Uh-oh

[biggestred 4,342]

its mid jan and we dont have a sponsor.

HOLY [censored].

lets merge with richmond

they can take 8 of our players

with cousins kicking it to watts we will surely win the flag as the melbourne tigers..

ffs calm down the lot of you.

[mo64 5,209]

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.

Maybe PM was singing the right tune after all. He understood the urgency of the situation we were in.

Just as an aside, I was critical of Stynes at the time for coming out and saying that it was unlikely that we would make the finals this season. We then can't bemoan the fact that we aren't given Friday night coverage. Comments like this could also be thrown back in the face of those who are doing a sales pitch to potential sponsors.

[Cards13 9,117]

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.

The man at least put his name and reputation on the line, HE has halved our debt with his will power alone. HE might not be the right man to lead the club but he saved us.

What is your solution chief I'd really like to see it....

Whilst having a say and having an opinion is fine but unless you actually have a solution then you are just the type of typical Melbourne splinter faction that has destroyed this club and will drive it into the ground.

Where is your major sponsor that you have sourced for the club? Where is your coherant, viable business plan giving us a future? Where is the debt reduction scheme you have set up with our creditors? Where are the assests to fund our growth?

From the outside looking we do not have any of that from the current board but until you can deliver it then it is all for nought as they say. How about you and the key players in the club, Sate goverment etc come up with another viable option who can produce all of these and we will take it on.

[Cards13 9,117]

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!!!!!!!!!!!

Here HERE IWS. That is one thing that keeps being raised when a board of ours gets the sack, how splintered and how many different factions we have around the place. It really amazes me that for a club so close to deathes door these so called factions would rather see there own self interest destory this club than get behind the people incharge, guide then, cajole, forcibly move them in a positive direction if needs be instead of this behind the scenes rubbish

[Rampaging Demons 1]

is it possible that we manage a core group of sponsors to upgrade, so that the we have a different major sponsor each week...

while not a best case outcome, this would increase the exposure of those sponsors and possibly lead to other sponsors coming on board for one game...

at the moment, without a major sponsor, we are 1.5m in the hole before the season starts!!

[Roost It 1,434]

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.

The same state govt. who has achieved nothing except the continual lining of corporate profits at tax payer expense. The same AFL who presides over the most inequitable draw in sport. The same MCC who just gave us $1 million. The same media which if I'm reading the same articles as you have been pretty kind and objective of late. The Coterie, a bunch of self serving know it alls who think they should have a say in running the club!. Thanks but no thanks I'll take Jim and the current board anytime and will applaud loudly when a sponsor is signed. Comparing us to the Dogs is absurd, they're years ahead in their redevelopment. This club is going to take 10 + years to really turn around so you may as well be patient and do us all a favour, hold the dribble!

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Hey guys,

I'd just like to thank you all for continuing to prove my point more eloquently than I ever could. Not that it gives me any pleasure to see it proved.

Drop me a line when it's ok to start holding Jim and Schwab accountable and judge them by the same standards as any other board/CEO.

$1.5 mil per year isn't that much anyway.

Cheers

[grazman 6,540]

The off-field stuff holds no interest for me what-so-ever, unless it means we can't field a side and that's where it's getting to. It's unfair to blame this administration for our economic circumstances, it's unfair to blame the last one or the one before that, Ian Ridley saw the writing on the wall. Most of our Core support is now six feet under and growing. Even a string of premierships won't address the issue in the short term. We have to find better revenue streams, and perhaps look at alternative models. I don't care if we're owned by some Indian Telecommunications company and I don't care if I don't get a vote at the AGM, I do care about a team wearing red and blue running out every second week onto the MCG.

Call them factions, call them Fred, call them whatever you like, but different people have different ideas about how best to run the club, it's no different at Melbourne to any other football club. The idea of "unity" is a bit mystifying to me. I understand it in a football sense - getting behind the team, supporting, encouraging, but I don't understand it in a business sense. Do you continue to support an administration if you know they aren't doing the job they're supposed to? Should I be holding my breath for "the tin-tacks to be ironed out" in the next week or so? I care that the bloke who stated a number of times he didn't want the job and then took it, still hasn't delivered on one of his key responsibilities.

[Roost It 1,434]

The off-field stuff holds no interest for me what-so-ever,

I care that the bloke who stated a number of times he didn't want the job and then took it, still hasn't delivered on one of his key responsibilities.

So which is it? You care or you don't have any interest?

