Uh-oh

[e25 5]

If you think that McNamee wouldn't have got us a sponsor by now then you have no idea.

I guess it's just easier to pretend that "if Jim can't do it no-one can" because otherwise you run the risk that Jim might not actually be the messiah.

If this is all pointless masturbation then I suggest you go outside for a bit and forget about it. Or take a cold shower or something. Just promise me that you won't vote at the next meeting if none of this interests you.

Personally, I think my arguments about the sponsorship have much more point to them than most of the stuff that gets posted on here.

Oh bugger it. You got me.

I think Jimma & Schwabby can walk on water and I'm going to ride their coattails to the promised land.

Get onboard the bandwagon guys, there's plenty of room for everyone!

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

The truest thing you've written yet.

Cheers.

[EVIL DEE 1]

I have hope the Mexicans will save us all.

[Roost It 1,434]

The club finds itself at the end of a run of outs, chief execs being sacked, two bottom finishes, a raw coach and list, the worst draw of all clubs, no real home, no guarantee of a future and if reading this thread is anything to go by, a group of supporters who's faith has been stretched to past breaking point. And we wonder why we can't find a sponsor!

On the upside the club has a talented young list, a home in Casey, a spirited and determined board, an AFL and MCC who are still backing the club and a group of supporters who chipped in over $3 million dollars. All in all I'd say we're past the bottom that we had to have. A sponsor will come, and over the next 3 -4 years they will get their monies worth. We still have some selling points, tradition, the MCC, Jack Watts. Someone will turn up

[Roost It 1,434]

The club finds itself at the end of a run of outs, chief execs being sacked, two bottom finishes, a raw coach and list, the worst draw of all clubs, no real home, no guarantee of a future and if reading this thread is anything to go by, a group of supporters who's faith has been stretched to past breaking point. And we wonder why we can't find a sponsor!

On the upside the club has a talented young list, a sort of home in Casey, a spirited and determined board, an AFL and MCC who are still backing the club and a group of supporters who chipped in over $3 million dollars. All in all I'd say we're past the bottom that we had to have. A sponsor will come, and over the next 3 -4 years they will get their monies worth. We still have some selling points, tradition, the MCC, Jack Watts. Someone will turn up

[e25 5]

The truest thing you've written yet.

Cheers.

Slight exaggeration though. I think they are a good fit for their roles, and their performance thus far has been adequate, no more.

I agree wholeheartedly with their ideals & principles that they try to work by - whether they can continue to follow through with them in the practical sense remains to be seen.

And I agree that we need to see better results.

But MacNamee wanted Jonathan Brown. I don't think you need to say any more.

He clearly had no idea about running a football club & the last thing we need is someone trying to learn on his feet.

Within a year we'd probably be called the Melbourne Pokemon & be in even more financial trouble.

I firmly believe someone with a lot of experience concerning the MFC/MCC/AFL relationship is needed to perform the role of CEO for our club. That is the most integral part of our survival.

And Schwab is not a complete muppet, he'll find us sponsorship - its just a matter of whether its ideal or not.

[Rflowerwing 0]

And Schwab is not a complete muppet, he'll find us sponsorship - its just a matter of whether its ideal or not.

Less than 5 weeks prior to Christmas, Schwab was telling anyone who would listen that the Mission Foods deal was "over the line" for the MFC.

What does that say to you?

Schwab was very public in expressing his lack of interest in the MFC job when first questioned about it. This continues to be on display.

[45HG 1,539]

Getting rid of P Mac may well have been a bad decision, and we may well be paying the price for it, but I don't think it should be written as removing him 8 days prior to the expiry of the Primus deal - as though sacking him cost us the Primus Sponsorship.

Are you guys seriously saying Schwab and Stynes are the only reason we don't have a sponsor?

[e25 5]

Less than 5 weeks prior to Christmas, Schwab was telling anyone who would listen that the Mission Foods deal was "over the line" for the MFC.

What does that say to you?

Schwab was very public in expressing his lack of interest in the MFC job when first questioned about it. This continues to be on display.

