A couple of fair points and a good question there mo. I'm guessing that these are issues that our Club will be trying very hard to address via the Red and Blueprint, but clearly it will take time.

Absolute horse faeces. Surely on-field improvement, leading to sustained success, is critical to raising the saleability of our Club .... and I would have thought (naively perhaps) that appointing the best available captain, who has the unanimous support of the playing group and coaching staff, is essential to making progress on this front in '09.

You seem to be arguing that we should have selected the second, third or fourth etc. best captaincy candidate, on the basis of their public profile or potential media credentials. Not for me thanks, and in any event Jimma, CC and CS seem to have been doing the media stuff pretty well for a while now.

I doubt that there are very many AFL captains who have 'doors banged down' by the media unless there is a story to tell. Melbourne have to build such a story (for the right reasons of course), and if they can do this (for example, by really surprising the media 'experts' with their on-field improvement in '09) then I'd wager that we'd see plenty of Junior in the media, and what's more, he'd handle that part of his captaincy role very capably.

On the money DOF

I understand what you're saying and I agree to some extent however over the last half dozen years the club has become very bland. we desperately need to start a new season to show case our new emerging talent.

Bland??? We have been in the media for all the wrong reasons in the past 2 to 3 years. I would have thought professionalism and competencies are what we have lacked more. If we are going to showcase our emerging new talent then FCS lets develop them and getting playing good football. Thats the best way to showcase them.

I'm devastated.

Nothing says 'on our way back up soon' better than a burrito.

Give that man a standing ovation! post of the year this far

They are now on the list of foods that do not ever come into my household (sour grapes? hell yes!)

Christ dont take it that seriously. Boo hoo they didnt choose us. I wouldnt choose Melbourne over bulldogs if i were a company. I bet because trains are late u dont use public transport, because roads are tolled u dont drive, because primus left u will hate them to bits. Grow up. Its business thats all.

Christ dont take it that seriously. Boo hoo they didnt choose us. I wouldnt choose Melbourne over bulldogs if i were a company. I bet because trains are late u dont use public transport, because roads are tolled u dont drive, because primus left u will hate them to bits. Grow up. Its business thats all.

It isn't much to do with the admin.

It is upto the supporters to turn this club around. People judge a team on how passionate the supporters base. You can't attract sponsorship if supporters don't turn up to match day. Simply, the excuse that you won't turn up cause the team aint good enough is just not good enough.

Seriously, I sat at one game last year and thought that out of our 28,000 odd members, there was obviously 11000 gutless wankers who were too scared to turn up.

Judge Stynes and co as much as you like but the future of the club is with the supporters.

all hands off..the panic buttons..ffs.

Its just one company Mfc were pitchig to and we dipped out ( npi ) They arent the only corp that Schwabby is courting.

Have a little faith

But we were courting them, and they chose to go somewhere else. That's got to say something about our chances.

Yet another MFC presentation bites the dust!

I noticed that too. That makes three (Judd, Warnock, Mission) IIRC. Who's presenting these things?

I bet because trains are late u dont use public transport,

incorrect

because roads are tolled u dont drive,

partially correct, I don't drive on the tolled roads

because primus left u will hate them to bits.

incorrect, don't have an opinion on them.

Grow up. Its business thats all.

Correct, I will make it my business to avoid them, that's all

I feel for Cameron Schwab. Luring a major sponsor will be Mission Impossible. (Pun intended).......

Sorry for Schwab? You're kidding, right?

He's on $500k pa plus. At the top of his job description is the identification, signing and management of relationships with major sponsors. He has failed abjectly with this project.

What has he got to say for himself? "Melbourne is about rebuilding on a long-term basis." Talk about inane. I would have thought a $4.5 million sponsorship would have gone some way to ensuring our long-term future which now remains in grave peril.

I hope you feel as sorry for Bailey when we walk off the ground after a belting from the Bullies.

Exactly what has Schwab achieved in his time at the Club? Hired high priced help to do his job for him, designed a logo to go on the bottom of Club emails and put in a jockstrap sniffing appearance at training the first day back after the break.

Great, just great!

