The REMF team - selection etc

[Uncle Spielberg]

I think for some reason the ONLY focus this year seems to be the players sponsorships and this has never been an issue before or a criteria.

 

[Simster]

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 to be competitive in the fixture itself, with the sponsorship a mere sideshow?
Or should the squad be decided by a mixture of ways. 6 picked on merit, 6 bought, 6 by the most sponsorship brought in? Something like that.

 

[Simster]

my point is how much would we lose on the gate when people don't come to see a load of strangers who have " paid " to play, how much will we lose on the raffle ?

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

 

[Trigger]

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

So what's everyone arguing about then?

 

[Simster]

So what's everyone arguing about then?

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

 

[Brovion]

or he's picked his mates who have been involved before and ignored those that put a lot into last year, and not just the REMF game. Does this veteran bullshit mean that Stumpy Tim and Brovian could be automatic picks for next year if available? After all they played in the first one.

Of course everyone wants us to win, and it shouldn't be about buying your way into the team but the way this has been handled is a shambles. It seems wrong that people who were away last year can just walk back into a winning squad, or that selection is based on one warm up game.

Sorry, not picking on Lush but just annoyed that this whole thing smacks of a closed shop.

Hey! I've thought of a great sponsorship idea! Maybe next year I could be sponsored NOT to play! "Sponsor Brovion. Unless the total reaches £500 he plays in REMF 10!"

And despite Gareth obliquely disagreeing with me I DO remember a squad meeting in the bar area at Southwick FC one night after training. It was agreed that all squad members would commit to paying at least £100. After all it was the first one, we didn't know how successful it was going to be and we didn't want the whole thing to be a complete flop and only raise tuppence ha'penny. Also we wanted it to be an NSC thing and involve NSC posters rather than bring in non-NSC Brighton fans who just happened to be better footballers.

However as Dave says the whole thing has moved on, but I'm sure we'd all rather Palace won and the players raised £10,000 than Brighton won and raised £1,000

 

[sir danny cullip]

People are arguing about the team selection, which has been clarified. REMF is a charity so the people that support the charity (including players who play in the match, those that help, those that donate) just need to give their money to the cause. It really isn't difficult.

Anyone asking for their money back because their mate isn't playing is showing the same shameful self interest they claim members of the squad are.

 

[Lokki 7]

my point is how much would we lose on the gate when people don't come to see a load of strangers who have " paid " to play,

Why do you keep talking about strangers and fat bankers? This is about regular NSC posters who are actually good at football who will raise more money for REMF then the current incumbants. I really fail to see how raising this point can be described as "petty squabbling" or a "binfest".

 

[Wozza]

I feel we have all grown with the squad, we like the guys, we want them to win, we have a few beers together, this has grown over the years and makes it far more personal and the game more meaningful. The money raised from their sponsorship is great but NOT the only thing.

Jesus. This makes is sound like a boy's club more than a fundraising charity.

 

[Stoo82]

I just can't understand why raising as much money as possible is "NOT" the most important thing. If not, then what is?

 

[Stumpy Tim]

I think for some reason the ONLY focus this year seems to be the players sponsorships and this has never been an issue before or a criteria.

I think there are two threads really Gareth. If selection was about sponsorship then clearly HUFFLEPUFF would have been selected. If selection was about footballing ability then SNOOBS would have been selected.

The fact that neither have been selected has led to people being confused about what is the selection policy. Again, no slight on your efforts at all, but genuine concern from people who have played and/or sponsored in the past.

 

[Brovion]

I disagree. I feel we have all grown with the squad, we like the guys, we want them to win, we have a few beers together, this has grown over the years and makes it far more personal and the game more meaningful. The money raised from their sponsorship is great but NOT the only thing. Also the gate is likely to be bigger than to watch a load of strangers who have paid their way into the team. For me the day we have 20 fat rich Bank managers no one knows but paid £ 500 each to " play " in the game so they can tell their spoilt kids they played with Peter Ward is the game I think I will step down.

Well step down then if that's what you think because you've lost the plot. I'd MUCH rather the REMF game was between two scratch sides of rich bankers who'd paid to play with Peter Ward as that WOULD GENERATE MORE MONEY FOR REMF. 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' - they go to support the charity. And I'm sure rich bankers and the friends and families of rich bankers would buy just as many raffle tickets as are sold currently. Indeed I'd wager they'd buy a few more.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Well step down then if that's what you think because you've lost the plot.

I assume you are offering to run it then.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Ok, we need to decide the way forward then as it seems the football matches are now based on who pays the most to be in the team. This has never been the criteria as the spirit of the game has always been a group of ordinary lads from feirce rivals playing a game to raise money. This is the spirit of the remf for me. The main thrust of the fund raising as I have said but all my comments seem to be ignored or misinterpreted is not the players sponsorships, it is the gate money, the raffle, auctions, dontations, golf days, runs etc etc. The mistake this year as I have said numerous time has been not to leave it as last year, announce the squad in good time and set up the fundraising pages, thats my opinion and then we would not be having this binfest. I do think the best player who has been left out and huffers because of the money he raised shoule be in the squad on that basis but I do not pick the squad.

 

[Simster]

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.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Well step down then if that's what you think because you've lost the plot. I'd MUCH rather the REMF game was between two scratch sides of rich bankers who'd paid to play with Peter Ward as that WOULD GENERATE MORE MONEY FOR REMF. 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' - they go to support the charity. And I'm sure rich bankers and the friends and families of rich bankers would buy just as many raffle tickets as are sold currently. Indeed I'd wager they'd buy a few more.

Wow. I have just been on an ego trip for 9 years. Ok. Fine.

 

[Simster]

I assume you are offering to run it then.

Gareth doesn't deserve to be rounded on, but he's inviting it by attempting to defend the indefensible.

Wow. I have just been on an ego trip for 9 years. Ok. Fine.

Can you not see his point, though?

 

[Wozza]

Ok, we need to decide the way forward then as it seems the football matches are now based on who pays the most to be in the team.

Did you mean RAISES the most, Gareth? Given it's a charity match, I actually think that's a pretty reasonable criteria!

Maybe anyone who can't raise funds/doesn't have friends can be on the bench, or do the teamtalk or something?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Well step down then if that's what you think because you've lost the plot. I'd MUCH rather the REMF game was between two scratch sides of rich bankers who'd paid to play with Peter Ward as that WOULD GENERATE MORE MONEY FOR REMF. 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' - they go to support the charity. And I'm sure rich bankers and the friends and families of rich bankers would buy just as many raffle tickets as are sold currently. Indeed I'd wager they'd buy a few more.

You've been on a slagging off mission for sometime and what matters is not what you think, not what I think, it is what the Eatons think. If they wanted me to step down I would do without hesitation.

 

[CHAPPERS]

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.

The current incumbents are all very worried about what adding to this thread would do to the way the charity is seen (we are all very concerned about raising money too fyi, and many have done in other ways than just playing in this game because they feel rightly proud of playing in the game and tied to the charity) so are keeping quiet. We would ALL do whatever is right for the good of the charity and making it out that we wouldn't is grossly unfair.

I wasn't going to say anything on this matter but I feel I had to after that. It's not about not having the bollocks it's about trying not to damage the cause.