I'll put my hand up & say I know nothing about what you've said above, except I don't agree that his lack of interest in the MFC job continues to be on display.

I know he wasn't interested originally, but since taking the position he has publicly (at least) committed to the role of securing the MFC for now & the future.

The Mission Foods deal is an embarrassment for us, but I'm confident we will find another deal.

[e25 5]

Are you guys seriously saying Schwab and Stynes are the only reason we don't have a sponsor?

This refusal to accept there are other factors influencing our lack of sponsorship is my main point of contention.

Its natural to want to blame someone, but its not that black & white.

McNamee was not the answer to our problems.

[45HG 1,539]

Exactly, it's also what makes me skeptical about what they say and how much credit I should give their arguments

[Rflowerwing 0]

Are you guys seriously saying Schwab and Stynes are the only reason we don't have a sponsor?

Let's not use the word "blame". I prefer "accountability".

There are lots of reasons why signing a major sponsor in the current climate is a major challenge. That's what we pay the big bucks to people like Schwab for. Campbell Rose managed it having come from a long way back it would seem.

I'm all about accountability. Schwab and Stynes should be held accountable by the members for this embarassment and the lack of a sponsor with nearly a quarter of the Club's financial year gone. The Board should hold Schwab and his management team accountable for their failure to date to deliver a key revenue line in the budget.

The main problem is that a starstruck membership will never hold Stynes accountable - just read this thread. And within the ruling Cabal, Chairman Jimma will never hold mates Schwab and Connolly accountable for underperformance in their areas of the portfolio.

Mark my words - key players in the Club and the industry including the State Government, AFL headquarters, the MCC, the media and supporter groups such as Coterie are already asking the hard questions about the ruckman's capacity to lead this Club.

[beelzebub 23,352]

I dont think its so much a case of not holding either/and-or Schwabb and Stynes to task. its more a case of many of us prepared to give them some leeway and rope in ordr to do therir work. In reality they havent been there al lthat long.

From the moment Jimma took the reigns I wanted him accontable; go back reread my posts if not convinced. Having spoken to both Cameron and Jim I feel they need to be allowed a go..a chance to show their collective accumen and talents. If they and indeed we all end up floundering then im sure the knives will be out ..no that it could do much good then.

We missed out on Mission...gee...must be only company around by some comments !! *sigh* We offer no short term return for a sponsor.. it needs a longer vision by a company to get on board and ride OUR coat-tails as we go places.

Even if we ony snare a short 1-2 year deal ..we'll get there

Im not fazed...just yet

[45HG 1,539]

So then I'm supposed to take your word for it, seeing as you're clearly not going to label anyone or anything they've said? Of course, the State Government is already asking the hard questions of Jim Stynes, I mean, what else do they have to do?

Do you believe these questions weren't already being raised Mid-last year as were spiralling past a debt of $5mil?

So no it's Connolly's fault we don't have a sponsor, far out what is going on with you two?

I'd hardly call what's happening in the media at the moment as asking the hard questions, if they wanted to they could probably try and lynch us, but they obviously don't think they have enough.

When we do sign a sponsor, are you going to turn around and say, well they're OK then?

It's the other thing about Mission 'Bub. They're new to the AFL arena, and probably looking to spread their name (I've never heard of them). There is a possibility we were never actually in the hunt, which is a worry but doesn't mean we were "outmaneourvered." I am getting concerned, but I don't think using this position to start a movement against Stynes/Schwab would be of any use, indeed it could be the final nail in the MFC heart

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Slight exaggeration though. I think they are a good fit for their roles, and their performance thus far has been adequate, no more.

I agree wholeheartedly with their ideals & principles that they try to work by - whether they can continue to follow through with them in the practical sense remains to be seen.

And I agree that we need to see better results.

But MacNamee wanted Jonathan Brown. I don't think you need to say any more.

He clearly had no idea about running a football club & the last thing we need is someone trying to learn on his feet.

Within a year we'd probably be called the Melbourne Pokemon & be in even more financial trouble.

