Major Sponsor

[45HG 1,539]

How much would the bond be D_T?

[Demon_Tingles 211]

Haha a months rent for the Junction Oval upfront

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Admittedly I skimmed as it seems I'm not as rich with my time as you, but the content of your verbose offering could've been penned in 10 words rather than 1,000.

You like P.Mac. You don't like Schwab. And you don't like Stynes. Nutshell.

You and Liarwing have an axe to grind and it's plain for all to see.

Some questions. Were you there last night ? And if so did you ask a question ? And if you weren't there last night why not ?

Not surprised that you aren't interested in replying to any of the points that I have made. In fact you should be congratulated on sticking to your new approach of not reading my posts. It is clear that they agitate you and clear also that you would rather live in ignorance than face cold truths like the fact that we don't have a sponsor and we are running out of time/excuses/things other than Jim and Schwab to blame.

I was unable to attend last night. Why, is none of your business (actually, even whether I did or not is none of your business). It is a shame because not only do I have plenty of questions to ask but I was really looking forward to seeing you sitting in your car out front in dark glasses and a tin-foil hat, drinking coffee and scribbling in a notepad.

Apart from on-field stuff - and I agree that it's not something the CEO should be dealing with - I believe another aspect where there wasn't a shared vision was the Melbourne identity / brand. PM wanted Melbourne to be the 'premier Club', while from the moment Stynes joined the Board he spoke of building a more inclusive Club.

You make a good point about the boutique/premium angle vs. the common/grassroots angle. Of course even if this was the main reason for the sacking (a pretty weak one), it doesn't change the dubious timing or execution of it. It doesn't change the fact that we might have lost sponsors because of it.

As for the "Melbourne has no brand/stands for nothing" thing, I have always considered that to be tripe, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

Frankly, I think the whole P.Mac debate is a bit of a side show anyway. Jim made his decision and I'm sure he did what he thought was in the best interests of the club. The lack of sponsorship is the main issue here, and as far as that is concerned the buck stops with Stynes and Schwab. We wouldn't hear a peep about P. Mac if Jim had secured us a sponsor by now.

I find it hard to believe that Paul "just made it up". I also find it hard to understand why someone who is CEO in an organisation, knows he's "gone" and has a therefore understandably poor relationship with the Board would:-

- bother to spend serious time in England finding a sponsor for the MFC and;

- when and if he managed to find one would not tell his Board to protect his job.

If he wanted to keep his job he would have told the Board.

If he didn't want to keep his job why would he have spent time looking for a sponsor?

etc.

Phoenix, you raise an interesting point about why P. Mac would pursue a sponsorship when his number was up. Seems to me like it's a bit of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" situation. If McNamee was told to keep a low profile and stay out of the way when the new mob took over then he could either:

a) Not look for a sponsor (thus he is negligent)

or

b ) Look for a sponsor on his own (thus he is dysfunctional)

I suspect that P. Mac knew that his job was finished even if he did secure a sponsor (he may not have even wanted to keep it given the new administation/the big payout he would get) so, as you point out, why would he bother looking into it at Wimbledon?

I think the most likely explanation is that that networky stuff is simply what people like McNamee do.

Some CEO type: "So Paul what are you doing with yourself these days"

P. Mac : "As it happens I'm in the football game these days. The demons are a great young team and the club has an amazing history - there could be a marketing opportunity for you if you're interested"

etc.

Of course this also raises the issue of just how "secure" these alleged sponsorship deals were.

My point was merely that people are writing him off too quickly because they don't want the decision to sack him to reflect poorly on Jim. I mean, we even had one guy on here saying that not having a sponsor is a good thing, so that shows the lengths to which people are prepared to stretch reality in order to acommodate their cozy fantasies.

I think you're a little off with the Harris call. Sure, it would have been great if he teed something up, but let's face it, we're not talking about "weeks" when it comes to the new administration, we are talking about months. It's their responsibility and results on this front are dangerously overdue.

[e25 5]

My point was merely that people are writing him off too quickly because they don't want the decision to sack him to reflect poorly on Jim. I mean, we even had one guy on here saying that not having a sponsor is a good thing, so that shows the lengths to which people are prepared to stretch reality in order to acommodate their cozy fantasies.

