Quote ="childofthenorthern"If the sponsorship costs are similar to last time ~£750 that would leave almost the same (73 people x £20 = £1460 - £750 = £710) which would make a decent dent towards the cost of [url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/8435180.Bullbuilder_in_fund_raising_questthis[/url. Benefits every young player which was how we started looking at sponsorship anyway.'"
Indeed a very worthy cause.
At the risk of making myself more unpopular, if that is possible, I thought these were two different initiatives.
The cause you have linked to is an infrastructure development whilst player sponsorship, in my opinion, is something entirely different. Of course they (infrastructure and sponsorship) both benefit the players but often in different ways.
As I have said previously, I have no problem with the excess being passed over to Bullbuilder but I think we should look to maximise player sponsorship possibilities first. Using your example above if we sponsored the twins at a cost around £750 then we may be able to additionally sponsor another young player for another, say, £400. This would mean another young player gets the benefit of feeling that he isn't overlooked and the balance of around £300 gets passed to Bullbuilder - still a tidy sum.
To be honest this is one for the majority to decide and I don't mind which way it goes.
'"
