I second what dhary says. I don't see the discussion going anywhere. We will not be able to come to any final conclusion this way.
I can see that both sides have some good points, and I personally see myself leaning towards Gyroplast's point of view. I believe this is not REALLY a financial problem but rather a psychological effect. Sponsorship is how we finance a large part of the convention after all, so it's not like there is no significant return for all the non-sponsors. It's just not as obviously visible. Whether this effect outweights the overall benefits of making super-sponsorship appropriately super-attractive is a rather philosophical question that I would like to discuss with my fellow board members.
So thank you everybody for your detailed points of view, rest assured you have been heard, and your opinions will be taken into consideration and weighed against the inherent necessities of a big convention and all the other aspects that need to be taken into account. As we all know, it's not possible to make everybody happy.
Thanks again.