An integral part of the captaincy is facing the media, and Tom Harley is a classic case in point. He's less of an on-field leader than Scarlett or Ablett, but is respected and extremely well spoken. Junior is a poor media performer who won't have the time to grow into the job.

On-field captaincy involves little more than tossing the coin, because nowadays, all players are expected to lead by example, not just the captain

Tom Harley is 'extremely well spoken' (sic). Good spelling, poor punctuation. Tom's clearly an Oxbridge graduate with his articulate and literate post-game summaries. (!) "Uh yeah, the boys played well and we had contributors all over the ground."

'Junior is a poor media performer'. How the hell would you know? And the direct inference you make that Junior is not respected?

Contender for the most ignorant post of 2009.

It isn't much to do with the admin.

It is upto the supporters to turn this club around. People judge a team on how passionate the supporters base. You can't attract sponsorship if supporters don't turn up to match day. Simply, the excuse that you won't turn up cause the team aint good enough is just not good enough.

Seriously, I sat at one game last year and thought that out of our 28,000 odd members, there was obviously 11000 gutless wankers who were too scared to turn up.

Judge Stynes and co as much as you like but the future of the club is with the supporters.

what u say does make some sense,but the reason why the club is were there at is because they havnt won for 4 decades, people get sick of losing its human nature, the kangas get up year after year and there got no money,why is this,because there got pride.

Sorry for Schwab? You're kidding, right?

He's on $500k pa plus. At the top of his job description is the identification, signing and management of relationships with major sponsors. He has failed abjectly with this project.

What has he got to say for himself? "Melbourne is about rebuilding on a long-term basis." Talk about inane. I would have thought a $4.5 million sponsorship would have gone some way to ensuring our long-term future which now remains in grave peril.

I hope you feel as sorry for Bailey when we walk off the ground after a belting from the Bullies.

Exactly what has Schwab achieved in his time at the Club? Hired high priced help to do his job for him, designed a logo to go on the bottom of Club emails and put in a jockstrap sniffing appearance at training the first day back after the break.

Great, just great!

As I raised previously, what selling points do the current administration have to a potential major sponsor?

not buying mission foods products may be small beer but, hell, we do have a modicum of people power to wield. I know that sponsors pay for the exposure, but surely they're aware of the brand matching the club. I've always thought that lexus -- apparently a flash brand of car -- was a funny match for a bogan club.

on jim as captain, I reckon he's a class act. quiet & unassuming is much more inspiring than e.g. money-hungry judd or not-so-bright lloyd.

Tom Harley is 'extremely well spoken' (sic). Good spelling, poor punctuation. Tom's clearly an Oxbridge graduate with his articulate and literate post-game summaries. (!) "Uh yeah, the boys played well and we had contributors all over the ground."

'Junior is a poor media performer'. How the hell would you know? And the direct inference you make that Junior is not respected?

Contender for the most ignorant post of 2009.

For starters, what on-field influence does an ageing captain like Burns, Kane Johnson and now McDonald have on a team, when they probably spend 70% of the time on the field? I didn't realise that captains made positional moves? As I said, captains have no more of a bearing on a teams on-field performance as the next bloke.

As for Junior being a poor media performer, how often have you heard or seen him being interviewed? I've actually heard Jack Watts being interviewed more often than Junior.

And where the f#ck is the inference that Junior is not respected?

And you showed what a nob you are by picking up grammar mistakes.

not buying mission foods products may be small beer but, hell, we do have a modicum of people power to wield. I know that sponsors pay for the exposure, but surely they're aware of the brand matching the club. I've always thought that lexus -- apparently a flash brand of car -- was a funny match for a bogan club.

on jim as captain, I reckon he's a class act. quiet & unassuming is much more inspiring than e.g. money-hungry judd or not-so-bright lloyd.

your dreamin man maccas been a great servant but i would take lloydy or judd before him anyday.

Considering an individual footy career can end in an instant with the sound of one knee popping no company is committing millions to sponsorship on the basis of one player. That suggestion that Macca cost us a sponsorship is a joke, right?.

Early on this thread I pointed out differences between the Dogs and us regards exposure - Friday night games and the prospect of serious finals football over the term of this deal are much greater for the Dogs than us.