I firmly believe someone with a lot of experience concerning the MFC/MCC/AFL relationship is needed to perform the role of CEO for our club. That is the most integral part of our survival.

And Schwab is not a complete muppet, he'll find us sponsorship - its just a matter of whether its ideal or not.

I agree with you that Jim has the best intentions, but this doesn't differentiate him form anyone else willing to donate time to the club. As for Schwab's intentions, well I guess there good too but I have to wonder why he didn't want the job. I have no idea whether they are a "good fit" for their respective roles or not - I can only judge them on their performance. So far I would say that "adequate" is on the charitable side.

I agree that the results so far are disappointing.

I was also worried about P. Mac involving himself with on-field decisions. However, this could have been resolved in any number of ways. I'm not even going to say that P. Mac was the right choice - It's difficult to say because Jim sacked him at great expense for unknown reasons after 106 days in the job (and after all, we did at least have a sponsor for those 106 days).

But should Jim have sacked him when he did and in the way that he did?

Before we had a sponsor lined up?

Before he had a replacement CEO lined up?

When we couldn't really afford it?

Through the newspapers?

At the time, people tried to defend Jim's decision by laying into P. Mac for being useless but these same people haven't got a bad word to say about Schwab who has been CEO for longer and under easier circumstances and, as far as we can tell, has done no more than P. Mac.

I don't know if Schwab is a muppet or not. If what Rflowerwing writes is true then I guess he must be.

But even a muppet could get us a sponsor eventually - it's not a matter of it being "ideal or not" anymore, it's a matter of time. And time is of course money.

If Schwab got us a sponsor yesterday it would still have been dissapointingly late in my opinion.

How long do you give him?

Getting rid of P Mac may well have been a bad decision, and we may well be paying the price for it, but I don't think it should be written as removing him 8 days prior to the expiry of the Primus deal - as though sacking him cost us the Primus Sponsorship.

Are you guys seriously saying Schwab and Stynes are the only reason we don't have a sponsor?

Like I said, I don't know if the decision was right or not. The timing of it and the way it was handled definitely were. That was Stynes' fault - even you can't deny that.

Are you sure that removing P. Mac 8 days before the Primus renewal didn't cost us the sponsorship? I mean, it can't have helped, right? Don't you think that we should have at least kept him on until we had a confirmed sponsor (after all, that is one of his fortes isn't it?)

Are you saying that Stynes and Schwab are not at least part of the reason we don't have a sponsor?

I'll put my hand up & say I know nothing about what you've said above, except I don't agree that his lack of interest in the MFC job continues to be on display.

I know he wasn't interested originally, but since taking the position he has publicly (at least) committed to the role of securing the MFC for now & the future.

The Mission Foods deal is an embarrassment for us, but I'm confident we will find another deal.

It was clear that Schwab was not commited to begin with. I suspect that at least from a professional standpoint that he must be now. It's not like I have a camera in his office though.

If Rflowerwings comment is true then that is a serious concern. A really bad stuff up.

I agree that the Mission Food deal is an embarrassment.

Of course we will find another deal eventually - but when?

This refusal to accept there are other factors influencing our lack of sponsorship is my main point of contention.

Its natural to want to blame someone, but its not that black & white.

McNamee was not the answer to our problems.

Your refusal to acknowledge that the current sponsorship problem is the responsibility of Stynes and Schwab is laughable. I have acknowledged other issues like the global economic crisis, time for you to acknowledge that it isn't affecting us more than the Bulldogs.

Exactly, it's also what makes me skeptical about what they say and how much credit I should give their arguments

Here's what makes me skeptical about what you have to say:

How about LG...

Yep, less than a week ago you were blaming Szondy and Ellis.

[e25 5]

Mark my words - key players in the Club and the industry including the State Government, AFL headquarters, the MCC, the media and supporter groups such as Coterie are already asking the hard questions about the ruckman's capacity to lead this Club.

Fine. But, if not Stynes, then who?