[Rogue 585]

Maybe PM was singing the right tune after all. He understood the urgency of the situation we were in.

The CEO needs to be singing the same tune as the Board.

Btw, are you suggesting Schwab doesn't understand the urgency of the situation we're in? From his first press conference he's stressed the seriousness of our plight.

[Hannabal 4]

Am I the only one that finds it a little odd that Rflowerwing and Hazyshadeofgrinter joined within 2 days of each other ?

Am I the only one that finds it odd that RF's joining date is the day after our historic club function at Crown celebrating our 150 birthday and that his first post (listed immediately below) was in the President Stynes thread ? It was about this time that there was lots of talk about an imminent Stynes challenge and a likely smooth changeover.

Here's his first post:

Rflowerwing

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Jun 8 2008, 07:50 PM Post #30

Demon

Group: Members

Posts: 84

Joined: 8-June 08

Member No.: 2,306

"The suspense is killing me. Gardner has done a so so job but everyone reaches a use-by date and now it's time for Big Jimma to come on down.

Looks like Jim has kept his word by keeping his powder dry and his gun in the holster until last night's 150th celebration was behind us.

Only just mind you as outside Crown as I left I saw a bloke selling early editions of the Herald Sun trumpeting Jim's plans to save the club.

Well not exactly plans to be correct - talk of an unknown dream team and great (but unstated) ideas to bring the Club back from the edge.

Which brings me to the really interesting part of the night for me. There was talk at a number of tables that I visited that Jim is by no means over the line. While impressed by Jim's willingness to get involved some have been asking "Do the Club need a ruckman or a super smart and connected business leader to take us forward"? Word is that an alternative to team Jim is being worked on as we talk in case the big fella fails to deliver.

Promises to be a fascinating day and week ahead."

A thinly veiled contemptuous tone, wouldn't you agree ? Here's the link:http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?showtopic=10463&hl=

Low and behold one of Hazy's first few posts a day, or so, later was in the exact same Presidents thread, and is as follows:

"1. The amount of negativity is indeed frightening. As a new-comer to these boards I have already been surprised at the swiftness and harshness of the condemnation of some of our players by some of the posters. I guess I shouldn't be surprised then that this brand of knee-jerk vitriol is also applied to our current board. Which leads me to...

2. Perhaps you would like to provide your reasoning for this because when I look at the last 5 years I'm happy with our direction. I have to admit that Jim in a superman costume flying through the window sounds pretty good to me but given the good work of the current board and the paucity of knowledge about what Jim would do differently... well, I at least am not prepared to make up my mind about the best option yet. I'm certainly not willing to write off the hard work of our current board with such glib ease.

3. "Faith?" no thanks. I prefer reason, preferably based on information (not announcments that are yet to come). As for your rumoured reports, I'd like to know where you got them. The only "new plan" that I think the AFL would be happy with is a merger with North. Conspiracy theory? Yes, but you read it here first...

4. I'm not 100% on this but I thought Gardner was stepping down this year anyway (2009 at the latest)? Besides which, many people who have already inexplicably jumped on the Jim bandwagon have pointed out how this smooth transistion is good for the club. This does not mean that Gardner supports Jim's plans - I was of the understanding that Jim hadn't even bother to inform the current board (let alone the members) of his plans yet. It is for this reason that I was glad to read in the Age that some of the Board members plan to stick about in case the fairytale turns out to be just that. How Jim Will Save the Dees? Try: How Jim Will Try to Launch a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in the Media by Announcing a Coup and then Accusing any Board Member with the Temerity to Ask What His Plans Are of Putting Their Interests Ahead of the Club.

5. How's this for change: Bailey, Connolly, McNamee, Casey Relocation. You can thank the "current president and administration" for those."

And this 3 posts down on the very same Presidents thread:

"You are obviously so star struck that you have amnesia.

Coglin, Phillips and Starkins, the 3 board members who would at least like to hear what Stynes has to say before hitching up their skirts, joined the board in 2003, 2003 and 2004 respectively.

They inherited a basket case."

He was using the "starstruck" line the day after he joined the site.

I'm not an overly suspicious character and I can see the protests coming loud and clear, but if these 2 haven't had an agenda from the start then Jack Thomas gets his suits tailor made. These 2 are either former Board members or closely associated with a connected group. These are the insidious type of supporters that use skull duggery to undermine those from different camps. The views that these two are currently spewing forth aren't carefully considered or fair criticisms, they are tainted views by those with a very heavy axe to grind as their very first posts show.

