ãÍãÏ ÇáÑÓÇáÉ…حمد...declaration the work provided in this thesis , unless otherwise...
TRANSCRIPT
"
"
.
_.
2013
....
. ...
....
...........
......
... ......
..........
......
.... ...
......
.... ...
......
...
.
.
.
....
.
.
2011-2012
.
/
/ "
"
.
Declaration
The work provided in this thesis , unless otherwise referenced is the researcher's own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree or qualification.
: Student's Name:
: Signature:
: Date
:
1
2
6
8
9
10
:
14
:
15
:
54
61
:
63
64
64
65
66
68
69
:
70
71
:
87
:
88
:
95
:
96
98
:
99
:
103
105
b
1
65
2
66
3
67
4
72
5
74
6
76
7
77
8
78
9
80
10
80
11
81
12
83
13
83
14
84
15
85
16
86
1
106
2
111
3
112
4
113
1
19
2
37
3
42
4
)
(
79
5
82
6
86
"
"
.
.
)214 (
)15 ()10 ()14 (
)9 (
)SPSS (
One Way Anova)(
)
0.05 (
:)
(
:
) (
.
.
.
:
.
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
:
.
.
)1994 (
.
1985
)2010 (
"
."
) 2001.(
3
)
2000 .(
)Philip Kotler,2004 ( :
.
(Stanton & Ferrell,1987) :
.
.
)
1995.(
4
) 1999.(
)
(
)1994.(
)
1998.(
5
)Macdonald,2000 ()1995 (
1984_1988 (
92 )1988-1992 (120
.)1992- 1996 (
12350
.
)Robert,1990 (300
1978 .
)Sport Media Challenge,1997 (
)15 (%
)1988- 1993( 19953
199612000
.
19984.55
100 %28519926001998
)Lough,2001.(
1953
)
2003.(
6
)
1999.(
.
:
.
7
.
.
.
:-
8
1-
2- )
0.05 (
3- )
0.05 (
4- )
0.05 (
:
.
.
.
:
9
1-
.
2-
.
3-
.
4-
.
5-
.
:
:
-
.
-
.
-.
10
:
:
1- :
2011-2012 )
( 2011
-
2012 .
.
2- :
)
(
.
.
3- :
2011/ 2012.
:
:
) 1999.(
:
:
- :
) 1979.(
11
- :
) (
) 1994.(
:
sport
diportdisport
) 1996(
)
2009 (
.
:
)2009(
.
:
.
:.
12
:.
) : (
) 2009.(
:
)
2009.(
: )2007(
:
-
-
-
- .
:)(
) (
) 2010.(
:
) (
) 1998.(
13
: ) 2009(
) (
.
:
.
14
:
)Sponsorship (
15
)1999( )
.(
)2010() 2004(
_
_ ""
.
:
- .
- .
-
.
-
.
.
16
)
1997 .(
:
.
:
) 1999.(
:
) (
(kotler, )
) (
.
17
Darker)(
Mccorrmick
.
] [1910Butler ] [
Wisconsin.
Curtis1911
] [1917
.
)
1999.(
:
)2009(
:
1-
) (
) (
.
18
.
.
- 2
)1999(:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-.
.
- 3 )2008(:
.
.
19
.
) (
.
:
)1999(
.
)(
.
.
:
1 2 3 4 5 )1:( )
1999.(
:
-).(
20
-.
-
.
-
.
-.
-
)
1999.(
:
:
)
)(
1984.(
:
)
)(
1984.(
:
50 %
21
Mc Carthy ) 2000:(
- :.
- :.
- : ).(
- :.
-.
- :
.
- :
.
.
- :
.
:
:
1870
22
.
Bubble
.
.
,1998) Andrews.(
:
.
.
)2002(
23
.
)2009(:
.
)2002 (:
.
)2000 (:
.
:Pits et stotlar
1996
)
(
)
2004.(
Matiou Chenk:
) 1999.(
( Gary Tribou,2004):
24
.
) (
.
:
)2005(:
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
:
)2007 (:
-
-
.
25
-
.
- .
- .
:
- .
-
.
)
2007.(
:
)2010(:
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
26
.
-
.