I'm writing Paul Mac off because whether what he says is true or not, he still did not behave as a CEO should & he is still trying to damage the club. Intent is all that I care about right now.

And all I was saying is that we need to turn negatives into positives, turn our weaknesses into strengths.

There's no reason we can't look at our specific situation & see it as an opportunity to do something outside the square. Its not ideal, but its not the end of the world.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I'm writing Paul Mac off because whether what he says is true or not, he still did not behave as a CEO should & he is still trying to damage the club. Intent is all that I care about right now.

And all I was saying is that we need to turn negatives into positives, turn our weaknesses into strengths.

There's no reason we can't look at our specific situation & see it as an opportunity to do something outside the square. Its not ideal, but its not the end of the world.

I think you need to cut back on the Dr. Phil.

See previous post for problems with how P. Mac should have acted as a CEO under Stynes.

Good intentions aren't going to pay the bills. It may not be the end of the world but, if we don't get a sponsor - it could be the end of our club.

[e25 5]

I think you need to cut back on the Dr. Phil.

See previous post for problems with how P. Mac should have acted as a CEO under Stynes.

Good intentions aren't going to pay the bills. It may not be the end of the world but, if we don't get a sponsor - it could be the end of our club.

Way to be close-minded. Well done.

[Hannabal 4]

It is clear that they agitate you and clear also that you would rather live in ignorance than face cold truths like the fact that we don't have a sponsor and we are running out of time/excuses/things other than Jim and Schwab to blame.

I was unable to attend last night. Why, is none of your business (actually, even whether I did or not is none of your business). It is a shame because not only do I have plenty of questions to ask but I was really looking forward to seeing you sitting in your car out front in dark glasses and a tin-foil hat, drinking coffee and scribbling in a notepad.

The only fact, or cold hard truth, you're able to present is that we don't have a sponsor. The reasons are far too complicated than to simply blame a new Chairman and new CEO, but it suits you and your agenda to lay the blame squarely at their feet. And you do so in the absence of any knowledge of detailed discussions to date. Your black and white view is that we don't have a sponsor ergo it's their fault. I'd hate to be innocent and caught holding a smoking gun with you on the jury.

You even admit the McNamee sacking is a side issue. Well at least you can write pages and pages about a non event.

Congratulations.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

The only fact, or cold hard truth, you're able to present is that we don't have a sponsor. The reasons are far too complicated than to simply blame a new Chairman and new CEO, but it suits you and your agenda to lay the blame squarely at their feet. And you do so in the absence of any knowledge of detailed discussions to date. Your black and white view is that we don't have a sponsor ergo it's their fault. I'd hate to be innocent and caught holding a smoking gun with you on the jury.

You even admit the McNamee sacking is a side issue. Well at least you can write pages and pages about a non event.

Congratulations.

What a funny little fellow you are.

Of course the biggest cold hard fact in question is that we don't have a sponsor.

Here's another pretty big one: The club sponsorship is now, and has been for quite some time, the responibility of Stynes, Schwab and their associates.

"the reasons are far too complicated" is the funniest bit though. Such a classic apologist line - nice to see you are staying true to form and not actually discussing these "complications". And then to simulatneously accuse me of holding a simplisitc view and of being too verbose on the McNamee side-issue - well, that was just too much!

I think you'd better go back to skipping over my posts - ignorance is bliss and all that.

Toodles

[grazman 7,432]

From WJs summation of the AGM last night in another thread.

A question was asked about how close we were to getting a sponsor. Jimmy said we are dealing with a number of options and is confident we will secure a sponsor by the start of the season. He had a list of companies we were speaking to about sponsorships (but didn't divulge who) and said we wouldn't be selling the club short and were looking for a good fit for the club.

Without diving into the old guard v new guard argument, I for one will be one very [censored] off little camper if we haven't secured a major sponsor by the start of the NAB. I can't credit Jim's response that they wouldn't accept an offer that was below expectations. I'm happy for them to explore all the options, but if they reject deals as not being lucrative enough (ie selling the club short) and then ask for another round of donations for "debt reduction" then he can go take a flying leap.