[45HG 1,539]

I suggest you return to that argument and see who you were arguing with, because it certainly wasn't me.(Nice quote by the way...given it was pretty clearly sarcastic)

I thought that Primus were not going to re-sign with us and that was pretty much a foregone conclusion, happy to be corrected, but if it's true then sacking P Mac had nothing to do with losing the Primus deal.

You can't really claim we couldn't afford financially to sack McNamee as we only paid him for the work he did, we did not pay out any long-term contract. If Stynes had a plan and McNamee didn't fit it, then I agree with removing him, what does worry me is that it took so long to find a replacement and I'm still yet to see a distinct direction the club is taking in terms of making ourselves viable for the future.

Again, the Dogs have a ground they could rename, they have had a successful season past and are looking at a very successful season this year...and yet they only just signed a major sponsor!

I can't really see how Schwab has overseen the club at an easier time than P Mac, that doesn't make sense. Since then we have finished stone cold last, we'd just lost the services of our longest serving Captain, been given an absolutely rubbish "draw" and the world's economy has gone utterly down the toilet. And yet we have been able to claim a spot at Casey for our long term future, though I'm still bewildered why we haven't been given more detail as of yet. We've removed almost half our debt, which I understand must be only a one off thing and is not part of a sustainable business plan, but it's still a great effort.

Again, I'm not excusing them for everything, but I think they should be allowed a little more time to find a sponsor given a top 3 side with more free to air exposure, a spot in the finals nearly guaranteed this year, only recently managed to.

And if you continue to disagree, I'd like to see an alternative you have. Or are you just going to apportion blame to certain parties without sticking your neck out and saying what we should actually do

[Hannabal 4]

Less than 5 weeks prior to Christmas, Schwab was telling anyone who would listen that the Mission Foods deal was "over the line" for the MFC.

Where was this stated ? Please direct me to the pertinent interview, article, or other. I'm interested to know the origins of these alleged remarks.

[demon3165 2,718]

Where was this stated ? Please direct me to the pertinent interview, article, or other. I'm interested to know the origins of these alleged remarks.

Never saw one myself, in the words of the castle MUST BE DREAMIN !!!!! would like to see the article

[rumpole 515]

A couple of points regarding comments made on this thread:

I was at a relatively high level meeting of club supporters 4/5 weeks before Xmas and spoke to CC in the presence of others about sponsorships. No mention was made about any deal being anywhere close to or over the line. CC told us it was a hard slog in the prevailing economic environment.

I don't agree that the failure to get Mission Foods is an embarrasment. The Bullies finished top 4 last year and have a far superior fixture in terms of the high commercial value Friday night games. We were always going to struggle to seal a deal. We were on a hiding to nothing.

[Little Goffy 14,524]

It seems odd to suggest that MacNamee was CEO under more difficult circumstances than Schwab, or that Schwab has not achived much in his time.

There are a number of administrative issues which we simply can't say how well they might have gone under MacNamee, for instance -

- the negotiations with the AFL/MCC to secure $2mil in support

- the significant cuts to expenditure set in place for next year

- the final deal with Casey (though due recognition to Gardiner for setting this in motion)

- the successful delisting of Nathan Carroll - would he still be on our list?

- the Demon Summit and the beginnings of a new level of contact with supporters.

The two publicly raised negatives regarding MacNamee, the holiday during a crisis and the somewhat absurd focus on recruiting Jonathan Brown, don't paint a great picture, though they are obviously somewhat stage-managed bits of information release.

I think the issue of more substance is the fact that Schwab has only been the CEO for less than one month longer than MacNamee, but in the relatively similar timeframes MacNamee's only action of note was the 'kick on the 'G' after a game, which appeard to boost crowd numbers by a couple of thousand for one game.

September, October, November, December, half of January. That's all Schwab has had so far. The only thing missing, and I'll keep saying it, is the major sponsor.

Hands up anyone who reckons securing a major sponsor during a global financial crisis when the club is bottom of the ladder with a likely couple of years more of 'developing' is an easy run. Anyone want to do all the above things at the same time?