Apart from airing week old grievances about the captaincy there's been nothing added to lack of exposure. Anyone got any other suggestions why Mission preferred the Dogs?

And as for bagging people boycotting the products - why shouldn't they? I bought LG when they sponsored us. Member support of sponsors was one of the questions on the member survey this year. I've got by mostly with El Paso tacos in the past and will emphatically walk past the Mission display in the future.

How much exposure do you guys exactly want from us in January?

The only "exposure" we could get is if one of our players belted someone at a bar or landed a plane on a river. AFL - January, c'mon guys! Mission did not sign with the Dogs because of exposure at the moment. I've hardly heard boo from them, or really any other team, all summer - the way it should be.

We have no big game (except one) or free-to-air exposure and a slim-naught chance of making finals, I'd wager that had more of an impact on Mission signing with the Dogs than our "blandness"

We have no big game (except one) or free-to-air exposure and a slim-naught chance of making finals, I'd wager that had more of an impact on Mission signing with the Dogs than our "blandness"

All those things you mentioned are a result of our club being bland. Poor list, very little class, poor leadership, financially insecure and a poor following, it's the complete package, or lack thereoff, which is turning sponsors away from us.

I wouldn't say we have a poor list, not in the slightest. We have one of the best young lists in the comp which will take a while to click into gear and perform regularly. Contrast that to the bulldogs who are currently top 4, 5 friday night games and a heap of FTA exposure. It's not rocket science as to why they picked them over us.

But by the time the 3 (or 5) years is up, they will see they made the wrong decision.

Here's an interesting twist, just a little extra note here from The Age -

"As part of the joint venture with the Bulldogs the club's new training and learning facilities at Whitten Oval will be known as the Mission Elite Learning Centre."

I think we can safely say we've identified the clincher for that sponsorship.

Naming rights to a major western suburbs sports complex, I gotta admit, I'm a little less impressed by the $1.5million number.

Still, good for doggies, and we've still got [secret awesome sponsor] to come.

I wonder who it was that blinked or called a bluff first.

Seriously, I sat at one game last year and thought that out of our 28,000 odd members, there was obviously 11000 gutless wankers who were too scared to turn up.

Comments like this are such rubbish.

If you want to have more supporters / members you should be encouraging those who aren't hardcore fans to get on board.

How do you think we - or any other Club - would go if only those who turned up every week bought memberships?

Do you think Hawthorn suddenly have 40,000 hardcore, 'there every week', fans?

Characterising those who didn't rock up to x game as 'gutless wankers' is ignorant.

Your life might revolve around attending the football each week, and you might see it as a battle in which you're showing your intestinal fortitude by turning up, but for plenty of people other priorities are higher than getting to the footy each week.

We're fortunate that so many of those still fork out for a membership, despite it being little more than a donation.

Have a think before you take a crack at fellow supporters (let alone paid up members) who don't share your viewpoint on football attendance.

Here's an interesting twist, just a little extra note here from The Age -

"As part of the joint venture with the Bulldogs the club's new training and learning facilities at Whitten Oval will be known as the Mission Elite Learning Centre."

I think we can safely say we've identified the clincher for that sponsorship.

Naming rights to a major western suburbs sports complex, I gotta admit, I'm a little less impressed by the $1.5million number.

..

You make a good point. Naming rights to a team and footy club AND a major venue. Again, shows how we are disadvantaged by not having a 'home ground' that is truly ours.

Wasn't that long ago that the doggies venture was going to fall over because of lack of funding. Even now, there continue to be mutterings about the pokies they are trying for.

Watch this space?

I wouldn't say we have a poor list, not in the slightest. We have one of the best young lists in the comp which will take a while to click into gear and perform regularly. Contrast that to the bulldogs who are currently top 4, 5 friday night games and a heap of FTA exposure. It's not rocket science as to why they picked them over us.

But by the time the 3 (or 5) years is up, they will see they made the wrong decision.

We now have some decent young talent on list all thanks to being crap over the last couple of years, that's a poor list. Sure we'll get better but the results speak for themselves.

Is that why Collingwood their major sponsorship during their riveting period of 2004-2005 and why after finishing 3rd this year the Dogs only just signed a major sponsor, and had to rename a new stadium to do so.

