by East Grinstead Royal » 19 Feb 2025 10:31
by tidus_mi2 » 19 Feb 2025 10:32
Mid Sussex RoyalEast Grinstead Royalkatweslowski
Just saw this. I couldn't believe how cheap it is - only £2500 roughly for full match day advertising.
My instincts say they'll have to refuse it. They really couldn't have advertising against the owner on official boards and being welcomed to the club like this.
I’m sure you’re right. But it would make a hell of a story! Get us back into the news for a few hours.
SBWD have offered £3k to sponsor the game plus £500 to the community trust.
Its proposed the advertising will be around the club being for sale rather than anything to do with Dai
by katweslowski » 19 Feb 2025 10:42
tidus_mi2Mid Sussex RoyalEast Grinstead Royal
I’m sure you’re right. But it would make a hell of a story! Get us back into the news for a few hours.
SBWD have offered £3k to sponsor the game plus £500 to the community trust.
Its proposed the advertising will be around the club being for sale rather than anything to do with Dai
Sensible really, without being upfront about the advertising I feel they would be outright rejected.
by El Diablo » 19 Feb 2025 14:53
katweslowskitidus_mi2Mid Sussex Royal
SBWD have offered £3k to sponsor the game plus £500 to the community trust.
Its proposed the advertising will be around the club being for sale rather than anything to do with Dai
Sensible really, without being upfront about the advertising I feel they would be outright rejected.
Agree, that is sensible and is a lot more constructive than just focusing on the owner as an individual. Great job and as the club keep saying "we're intent on selling", they should accept this.
by Mid Sussex Royal » 20 Feb 2025 20:42
katweslowskitidus_mi2Mid Sussex Royal
SBWD have offered £3k to sponsor the game plus £500 to the community trust.
Its proposed the advertising will be around the club being for sale rather than anything to do with Dai
Sensible really, without being upfront about the advertising I feel they would be outright rejected.
Agree, that is sensible and is a lot more constructive than just focusing on the owner as an individual. Great job and as the club keep saying "we're intent on selling", they should accept this.
by Sutekh » 21 Feb 2025 07:53
Mid Sussex Royalkatweslowskitidus_mi2 Sensible really, without being upfront about the advertising I feel they would be outright rejected.
Agree, that is sensible and is a lot more constructive than just focusing on the owner as an individual. Great job and as the club keep saying "we're intent on selling", they should accept this.
Club said no apparently
by Brogue » 21 Feb 2025 09:53
SutekhMid Sussex Royalkatweslowski
Agree, that is sensible and is a lot more constructive than just focusing on the owner as an individual. Great job and as the club keep saying "we're intent on selling", they should accept this.
Club said no apparently
Club can afford to turn down £3.5k![]()
by RoyalBlue » 21 Feb 2025 09:54
SutekhMid Sussex Royalkatweslowski
Agree, that is sensible and is a lot more constructive than just focusing on the owner as an individual. Great job and as the club keep saying "we're intent on selling", they should accept this.
Club said no apparently
Club can afford to turn down £3.5k![]()
by katweslowski » 21 Feb 2025 10:05
RoyalBlueSutekhMid Sussex Royal
Club said no apparently
Club can afford to turn down £3.5k![]()
Handled correctly this could be an even bigger news story.
A club struggling to survive financially, whose owner (through his mouth piece(s)) avows his good honest intent to sell, turns down a supporters group prepared to pay over the odds to help advertise that the club is up for sale.
by tidus_mi2 » 21 Feb 2025 11:10
SutekhMid Sussex Royalkatweslowski
Agree, that is sensible and is a lot more constructive than just focusing on the owner as an individual. Great job and as the club keep saying "we're intent on selling", they should accept this.
Club said no apparently
Club can afford to turn down £3.5k![]()
by katweslowski » 21 Feb 2025 11:21
tidus_mi2SutekhMid Sussex Royal
Club said no apparently
Club can afford to turn down £3.5k![]()
I imagine they got a standard £2.5k offer from a normal sponsor and didn't think dealing with SBWD was worth the extra £1k.
by The Royal Forester » 21 Feb 2025 18:48
by RoyalJones » 21 Feb 2025 19:16
The Royal Forester I understand that SBWD have set out a petition, asking for a review of Dai's ownership etc. As I won't be at the game tomorrow, my phone can't read QR codes, and I don't do social media, is there a website I can sign?
by RoyalBlue » 21 Feb 2025 19:25
tidus_mi2SutekhMid Sussex Royal
Club said no apparently
Club can afford to turn down £3.5k![]()
I imagine they got a standard £2.5k offer from a normal sponsor and didn't think dealing with SBWD was worth the extra £1k.
by The Royal Forester » 21 Feb 2025 19:53
RoyalJonesThe Royal Forester I understand that SBWD have set out a petition, asking for a review of Dai's ownership etc. As I won't be at the game tomorrow, my phone can't read QR codes, and I don't do social media, is there a website I can sign?
Petition link is here: http://bit.ly/rfc-petition
by Snowflake Royal » 21 Feb 2025 20:18
RoyalBluetidus_mi2Sutekh
Club can afford to turn down £3.5k![]()
I imagine they got a standard £2.5k offer from a normal sponsor and didn't think dealing with SBWD was worth the extra £1k.
I guess we'll see tomorrow. No sponsor at all will say a lot about the 'desire to secure a future for the club and real commitment to sell' of Dai, Pang & Howe. My money is on Pissy Pang, not the ordinary decent hardworking staff like Tim Kilpatrick, blocking the SBWD offer.
by East Grinstead Royal » 22 Feb 2025 07:20
by tidus_mi2 » 22 Feb 2025 08:28
East Grinstead Royal Signed. 3,804 signatures.
by katweslowski » 22 Feb 2025 10:17
tidus_mi2East Grinstead Royal Signed. 3,804 signatures.
Hopefully we will get a bunch of signatures at the game today, would be nice for the Brum fans to chip in.
by SouthDownsRoyal » 22 Feb 2025 11:41
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 211 guests