Patrons ?

[SouthEssexBlade]

I've just read your pos


I've only just read your post him behind you.

I think a little clarity might help to put a finger on the pulse of what motivates a patron who happens to be what's known as a celebrity. I'm sure there are commercial incentives for some/many who realise the opportunity that presents itself can impact positively on their careers. Then there'll be a small minority who might be driven by altruistic reasoning, so to lump everyone into the same category as 'career-enhancing gold diggers' (my term, not yours) does a disservice to each and every one of them. We all have motives, and my take is that irrespective of their intentions what matters is that by contributing to a worthy cause it might help generate income for the cause in question. Ultimately that would seem to be all that matters to me. But the fact that someone whose capacity to capitalise on an opportunity such as this seems distasteful to some. Flipping this particular coin, I wonder how people would feel if a celebrity decided not to become involved for reasons such as being too busy? I imagine they'd then receive flak for not acting in a spirit befitting the cause in question.

As for the supposed negative impacts on our current crop of patrons, whatever they contribute towards the club, the point has been made elsewhere that for someone like Dave Berry, apart from his under the radar activities as a singer (let's be truthful, DB's career is invisible to many people), I don't see how anyone can question his motives for disassociating himself from the role of patron? It could just be that this whole business of Evans possible return to SUFC leaves an unpleasant taste in Berry's mouth.

Indeed. See the flak Adele got for not participating in the latest Geldof venture

 

[itsinyerblood]

Indeed. See the flak Adele got for not participating in the latest Geldof venture

SEB, I'm out of the loop on this particular question. I assume that Adele got a kicking for not participating?

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

SEB, I'm out of the loop on this particular question. I assume that Adele got a kicking for not participating?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-right-to-ignore-Bob-Geldof-and-Band-Aid.html

 

[crucialkneeligaman]

Boy George is an interesting one actually. Here's what he judge said when the Probabtion service objected to him appearing in I'm a celebrity



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8428048.stm

That is interesting Highbury, wasn't aware of that. Personally I have no objection to Boy George resuming his career as he sees fit, he was another who served his time, just fed up of the hypocrisy of some of the press, led chiefly by the BBC.

 

[blade too long]

just out of interest went on wiki to check our patrons , got this

The page "Sheff utd patrons" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.
For search help, please visit Help:Searching.
Seems these are a new tier of people created just so we could upset them

 

[him behind you]

I've just read your pos


I've only just read your post him behind you.

I think a little clarity might help to put a finger on the pulse of what motivates a patron who happens to be what's known as a celebrity. I'm sure there are commercial incentives for some/many who realise the opportunity that presents itself can impact positively on their careers. Then there'll be a small minority who might be driven by altruistic reasoning, so to lump everyone into the same category as 'career-enhancing gold diggers' (my term, not yours) does a disservice to each and every one of them. We all have motives, and my take is that irrespective of their intentions what matters is that by contributing to a worthy cause it might help generate income for the cause in question. Ultimately that would seem to be all that matters to me. But the fact that someone whose capacity to capitalise on an opportunity such as this seems distasteful to some. Flipping this particular coin, I wonder how people would feel if a celebrity decided not to become involved for reasons such as being too busy? I imagine they'd then receive flak for not acting in a spirit befitting the cause in question.

As for the supposed negative impacts on our current crop of patrons, whatever they contribute towards the club, the point has been made elsewhere that for someone like Dave Berry, apart from his under the radar activities as a singer (let's be truthful, DB's career is invisible to many people), I don't see how anyone can question his motives for disassociating himself from the role of patron? It could just be that this whole business of Evans possible return to SUFC leaves an unpleasant taste in Berry's mouth.

Fair point - lumping them all in the same category "may" be unfair and you make some valid points BUT I stick by the point that the only people they are punishing are those who would have benefited from the charity not SUFC or Ched Evans - so their "feelings" are more important than helping the needy???? If their reasons really are moral, then they could easily have said that they are absolutely against him coming back but they will continue to work with the charitable concerns as these are outside of the club and unconnected to the issue of Evans.

I still believe there are very few, if any, people in the public eye who appear in the press for any other reason than to help themselves. As for Dave Berry, people have actually heard of him now .

 

[Darthblade]

celebrity season tickets are the same as a normal one but instead of 'season ticket holder' it says 'patron'. that's the only difference i think

And they don't have to pay to get in like we do !!
UTB & FTP

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Fair point - lumping them all in the same category "may" be unfair and you make some valid points BUT I stick by the point that the only people they are punishing are those who would have benefited from the charity not SUFC or Ched Evans - so their "feelings" are more important than helping the needy???? If their reasons really are moral, then they could easily have said that they are absolutely against him coming back but they will continue to work with the charitable concerns as these are outside of the club and unconnected to the issue of Evans.

I still believe there are very few, if any, people in the public eye who appear in the press for any other reason than to help themselves. As for Dave Berry, people have actually heard of him now .

As stated elsewhere in this thread, patrons actually do very little if anything in terms of day to day involvement with the charity that they are patrons of. There are there simply to lend credibility to the organisation, or to get the charity noticed. I would argue that that a charity with the weight of SUFC behind it doesn't actually need any patrons at all.

I don't think the community foundation are going to suffer too much in their absence.

 

[him behind you]

As stated elsewhere in this thread, patrons actually do very little if anything in terms of day to day involvement with the charity that they are patrons of. There are there simply to lend credibility to the organisation, or to get the charity noticed. I would argue that that a charity with the weight of SUFC behind it doesn't actually need any patrons at all.