:
)2005( :
- Needs
- Wants
- Demands
- Products
- Exchang
- Transaction
- Markets
:
)2005( :
- Product.
- Price.
27
- Place.
- Promotion.
:
)2010(
:
- .
- .
- .
- .
-
.
- .
:
) 2005(
:
*.
*.
*.
*.
28
*.
- 1:
.
)
2006.(
- 2
:
:
- .
- .
- .
- .
-
.
-
) (.
29
- .
-
)
2006.(
- 3:
)2005 (:
- .
- .
- .
- .
-
.
- .
- .
-
.
- .
- .
- .
- 4:
30
) 2006(:
- .
-
.
- ) (
.
- .
- ) (.
-
.
- .
-
.
- 5
:
)2006(
:
- .
-
31
.
-
.
-
.
- .
-
.
- .
)Shilbury&Quick,1998(
.
*:
- :
32
)1999(
.
.
:
1 -.
2 -
.
3-
.
-:
)1999(
:
- .
-
.
- .
- .
- .
33
:
)2004(
.
:
1(:
)2004(
.
"karford " :
.
.
.
2 ( :
.
:
)
2004.(
34
3 (:
."
)"
2004.(
4 (:
.
:
)
2004.(
5 () (:)2004(
"
"
..
.
35
6 (:
:)
"
)(
2004.(
:
:
)2007(
.
.
.
(National Basketball Association)
(NBA)
36
.
"
:
:
.
:.
:
.
:
.
:
) 2007.(
37
)2( :)
2007(
:
)2004(
" " " " "
":
-
:
.
-
:
.
-
:
.
.
38
) Brox,1994(:
- :
.
- :
.
:
.
:
.
-:.
:
.
" "
:
.
- .
- .
-
.
)
()
2004.(
:
39
)2007(
.
.
" "
1994
1119921995
1995
MLB
.
19951995
1996
.
:
)2004(
.
40
." " " ":
1 -
.
2 -.
3 -.
4 -.
" "
"1995 1996"
:
1 -
.
2 -
.
3 -.
4 -.
"
"
)(
41
" ."
.
:
::
-:.
-:
.
-:
)
2007.(
::
- :
)
(.
-:
.
-:
)
2007.(
:
)2004(
.
.)3(
.
42
-
--
-
--
)3(: )
2004(
"
" .
.
Gray1994
43
.
.
:
.
-.
-.
-.
:
-
.
-.
-.
.
-.
44
-.
)
2007 .(
:
" "
)
2007.(
:
:
" Frino "
.
:
1 -
2 -.
3 -
.
45
4 -
.
.
)
2007 .(
:
(2004) Gray
.
46
: }
{
)(
.
:
)2006(
:
-
.
-.
-.
-.
-.
-.
47
:
-.
-.
.
:
)2002(
) (
) ( 50
.
48
:
.
"
"
)
2002.(
)
1992.(
:
) 2006(
) (
.
.
49
.
.
.
.
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- )
(.
- .
:
)(
) (
15
)
1998 .(
50
:
:
:
:
)(
)(
51
)
1998.(
:
)(
:
:
:
.
)
1998 .(
:
.
52
)
(
)
2007.(
:
)1892 (
)1925 (
)
2007 .(
))
((
)) )((
1998.(
53
.
01 881988
)
()
2007 .(
)(:
)(
)
1998.(
.
)
1998.(
.
54
70 %
)
2007.(
: :
:
) 1995( "
"
)30 (
.
)Stipp & Shiavone, 1996 (
)Nbs( )Nbs (
800
12
50 %
55
)Nbs ()1992 (
.
Rodoula,1997) (
387
.
") "WGZ- Bank,2001(
2000\2001
70.2
49.6
11.4
.
56
) Laugh,2001 (
74
:
.
)Hermanns & Riedmueller,2002 (
2002
2500
68.9 %
83.3% .
") "Reckwittz,2002 (
22
2000\2001
335
110
.
Shalaby,2003)(
57
18
87.5 %
.
)2004(
)70 (
)96 () 240 ( )610 (
)310 ( )708 () 34.8(%
.
)2004(
)27 (
.
30\9\20048\1\2005
) 15.7 (%
58
)44.3 (%
.
)59.07 (% .
