Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peciv
Wouldn’t it be rather hard to enforce this? Do you have a variable “capping” system based on the number of team members and mentors that each team has? How do you prove the real number of members and mentors? Besides sounding like a logistical nightmare to enforce, this sounds like an extreme version of the $3,500 cap, but it also sounds way too much like Communism, “Look… you guys have been too successful, we are taking your money away and are going to give it to some team that hasn’t worked as hard.”
|
With this, some teams may be unsuccessful at raising money. We have asked a company who shall remain nameless said they have sponsored a
team before, but they were not a good team (or something like that). And plus, the team might have relied on one main sponsor for all of their financial assets, then say one year, the company goes bankrupt and needs to pull the plug on their sponsorship. I'm not saying that the lower team should get all the money, but should be supplied with some just to stay alive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peciv
Communism or welfare system. I don’t really know which this is.
So, I would say, no caps. But, what if a team was really successful? Then that team would be able to (if they wanted to) give out grants to other teams. And maybe the FIRST finance division would be happy to help the good-natured team. However, if I were that team, I would invest the money so that if they don’t raise enough money the next year, they don’t have a major financial problem.
|
By this, I meam a limit of say $100 000 for a season, and say you raise $200 000 and you could only "donate" $50 000 to FIRST. But we'll have to go with the team's gracious professionalism with this. But you do raise a good point about future planning...