Hannabal <snip>

u 2 blokes have watched 2 much x files, [censored] this crap off.

I'll delete this transcript of his Pm's from June as soon as he deletes his post and its ridiculous assertion that I am a bitter ex-board member.

No-one is more disappointed than me that this thread has gone off-topic. Unfortunately, it seems to happen every time that there is a valid criticism of the current administration.

It stops becoming about the fact that WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SPONSOR and start becoming about:

If you don't love Jim you don't love the club

Let's all just go and get [censored]

This is all a waste of time (or "masturbation" as one poster likes to repeatedly put it)

You are an ex-baordmember with a hidden agenda

Take your neagtivity elsewhere

Sadly this not only stifles legitimate debate but proves my point even further.

Cheers

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.

I can remember back in the early to mid 90's - I stand to be corrected, we did not have a sponsor until virtually the eve of the season. Snowy Mountain Water I think it was????

As for your other points, please get a grip. While I understand your cynicism, there are teams in the AFL called Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide. When the West Coast Franchise came into being the WAFL chose a name to respresent a State not a city.

Your point about Canberra, Hobart or Darwin is moot at best.

In terms of history, that bears no comparison and despite your view that the AFL is purely mercenary, I still believe their is some room for tradition and it will prevail.

If your argument was taken to its logical conclusion, we could make a squillion by re-naming the MCG, RRS (Range Rover Stadium)

I'll delete this transcript of his Pm's from June as soon as he deletes his post and its ridiculous assertion that I am a bitter ex-board member.

No-one is more disappointed than me that this thread has gone off-topic. Unfortunately, it seems to happen every time that there is a valid criticism of the current administration.

It stops becoming about the fact that WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SPONSOR and start becoming about:

If you don't love Jim you don't love the club

Let's all just go and get [censored]

This is all a waste of time (or "masturbation" as one poster likes to repeatedly put it)

You are an ex-baordmember with a hidden agenda

Take your neagtivity elsewhere

Sadly this not only stifles legitimate debate but proves my point even further.

Cheers

Ahh, the old moral high ground strategy.

This particular post is a cop out. You challenge those who you don't believe address your arguments directly, but you do not address equally valid counter arguments.

Sorry, but you can't have your Kate and Edith too.

Cheers

Ahh, the old moral high ground strategy.

This particular post is a cop out. You challenge those who you don't believe address your arguments directly, but you do not address equally valid counter arguments.

Sorry, but you can't have your Kate and Edith too.

Cheers

You've got to be kidding me - You're the worst person on here when it comes to the failure to address counter arguements.

Heres a gem of yours from another recent sponsorship thread by way of example:

You're kiddin.......right?

The problem with forums........and yes, I am just as guilty, is that the protaganists tend to read opposite posts, pluck the eyes out of them, to slag the previous poster.

What saddens me about this forum is that most claim to be avid and fearless Dees supporters. Yet they will slag a bloke/girl on this forum that they may well stand next to at the footy, without even realising.

I know most love this footy club, but for 44 years, it has been my life.

Other than the 64 GF, I have seen no better story for the MFC than Jimma. Thimgs are tough for us right now, but while I respect everyone's right to their opinion, equally, I challenge, everyone on this forum to be a voice of solidarity for this great footy club, before the first bounce this year.

Forum members, let's agree on a venue, and have a pre-season p*ss up to show the Demon solidarity and just how much we love this bloody footy club. Let's show the filth why the MFC beat 'em in so many GF's............... Who's with me here????!!!!!

Not forgetting that, relatively, I am an old man and can only drink half shots of Jack Daniels.

As Jeff Fenech would say, I loves youse all.

Cheers and go Dees.

Yeah, nice focus there. "What do you mean Jim might be responsible for the current sponsorship problems? Let s get [censored]!" sounds like you've had too many Jack Daniels. The really nice bit about it is that YOU ACTUALLY CRITICISE ME FOR REPLYING TO THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN.

You and Hannabal and the rest should, to borrow a football catchphrase "Play the ball - not the man"

Yeah, so like I said, drop me a line when I can argue these matters with you intelligently and without having to spend all of my time defending myself from stupid accusations about who I am and how much I love the cluib.

I won't hold my breath though, I reckon we could go another full year without a sponsor before most of you stopped making excuses. I hope we still have a club by then.

Cheers

You've got to be kidding me - You're the worst person on here when it comes to the failure to address counter arguements.

Heres a gem of yours from another recent sponsorship thread by way of example:

Yeah, nice focus there. "What do you mean Jim might be responsible for the current sponsorship problems? Let s get [censored]!" sounds like you've had too many Jack Daniels. The really nice bit about it is that YOU ACTUALLY CRITICISE ME FOR REPLYING TO THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN.

You and Hannabal and the rest should, to borrow a football catchphrase "Play the ball - not the man"

Yeah, so like I said, drop me a line when I can argue these matters with you intelligently and without having to spend all of my time defending myself from stupid accusations about who I am and how much I love the cluib.

