now and who they want to sponsor, it kills two birds with one stone rather than dragging things on. When things drag, people become unreliable. Best to get it cleared up now.

But you don't know how many people will just stick in a vote and say "I'll give a tenner" and then don't end up sending any money at all.

 

If it's going to work, it will only work by firstly making sure we've actually got enough to cover the cost (if £700+VAT is the "standard" price, the total required will be £805, and that's after PayPal fees). Unless the money comes in, it's all a bit pointless.

Posted
But you don't know how many people will just stick in a vote and say "I'll give a tenner" and then don't end up sending any money at all.

 

If it's going to work, it will only work by firstly making sure we've actually got enough to cover the cost (if £700+VAT is the "standard" price, the total required will be £805, and that's after PayPal fees). Unless the money comes in, it's all a bit pointless.

So in short, anyone positng 'ill chuck in a tenner' are wasting their time at the moment.

Posted
But you don't know how many people will just stick in a vote and say "I'll give a tenner" and then don't end up sending any money at all.

 

If it's going to work, it will only work by firstly making sure we've actually got enough to cover the cost (if £700+VAT is the "standard" price, the total required will be £805, and that's after PayPal fees). Unless the money comes in, it's all a bit pointless.

 

We don't indeed but when you consider only 80 people need to pledge £10 to just about achieve it, I don't think it will be hard to do. Hopefully we'll get more than that to cover anyone who is unreliable and drops out. Obviously if it becomes a problem we can just cancel the whole idea without too much trouble to anyone else.

 

I generally don't mind who we sponsor, and based on what others have said so far it doesn't seem like they do either. I'm happy to PM everyone individually after to confirm who they would like to sponsor, but 100 PM's could be a bit of a pain.

Posted

Well I think this whole thread is a bit pointless until we've a) got a new address for PayPal payments set up, and b) got some fairly rigid T&Cs sorted.

 

Probably a conversation for MSN... :)

Posted
I've emailed the club (Danielle) to confirm the costs and a couple of other bits.

Why didn't you just let me or Baj do that, seeing as we'll be the ones handling the money? :confused:

Posted
Disagree.

 

I would suggest that only those who contribute should be eligible to vote on who the money is spent on.

 

Like I said much earlier in da fred, yes? ;-)

Posted
Why didn't you just let me or Baj do that, seeing as we'll be the ones handling the money? :confused:

 

Indeed, Will, if this is representitive of this forum and business, we would prefer it if you let us handle any communications to the club. Were not stopping you doing this and we think its a great idea, but either represent yourself organising this, or let us communicate to the club.

Posted
If the poll tops £1000, assuming a few muppets vote for £50+ just to waste everyones time, then I reckon we've got a starter.

 

Yup - then it'll be a rush to paypal the money across and as soon as it reaches the £805 or whatever it is then that's who's in the draw. Not sure if you can stop receiving paypal payments though ??!!

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...