I don't think the community foundation are going to suffer too much in their absence.

Fair point but let me ask a slightly different question in response.

If they did very little (and possibly never intended to other than to get the charity noticed) they must have thought they were helping with credibility etc. so does it not follow that resigning publicly has the opposite impact and removes credibility and, therefore, could have a negative impact on the moneys raised, thus punishing only those in need of help?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Fair point but let me ask a slightly different question in response.

If they did very little (and possibly never intended to other than to get the charity noticed) they must have thought they were helping with credibility etc. so does it not follow that resigning publicly has the opposite impact and removes credibility and, therefore, could have a negative impact on the moneys raised, thus punishing only those in need of help?

Possibly, but Patrons are generally wanted by a charity to boost the charity's profile and lend it credibility. After all, think about what a charity is, it's an entity that asks people for money without the giver getting anything in return. A giver has got to be confident that the money will go to good use, and not simply be siphoned off. Having well known patrons gives the charity that credibility.

The charity (and i'm talking in general here, not about SUFC community Foundation) is using the patrons name to make contacts, boost fundraising etc etc. It's why you don't get Joe Bloggs as a charity patron.

It's only right if the charity does something the patron doesn't agree with for the patron not to want to be associated with it anymore, after all it's the patron whose name will be harmed by association. It's why you've got to a) choose your patrons wisely and b) operate in an ethical manner.

With specific regards to the community foundation, i don't actually see much sense in their being any at all, given the weight of the SUFC name behind the charity, and i'd imagine the largest donor to the charity is the club itself. Could be wrong though.

 

[232 Bramall Lane]

I suggest that the club contact Les Dennis asap and ascertain if he's a blade. If so so there should be minimal costs in the renaming of the Jessica Ennis Stand and Les is always keen on a little more exposure!

 

[him behind you]

Possibly, but Patrons are generally wanted by a charity to boost the charity's profile and lend it credibility. After all, think about what a charity is, it's an entity that asks people for money without the giver getting anything in return. A giver has got to be confident that the money will go to good use, and not simply be siphoned off. Having well known patrons gives the charity that credibility.

The charity (and i'm talking in general here, not about SUFC community Foundation) is using the patrons name to make contacts, boost fundraising etc etc. It's why you don't get Joe Bloggs as a charity patron.

It's only right if the charity does something the patron doesn't agree with for the patron not to want to be associated with it anymore, after all it's the patron whose name will be harmed by association. It's why you've got to a) choose your patrons wisely and b) operate in an ethical manner.

With specific regards to the community foundation, i don't actually see much sense in their being any at all, given the weight of the SUFC name behind the charity, and i'd imagine the largest donor to the charity is the club itself. Could be wrong though.

Very good point Highbury and I have to say that I agree in that I don't see much sense in the community foundation at all.

In answer to your point which I've highlighted, I would absolutely agree that if the organisation (this being the charitable trust) had done something illegal or immoral such as siphoning off funds or employing someone directly involved in the raising of funds who could tarnish the name of the charity, then I'd even expect said patron to resign but in this specific instance, I think the link between Evans possibly training at Shirecliffe and the club raising money for charities is tenuous at best. I may not totally agree but I can see and accept your point of view - it's what I love about debating things like this. What would really have an impact is if any of the charities linked with the club actually said that they wanted to withdraw from being funded - now that would make people sit up and think.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Very good point Highbury and I have to say that I agree in that I don't see much sense in the community foundation at all.

That's not what i meant. I meant that given the community foundation has the club as a backer, why does it need any patrons? What extra credibility does it gain from having Paul Heaton, Charlie Webster, Lindsay Graham or Dave Berry as patrons?

 

[him behind you]

Sorr

That's not what i meant. I meant that given the community foundation has the club as a backer, why does it need any patrons? What extra credibility does it gain from having Paul Heaton, Charlie Webster, Lindsay Graham or Dave Berry as patrons?

y -

oops - I didn't mean what I said. I also meant to say I see little point in the foundation having these Patrons

 

[itsinyerblood]

Fair point - lumping them all in the same category "may" be unfair and you make some valid points BUT I stick by the point that the only people they are punishing are those who would have benefited from the charity not SUFC or Ched Evans - so their "feelings" are more important than helping the needy???? If their reasons really are moral, then they could easily have said that they are absolutely against him coming back but they will continue to work with the charitable concerns as these are outside of the club and unconnected to the issue of Evans.

I still believe there are very few, if any, people in the public eye who appear in the press for any other reason than to help themselves. As for Dave Berry, people have actually heard of him now .

Yes, there's more than a grain of truth in what you say, but I still believe that any patron should be allowed to leave via the door they entered. There may be reasons why a celebrity selects to disassociate from a charity that I'm unaware of. The circular nature of this is easily answered, all Mr Evans has to do is show the necessary sensitivity towards the club and related groups and remove himself from this equation. I know that might have the appearance of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but we're all in limbo on this matter until the club make a decisive announcement about their relationship with Evans. Whatever the pros and cons, unless the term 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is applied favorably towards Evans appeal then this will drag on for as long as the club choose to straddle two horses with one arse.

 

[shorehamview]

I didn't know that Dave Berry and Paul Heaton were patrons until they in fact weren't patrons. That worked well for all concerned then.

 

[SandyMcBlade]

But didn't Jessica Ennis say she's off "IF" the club signs Ched Evens,while the others have said it before the club have actually made a decision one way or the other ..
If they were really serious about supporting the charity wouldn't it have been more reasonable to have done it the Jessica way,? .