I won't hold my breath though, I reckon we could go another full year without a sponsor before most of you stopped making excuses. I hope we still have a club by then.

Cheers

"Play the ball - not the man"

Yeah, OK. Ditto brother.

Not sure how quoting one of my previous posts supports your position and BTW, I never accused you of being an ex-Board Member, only negative.

And with that, I am going to take my bat and ball home and have a shandy.

P.S. Hazy, I don't like Jack Daniels and therefore don't drink it. It was a joke.........an attempt to lighten things.

It was a joke.........an attempt to lighten things.

It was an attempt to change the topic.

Enjoy your shandy.

It was an attempt to change the topic.

Enjoy your shandy.

You win and I will.

hope u still like jeff fenech,one of the all time greats, but a [censored] up before the game sounds really good,and to certain people who think ex board members are posting you are kidding , there probably working.

You've got to be kidding me - You're the worst person on here when it comes to the failure to address counter arguements.

Heres a gem of yours from another recent sponsorship thread by way of example:

Yeah, nice focus there. "What do you mean Jim might be responsible for the current sponsorship problems? Let s get [censored]!" sounds like you've had too many Jack Daniels. The really nice bit about it is that YOU ACTUALLY CRITICISE ME FOR REPLYING TO THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN.

You and Hannabal and the rest should, to borrow a football catchphrase "Play the ball - not the man"

Yeah, so like I said, drop me a line when I can argue these matters with you intelligently and without having to spend all of my time defending myself from stupid accusations about who I am and how much I love the cluib.

I won't hold my breath though, I reckon we could go another full year without a sponsor before most of you stopped making excuses. I hope we still have a club by then.

Cheers

Hazy

Your points are valid. But as a supporter you lack faith in who is running the club and mate i dont really know who Jimma is to be honest but I do believe he needs to have time to prove himself or fail.... how long is long enough....Who knows but you split a board up now it will do harm not good so then all you can do is have faith like it or not. Can I ask a question what is wrong with having a Jack daniels with a fellow supporter before a game its mate ship thats what supporters do I do it all the time.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But on topic.

Consider where this club would be right now -major sponsor or no major sponsor - if Jim Stynes had not acceded to the lobbying of Garry Lyon and taken over the reins. BTW, Jim is Chairman not President. Under Corporations Law you cannot have a Predident of a Board, only a Chairman.

Consider where this club would be right now if the former board and administration remained in tact.

The AFL had already expressed their displeasure at the MFC's business plan or lack of it.

As a result, I, for one, doubt very much, if we would have had a marked increase in membership (to this time), that we would have received the ex gratia payments from both the AFL and MCC and a palpably positive outlook for the future.

Hazy, my sincere apologies, truly, but I may have missed it, but can you articulate a viable, achievable and realistic alternative vision for the club?

Again, you may have done so already and if you have, I missed it.

Regards

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a jack daniels or a beer or whatever your poison is with a fellow supporter, before, after, or during a game.

In fact, I think it should be encouraged.

However, it doesn't have anything to do with us not having a sponsor.

You say I lack faith in the people running the club. The truth is I lack faith in everything. There is no room for faith in my life.

The reality is that 6 moths ago Jim identified that we need to maintain current sponsors and find new ones.

Today we don't have a major sponsor.

How long is long enough? I honestly don't know. People seem to think that I am saying that Jim should be thrown out right away or that he doesn't want to help the club. That is rubbish. Like you, I don't even know the guy. But that is why I am keeping a critical eye on the situation irrespective of how great he was as a player.

All I am saying is that we have been without a major sponsor for long enough now that it should be a serious concern. If my fellow supporters are not worried about the situation and what it might say about the current, largely untested administration that is responsible for it, then then that is a concern for me also. If our supporters are burying their heads in the sand and pretending that we are not in a bad situation because they want to make excuses for Jim because they loved him as a player, well, that's the biggest concern.

How long do you give Jim and Schwab before our lack of sponsor becomes an issue for you?

Cheers

edit: dangling modifier. It's our supporters with their heads in the sand.

BTW, Jim is Chairman not President. Under Corporations Law you cannot have a Predident of a Board, only a Chairman.

Fair enough, but even the official MFC site refers to Stynes as the President so it's an understandable mistake:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/TheClub/Boar...91/default.aspx

Fair enough, but even the official MFC site refers to Stynes as the President:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/TheClub/Boar...91/default.aspx

I know, as it does for other Clubs, but it is a misnomer nonetheless.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But on topic.

Consider where this club would be right now -major sponsor or no major sponsor - if Jim Stynes had not acceded to the lobbying of Garry Lyon and taken over the reins. BTW, Jim is Chairman not President. Under Corporations Law you cannot have a Predident of a Board, only a Chairman.

Consider where this club would be right now if the former board and administration remained in tact.