)2004(
)10 (24)1 (
) 25()12 (
)94 (
30\5\200422\7\2004 72 %
12 %
.
" "(Arndt,2005)
)2003\2004( .
)18 (
)2 (
59
)69 (
)5 (.
" " ( Simmonds,2006)
)155 (
" "
.
" " (Parent; Harvey,2009)
)300 (
60
"
"
.
) 2010(
) (
) ()84 ()12 (
)37 (
) (
)3.71( ) (
.
61
:
:
:
)2004 (
)(
)2004 (
)2004(
)Laugh,2001 (
)2010(
" "
.
62
" "
(Arndt,2005)
)2003\2004( " "
)Reckwittz,2002 (
" "Shalaby)2003(
87.5 %
.
:
.
:
- 1 .
- 2 .
- 3.
- 4 .
:
.
63
-.
-.
-.
- .
- .
-.
-.
64
:
:
.
:
406
)84( )12(
)56 ()8( 2011-2012
))85( )33(
)32(
)96 ( 406 .
)1 (.
65
)1(:
1
84
2
12
3
56
4
8
5
85
6
33
7
32
8
96
406
:
)214 (
-)52.7 (%
)2 (
66
) 2(
)=214(
%
84 39.3
16 7.5
77 38.0
37 17.3
5
62 29.0
6-10
96 44.9
10
56 26.2
66 30.8
133 62.1
15 7.0
:
)1995 ()1997 (
)2002 ()2010()48 (
) (
)1 (.
:
:
- :
)5 (
)2(
.
67
75 %
4850
.
-
:
:
)3 (.
) 3 (
0.79
0.82
0.88
0.94
0.89
)3 (
)0.79-0.94( ) 0.89 (
.
68
- :
:
:
-:) :
.(
-:: ) 5
6-10
10
.(
- : ) :(.
:
.
:
:
- 1
.
- 2.
- 3)4.(
- 4
.
- 5
.
69
:
(SPSS) :
- 1
.
- 2
(One Way Anova)
.
(Scheffe Test) .
70
71
:
:
:
)4( )5( )6( ) 7 (
) 8 (.
:
80 %.
70-79.9 %.
60-69.99 %.
50-59.9 %.
50 %.
72
1-:
) 4(
)=214(
*
%
1 .
3.99 79.72
2 .
3.89 77.76
3 .
3.25 64.95
4 .
4.19 83.74
5 .
4.25 84.95
6 .
2.43 48.60
7
. 2.23 44.58
8 . 2.87 57.38
9 .
1.58 31.68
10 .
2.42 48.32
11 . 2.41 48.13
12
.
1.70 33.93
13 .
2.47 49.35
14 .
2.48 49.53
15
3.74 74.80
2.87 57.33
)5 (.
73
)4 (
) 4 5 ()80(%
)1 2 15(
)79.72%77.76% %74.80() 3(
)64.95(% ) 8(
)57.38(% ) 6 7 9 10
11 12 13 14( )50 .(%
)57.33.(%
74
2-:
) 5(
)=214(
* %
1 .
2.79 55.80
2
.
2.66 53.20
3
2.44 48.80
4
.
2.59 51.80
5
4.28 85.60
6
.
4.40 88.00
7
2.96 59.20
8
.
2.84 56.80
9
.
2.90 58.00
10
.
2.85 57.00
3.07 61.40
)5 (.
75
)5 (
)5 6 (
)80(% ) 1 2 4 7 8 9 10(
)51.80%-59.20(%) 3(
)50 .(%
)61.40.(%
76
3-:
) 6(
)=214(
*
%
1 .
4.28 85.60
2
3.89 77.80
3 .
3.37 67.40
4 .
3.13 62.60
5 .
3.00 60.00
6 .
2.07 41.40
7 .
2.74 54.80
8 .
2.69 53.80
9 .
2.76 55.20
10
.
3.79 75.80
11 .
2.98 59.60
12 .
2.65 53.00
13 .
2.65 53.00
14 . 3.02 60.40
3.12 62.40
) 5 (.
77
)6 (
)1 (
)80(%)2 10(
)77.80%75.80(% )3 4 5 14(
)60%-67.40(%
)7 8 9 10 11 12 13( )53%-
59.60(%
)6(
)50 .(%
) 62.40.(%
4-:
) 7(
)=214(
%
1 . 3.89 77.85
2 . 3.68 73.55
3
. 3.60 71.96
4 .
