down an offer of a further three years of sponsorship of International Race Weekend by the Bank of Butterfield.

In a statement published in The Royal Gazette yesterday, the bank summarised the difficulties encountered in negotiations with the BTFA and concluded: "...for reasons unknown to the bank, it appears that the BTFA does not want the continued sponsorship of the bank for Race Weekend''.

The BTFA responded by claiming that the bank's statement had been "a gross misrepresentation of the facts'' -- yet did not deny anything in the bank's version of events.

The association also felt it necessary to stress to the bank that they were the "owners'' of Race Weekend in response to a letter from the bank offering sponsorship of the mile race, which left the BTFA "shocked''.

The BTFA confirmed they had requested a $35,000 increase in the annual sponsorship from the bank, which would have upped the contribution -- paid directly to the BTFA -- to $100,000 per year, exclusive of prize money and bonuses.

And the BTFA statement said that during the three-year period of the bank's title sponsorship, ". .. a small profit was realised in 1998 with deficits being recorded in 1999 and 2000''.

The statement went on: "In view of the above, we increased our sponsorship request to $100,000 per annum to cover the expenses that will be incurred in the future, bearing in mind that our expenses for the event for each of the past three years were in the region of $130,000.

"A suggestion was made by the bank to cut out the expense of T-shirts, receptions for our sponsors and volunteers and the athletes' awards presentations.

"Although the total cost for these items amounted to approximately $30,000, the suggestion was rejected by the BTFA because runners particiapte for a T-shirt and we wanted to say "thanks'' to our other sponsors, volunteers and athletes in a meaningful way.'' The bank had claimed that the BTFA had refused to supply an accounting of funds, requested by the bank in response to the appeal for increased sponsorship. The BTFA statement did not mention the issue.

Neither did the BTFA refer to the meeting of March 28 with the bank, at which the bank offered three more years of title sponsorship with the annual contribution rising by year three to $100,000, exclusive of prize money and bonuses.

The offer was not accepted by the BTFA, who informed the bank that they "would be actively pursuing additional sponsorship for our event''.

The BTFA statement went on: "During further discussions, we were advised that the bank was only willing to sponsor the mile races and not the entire weekend. This position was not acceptable to the BTFA executive because the mile races, although they were well received by the community, did not boost the economy by bringing in the hundreds of participants and supporters generated by the 10K, marathon and half marathon.'' And the BTFA gave an additional reason for refusing to accept the bank's sponsorship of the mile races in the form of an excerpt from a letter to the bank, dated June 20.

It read: "We wish to point out that the Bermuda Track and Field Association are the owners of the Bermuda International Race Weekend..and have been since its inception in 1973.

BTFA reply From Page 17 "...At no time has the BTFA sold the right of ownership for any or all of the events to a sponsor. We are therefore shocked by the remarks in your letter and we quote `we (the Bank) are however firmly committed to retaining sponsorship of the Butterfield Mile and we would like to discuss the continued involvement of the BTFA in managing this event'.'' The Bank of Butterfield issued a short statement yesterday, saying that the BTFA's description of their statement as a gross misrepresentation "is an indication of how difficult it has been to work with the organisation''.