Poor leadership? As in from the players or behind the scenes?

Utter bulldust to claim that we have a poor following because we are "bland." Their are many reasons why we unfortunately have a shortage of supporters, which are being addressed by the club at present. Perhaps you should whinge a little less and help a little more.

Poor list - bland? What exactly do you want? Is Carlton Bland, Richmond? Recruiting problems from 2000-2002 and a lack of quality draft picks between 2004-2006 and no rebuilding after the '03 disaster.

We had LG as a sponsor, replaced with Primus who are now unable to continue. One of the worst economic situations encountered in the free world happens to coincide with a natural list rebuild that comes after trying to hang on to possible glory for too long.

And as far as the reasons I offered earlier, we were not given no free-to-air exposure because of blandness, it was given because the AFL are a bunch of cheats who care only for the bottom line. It's very easy to kick a poor club when we're down.

Aren't we financially insecure partly because we don't have a sponsor? Sponsorship is one of the ways to make a team financially stable.

If we were given free to air exposure and were at the 2004 end of our rebuild instead of the Carlton model circa 2003, I'd wager we'd find it a lot easier to get a sponsor

Is that why Collingwood their major sponsorship during their riveting period of 2004-2005 and why after finishing 3rd this year the Dogs only just signed a major sponsor, and had to rename a new stadium to do so.

Poor leadership? As in from the players or behind the scenes?

Utter bulldust to claim that we have a poor following because we are "bland." Their are many reasons why we unfortunately have a shortage of supporters, which are being addressed by the club at present. Perhaps you should whinge a little less and help a little more.

Poor list - bland? What exactly do you want? Is Carlton Bland, Richmond? Recruiting problems from 2000-2002 and a lack of quality draft picks between 2004-2006 and no rebuilding after the '03 disaster.

We had LG as a sponsor, replaced with Primus who are now unable to continue. One of the worst economic situations encountered in the free world happens to coincide with a natural list rebuild that comes after trying to hang on to possible glory for too long.

And as far as the reasons I offered earlier, we were not given no free-to-air exposure because of blandness, it was given because the AFL are a bunch of cheats who care only for the bottom line. It's very easy to kick a poor club when we're down.

Aren't we financially insecure partly because we don't have a sponsor? Sponsorship is one of the ways to make a team financially stable.

If we were given free to air exposure and were at the 2004 end of our rebuild instead of the Carlton model circa 2003, I'd wager we'd find it a lot easier to get a sponsor

The first step in fixing the problem is understanding what's wrong in the first place. How can you possibly achieve anything if you bury your head in the sand and deny everything?

This talk of 'natural list build' is just a weak excuse, our list was screwed because of poor recruiting, list management and development. We have to strive to fix everything or we won't exist in 5 years time.

We racked up our debt while having a major sponsor, we don't have many Friday night games and FTA exposure because the network stations don't want us. Why don't they want us? Because we don't pull ratings and haven't for a long time.

Now, the correct question to ask is why don't we pull ratings?

Don't say it's because of our ladder position because that's incorrect, we haven't rated well for about a decade...

We don't pull ratings because we have probably the lowest supporter base in the league, lower supporter base = less people to watch. Obviously it's not the only reason, but you can't say it's not a large reason. Now that we're at the bottom, the AFL and the TV stations have taken us off their radar, but don't forget that in 2006 our first 10 games were shown on free to air, go figure.

The "natural list rebuild" is a result of poor list management, recruiting and poor development. The list should have been better handled through the 00's, but we're now at a stage where we are forced to overhaul the mistakes of the past. No team can stay near the top, so regardless we were always going to endure a down period. All teams have, it's a natural cycle. Some teams get lucky and spend a smaller amount of time at the bottom, some other's are Richmond.

Why did the Bulldogs, seemingly on the verge of success, with a home base and greater financial stability, only now sign a major sponsor?

You say we haven't rated well for over a decade, yet we have signed major sponsors in the past.

If we were a chance to make finals this year, or if we were likely to, I believe we'd have a major sponsor by now.

It doesn't mean I'm happy with where the club is at, and obiously there is a lot of work for the club to do, but I don't see us being any more or less bland than any other club.