Scoop6 Syndicate
- Thread starter Ron
- Start date
-
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
-
I actually don't think this would be too bad an idea on this forum. Unlike the last attempt at doing it, people like Ron seem more than capable of holding trust.
I'd be in too, especially if only targeting certain pots.
I'd be in too, especially if only targeting certain pots.
It seemes the Scoop6 is only available on Saturdays. Is that correct? So if there is a major meeting that doesn't extend to Saturday there is no scoop6 for that meeting? If that's the case that is 52 scoop6s per year of which a number will be carried over. I have found a history of winnings and rollovers and will try to format for easy reference. Although the past is no indication of the future it might be interesting. For now this gives some indication of the fund history
Does this mean we would only be going for it every 7 years or so? Maybe we should be setting our target jackpot at £1m?
You must log in or register to see images
Does this mean we would only be going for it every 7 years or so? Maybe we should be setting our target jackpot at £1m?
Ron,
Yes, every weekend and also Royal Ascot/Cheltenham if I recall. I would go for the weekends only.
Perhaps what you do is, a set stake per week (£5 say) and then when big rollovers (say over a million combined) up it to £10.
20 at £5 would give 50 lines which is 2 selections a race and a third selection in one leg.
Yes, every weekend and also Royal Ascot/Cheltenham if I recall. I would go for the weekends only.
Perhaps what you do is, a set stake per week (£5 say) and then when big rollovers (say over a million combined) up it to £10.
20 at £5 would give 50 lines which is 2 selections a race and a third selection in one leg.
Logic first Gaz not many people have met on here and at the targeted figures you will get more than likely get stung big style by the revenues as they may see it as a consortium investment. some live abroad and may face loses and I cant see the scoop 6 splitting a payout up 15 ways . Mind you I can imagine ron and oddy muleing cash across europe lol.
The paperwork needs to be watertight all the ts crossed and I's dotted so to speak, also all the hidden aspects to guarentee non or minimal loses . I speak not with trust issues against most of who I post with even though I have not met any , first impresions last and I know most would have my back covered and I would like to think they all feel the same. But and it is not a vindictive but there will be an intrest of people who I have no idea about , I would not discourage there participation just encourage Rons good judgement on doing it right from the start.
A ‘selection committee’?!? I say that’s very 1950’s Russia or, indeed, present day Civil Service.
But what I think needs to be established is – is there going to be a committee to decide who sits on the ‘selection committee’ and come to think of it a committee to decide who sits on the committee to decide who sits on the ‘selection committee’?!?
Furthermore, who will be the Chair (further to Harriet Harperson’s intervention it is a sackable offence to, these days, say either Chairman or Madam Chairman) and who will take the minutes?!?
But what I think needs to be established is – is there going to be a committee to decide who sits on the ‘selection committee’ and come to think of it a committee to decide who sits on the committee to decide who sits on the ‘selection committee’?!?
Furthermore, who will be the Chair (further to Harriet Harperson’s intervention it is a sackable offence to, these days, say either Chairman or Madam Chairman) and who will take the minutes?!?
Agreed Uncle. It has to be watertight. It's not a case of whether or not we trust anyone, but where money is involved it must never be dependent on trust. There is a lot of thought still to be given to whether or not we should do it, then there are the logistics to resolve. That doesn't mean that we need to restrict any thinking about the logistics though as they might have an impact on the decision to go ahead or not.
There needs to be a secure account to which all members have access for enquiry purposes. All members would have to set up a standing order to pay a monthly fixed amount into the account. Rules would have to be set up as to how to deal with any missed payments and how and when to stake how much etc. Rules can easily be produced and agreed but the difficult part will be who controls the money transfer. At present I can't think of a way round this and it could be the sticking point.
There needs to be a secure account to which all members have access for enquiry purposes. All members would have to set up a standing order to pay a monthly fixed amount into the account. Rules would have to be set up as to how to deal with any missed payments and how and when to stake how much etc. Rules can easily be produced and agreed but the difficult part will be who controls the money transfer. At present I can't think of a way round this and it could be the sticking point.
Don't get carried away with the dreadful word "Committee" Barney. I was careful to avoid that word initially, using the word "Jury". How do you think Timeform select their horses? As regards your other question about how the "Selection Committee" or whatever we want to call it is selected, I've covered that above (posts 1 and 7 on this thread).
What's our cut off point lads?
Seems daft to miss out on this weekends Scoop 6 given it's about as big as it will ever get.
Does anyone know if it's flat only for the selection races?
Seems daft to miss out on this weekends Scoop 6 given it's about as big as it will ever get.
Does anyone know if it's flat only for the selection races?
I will be a little naive now but surely we could set up an account with restrictions that only allow transfers to certain bookmakers accounts and only active if the agreed no of participants request tranfers or all participants or a solicitor/accountant acting on behalf of this. There would however have to be a certain element of trust on the staking side as passwords could be split between 3,4or 5 nominated candidates each knowing sections , but this then puts pressure on a select few actually meeting on and at a week or twos notice to place the said bets and transfer any winnings back to the original account. Obviously then there is the trust that said commitee do not copy any selections hence splitting the pot.
I would be more than happy to commit with an element of trust but would prefer to make an agreement for a one of payment by all parties tieing in to a select amount of goes thus leaving the door open for parties to stay or opt out at certain intervals decided by the scoop rules in place.
I would be more than happy to commit with an element of trust but would prefer to make an agreement for a one of payment by all parties tieing in to a select amount of goes thus leaving the door open for parties to stay or opt out at certain intervals decided by the scoop rules in place.
Ron, I was only messing. Just get to hear that dreaded word ‘committee’ about 50 times a day!
Saturday’s Scoopie could be far easier than in recent weeks, methinks. As you don’t seemingly have a lot of impossible looking 20+ runner looking handicaps to contend with. As its Cup Final day though not a lot of top class action on offer bar the Lockinge, of course.
Saturday’s Scoopie could be far easier than in recent weeks, methinks. As you don’t seemingly have a lot of impossible looking 20+ runner looking handicaps to contend with. As its Cup Final day though not a lot of top class action on offer bar the Lockinge, of course.