3.75 74.95
5 .
3.58 71.59
6 . 3.79 75.70
7
3.86 77.29
8 .
3.81 76.17
9 .
3.92 78.32
3.76 75.26
) 5 (.
78
) 7 (
)1-9(
)71.96%-78.32 .(%
) 75.26.(%
5-:
) 8(
)=214(
* %
2
2.87 57.33
3
3.08 61.52
4
3.12 62.45
1
3.76 75.26
3.21 64.14
)3 (.
)8 (
)64.14(%
)75.26(%)62.45(%
)61.52(%) 57.33(%.
79
)4.(
4321
Mea
n4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
3.8
2.9
3.13.1
)4 (
1 =2 =3 =
4 =
::
0.05
(One Way Anova)
)9()10 (
.
80
) 9(
3.08 2.88 3.09 3.37
2.97 2.85 3.17 3.19
2.83 2.74 2.91 2.89
3.79 3.94 3.64 3.88
3.17 3.09 3.20 3.33
) 10(
)( *
3
210
213
3.639
75.034
78.672
1.21
0.35
3.39
0.01*
3
210
213
2.851
78.217
81.068
0.95
0.37
2.55
0.06
3
210
213
0.55
48.59
49.14
0.18
0.23
0.79
0.49
3
210
213
2.088
138.75
140.84
0.69
0.66
1.05
0.37
3
210
213
0.84
32.42
33.27
0.28
0.15
1.82
0.14
)=0.05 (
)10 (
81
: )
(
.
) 11 (.
) 11(
0.22 -0.01 -0.28*
-0.23 -0.51*
-0.27*
*) =0.05 (
)11 (
)
(
.
82
)5.(
4321
Mea
n 3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
3.4
3.1
2.9
3.1
)5(
1=2 =3 =4 =
::
0.05
(One Way Anova)
)12()13 (
.
83
) 12(
5
6-10
10
3.10 3.21 2.98
3.01 3.11 3.07
2.85 2.88 2.85
3.69 3.89 3.62
3.16 3.27 3.13
) 13(
)( *
2
211
213
1.88
76.788
78.788
0.94
0.38
2.59 0.07
2
211
213
0.358
80.711
81.088
0.017
0.38
o.48 0.62
2
211
213
0.038
49.107
49.145
0.019
0.23
0.08 0.92
2
211
213
2.99
137.85
140.84
1.49
0.66
2.28 0.10
2
211
213
0.83
32.441
33.271
0.415
0.15
2.69 0.07
)=0.05(
84
)13 (
.
::
0.05
(One Way ANOVA)
)14( )15 (
.
) 14(
3.056 3.16 3.00
3.17 3.04 2.94
2.88 2.87 2.75
3.74 3.71 4.30
3.20 3.20 3.25
85
) 15(
)( *
2
211
213
0.755
77.917
78.672
0.377
0.369
1.022
0.36
2
211
213
1.009
80.060
81.068
0.504
0.379
1.32 0.26
2 211
213
0.199
48.948
49.145
0.099
0.232
0.42 0.65
2
211
213
4.75
138.088
140.844
2.37
0.64
3.68 0.02*
2
211
213
0.037
33.235
33.271
0.018
0.158
0.11 0.89
*
)=0.05 (
) 15 (
: ) (
.
)16 (.
86
) 16(
0.032 -0.55*
-0.59*
*)=0.05 (
)16 (
) (
.
)6.(
321
Mea
n
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
4.3
3.73.7
)6 :(
1=
2 = 3 =
87
-
-
-
88
.
:
) 8 (
) 64.14(%
)75.26(%) 62.45(%
)61.52(%) 57.33(%
)3.21(
)2010(
) (
)3.71(
) (
89
.
)3.76 (
)2.87 (
.
:
)4 (
) 2.87(
)(Stipp & Schiavone,1996
.
90
:
)5 (
)3.07(
)( Stipp & Schiavone,1996
.
:
)6 (
)3.12(
.
) Stipp and Schiavone,1996(
91
:
)Macdonald&
Rascher,2000(
.