Some people feel that Stynes may have finally brought all groups together of this proud club in the knowledge that infighting and personal agendas will only divide a club that desperately needs to unite. But these sly posters are evidence that this club will always have those that snipe from dark corners. They've had an agenda from the day they joined this site. It was the very reason they joined. I even wonder whether they're glad we're yet to secure a sponsor. It provides the ammunition they crave.

So when you engage them in debate, realise the nature of the beast before you. Their agenda is set in stone.

[e25 5]

Hey guys,

I'd just like to thank you all for continuing to prove my point more eloquently than I ever could. Not that it gives me any pleasure to see it proved.

Drop me a line when it's ok to start holding Jim and Schwab accountable and judge them by the same standards as any other board/CEO.

$1.5 mil per year isn't that much anyway.

Cheers

How has anyone proved your point yet? All I have see is complaints with as much substance as the blind faith you love to deride.

I agree - $1.5 million is not that much - i think the dogs got taken for a ride & should be getting more per year out of that deal - possibly another reason why we missed out, that doesn't have anything to do with Schwab or Stynes.

I'll hold them to task when i see a clear failure, not when i get irrationally impatient.

Once again, this is all pointless masturbation.

[mo64 5,209]

The CEO needs to be singing the same tune as the Board.

Btw, are you suggesting Schwab doesn't understand the urgency of the situation we're in? From his first press conference he's stressed the seriousness of our plight.

Not at all. As I said previously, Schwab has got an unenviable task.

It's patently obvious that unless we have on-field success, regardless of the CEO or president in office, we will struggle with balancing the books. MacNamee could obviously see that, hence his desire to get Brown.

I've said all along, in our current financial position, I don't agree with the Board and Football Dept.'s direction of looking at short term pain for long term success. Clubs like the Bulldogs, Kangaroos and ourselves can't afford to bottom out. We should be adopting the Swans or Crows model, which is to be competitive every year. And if that means drafting or trading for mature aged players, so be it.

[Wolfmother 182]

Good post Hannabal... nothing gets past you :D

[loges 6,132]

Good post Hannabal... nothing gets past you :D

Yes great pick up Hannabal gives a lot of food for thought. Their constant negativity makes you wonder

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Hey Hannabal,

You're way off the mark. Any similarity between my posts and those of Rflowerwing are due to the fact that we belong to a small minority of rational people on this site who judge the situation, past and present, on its merits.

In the future I suggest you take a leaf out of my book and argue the merits of the case rather than concoting preposterous and irrelevant theories about the people you are arguing with.

On that note, may I suggest you take your conspiracy theory to another thread. I suggest you start it in the "General Discussion" area. Before you do so you might want to get some IP recognition sofware.

Your response has so far been the lowest cop out yet.

Cheers

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

The off-field stuff holds no interest for me what-so-ever, unless it means we can't field a side and that's where it's getting to. It's unfair to blame this administration for our economic circumstances, it's unfair to blame the last one or the one before that, Ian Ridley saw the writing on the wall. Most of our Core support is now six feet under and growing. Even a string of premierships won't address the issue in the short term. We have to find better revenue streams, and perhaps look at alternative models. I don't care if we're owned by some Indian Telecommunications company and I don't care if I don't get a vote at the AGM, I do care about a team wearing red and blue running out every second week onto the MCG.

Call them factions, call them Fred, call them whatever you like, but different people have different ideas about how best to run the club, it's no different at Melbourne to any other football club. The idea of "unity" is a bit mystifying to me. I understand it in a football sense - getting behind the team, supporting, encouraging, but I don't understand it in a business sense. Do you continue to support an administration if you know they aren't doing the job they're supposed to? Should I be holding my breath for "the tin-tacks to be ironed out" in the next week or so? I care that the bloke who stated a number of times he didn't want the job and then took it, still hasn't delivered on one of his key responsibilities.

your dead rite,most of our core support are in wooden boxes,unless we all start breeding like flys theres really no hope,we just havnt got the support base.

[Rogue 585]

Not at all. As I said previously, Schwab has got an unenviable task.

It's patently obvious that unless we have on-field success, regardless of the CEO or president in office, we will struggle with balancing the books. MacNamee could obviously see that, hence his desire to get Brown.

I've said all along, in our current financial position, I don't agree with the Board and Football Dept.'s direction of looking at short term pain for long term success.

