Scoop 6 Syndicate: The Future

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Ron

Ron

Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator
Jan 25, 2011
51,974
19,435
113
France
Well, we had 2 attempts at the record Jackpot. Both arranged at short notice and we even had to get round problems of unavailability. Athough we didn't win, on the plus side, it has clearly demonstrated commitment, teamwork, respect, understanding and good organisation within the Forum and we can now relax and set about how to organise a long term syndicate in preparation for significant future rollovers.

My initial thoughts are:

1. Set up a secure account with a number of features, including but not restricted to:
  • on line enquiry access for all members
  • controls on payments and payees
Will chase up details of one possible account and enquire on a couple of others to see which banks offer the best facilities. Meanwhile, views on facilities the account should have are welcome.

2. £1 share holdings. I will work out how many shares each member has to carry forward and someone(s) can verify

3. Offer regular monthly and ad hoc contributions to buy shares

4. Increase the marketing of the syndicate, once established and we are happy with it. This to allow us to select more horses

5. Build a system to administer the syndicate (I'm happy to do this but also happy if someone else fancies doing it). The system to cater for (inter alia) pledges, receipt of contributions, pay-out and/or reinvestment of any winnings and report on a regular basis the members and their holdings and %age of potential winnings to which the syndicate may be entitled. Ideas for facilities welcomed

Please add any thoughts you have on the subject
 
Good man ron we will get there 3rd time lucky and all that. If you need any help let me know if I can I will
 
A further thought. If we expand the syndicate the admin and research could increase significantly and therefore it may be appropriate to make an admin charge for new members. What do existing members think of charging (say) a small admin fee based on Levels of Not 606 membership. It would not be fare to charge a % because the admin is the same for a £25 contribution as it would be for a £500 contribution. So for example, off the top of my head:

Members of the first 2 NOT 606 syndicates administered by Reebs - No admin charge
Other Members of NOT 606 - No admin charge if in from outset of new syndicate or elected*, otherwise £1 per contribution
Not members of NOT 606 - £2 per contribution

The admin charges to be allocated to a "Dummy" syndicate Member "Admin" in the form of £1 shares. Periodically the Admin team (Admin and Selection Team) would decide what to do with the shares owned (in equal shares) by Admin. In the event of changes in personnel the share of the person leaving the Admin would be transferred to their personal holding as recognition of services rendered.

I'm actually making this up as I go along so I'll stop there and see what the reaction is so far.

* This is to allow respected members of NOT 606 who decide to join later to not be subjected to an admin fee
 
I know you looked into the rollovers ron approximately how few and far between are they ? Only so we can set a reasonable target among any partakers obviously little and often will probably increase participation .
nows the time e for suggestions lads and lasses put them up now the earlier its sorted the easier it will be !
 
I don't know uncle off hand. I can't find a summary of fund values. Scoop6 site has all the details of each scoop6 run but I'll have to extract the details from each day it's run. It seems though from a cursory glance that it is very small on several occasions (ie too small to bother). It may also be the case, but don't have the data to prove it, that it may be more profitable, on occasions, backing the selections in a straight accumulator since that is independent of the number of winning tickets. Also it could be easier as you get to pick the races. This is probably more suitable for NOT 606ers because it increases the skill element. A further advantage is that we could lower the base stake to get more lines, although it would obviously result in lower returns. It boils down to whether we wish to increase our chances of winning or take the higher risk and win more (provided it doesn't have to be shared amongst too many ticket holders).

This week it wouldn't have been as 8 winning tickets took home £1,342,599.47 whereas a straight accumulator would have returned a mere £511,632.00. However, if Zarwaan had won, the accumulator would have returned £575,586.00 and the Scoop 6 would have returned only £631,811 (quite a difference).

It may be worth looking back at a few random days to see how the 2 bets compare.

