from: "Grubb, Michael J" <michael.grubbatXYZxyzac.uk>
to: "'m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk'" <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Following the brief exchange on Wednesday: Tom and Benito accept that
Tyndall doesnt want to appear as a 'third party' and wont press the point of
where we had previously got to before I discussed things with you. But they
emphasise (as do I) that Tyndall has just won �10m so there is a huge
I suggest two options. If Tyndall wants to be part of partnership
(including financial arrangements) in full, Tyndall will also need to
sponsor on order of �10,000. It would then be badged as IC, Oxford,
Tyndall, with a 3-way profit share after direct costs (including my time)
and fee for IC CPD Administration, management & quality control. If the full
corporate fee is close to �2000 for the full week, estimate is course before
sponsorship would break even with c. 10 full payers, but obviously we would
hope for more like 30 or 40 people in total, though not all corporates.
After covering fixed costs, sponsorship would be used to subsidise places
for NGOs, students & developing country people.
So if it goes well Tyndall would get at least some of its money back.
Agreement would include commitment to run it on same terms for at least two
more years (unless course is cancelled overall), successively Oxford and a
Tyndall location, and probably to continue such rotation for as long as it
goes well. This approach would highlight Tyndall working with and
sponsoring the course as a collaborative training effort.
If Tyndall doesnt want to put up �10,000 for the course - and I readily
acknowledge I havent raised so explicitly the issue of sponsorship before -
then I think we have to stick with 'in association with ...' (unless you
would prefer not to be associated at all).
I understand you may need a few days to consult on this & whichever way you
decide, I trust all can (and Oxford have emphasised desire to) work together
in future on a range of climate issues.