Yes, you've certainly been consistent.

I don't agree with you - for reasons I've stated previously - but I do understand where you're coming from.

My point, which you didn't address, is that the CEO and Board needed to be on the same page.

Regardless of whether PM or Stynes & co. are correct, if they weren't on the same page things wouldn't work out.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

your dead rite,most of our core support are in wooden boxes,unless we all start breeding like flys theres really no hope,we just havnt got the support base.

Then give it up and rack off then.

BTW, the word is "right" not "rite"

Onwards and upwards I say......and we will.

Criticise all you like, but we are on the verge of turning this around. Your doomsayer mentality, IMO, is not welcome at the MFC.

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

Then give it up and rack off then.

BTW, the word is "right" not "rite"

Onwards and upwards I say......and we will.

Criticise all you like, but we are on the verge of turning this around. Your doomsayer mentality, IMO, is not welcome at the MFC.

who r u to tell me im not welcome , all this thread been about for the last 24hrs is criticising, iv barracked for this club for 36yrs,an been a member since 94 dont tell me to rack off.

[grazman 6,540]

So which is it? You care or you don't have any interest?

there's a second qualifying statement in the first sentence.

unless it means we can't field a side and that's where it's getting to.

So in simple terms I don't give a fat rat's clacker about the clubs politics UNLESS it means we can't field a side because we're broke!

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

Then give it up and rack off then.

BTW, the word is "right" not "rite"

Onwards and upwards I say......and we will.

Criticise all you like, but we are on the verge of turning this around. Your doomsayer mentality, IMO, is not welcome at the MFC.

who are you to tell me im not welcome, weres your response, think about it your singing songs about 1939, think about it,members run clubs,sponorships are the icing on the cake

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

who r u to tell me im not welcome , all this thread been about for the last 24hrs is criticising, iv barracked for this club for 36yrs,an been a member since 94 dont tell me to rack off.

Mate, I did not say you were not welcome, I said your negativity was not.

I suggest you re-read your post above.

The last thing we need at the moment is this sort of negative attitude.

And who am I to tell you.

I have been a paid up, non-MCC member, for 39 years. My platinum Membership ticket attests to that.

I was with my late father in '64 when Gabbo made his run and the late Froggy Crompton kicked the winning goal for the Dees last premiership.

In '65, as a 9 year old, I watched World of Sport and and Tony Charlton's Channel 9 footy show, when Norm Smith was sacked by the apparatchiks of the MCC. I spent the rest of that Sunday crying my eyes out.

I bleed red and blue.

I love this footy club and will do anything to help it survive. Unlike some on here who want to pick the eyes out of anything at the MFC to soothe their own egos.

And just remember this. Imagine a National competition, without a team called Melbourne - where the game was invented.

What will we have? The Gold Coast Spectres, the West Sydney Imps or the Tassie Devils.

The answer is, the AFL will always need a team called Melbourne in a truly national competition.

Just get behind us and stop kangarooing the wallaby

The MFC ain't going anywhere away from the MCG..............Our home.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Hannabal

Rating: 5

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Add to PM block list

Forward PM

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

PM, Jun 23 2008, 12:40 PM

How are you going, Tim ?

Good to see that you're still going to contribute.

Cheers

Hugh

Sorry mate - you've got the wrong guy.

I'm glad that you enjoy my contributions though!

Cheers

Hmmm, I could have sworn ...

Oh well, welcome and yes, I'm enjoying your posts.

See you on the Boards

Well what do you know Hannabal? Looks like you haven't stopped making up crazy conspiracy theories since Jun 23 2008 when you thought I was "Tim".

pity you're not enjoying my posts anymore.

get a grip.

[grazman 6,540]

The answer is, the AFL will always need a team called Melbourne in a truly national competition.

Really why is that? wheres the team called Perth or Canberra or Hobart or Darwin? The AFL isn't about equity it's a business and it's mission is to make a profit. This isn't sport any more - it's entertainment. Sport is fair, sport the rules are written down and agreed to by all sides, This is about bums on seats and money in the hand. It's an absolutely faulty assumption to believe that we're required - being the oldest club means nothing. The AFL needs 18 teams for it's new blueprint, but it doesn't care if we're based in Melbourne or not - all they care about is the money and atm our failure to garner a sponsor for a season that kicks off in less than four weeks time isn't making a compelling argument for survival in fact I'd say it mounts a pretty strong argument for the opposition.