The AFL had already expressed their displeasure at the MFC's business plan or lack of it.

As a result, I, for one, doubt very much, if we would have had a marked increase in membership (to this time), that we would have received the ex gratia payments from both the AFL and MCC and a palpably positive outlook for the future.

Hazy, my sincere apologies, truly, but I may have missed it, but can you articulate a viable, achievable and realistic alternative vision for the club?

Again, you may have done so already and if you have, I missed it.

Regards

This is only slightly on topic. It has almost nothing to do with the sponsorship. But I'll indulge you.

I have very little idea where the club would be if Jim hadn't taken over. To be honest although I don't think it would be any worse off, I can't be certain that it would be better. We might not have had the debt demolition or the demon heartland, but we probably would have a major sponsor and we wouldn't have wasted money/got a bad reputation by sacking P. Mac. We wouldn't have taken on another expensive layer of management. We would definitely have Casey because that was their idea anyway. The AFL and MCC payments were always well taken care of by the previous board from memory and we had a record membership in 2007 and nearly another record membership in 2008 before Jim signed up. As far as I know even Jim hasn't criticised the previous board so there's no point in you doing it for him.

One of the biggest concerns for me is that the debt demolition thing isn't a sustainable plan. It's realistically only going to work once and it's a weapon of last resort which Jim used up as soon as he stepped in. We were told there was a "plan" when Jim took over the board last year but I still don't know what it is. I hope it wasn't just the tin-rattle. Another area of great concern for me is accountability. By this I mean both the problem that members have criticising Jim and Co (as seen in this thread), ans the problems Jim will have criticising his mates at work (as Rflowerwing pointed out).

Personally, I was pretty happy with the performance of the last board when you compare them to others. But if you or anyone else want to discuss this further I suggest you start a new thread. Hannabal, or "Hugh" as he is known, has reminded me of some old posts of mine that might interest you.

Sadly, I am running out of hope for the club. I'm crossing my fingers for incorporation with the MCC (something that the previous board was working on).

Cheers

P.S. I think it was Jim himself who came up with the "President" tag.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a jack daniels or a beer or whatever your poison is with a fellow supporter, before, after, or during a game.

In fact, I think it should be encouraged.

However, it doesn't have anything to do with us not having a sponsor.

You say I lack faith in the people running the club. The truth is I lack faith in everything. There is no room for faith in my life.

The reality is that 6 moths ago Jim identified that we need to maintain current sponsors and find new ones.

Today we don't have a major sponsor.

How long is long enough? I honestly don't know. People seem to think that I am saying that Jim should be thrown out right away or that he doesn't want to help the club. That is rubbish. Like you, I don't even know the guy. But that is why I am keeping a critical eye on the situation irrespective of how great he was as a player.

All I am saying is that we have been without a major sponsor for long enough now that it should be a serious concern. If my fellow supporters are not worried about the situation and what it might say about the current, largely untested administration that is responsible for it, then then that is a concern for me also. If they are burying their heads in the sand and pretending that we are not in a bad situation because they want to make excuses for Jim because they loved him as a player, well, that's the biggest concern.

How long do you give Jim and Schwab before our lack of sponsor becomes an issue for you?

Cheers

It is a concern but what I am saying is.. what logicaly can you do you cant replace the board untested or not you cant say they are burying there heads in the sand either as CS and JS have openly stated that it is a priority to them how much to them it is only they will know unless anyone in this forum works with them. Now logicaly with out faith of any sort in them which you dont have in anything... you will just have to sit as a nervous wreck untill we get a sponser. My Faith you ask anyone who Jim Stynes is they know he has a Celebrity status in Melbourne and Ireland. Cameron S the best thing I could say is After the 1988 season, Cameron was appointed General Manager of the Richmond Football Club. At the age of 24, he is the youngest person to hold this position in the history of the AFL.

Richmond was on the verge of bankruptcy, heavily in debt and losing money. It had also finished bottom of the Premiership ladder with the oldest player list in the competition.

During his term as General Manager the Club’s performance both on and off the field was restored.

A highlight of this time was the Club’s Save Our Skin (SOS) fundraising campaign which raised in excess of $1.5m in eight weeks and effectively saved the club from insolvency.

After six years in this role, Cameron resigned to undertake full time study. He completed a Master of Business Administration (MBA), and Master of Marketing at Melbourne University. During this time Cameron was also employed as a part time consultant to Fremantle Football Club during its start up phase.

Now I have faith in somebody with that back ground in football and marketing to keep the company afloat.

I have argued wth people of "faith" on other forums on other topics under other pseudonyms. If I have learned one thing it is that there is no point using reason. I may as well bang my head against a wall.

For what it's worth I was saying that my fellow supporters are burying their heads in the sand, not Jim and Schwab. As far as they go, well, I'll judge them by their results. So far, I'm not impressed.

I think everyone here has had a chance to make their point.

Discussion, or at least the thread, is closed.