:
)7 (
)3.76(
Rodoula,1997; Lough,2001;) Reckwittz,2002; Arndt,2005.(
)WGZ- Bank,2001 (
2000\2001
92
70.2
49.6
11.4 .
::
0.05
) 10 (
: ) (
.
.
) 11 (
)
(
.
93
)2004(
.
:
0.05
(One Way Anova)
)12()13 (
.
) 13 (
) ) (o.o7 0.62 0.92
0.10 (0.05.
)1995(
.
94
:
0.05
(One Way Anova)
) 14()15 (
)15 (
:)
(
.
) 16 (.
) 16 (
) (
.
95
Rodoula,1997)(
387
.
:
:
- 1
.
- 2
.
- 3
.
- 4
)64.14(%
96
)75.26(%
)57.33 .(%
- 5
.
- 6 .
:
- 1.
- 2
.
- 3
.
- 4 .
- 5
.
- 6.
- 7
.
- 8
.
97
- 9
.
- 10
.
- 11.
- 12
.
98
:
:
99
: :
.)2002.( .91
.
).2008 .(
.
)6.(
).1996 .( .
216 32
.
).2002.(
.
.
).2007 .(
.
.
).1994 .( . :.
).1999 .( .
.
).1999.( .5
.
100
).1995 ".(
".
:75-87.
).1997 .( . .
).1984 .( . 19.
).2000 .(
. .
).2002 .( .
10817 .
).2003 .( . :.
).1998.( "
."
.
).2009( .
.
.
).2003 .(
.
.
).2005.( . .
101
).2009 .(
.
: .
).2006 .(.
.
).2004.(
.
.
).2010.(" "
.
.
).1999.( . :
.
).2004 .(
. .
).1999 .( .15-16 : .
).2002 .(
..
).2007 .(. 1 1248
.
102
).1998 .( . :
54 .
).1992 .( .226
.
. .36
.
).1994 .( . :.
).2007 .( . .
).1979 .( .:
.
).2000 .(. : .
).1994.(
.
:
40 .
).2001(. . : .
).2004 .(
.
.
103
: :
- Kotler,Philip.(2004).Principles Of Marketing.Prentice Hall-NEW
Jersey P4.
- Lough,N.(2001). Acomparative Analysis Of Sponsorship Objectives
For U.S,Women's Sport And Traditional Sport Sponsorship.Sport
Marketing Quarterly,10(4),202-211.
- Macdonald,R.(2000).Does Bat Day Make Cent? The Effect Of
Promotion On The Demand For Major League Ball. Journal Of
Sport Management, 14(1), 8-27.
- Mc Carthy, E, Jerome, Williame, D, Perrealut.(2000). Essentials Of
Marketing, A Global Managerial Approach. IRWIN Publishing,
P550.
- P, Andrews/ Didou/ Peacoke, Copy Right.(1998).Brief History And
Trands In Sport Marketing.
- P; Gary Tribou.(2004). Marketing du sport,Economica.3eme
edition,France.
- Reckwitz, L.(2002). Sport Sponsoring in intermedialen
Erfolgsvergleich. In; L,Hubi & D, Swieter( Hrsg), Ligasport, aus
oekonomischer Sicht, Aachen, S, 123-138.
- Robert, L.(1990). Sport Marketing. Champaign, 111; Human Kinetics
Book.
104
- Rodula,T.(1997). The Giving To Athletics Model Gam. An
Investigation Of Factor The Explain Donations To Intercollegiate
Athletics.
- Shalaby,S.(2003).Marketing
Management in den deutschrn und
den aegyptischen sportverbaenden. Ein vergeleichende
Analyse,Goettingen.
- Shilbury, D, & Quich,S.(1998). Strategic sport marketing. Allen And
Unwin,Australia.
- Sport Media Challenge.(1997).The Sport Sponsorship Survey
Coltsgite Round.
- Stanton,W, and Futrellc.(1987). Fundamental of Marketing. McGraw-
Hill, Book Co,NewYork, USA, P7.
- Stipp,H,& Schiavone,N.(1996).Modeling The Impact Of Olympic
Sponsorship On Corporate Image. Journal Of Advertising Research,
36(4), 22- 29.
