Mission Foods were quick to get the Bulldogs logo on their website:

http://missionmenus.com/au//Default.aspx (if you can bear to look)

lets recruit akermanis

thatll make us seem more exciting

Mission Foods were quick to get the Bulldogs logo on their website:

http://missionmenus.com/au//Default.aspx (if you can bear to look)

who wants to look at that, id rather stare at the sun for 1hr.

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

You're not worried about this?

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

Do you have any info on this - or are you talking carp?

Have a little faith

Have a little reason

Anyone else think that we would have a sponsor by now if Paul McNamee was allowed to finish the year?

People need to stop making excuses. The reason the Bulldogs got this sponsorship deal is because their management/marketing outmanoeuvred our management/marketing.

People need to stop making excuses. The reason the Bulldogs got this sponsorship deal is because their management/marketing outmanoeuvred our management/marketing.

Do you have any info on this, or are you just talking crap?

Edit: Beaten to the punch.

For what it's worth, my completely uninformed opinion is that Mission used us to tighten the screws on the dogs.

Edit: Beaten to the punch.

agreed.

Here's all of the info I need - they got it, we didn't.

Do you have any info on this, or are you just talking crap?

What extra info does he need? "Scoreboard, scoreboard...!!!".

You're not worried about this?

Do you have any info on this - or are you talking carp?

Have a little reason

Anyone else think that we would have a sponsor by now if Paul McNamee was allowed to finish the year?

People need to stop making excuses. The reason the Bulldogs got this sponsorship deal is because their management/marketing outmanoeuvred our management/marketing.

The reasons the Bulldogs "out-manoeuvered" us are self-evident and nothing to do with McNamee or any one else on this current Board.

1. The current Global economic crisis means any potential sponsor will way up the pros and cons very carefully, before committing to anybody.
2. The Bullogs, realistically, are for more likely to play finals football this year than we are, therefore the sponsor sees a return more quickly, in difficult times, for their sponsorship dollar.
3. The Bulldogs could offer the naming rights of a particular facility at Whitten Oval, paid for by the Commonwealth taxpayer.
4. The Bulldogs get far more free to air exposure, have a better draw than the MFC in 2009 and therefore the sponsor gets better publicity. Thanks to Vlad the Impaler and his minions.

These are simple and obvious reasons that saw the WB's win the day. The sponsor, worth billions, would have done considerable due diligence and market research.

On another Forum topic, regarding the 2009 fixture, a number of posters, including me, were given a metaphorical kickin' for being negative. The standard retort to posts on that topic, which sheeted the blame directly to the AFL, was that we would overcome this if we started winning games.

Well HELLO!!!!!!!!. Men shouldn't beat their wives either and I still believe in motherhood and apple pie, but what the MFC is experiencing now, is result of the raw deal the AFL chose to hand out to us, yet again, on the fixturing side of things.

This, to anyone with an ounce of business acumen, is to state the bleedin obvious and has resulted, due to the mal-administration of previous executives and Boards of the MFC. Not this curent regime.

I still remain confident, Schwab and the current Board will be able to deliver us a major sponsor.

Watch this space!!!!!

What extra info does he need? "Scoreboard, scoreboard...!!!".

Well, in the scenario I put forth, the scoreboard reads Dogs 1 Demons 0 but does that equal "The reason the Bulldogs got this sponsorship deal is because their management/marketing outmanoeuvred our management/marketing." ?

Well, in the scenario I put forth, the scoreboard reads Dogs 1 Demons 0 but does that equal "The reason the Bulldogs got this sponsorship deal is because their management/marketing outmanoeuvred our management/marketing." ?

If there is some criterion other than results by which to evaluate the performance of the respective management/marketing teams, let's hear it.

If there is some criterion other than results by which to evaluate the performance of the respective management/marketing teams, let's hear it.

See my post above.

If there is some criterion other than results by which to evaluate the performance of the respective management/marketing teams, let's hear it.

Well if you only want a result, fine. Let's sell the jumper rights for 2$. Easy. Result guaranteed.

Or are there other criterion?

COMING UP NEXT: Another idiot 'supporter' derides Cameron Schwab & Jim Stynes for being unable to turn water into wine - "Its this sort of incompetence that is holding MFC back..."

Well if you only want a result, fine. Let's sell the jumper rights for 2$. Easy. Result guaranteed.