I hate having to sound like I'm a 'Cameron Schwab apologist', but it becomes necessary when people are ready to turn on the club's leadership the moment things aren't going well.

If there hadn't been the change in the board and executive, we'd be a dead club walking.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

FFS, what is done is done.

You might be right, he/she might be right, even I might be right, but in terms of business reality, what weight does our little debate here carry, in the real football world?

Clearly, there are 2 different camps here. One says, it was all the previous administration's fault and the other is saying, it is the premature evacuation by Jimma and his boys/girls of previous regimes, that have caused the current paucity of sponsors for the MFC.

Either way, these are different times and different circumstances and unless you were Aladdin, no-one could have foreseen just how far reaching the current economic crisis could have been.

While I love debate, what saddens me, and I have said it before on this forum, is that people who claim to have passion for this footy club, slag fellow supporters.

I, for one, do not place my faith simply in the wonderful footy story that is Jim Stynes, nor the football pedigree that belongs to Schwaby. I believe that the credentials which belong to Jalland, McLardy and Howcroft, et al, are second to none, when it comes to footy Boards.

Speculate as much as you like - we are where we are.

Again, while I love debate, in the eyes of the football public, we have to stick fat, otherwise, no matter who holds the reins, we are surely doomed.

I, like many of you, love this footy club and I have confidence we will come though this trough a better and stornger club for the long term.............but please........let's be a voice of solidarity on this one.

GO YOU DEMONS!!!!!!!!!!!

[mo64 5,874]

It seems odd to suggest that MacNamee was CEO under more difficult circumstances than Schwab, or that Schwab has not achived much in his time.

There are a number of administrative issues which we simply can't say how well they might have gone under MacNamee, for instance -

The two publicly raised negatives regarding MacNamee, the holiday during a crisis and the somewhat absurd focus on recruiting Jonathan Brown, don't paint a great picture, though they are obviously somewhat stage-managed bits of information release.

I don't know whether McNamee was good CEO or not, but he obviously identified that the club lacked marketability, and the acquisition of a genuine superstar like Jono Brown surely helps the club's profile. Ok, he should have consulted the football dept. prior to making any approach, but his intentions were correct in my opinion, and far from absurd.

[e25 5]

I don't know whether McNamee was good CEO or not, but he obviously identified that the club lacked marketability, and the acquisition of a genuine superstar like Jono Brown surely helps the club's profile. Ok, he should have consulted the football dept. prior to making any approach, but his intentions were correct in my opinion, and far from absurd.

I'm pretty sure the current board and CEO are also aware that the club lacks marketability, but they are smart enough to leave the list management to the football department.

As soon as I heard he was interfering with what players we should have on the list, I wanted him gone. He was not getting paid to do anything of that sort.

And if that is his grand plan to get MFC back on track, then he undoubtedly was not only the wrong man for the job, but far inferior to Cameron Schwab.

CS at least knows his place.

[Rogue 585]

I agree with you that Jim has the best intentions, but this doesn't differentiate him form anyone else willing to donate time to the club.

Correct.

I think Directors - all of them - generally get a bad wrap.

You'd be crazy to get involved if you didn't have the best interests of the Club at heart, given the level of involvement required.

However, as you rightly point out, this doesn't mean that they should be immune from criticism (even if they have a Brownlow).

(and after all, we did at least have a sponsor for those 106 days).

Sure, but PM didn't secure that sponsorship.

Are you sure that removing P. Mac 8 days before the Primus renewal didn't cost us the sponsorship? I mean, it can't have helped, right?

I'd be surprised if this wasn't already decided eight days out.

Fwiw I heard that Primus were having financial difficulties, but I'm not sure if this is correct.

Fair point regarding PM and sponsorship but if he was singing to a different tune than the Board was it would have made things difficult.

I agree that the Mission Food deal is an embarrassment.

I haven't been following this very closely but from the little I've read on here and in the media I wouldn't characterise missing out on Mission as an embarassment.

What makes you characterise it as that?

On the surface it seems obvious that WB are a better choice for a potential sponsor - better draw, FTA coverage and better finals prospects for starters.