Search results

How do I know what? That you're not being sanctimoneous to the players? I am actually referring to this thread, to be honest where you HAVEN'T been. It's the same thread where you said it wasn't all about maximising income, then denied it. And I'm afraid I can't put myself forward to head...

Well personally, I will try. It's a shame you can't be as sanctimoneous towards the players who get to play year after year, while generating no sponsorship income for REMF though. Edit: I don't mean "no sponsorship", I mean an insignificant amount, or a smaller contribution to organising the...

As Lush said, I think that is an excellent post and well worth highlighting.

No, you're absolutely right Max. A near 300 post thread debating the merits of the selection policy and the likelihood that this year's profit target will be less than half of last years are both proof that everything is fine and dandy.

Gareth, Brovian didn't actually accuse you of going on an ego trip. He said this: People DON'T go to the REMF game to see your mates on an ego trip playing alongside Wardy and playing on a bigger stage than their talent 'deserves' And that is 100% correct. It's very sad though - you work...

So you won't mind if I email Mark and point him in the direction of this thread then?

Gareth doesn't deserve to be rounded on, but he's inviting it by attempting to defend the indefensible. Can you not see his point, though?

Interesting that none of the current incumbants have had the bollocks to come on here to defend their positions. Instead, preferring to hide behind Gareth and Richie's efforts at justifying their inclusion.

Not about the people paying to see the game. Do keep up.

People who pay to see this game don't care who plays.

You're entitled to your opinion Gareth, but I think the debate needs to heard. Otherwise how can REMF be the de-facto charity for a public board like NSC? And who said anything about 20 fat bankers? No-one wants to see that. Are we looking at maximising charity contributions? Or are looking...

There's a happy medium somewhere surely? If you want to play in a game like this, then I think you should make a personal sacrifice. You know, like actually HELPING in some way, whether raising sponsorship, handing out flyers in the rain or paying a match fee - or ideally some combination. If...

Because no-one raised any issues last year, the charity raised 4 grand under Mendoza's brilliant stewardship, there wasn't the same demand for squad places, and we weren't one year away from the biggest event in REMF history since the first match was watched by 1,000 in Worthing. It really is...

So do you still "fail to see what's wrong", Trigger?

Indeed. Just self-interest, as suspected. Good to see "REMF veterans" are allowed to play just because they've played before. No mention of sponsorship donated or time given up, no mention of the £100 match fee as was the case in REMF1. An embarrassment and utterly shameful.

Gareth, clear your inbox. I need to speak to you.

There were significant differences last year. Brettles went cap in hand to certain NSC aquaintances in order to fill the squad - it wasn't oversubscribed as it is this year. And in any case, even that isn't good enough. It needs to be FAR more transparent. Secondly, individual players had...

Yes they could. So perhaps you shouldn't have opened the sponsorship page before announcing the squad, or telling all players being considered DIRECTLY that the squad would or wouldn't be announced based on sponsorship raised. What shouldn't have happened is that potential squad members were...

Gareth, you'd do well not to take it so personally, IMO. The simple fact is that REMF is the de facto official charity of this board and there are issues *this* year. It is *not* important that an explanation is accepted at all - it is important that issues are addressed and a concensus is...