Why I got kicked out of Seedcamp 2009

From <a href="http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/09/21/seedcampweek09-recession-era-startups-emerge-blinking-into-the-light/" rel="nofollow">http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/09/21/seedcampweek09-recession...</a><p>"It’s worth pointing out also that the slight ambiguity of past Seedcamp years has now gone. Seedcamp T&#38;Cs now state that a startup cannot go into the programme unless they will take the investment offered. To remind you, that’s 5-10% equity (stakes are flexible) for a 50,000 Euro investment. That’s totally fine. They’ve assembled an awesome network of mentors. It would be a huge waste of everyone’s time if a startup got all that great advice and then effectively threw it back in the faces of the organisers and didn’t take the investment."<p>WTF?<p>I read that as saying teams <i>have to</i> take investment if offered? Is that even legal? But why should "I just decided not to take investment" be " throwing it back in the faces of the organizers"?<p>Shouldn't each party enter a transaction because they think it is a good thing <i>at the point of transacting</i>? This looks like it is possible for a team to be saddled with investors they don't like.<p>( I could be completely off base. Please correct me. Thanks in advance)

Reshma outright told me that I had to leave the judging session as I had not put money into seedcamp, as had all the others sitting in that room. She asked me to leave before the next pitch began too. Mentors were not allowed in full stop.

this kind of thing was why i moved from the UK to SV. the british culture is closed, there's a constant search for ways to exclude the majority for the benefit of an 'elite' minority. i found SV had no concept of the elite. could you ever imagine this kind of scene happening at YC?<p>there have been huge strides in the Uk scene since I left in '07 and it saddens me to see something like this happen.

I can tell you for a fact that mentors were not allowed in that final day of presentation - only vc's and angels who had paid a large amount (50k+) into the "seedcamp fund" - whatever that meant. What you have is a project that is pitching as being a transparent ecosystem to help startups - when in fact it's just an investment vehicle milking the goodwill of advisors and mentors to serve the aims of those funds.

Bleating is easier than building.<p>It feels to me that there is something strangely self serving about this whole 'debate'.<p>Seedcamp was great and has done a huge amount to catalyse an early stage ecosystem across Europe. It takes a huge amount of energy to put something like that together. I think Reshma should get some slack here.<p>Someone got the hump because they were somewhere they shoudln't be then bleats bitterly about it and says their rules should change. If people feel that strongly about it, go and do your own thing and make up your own rules. The entrepreneurial community as a whole should benefit as a result.

&#62;<i>What I hadn’t seemed to realise (and I’m sure I’m not the only one), is that this fourth day is where angel funds and VC’s pay upwards of £50,000 to attend (no kidding!)</i><p>£50,000!? Can anyone else confirm this?

Uninteresting! Financially oriented issues like these don't bother me at all. Who needs so much money these days when everything (services, hard- and software) is so damn cheap. I don't need anybody investing in our venture. I've got a part time day job which supports me at least up to the RMS standard of living. Who cares about all this bloated so called financial infrastructure. This is just distracting and I don't get it. Create something you love first - if you need some money beyond that for investing in your infrastructure or the likes then do the good old credit card bootstrapping. Should be enough. Don't hire people do it together with some capable people you trust and like to be with. I thought this place would be more about hacking than plain old "dirty" money. P.S. sorry for OT ranting but I couldn't resist, pipe to /dev/null if you please

Saul Klein's response is here: <a href="http://blog.seedcamp.com/2009/09/awaiting-moderation.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.seedcamp.com/2009/09/awaiting-moderation.html</a>

To squarely address the concern about transparency: I think the model is highly transparent and has previously been well communicated.<p>The issue he raises, i.e. that the investors in Seedcamp are the ones choosing the winners on the final day of Seedcamp week, seems a fair arrangement: these investors have invested money in Seedcamp to provide capital for the winning startups. Hence they should have an input on where their money goes.<p>Note that investors do not pay to have exclusive access to Seedcamp companies on the final day. Seedcamp does not sell its services as a "gatekeeper". Instead, the investors have put equity into Seedcamp and Seedcamp invests in the winning startups. The amounts invested in Seedcamp are about 50K for individuals and 200K for institutions. Everyone is free to invest in Seedcamp (he should talk to them!).<p>Saul's point that the final day is closed except for the investors and invited mentors/advisers makes sense to me. It's a special day where the winners of Seedcamp are chosen, i.e. Seedcamp makes its investment decision. This needs to be a small session and behind closed doors.<p>Finally, any mentor or investor is absolutely free to invest in any company accepted to Seedcamp week or part of the final 6 - or indeed those that have been rejected by Seedcamp. You can invest before, during or after Seedcamp week. Everyone is totally free to choose where to put their money. The one exception is that as part of the selection process, Seedcamp does not want companies in Seedcamp week that already know they don't want investment from Seedcamp. Seems sensible.<p>So I guess this whole thing was just somehow handled badly or he was invited on another day and it wasn't really clear when that was. I am sure no one meant to "kick him out of Seedcamp". Part of the reason Seedcamp thrives is that there is this awesome network of mentors and advisers who aren't investors in Seedcamp and see the non-financial benefit of donating their time - for the ecosystem, for karma, for encouraging entrepreneurs, for improving startups. This is a completely voluntary process and mentors do it because it's fun. I think startups can benefit immensely from the advice, but I also find it hard to believe that any individual advice from a mentor can be measured in a potential equity return to Seedcamp and the Seedcamp investors down the road. The companies that deal best with mentors' advice are the ones that would probably have been successful anyway.<p>Disclaimer: I unfortunately wasn't at Seedcamp this year, so I also wasn't in the room when this happened. My employer, Atlas Venture, is an investor at Seedcamp. Usual disclaimer on personal opinion and the like.

mentors arent allowed in the final sessions for logistical reasons, the line has to be drawn somewhere as to who can participate and the fund investors seems like an obvious line.<p><i>Firstly, I don’t see why mentors are invited at all.</i><p>Most to all of the mentors have a vested interest in the startup community thriving, lawyers, marketers, investors and angels who were not part of the main fund but still get direct access to the startup, a phone call isnt going to help until you figure out who you are calling, thats where seedcamp and such events help

Not many decent companies have come out of seedcamp. Mybuilder is the only success story.

/popcorn