|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Sept 5, 2021 7:08:00 GMT
Should the club give a commitment that all the profit raised by the 50/50 draw will continue to go directly to the Academy and not be allowed to disappear into Rovers financial abyss ? That's a good question. And probably to the heart of the issue. Control as to where the funds are deployed.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Sept 5, 2021 7:35:19 GMT
Bambi:
As I'm a gentleman, I'll indulge and refresh your off topic mind:
Aug 8th 2018: From o s:
"The club can confirm that MintBet will not be on the back of shirt for our 46 League games this season as the new partner has donated the asset to the Bristol Rovers Community Trust.
The limited edition match worn shirts will be used to raise funds for great causes across the city.
The Bristol Rovers Community Trust engages with 3,800 individuals a week on a variety of projects from social inclusion to disability sports.
MintBet will continue to support the club next season as a headline partner and will remain on all replica and cup kits and will also be a training wear sponsor for the upcoming season.
Everyone at the club would like to thank MintBet for their continued support and we look forward to working with them over the course of the season."
All I would say is: context.
In context it wasn't a gross misconduct, so uncomfortably, yes (probably with a written warning).
Always a pleasure engaging.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2021 10:28:42 GMT
Bambi: As I'm a gentleman, I'll indulge and refresh your off topic mind: Aug 8th 2018: From o s: "The club can confirm that MintBet will not be on the back of shirt for our 46 League games this season as the new partner has donated the asset to the Bristol Rovers Community Trust. The limited edition match worn shirts will be used to raise funds for great causes across the city. The Bristol Rovers Community Trust engages with 3,800 individuals a week on a variety of projects from social inclusion to disability sports. MintBet will continue to support the club next season as a headline partner and will remain on all replica and cup kits and will also be a training wear sponsor for the upcoming season. Everyone at the club would like to thank MintBet for their continued support and we look forward to working with them over the course of the season." All I would say is: context. In context it wasn't a gross misconduct, so uncomfortably, yes (probably with a written warning). Always a pleasure engaging. I have zero idea what point you are trying to make. The question actually is, should we have agreed the original contract that we did with them. I'll help you out, the answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Sept 5, 2021 10:39:01 GMT
Bambi: As I'm a gentleman, I'll indulge and refresh your off topic mind: Aug 8th 2018: From o s: "The club can confirm that MintBet will not be on the back of shirt for our 46 League games this season as the new partner has donated the asset to the Bristol Rovers Community Trust. The limited edition match worn shirts will be used to raise funds for great causes across the city. The Bristol Rovers Community Trust engages with 3,800 individuals a week on a variety of projects from social inclusion to disability sports. MintBet will continue to support the club next season as a headline partner and will remain on all replica and cup kits and will also be a training wear sponsor for the upcoming season. Everyone at the club would like to thank MintBet for their continued support and we look forward to working with them over the course of the season." All I would say is: context. In context it wasn't a gross misconduct, so uncomfortably, yes (probably with a written warning). Always a pleasure engaging. I have zero idea what point you are trying to make. The question actually is, should we have agreed the original contract that we did with them. I'll help you out, the answer is no. Your posts are confusing.... methinks a little deliberately so to dissuade from questions posed that haven't been answered! The quoted post now poses a fresh question, that is hiding behind a supposed unposted question.....you asked: "Should the MintBet fiasco have resulted in someone losing their job? It's not difficult, just consider, would you personally continue to employ someone who made that mistake, then reply with a Yes or a No." ....of which, I answered. Context. That was my point. Care to answer what is wrong with bringing 50/50 in house? (Which is back on topic).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2021 11:04:27 GMT
I have zero idea what point you are trying to make. The question actually is, should we have agreed the original contract that we did with them. I'll help you out, the answer is no. Your posts are confusing.... methinks a little deliberately so to dissuade from questions posed that haven't been answered! The quoted post now poses a fresh question, that is hiding behind a supposed unposted question.....you asked: "Should the MintBet fiasco have resulted in someone losing their job? It's not difficult, just consider, would you personally continue to employ someone who made that mistake, then reply with a Yes or a No." ....of which, I answered. Context. That was my point. Care to answer what is wrong with bringing 50/50 in house? (Which is back on topic). Pure distraction, and it wasn't the point. I don't care who runs the 50/50, and never have cared. Don't confuse me with SC sympathist, I'm not. My issue is treatment of volunteers and communication. I've explained all of this already, I even wrote for you what could have been done which would have nipped any ''misunderstanding'' in the bud, but as it was a 'check mate' move you've just ignored it. It's odd as I didn't previously have you down as a WUM. There is no context, with their existing commitments, the club were expressly prohibited from entering into a contract with MintBet that contained those agreed terms. So don't try to wriggle away from the situation by referencing what happened after the mistake was discovered. I'm done with this, go ahead, have the final word, tell us how everything is great, we were all kept updated about what was happening with programme and draw tickets in good time and how the sellers haven't had their actions curtailed in any way. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Sept 6, 2021 8:53:29 GMT
Your posts are confusing.... methinks a little deliberately so to dissuade from questions posed that haven't been answered! The quoted post now poses a fresh question, that is hiding behind a supposed unposted question.....you asked: "Should the MintBet fiasco have resulted in someone losing their job? It's not difficult, just consider, would you personally continue to employ someone who made that mistake, then reply with a Yes or a No." ....of which, I answered. Context. That was my point. Care to answer what is wrong with bringing 50/50 in house? (Which is back on topic). Pure distraction, and it wasn't the point. I don't care who runs the 50/50, and never have cared. Don't confuse me with SC sympathist, I'm not. My issue is treatment of volunteers and communication. I've explained all of this already, I even wrote for you what could have been done which would have nipped any ''misunderstanding'' in the bud, but as it was a 'check mate' move you've just ignored it. It's odd as I didn't previously have you down as a WUM. There is no context, with their existing commitments, the club were expressly prohibited from entering into a contract with MintBet that contained those agreed terms. So don't try to wriggle away from the situation by referencing what happened after the mistake was discovered. I'm done with this, go ahead, have the final word, tell us how everything is great, we were all kept updated about what was happening with programme and draw tickets in good time and how the sellers haven't had their actions curtailed in any way. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Thank you for courtesy of reply, and I'll leave it for anyone bored enough to chronologically read through and decide on consistency, transparency/distraction, whom was winding up whom checkmate stalemate, even though one of my posts might have alluded miscommunication might not have been the club's fault, etc. As everyone can see, much has returned to normal EXCEPT whom controls the volunteers and funds, so nothing much else to see here... I hope you're ok, celebrated this weekend and basking in the glory of our 1-0 win over Crawley and look forward to next engagement.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 6, 2021 11:16:53 GMT
Once again I will ask. Why was Mintbet a fiasco. We got the money from the deal. Ok some shirts had the wrong logo on back.
I ask you the rules were you could not have two other adverts that were competitors of Sky Bet. One could easily argue that Football Index was not a direct competitor. You cannot bet on other sporting events, and I don't know how the football betting worked on that site. Now maybe Sky said it's against the rules, was it worth contesting especially as we still got the sponsorship.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 6, 2021 16:49:44 GMT
Once again I will ask. Why was Mintbet a fiasco. We got the money from the deal. Ok some shirts had the wrong logo on back. I ask you the rules were you could not have two other adverts that were competitors of Sky Bet. One could easily argue that Football Index was not a direct competitor. You cannot bet on other sporting events, and I don't know how the football betting worked on that site. Now maybe Sky said it's against the rules, was it worth contesting especially as we still got the sponsorship. I always thought it was a bit storm in the teacup, every party ended up happy from a fairly innocuous mistake. Was that really gross misconduct? No, perhaps a bit incompetent, but everyone makes an error in their working job that doesnt always pay with the price of their employment. So yeah, why was Mintbent such a fiasco that TG needed to quit/resign/be sacked?
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 6, 2021 17:58:42 GMT
Once again I will ask. Why was Mintbet a fiasco. We got the money from the deal. Ok some shirts had the wrong logo on back. I ask you the rules were you could not have two other adverts that were competitors of Sky Bet. One could easily argue that Football Index was not a direct competitor. You cannot bet on other sporting events, and I don't know how the football betting worked on that site. Now maybe Sky said it's against the rules, was it worth contesting especially as we still got the sponsorship. I always thought it was a bit storm in the teacup, every party ended up happy from a fairly innocuous mistake. Was that really gross misconduct? No, perhaps a bit incompetent, but everyone makes an error in their working job that doesnt always pay with the price of their employment. So yeah, why was Mintbent such a fiasco that TG needed to quit/resign/be sacked? Have asked on about 4 threads, never got a reply!
|
|
|
Post by toteend3 on Sept 6, 2021 18:27:43 GMT
The profit from the 50/50 draw should go to the club , so they can spend it wisely, afterall the profit from just three home games covers the full cost of another spanking brand new family stand!
