Sportsnet.ca column on Black Wednesday

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

25% is enough to warrant contacting sponsors about this situation. I do also agree that clubs should also be a pressure point too. We need an approach that applies pressure from many angles. Simply dissmissing the idea of approaching sponsors because one is 'un-clear as to how that really helps us' is at best rather lazy, at worst closed-minded. I think An Observer's comments bear careful thought folks.

By saying that I was basically leaving it open for someone to make it clear how it would work. That was referring to the idea of contacting them without the purpose of suggesting any sort of financial pressure should be applied against the CSA. I disagree with the idea of contacting them to withdraw funds (which you made clear was not what you were suggesting) for the reasons I have already spent too much time typing on this thread explaining. If we disagree, that's fair enough.

As an aside, just for the sake of clarity, Bill Ault indicated that it was less than 25% (rather than 25%), and that was in 2006. Looking at the pdf he posted, in 2005 the number is actually a lot smaller than that, so it isn't a consistent figure and we should also note that the category listed is "Sponsorship & donations", not simply sponsorships. I'm curious if the money Kerfoot provides is considered in that category. In that situation, he is both a "club" and a "sponsor", interestingly enough.