Or are there other criterion?

The results we are comparing here are Bullies $4.5 million v MFC $0. I am not talking about just any result - it is the quality of the respective results that the two organisations are judged by.

And i'va - you say this: This, to anyone with an ounce of business acumen, is to state the bleedin obvious and has resulted, due to the mal-administration of previous executives and Boards of the MFC

How come everything bad that has happened prior to now can be blamed on past maladministration (which, by the way, Stynes has assiduously avoided doing) whereas everything bad happening now is a product of circumstances beyond the Administration's control?

I recall our draw last year involved something like 15 Sundays, one Friday night, minimal FTA exposure, low drawing home games impacting gate revenue, matchday corporate and merchandise sales and sponsor exposure. How come in 2008 this was 'maladministration" and the 2009 version is "poor Jimma"?

Just when do Stynes and Schwab become accountable for what's happening at our Club?

The reasons the Bulldogs "out-manoeuvered" us are self-evident and nothing to do with McNamee or any one else on this current Board.

Here are just some of the reasons that I have seen given over the last week for why we don't have a sponsor:

PEOPLE AND THINGS THAT ARE TO BLAME:

Harris

Gardner

"New Boy Syndrome"

Board transition period

Economic crisis

The Draw/Free to air exposure

Past inabilty to build "relationships"

Administrative change

On-field performance

Club finances

Bad publicity

Club members

Club supporters

Not Jims fault because it's the CEOs responsibility

Not Schwabs fault because he's only had 3-4 months

Unrealistic expectations

Other sponsors create conflict

Essendon

Bulldogs

State competition

Primus

EFC

Blandness

Choice of captain

Need to wait fot the "right deal"

Need to wait for the captaincy announcement

Sunshine

Moonlight

Good Times

Boogie

Here are some somewhat suprising omissions:

PEOPLE/THINGS THAT ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT TO BLAME:

Jim

Schwab

Anyone who has anything to do with Jim or Schwab

I'm tired of excuses already.

We could have accepted less money,

we could have effectively communicated how promising our young list is,

we could have cast doubt on the future of the Bulldogs,

we could have accepted some kind of perfomance incentive scheme,

we could have leveraged our number 1 draft pick,

we could have spoken about how the sponsorship would mean a lot more to Melbourne supporters,

we could have tried to engineer a naming rights deal at Casey,

we could have come up with an entirely different way to make our bid more attractive - after all that's what Schwab and his employees are paid to do - right?

I wouldn't have cared if we even GOT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPONSOR!

We were outmanoeuvred by the Bulldogs adminstartion who, it would appear, might the the second worst in the AFL at securing sponsors. Nothing you have said changes that.

When you say:

This, to anyone with an ounce of business acumen, is to state the bleedin obvious and has resulted, due to the mal-administration of previous executives and Boards of the MFC. Not this curent regime.

I call [censored]

When you say:

I still remain confident, Schwab and the current Board will be able to deliver us a major sponsor.

Watch this space!!!!!

I say I've been watching that space, the space that Primus has left empty, for months - my confidence has flagged. Why are you so confident?

It is clear to me now that you and others like you are more concerned about maintaining your perfect mental image of Jim than you are about the good of the club.

COMING UP NEXT: Another idiot 'supporter' declares Cameron Schwab & Jim Stynes are able to turn water into wine - "Have a little faith in Jimma of Nazareth and the boys..."

Here are some somewhat suprising omissions:

PEOPLE/THINGS THAT ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT TO BLAME:

Jim

Schwab

Anyone who has anything to do with Jim or Schwab

I'm tired of excuses already.

We could have accepted less money,

we could have effectively communicated how promising our young list is,

we could have cast doubt on the future of the Bulldogs,

we could have accepted some kind of perfomance incentive scheme,

we could have leveraged our number 1 draft pick,

we could have spoken about how the sponsorship would mean a lot more to Melbourne supporters,

we could have tried to engineer a naming rights deal at Casey,

we could have come up with an entirely different way to make our bid more attractive - after all that's what Schwab and his employees are paid to do - right?

I wouldn't have cared if we even GOT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPONSOR!

We were outmanoeuvred by the Bulldogs adminstartion who, it would appear, might the the second worst in the AFL at securing sponsors. Nothing you have said changes that.

When you say:

I call [censored]

When you say:

I say I've been watching that space, the space that Primus has left empty, for months - my confidence has flagged. Why are you so confident?

It is clear to me now that you and others like you are more concerned about maintaining your perfect mental image of Jim than you are about the good of the club.

And if your Aunty had a moustache she'd be your uncle.

And if your Aunty had a moustache she'd be your uncle.

Still waiting to hear why you "remain confident, Schwab and the current Board will be able to deliver us a major sponsor."

Is it because of the tin-rattle? Do you have any other reasons - or just a "gut feeling"?

How many excuses would you have made if we lost our sponsor this time last year?

zero

I don't have blind faith in Schwab or Stynes, but I'm prepared to give them a chance & time to do their job.

I don't believe they've had that yet, & the results i've seen so far are acceptable in my book, especially considering the hardships they face.

You'd struggle to think of harder circumstances in which to find a suitable & equitable sponsorship for the club. I also think it is the right move to take the time to find a solution of this ilk, rather than rushing a result that is ultimately undesirable.

Seriously, what do you propose? Another complete overhaul of the board & administration ??

Can you imagine what sort of effect that would have on the club?

I just don't see what the point is of all this fingerpointing. What is your aim here?

You make some good points, even if you do miss or choose to ignore certain aspects, but I can't help but think you'd be a lot more use to the club if you put your mind towards finding a solution to the sponsorship problem, or coming up with other initiatives.

This argument is a waste of everyone's time. It achieves nothing.

Still waiting to hear why you "remain confident, Schwab and the current Board will be able to deliver us a major sponsor."

Is it because of the tin-rattle? Do you have any other reasons - or just a "gut feeling"?

How many excuses would you have made if we lost our sponsor this time last year?

zero

What makes you think another CEO or Board would be able to find a suitable sponsor? Its all pointless speculation. Its masturbation.

I don't have blind faith in Schwab or Stynes, but I'm prepared to give them a chance & time to do their job.

If it's not blind then what's it based on? How much time is enough before we can judge them? Jim has had over 6 monnths, Schwab has had longer than Jim gave P. Mac.

I don't believe they've had that yet, & the results i've seen so far are acceptable in my book, especially considering the hardships they face.

What results? All I can think of is the "debt-demolition" tin-rattle, maybe the Demon Heartland initiative. There are and have been a number of worrying signs as well.

You'd struggle to think of harder circumstances in which to find a suitable & equitable sponsorship for the club.

Some of these circumstances are of Jim's own making - maybe he shouldn't have sacked P. Mac 8 days before the Primus sponsorship ran out without having something else lined up (both in terms of sponsors and CEOs). Others of these circumstances, like the draw, have been blamed on previous administration but don't get blamed on Jim. And the financial crisis is just carp for everyone but other clubs (like the bulldogs) seem to be coping with their sponsorships.

I also think it is the right move to take the time to find a solution of this ilk, rather than rushing a result that is ultimately undesirable.

Time is money, the best time would have been as soon as the Primus deal was finished.

Seriously, what do you propose? Another complete overhaul of the board & administration ??

Can you imagine what sort of effect that would have on the club?

I propose that people keep a level head, assess the current administration on its merits and by the same standards as any other. I am simply concerned that people are getting swept up with the celebrity factor and that this might prove damaging to the club in the long haul if people keep making excuses whilst the club goes down. If it turns out that the last mob were doing a better job then I would like to be given the opportunity to vote for them again. Of course there is a good chance that they wouldn't want to shoulder that responsibilty again. I am not opposed to an entirely new administration although I would probably prefer that future transitions occured democratically.

I just don't see what the point is of all this fingerpointing. What is your aim here?

You make some good points, even if you do miss or choose to ignore certain aspects, but I can't help but think you'd be a lot more use to the club if you put your mind towards finding a solution to the sponsorship problem, or coming up with other initiatives.

My aim is to promote reason instead of faith.

What aspects am I missing?

Why not start a new thread on "finding a solution" then?

This argument is a waste of everyone's time. It achieves nothing.

Don't make it then.

What makes you think another CEO or Board would be able to find a suitable sponsor? Its all pointless speculation. Its masturbation.

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.

Don't make it then.

Yeah, I think I chose to ignore the inherent nature of internet message boards/ forums.