|
|
GasMacc1
Les Bradd
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,423
|
Post by GasMacc1 on Sept 6, 2021 18:38:13 GMT
Anyone know the winning 50-50 ticket number from Saturday (or, rather, where it's published)? I spent half-time in a trance, wondering how we could up our game, so didn't hear any announcement.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 6, 2021 19:22:54 GMT
I always thought it was a bit storm in the teacup, every party ended up happy from a fairly innocuous mistake. Was that really gross misconduct? No, perhaps a bit incompetent, but everyone makes an error in their working job that doesnt always pay with the price of their employment. So yeah, why was Mintbent such a fiasco that TG needed to quit/resign/be sacked? Have asked on about 4 threads, never got a reply! Well now is the chance. It might be like the famous presidents club membership question..!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2021 10:02:11 GMT
Have asked on about 4 threads, never got a reply! Well now is the chance. It might be like the famous presidents club membership question..!! Ummm, yes, it was a huge mistake, played out in public, and reported on national news. More public humiliation for the club. As for the suggestion above that MintBet weren't actually competition for SkyBet, all I can say to that is to ask, are there no contortions that the club's sycophants won't subject themselves to rather than face reality? This from Thomas McBride, founder of MintBet when discussing the sponsorship agreement; ITB. You can agree or disagree with my view of what happened with MintBet, that's what forums are for, it's not about being right and wrong, it's for everybody to have their say, but the PC thing is just a simple question, how many members do they have? It wasn't 'How many people are members and then how many occasionally help out or may contribute or may be guests etc etc? It was a very simple question; How many members does the PC have? As yet unanswered.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 8, 2021 10:08:09 GMT
Well now is the chance. It might be like the famous presidents club membership question..!! Ummm, yes, it was a huge mistake, played out in public, and reported on national news. More public humiliation for the club. As for the suggestion above that MintBet weren't actually competition for SkyBet, all I can say to that is to ask, are there no contortions that the club's sycophants won't subject themselves to rather than face reality? This from Thomas McBride, founder of MintBet when discussing the sponsorship agreement; No said Football Index was not direct competition
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 8, 2021 10:10:23 GMT
Is there no reality you won't twist to score points?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2021 10:10:43 GMT
Ummm, yes, it was a huge mistake, played out in public, and reported on national news. More public humiliation for the club. As for the suggestion above that MintBet weren't actually competition for SkyBet, all I can say to that is to ask, are there no contortions that the club's sycophants won't subject themselves to rather than face reality? This from Thomas McBride, founder of MintBet when discussing the sponsorship agreement; No said Football Index was not direct competition Obviously they were or all 3 adverts would have remained on the adult match day shirts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2021 10:15:42 GMT
Is there no reality you won't twist to score points? Touched a nerve here haven't we. Nowhere to hide. The sponsorship deal was cancelled and they moved their support to the community dept. This is a matter of record. What I don't know the full details of is how the pitch side hoarding sponsorship was affected, but those hoardings remained. That always seemed to me to expose the silliness of the original agreement that forbade the shirt sponsorship, as those hoardings were more visible than the small patches on the rear of the players' shirts.
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Sept 8, 2021 10:23:20 GMT
Is there no reality you won't twist to score points? Touched a nerve here haven't we. Nowhere to hide. The sponsorship deal was cancelled and they moved their support to the community dept. This is a matter of record. What I don't know the full details of is how the pitch side hoarding sponsorship was affected, but those hoardings remained. That always seemed to me to expose the silliness of the original agreement that forbade the shirt sponsorship, as those hoardings were more visible than the small patches on the rear of the players' shirts. it was cock up rather than conspiracy, everyone at the club has moved on. No one else cares, give it a rest. You are starting to sound obsessive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2021 10:26:37 GMT
Touched a nerve here haven't we. Nowhere to hide. The sponsorship deal was cancelled and they moved their support to the community dept. This is a matter of record. What I don't know the full details of is how the pitch side hoarding sponsorship was affected, but those hoardings remained. That always seemed to me to expose the silliness of the original agreement that forbade the shirt sponsorship, as those hoardings were more visible than the small patches on the rear of the players' shirts. it was cock up rather than conspiracy, everyone at the club has moved on. No one else cares, give it a rest. You are starting to sound obsessive. I'll rest when I want to, not when you start sniping from the sidelines, trying to dictate what others should say, again. But thanks for your thoughts anyway.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 8, 2021 15:14:13 GMT
So basically TG agreed a shirt sponsor with Mintbet.
It turned out that we couldn’t have mintbet on the shirts so we gave them other sponsorship instead which they were happy with for the contractual terms.
Mintbet we’re happy. Club was happy.
I still don’t see why TG should have lost his job?
|
|