Let's judge the current board on it's achievements. It'll be strike two if there's no major sponsor by the start of the NAB, Strike one will have been the numerous times we've been assured by the current administration that we'll have a sponsor (including Cameron Schwab's claim after we missed out on Mission Foods that he had a number of options lined up and it was a matter of ironing out the tin-tacks).

[Jarka 767]

I'm not a Jimma lover (I dislike him intensely) and I wasn't a fan of Paul Mac. I'm difficult to get on with.

This comment has been the highlight of the thread so far

[phoenix 32]

I think you're a little off with the Harris call. Sure, it would have been great if he teed something up, but let's face it, we're not talking about "weeks" when it comes to the new administration, we are talking about months. It's their responsibility and results on this front are dangerously overdue.

Sadly I think you're wrong.

Harris had 4 years to build a robust and sustainable administration during a period of on field success and AFL assistance (and a major sponsor already establish, I think). But what he produced was a dysfunctional administration and a broken morale. He was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in early termination of employees many who he personally employed. He destroyed our relationship with the AFL and the MCC and left us with no "Brand" of any credibility.

We missed the sponsorship of Mission Foods (?), knocked off by the Bullies. What a disgrace. Well not really. We had no offering. We had no community programs. We have few Saturday games and no home Friday night games. We were a rabble on the field last year in which we had 4 CEO's and two Boards. Infact the only thing that was done well was the pragmatic and graceful change of Boards for which Gardner and his senior Board members take a great deal of credit.

Now I don't blame Harris for the on field stuff. But the rest fits squarely in his court. He left a shell that will take years to rebuild, not months.

The blame for the lack of sponsorship doesn't sit solely with Stynes and Schwab, in fact it doesn't sit primarily with them. It come from years of terrible CEO's, the most recent being Ellis and Harris who failed to appropriately or effectively manage the MFC and have left what must be close to an unsalable proposition.

And I know you're smart enough to know this.

I agree Stynes and his Board need to be actively held to account but this must be done using sensible parameters.

[Deeoldfart 8,027]

..........

I don't know if it was Paul Mac Namee who contacted Mark Stevens for this concoction or whether Mark Stevens called PM with the knowledge that PM would say something at an appropriate time. ie on the eve of the AGM. But what I do know that the article by Mark Stevens yesterday which ever way you look at it from either point-in-case was an attack on the club with the vision to perhaps upset members of the Mfc and create a heated AGM. ...........................

Totally agree Tower. The good thing is that it doesn't seem to have had that effect.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Sadly I think you're wrong.

Harris had 4 years to build a robust and sustainable administration during a period of on field success and AFL assistance (and a major sponsor already establish, I think). But what he produced was a dysfunctional administration and a broken morale. He was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in early termination of employees many who he personally employed. He destroyed our relationship with the AFL and the MCC and left us with no "Brand" of any credibility.

We missed the sponsorship of Mission Foods (?), knocked off by the Bullies. What a disgrace. Well not really. We had no offering. We had no community programs. We have few Saturday games and no home Friday night games. We were a rabble on the field last year in which we had 4 CEO's and two Boards. Infact the only thing that was done well was the pragmatic and graceful change of Boards for which Gardner and his senior Board members take a great deal of credit.

Now I don't blame Harris for the on field stuff. But the rest fits squarely in his court. He left a shell that will take years to rebuild, not months.

The blame for the lack of sponsorship doesn't sit solely with Stynes and Schwab, in fact it doesn't sit primarily with them. It come from years of terrible CEO's, the most recent being Ellis and Harris who failed to appropriately or effectively manage the MFC and have left what must be close to an unsalable proposition.

And I know you're smart enough to know this.

I agree Stynes and his Board need to be actively held to account but this must be done using sensible parameters.

Great post Phoenix. Its right on the money.

[DeeMfc 621]

Wouldn't we have been insolvent back in October '08 had Stynes & Co. not stepped in...............?

Stynes is a Demon through and through, like him or not !

Pmac is a MAD Bombers supporter.

The only thing that will get us through times like these is Complete passion for the club.

Something Pmac could never have as much of, unfortunately.

We ALL must unite & rally behind the current administration and show our true support for this club !

[mo64 5,874]

Wouldn't we have been insolvent back in October '08 had Stynes & Co. not stepped in...............?

Stynes is a Demon through and through, like him or not !

Pmac is a MAD Bombers supporter.

The only thing that will get us through times like these is Complete passion for the club.

Something Pmac could never have, unfortunately.

We ALL must unite & rally behind the current administration and show our true support for this club !

What absolute rubbish. Brian Cook was a Melbourne player who subsequently became a successful CEO at WCE. He then jumped ship and became an outstanding CEO at Geelong.

And who does Cameron Schwab barrack for, not that it makes one iota of difference?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Sadly I think you're wrong.

Harris had 4 years to build a robust and sustainable administration during a period of on field success and AFL assistance (and a major sponsor already establish, I think). But what he produced was a dysfunctional administration and a broken morale. He was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in early termination of employees many who he personally employed. He destroyed our relationship with the AFL and the MCC and left us with no "Brand" of any credibility.

We missed the sponsorship of Mission Foods (?), knocked off by the Bullies. What a disgrace. Well not really. We had no offering. We had no community programs. We have few Saturday games and no home Friday night games. We were a rabble on the field last year in which we had 4 CEO's and two Boards. Infact the only thing that was done well was the pragmatic and graceful change of Boards for which Gardner and his senior Board members take a great deal of credit.

Now I don't blame Harris for the on field stuff. But the rest fits squarely in his court. He left a shell that will take years to rebuild, not months.

The blame for the lack of sponsorship doesn't sit solely with Stynes and Schwab, in fact it doesn't sit primarily with them. It come from years of terrible CEO's, the most recent being Ellis and Harris who failed to appropriately or effectively manage the MFC and have left what must be close to an unsalable proposition.

And I know you're smart enough to know this.

I agree Stynes and his Board need to be actively held to account but this must be done using sensible parameters.

Look, I'm not about to defend Harris' work off-field or otherwise. And yes, it is likely that he damaged our club's corporate reputation but, Harris is history now. I daresay that at least part of the reason that P. Mac was chosen as his replacement is because he could adress this area. Certainly, when Stynes took over the reigns there was a lot of talk about his connections and how he would make things happen. Six months later and the Primus deal has slipped, the start of the season is around the corner and still no major sponsor.

I hear what you're saying about sensible parameters, but in my opinion, 6 months into the job, shifting responsibility by blaming Harris is not sensible. The biggest sensible parameter is probably the financial crisis as some people are quick to point out, but every other team except Richmond have got a sponsor now and at least Richmond supporters have got a rumour to go on.

As for the mission foods deal, well I just think that's a bit of a cop out. I have already given a list of angles that our professionally employed management and marketing could have used to secure the deal even if we did have an inferiror product to sell. One major example of this is that we could have taken less money. The truth is that we did corporate battle with the Bulldogs and we were defeated. And let's not forget that quites aside from this deal we could have secured sponsorship by an entirely different company.

Now all of this brings me to my main point. You write that "Stynes and his Board need to be actively held to account but this must be done using sensible parameters". This admission puts you in a rational and critically consistent minority at whom my posts are not normally aimed. It then becomes a matter of what parameters (or "excuses") are accepatable and how long we can reasonably be expected to be patient on the sponsorship and other issues.

Personally my patience has run out and the "Harris' fault/economic crisis" excuses don't cut it with me anymore. And lets face it, even though these are pretty weak excuses they are better than most of the ones that get thrown around on here (for instance, in another sponsorship thread, I spent some time arguing with one nit-wit who was determined to blame Gardner for taking the Primus deal - which was the right decision and which wasn't Gardner's decision anyway!). My biggest bone of contention is that I suspect that these excuses would get pretty short shrift indeed if our administration was not being headed by a beloved icon of the club. Do you really think that the same people who praised Jimmy for "taking out the trash" by firing P. Mac would be jumping to protect P. Mac and the previous board if they were still in charge and we didn't have a sponsor by now? Does anyone honestly beleive that the "financial crisis" would be cited in their defence?

I doubt it.

UFO botherers like Hannabal seem to think that I'd have to be an ex-boardmember (or "minion" thereof) to hold the views that I do. Frankly, I'm surprised that more people aren't a little tired of excuses by now. But then I guess I'm part of an ever diminshing minority who aren't easily impressed by celebrity. You say you're difficult to get on with. I beg to differ, you sound like an eminently reasonable person. But let's be honest, blaming Harris is no longer "acceptable parameters", Jim knew what he was taking on back in June and members are right to be disturbed that we still have nothing on the sponsorship front in February.

Take the red pill.

[DeeMfc 621]

What absolute rubbish. Brian Cook was a Melbourne player who subsequently became a successful CEO at WCE. He then jumped ship and became an outstanding CEO at Geelong.

And who does Cameron Schwab barrack for, not that it makes one iota of difference?

Was Brian Cook on Holiday in Europe (pretending to be chasing sponsors) in the middle of the Home and Away season, in his first year as CEO of Geelong and West Coast ?

[mo64 5,874]

Was Brian Cook on Holiday in Europe (pretending to be chasing sponsors) in the middle of the Home and Away season, in his first year as CEO of Geelong and West Coast ?

What relevance does that have to your argument? You were asserting that only a supporter of the club can have a passion for their job.

And btw, if CEO's are entitled to annual leave, which I'm fairly sure they are, when is a good time for them to take a break? During the off-season? Good idea. Schwab should be on holidays right now, and put our search for a sponsor on hold till he gets back.

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

Look, I'm not about to defend Harris' work off-field or otherwise. And yes, it is likely that he damaged our club's corporate reputation but, Harris is history now. I daresay that at least part of the reason that P. Mac was chosen as his replacement is because he could adress this area. Certainly, when Stynes took over the reigns there was a lot of talk about his connections and how he would make things happen. Six months later and the Primus deal has slipped, the start of the season is around the corner and still no major sponsor.

I hear what you're saying about sensible parameters, but in my opinion, 6 months into the job, shifting responsibility by blaming Harris is not sensible. The biggest sensible parameter is probably the financial crisis as some people are quick to point out, but every other team except Richmond have got a sponsor now and at least Richmond supporters have got a rumour to go on.

As for the mission foods deal, well I just think that's a bit of a cop out. I have already given a list of angles that our professionally employed management and marketing could have used to secure the deal even if we did have an inferiror product to sell. One major example of this is that we could have taken less money. The truth is that we did corporate battle with the Bulldogs and we were defeated. And let's not forget that quites aside from this deal we could have secured sponsorship by an entirely different company.

Now all of this brings me to my main point. You write that "Stynes and his Board need to be actively held to account but this must be done using sensible parameters". This admission puts you in a rational and critically consistent minority at whom my posts are not normally aimed. It then becomes a matter of what parameters (or "excuses") are accepatable and how long we can reasonably be expected to be patient on the sponsorship and other issues.

Personally my patience has run out and the "Harris' fault/economic crisis" excuses don't cut it with me anymore. And lets face it, even though these are pretty weak excuses they are better than most of the ones that get thrown around on here (for instance, in another sponsorship thread, I spent some time arguing with one nit-wit who was determined to blame Gardner for taking the Primus deal - which was the right decision and which wasn't Gardner's decision anyway!). My biggest bone of contention is that I suspect that these excuses would get pretty short shrift indeed if our administration was not being headed by a beloved icon of the club. Do you really think that the same people who praised Jimmy for "taking out the trash" by firing P. Mac would be jumping to protect P. Mac and the previous board if they were still in charge and we didn't have a sponsor by now? Does anyone honestly beleive that the "financial crisis" would be cited in their defence?

I doubt it.

UFO botherers like Hannabal seem to think that I'd have to be an ex-boardmember (or "minion" thereof) to hold the views that I do. Frankly, I'm surprised that more people aren't a little tired of excuses by now. But then I guess I'm part of an ever diminshing minority who aren't easily impressed by celebrity. You say you're difficult to get on with. I beg to differ, you sound like an eminently reasonable person. But let's be honest, blaming Harris is no longer "acceptable parameters", Jim knew what he was taking on back in June and members are right to be disturbed that we still have nothing on the sponsorship front in February.

Take the red pill.

do you write this down on a piece of paper before you type it out,cause if you dont your an industry within yourself, maybe you should be on the board, i cant wait to we get a sponsor in the next 3weeks so i can tell certain pessimists i told you so, instead of a red pill how about a chill pill.

[DeeMfc 621]

Wouldn't we have been insolvent back in October '08 had Stynes & Co. not stepped in...............?

We ALL must unite & rally behind the current administration and show our true support for this club !

Ok then... I have refined my post above......

IMHO the last sentence is the most important point to be made by all supporters.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

do you write this down on a piece of paper before you type it out,cause if you dont your an industry within yourself, maybe you should be on the board, i cant wait to we get a sponsor in the next 3weeks so i can tell certain pessimists i told you so, instead of a red pill how about a chill pill.

Even if we get a sponsor in the next three weeks it would already be unacceptably late.

The idea that you could then tell me "I told you so" is ridiculous. You're probably one of the nit-wits who thought we were just waiting for the captaincy announcement.

If you think that the ability to "chill out" in our current sponsorship situation makes you a better supporter than me then you are sorely mistaken.

By the way, nothing would make me happier than if we did get a sponsor in the next 3 weeks.

[DeeMfc 621]

if CEO's are entitled to annual leave, which I'm fairly sure they are, when is a good time for them to take a break? During the off-season? Good idea. Schwab should be on holidays right now, and put our search for a sponsor on hold till he gets back.

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

I for one will be one very pissed off little camper if we haven't secured a major sponsor by the start of the NAB.

Don't hold your breath then because the impression I got from Jim by what he said, the way he said it and from his body language was that, while he was confident of snaring a major sponsor by the start of the premiership season, it's still a fair way from being a done deal. He did produce a list of the companies the club had been talking to about sponsorships but didn't say how close or how serious those clubs were in terms of sealing a sponsorship deal.

One possible plus here though is that if we are talking with a number of companies, then if the club promotes its sponsorship packages properly, it might end up signing more than one sponsor from the group with which it's having discussions. After all, every club has a number of major sponsors and if the people involved in these negotiations can play their cards right they could turn what is currently looking like a bit of a fiasco into a triumph.

According to melbounefc.com.au we currently have a total of 15 "partners" which seems to be the pc term for sponsors these days. We have no premier partner (i.e. main sponsor) but the rest are found in the following categories:-

Platinum Partners The Age and Volvo

Gold Partners Reebok, Coca Cola*, Reflections Group and Red Mercury

Silver Partners Leading Solutions, Jeff Banks London, Tyrell's Wines and Pet Goods Direct

Bronze Partners Konica Minolta, Musashi, Victor and Adriatic Furniture

I checked out Collingwood's web site and they have a similar number of sponsors arranged in different categories and of course, we don't know how much their sponsorships are worth compared to ours. I'm almost certain that they would be bringing in much more given that their fixture is so much more favourable in terms of attracting sponsors. Collingwood has four premier partners - Wizard, Emirates, Lexus and addidas as well as another 10 major partners and three official suppliers. They have an obvious financial edge on us in this area the minute they open their doors for business at the start of any season.

I'm getting a bit tired of the blame game on this sponsorship issue. People might want to go back years and blame Gardner and Harris, they might want to blame PMac. Let's get over that and get on with the job of finding sponsors for what will hopefully be an exciting era in the years ahead when our young talent reaches maturity. If there's anyone to blame in the end, it will us the members and supporters for not keeping the pressure on whoever happens to be in power at the club entrusted with the job of "getting it right" as Cameron Schwab stated at the AGM. One of the things that crossed my mind on Thursday night was the fact that although we're a club that's traditionally associated with the top of the town, the leaders of business, banking and industry, we can't attract a corporation to sponsor the oldest club in the competition. We just have to do better than that!

* weren't they recently associated with a major sponsorship rumour around here? I'm glad that at least they're on board already and I don't have to resort to Pepsi in protest but if we can't get them on board as the major sponsor why not persuade them to upgrade their sponsorship to a Platinum Partner. If they do, I'll immediately go out to the local supermarket and buy a carton of Pepsi.

[mo64 5,874]

"We ALL must unite & rally behind the current administration and show our true support for this club !"

IMHO the last sentence is the most important point to be made by all supporters.

No it's not. What you're asking for is blind faith. We should be questioning the administration when they are in office, not sticking the knives in once they have departed.

[Hannabal 4]

UFO botherers like Hannabal seem to think that I'd have to be an ex-boardmember (or "minion" thereof) to hold the views that I do. Frankly, I'm surprised that more people aren't a little tired of excuses by now. But then I guess I'm part of an ever diminshing minority who aren't easily impressed by celebrity. You say you're difficult to get on with. I beg to differ, you sound like an eminently reasonable person. But let's be honest, blaming Harris is no longer "acceptable parameters", Jim knew what he was taking on back in June and members are right to be disturbed that we still have nothing on the sponsorship front in February.

Hazy, unlike you, I don't particularly like Stynes and I see him as not much more than a club icon and figurehead to unite the masses, which is important by the way, as the club has been fractured for far too long. But I have a good deal of faith in the Board that Stynes has been able to assemble. Guy Jalland, Don McLardy, Peter Szental, and Peter Spargo are highly respected businessmen. One of the reasons that Gardner and his Board handed over the reins to Stynes in such a smooth and magnanimous fashion is due to the high quality group Stynes had managed to put together. The incumbent Board would have put up far more of a fight if it wasn't for the strength of this team.

Everyone is disappointed that we haven't got a major sponsor. But I recognise the difficulty in presently getting major sports sponsorships amidst a global financial meltdown. I also have faith that a major sponsor isn't far away. Now you'd call this mindless faith. So be it. I also recognise that presently the MFC is the least attractive club in the league to sponsor. We're seen as a minnow with little branding, a poor free to air tv schedule, low support base, and a draw full of unattractive Sunday games. It's little wonder that we're the last club standing in the race for a major sponsor. I don't have a defeatist attitude and I also believe that with the right stewardship we can change much of what ails the club, but I recognise the difficulties and understand that it will take time.

You say that your patience has run out. I don't believe that you were ever patient to start with. You and Liarwing joined within 2 days of each other. By the second day of your tenure here you were active on the President Stynes thread. One of your first posts was as follows:

If you ask me the whole thing is arse backwards - Jim Stynes (whom I dearly love and who was my favourite player for a long time) comes out of nowhere and, without even mentioning his plans or his prospective appointments, has the nerve to suggest that the current board should sheepishly make way so as not to make a scene? Give me a break - I didn't vote for Stynes and I don't even know who his running mates are yet.

Now none of that is to suggest that Stynes isn't up to the job, but I was surprised to read in an article ironically entitled "How I'll save Dee's: Stynes" (Ironic because he doesn't actually say anything about how he's going to do it or who he's going to do it with) that Stynes thought "that I (Stynes), and many others, have been complacent for far too long thinking someone else will fix the problems faced at the Melbourne Football Club. I knew it was time we got serious." Jim might be surprised to learn that there already are a group of people who have been "getting serious" and trying to "fix the problems." I would have liked to see Jim run a couple of ideas past these people and maybe try co-operating with them for a bit before deciding that nothing short of a full-scale, Messianistic coup would do.

Hopefully the whole matter will be clearer after Jim finally speaks to the board on Thursday. I am very curious to hear what exactly Jim plans to do differently (and why he has kept his cards so close to his chest about it). However, Jim's approach so far (co-opting the 150 anniversary and using hot air and sweet nothings to try and drum up support, purley on the basis of his profile as a footballer) has already set alarm bells ringing as far as I'm concerned. Thankfully the current board has at least three level business minds (Starkins, Coglin and Phillips) who obviously place a lot of importance on their responsibilites as elected members. It would be a real shame to see these people painted as "trouble-makers" or "barriers to progress" given their obvious commitment and the great improvements made to the club over the last few years.

Your clear love of the previous Board is touching. Your contempt for a Stynes led Board before they took over was no less obvious. Rightly, you wanted to know more of Stynes' plans and his people, but it's also clear from the above post, dated 11 June 2008, that you were anti Stynes from the start and glowing in your thoughts of the previous Board. I've never been one to entertain ludicrous conspiracy theories, but I doubt you've had unbiased motives from the day you joined this website.

Others can form their own view. And I look forward to your next overly excited maniacal response.

PS: without wishing to sound a pedant, the word 'believe' isn't spelt "beleive". The first time I thought it was a typo, the second...

Cheers

Hugh