I believe we felt we would only bet when the fund was over £x million (whatever "x" is decided to be). However, the problem is going to be deciding how much to stake as, if it isn't won, we would need funds to continue. Clearly we will not be able to bet every time the fund is over £x million because the funds wouldn't support it in the event of further roll overs. We might therefore have to wait for a larger fund and have just one or two cracks at it as we did this time (staking £1500 for a few weeks is not on).

I'm afraid my brain gets a bit active as the evening passes and I've probably rambled on too much so I'll leave it there for now.
 
Hi everyone I'm back after a long sickness , I would be interested in joining syndicate if that's okay .
 
Registration details, in particular Non NOT 606 members, if any.

To attract new members the less info the better. I propose that we make registration as a member of NOT 606 a condition of entry and then syndicate members are simply registered under their NOT 606 user name. That would certainly make admin and communication simpler.

As regards payments to syndicate members I think for security purposes we should not hold any payment details as each member will be able to choose their preferred method of payment at the time (ie cheque or bank transfer). If the bank could hold a link to each member's personal designated bank account that would be as secure as we could get (ie we generate a payment to member ref xxxxxxxxxxx and the bank transfers the money direct to the member's personal bank account.

Registration would therefore be as simple as posting a message on a Scoop 6 Registration Thread. They could then be invited to join the Scoop 6 Club when they will be asked via PM to select options for transferring money into the Scoop 6 Account. Also communication would be simple, via the methods available to us now.
 
i would think it easier to let only forum members enter Ron, they dont have to be regular or even posters but i think it should be members only
 
I agree heis. In order to get more to invest we could market wider but anyone interested would have to join NOT 606 so, as you say, NOT 606 members only.

The more I think about it the more it becomes a "no brainer" <laugh>
 
all sounds good to me, I'll continue to offer my support and watch out for further ideas and info. How about a once a week syndicate lucky 15 to see if we can increase funds. Are we setting a date for current membership? we could then possibly advertise for new subscribers after a couple of months although that would complicate things regarding finances. I'm no accountant and sh*t at maths so will leave that to the brains of the outfit.
 
Back from my stag do. Messy.

Sorry I couldn't be in this week. I will be involved in the future. I much prefer to contribute little and often. I see this as a bit of fun that will enhance the NOT606 experience. I don't expect to win it at any point. For that reason I think:

a) NOT606 members only; and
b) reasonably small, weekly/monthly contributions i.e a fiver or a tenner a week or thereabouts.

If expectations to contribute over a tenner a week arise I'd gracefully bow out. That's purely based upon the negative expectation of returns. I think losing circa £500 a year on what would effectively become a premium membership to this site is more than sufficient.
 
There supposed to be messy bob lol. Hope it was good!
I think I agree on 606 members but contributions we should be able to minimise to monthly payment say £10-£20, saving time on admin . I dont think we will go again for 6 months so there is more than enough time to build a nice pot .
We could as niksboy said take a small percentage on a monthly basis to invest on a Saturday but my view would be singles to start with to boost the pot wisely.
the selection team process could be voted on and im sure they could pitch a few strong bets between them to invest in , thus also giving any member the benefits to there hard work and input as they could be posted in the private group only .Trying to make it a win /win process for the financial input . Obviously it would be down to each individual member what they do with the provided info at there own risk !
 
I'm very much with Bostonbob on this.

The other alternative is to wind it up and resuscitate it if there was a strong feeling to do so. I've probably missed it but was there any dosh left after Saturday? If there is can't we just put a simple plan in next week and use all that up, so if we did go again we'd start afresh?
 
im with BB but also maybe have a small lucky or the same amount on a horse that we and the wise ones think may boost the funds

im all for this and note that there was not one voice of critisim with the picks and the way this has been run

well done to all of us and hope it continues

when we have won enough why not meet up on th profits and have a 606 day at the races ??????
 
Agree entirely with Heis, absolutely admirable job by everyone involved and some great selections. Just shows you can nearly always trust the racing public, especially the Not606 public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back