- WGZ-Studie.(2001).FC Euro AG,WGZ-Bank&Delotte. Duesseldorf.-
Hermanns, A,& Riedmueller, F.(2002). Sponsoring Trends 2000. Eine
Schriftliche Befragung der 2500 umsatzstaerksten Unternehmen in
Deutschland, gefoerdent von sposor partners Gmbh.Muenchen.
- WWW.UNC. Edulandrews/ ints092/weike1.html.
105
- )1(:
- )2(:
- )3(:
- )4( :
106
)1(
:
:
"
"
.
.
.
.
:
:
( ) .
( ).
( ). ( ).
.
:
( ).
( ).
_
( ) .
.
:
( ).
( ). ( ).
107
:)x (
-
1
.
2
.
3
.
4
.
5
.
6
.
7
.
8
.
9
.
10
.
11
.
12
.
108
13
.
14
.
15
.
16
.
17
.
18
19
.
20
.
21
.
22
23
.
24
.
109
25
.
-
26
.
27
.
28
.
29
.
30
.
31
.
32
.
33
.
34
.
35
.
36
.
37
.
38
.
110
39
.
-
40
.
41
.
42
.
43
.
44
.
45
.
46
47
.
48
.
111
)2 (
) (
1 . .
2 . .
3 .
4 .
5 .
112
)3(
/ ......................................................................
:
:
)10953917 (
"
"
:
1- .
2- .
113
)( :
An-Najah National University
Faculty of Graduate Studies
The Role Sponsorship Companies of sports activities In Developing the Sports Movement In West Bank From
the Point Of View The Workers In Sports Field
Prepared by
Mohammad Shawkat Mustafa Samha
Supervisor
Dr. Walid Abdel Fattah Khanfar
This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Physical Education, Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine
2013
B
The Role Sponsorship Companies of sports activities In Developing the Sports Movement In West Bank From the Point Of View The
Workers In Sports Field
Prepared by
Mohammad Shawkat Mustafa Samha Supervisor
Dr. Walid Abdel Fattah Khanfar
Abstract
The aim of this research was to examine The Role Sponsorship
Companies of sports activities In Developing the Sports Movement In West
Bank From the Point Of View The Workers In Sports Field. The study was
carried out based on a sample composed of 214 members of the sports
workforce who comprise all the major sports unions in the West Bank, with
the exception of those in handball, whose union has had a rather
unsystematic program for several years.
Given the suitability of the subject under study, the researcher made
use of the descriptive analytical approach to conduct this research in all its
aspects, including proper distribution of survey questionnaires which
consisted of 4 areas, mainly: economic (15 sections), logistical
(10 sections), social (14 sections), and advertisement and marketing
(9 sections). In order to attain statistical descriptions of the results, the
researcher made use of the SPSS software as well as of the One Way
Anova program to identify the levels of statistical significance. Results
from the four survey areas showed no significant statistical variations at
level 0.05 in the role that sports sponsoring companies have in the West
Bank as viewed by sports workers. The overall result can be attributable to
the functional capacity variable, whereas statistically significant differences
C
correlating to the economic aspect of the survey were linked to the
aforementioned variable. In addition, no further statistical significance was
attained in the role sponsoring companies played in developing sports as
indicated by the experience and professional training variables.
On the other hand, major statistical differences were encountered in
the advertisement and marketing areas as per the professional training
variable. In order to properly identify fluctuations in this area according to
the variable, dimensional comparison tests were employed between
arithmetic means, leading the researcher to conclude that the advertisement
and marketing areas of the survey occupy the first place, which shows that
the majority of the sports workforce perceive a crucial importance given to
advertising by sponsoring companies. This comes as a result of the
emphasis these companies place on increasing their reputation
commercially by increasing the promotion of their products in the market.
Furthermore, there is a complementary relationship between marketing,
sports events, and sponsorship, which aids in upgrading sports teams; thus
achieving higher performance. Therefore, the more a company increases its
sponsorship, the more its products are advertised and marketed to a greater
segment of society.
To conclude, the researcher has recommended a steady and
continuous year-round sponsorship on the part of companies, as well as
encouraging sports teams to invest in order to fund part of its expenditures
should sponsors face economic hardships.
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.win2pdf.com.The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF.