Major Sponsor

[45HG 1,539]

DeeMFC, from memory PMac already had that Wimbeldon trip booked before he was hired and that was OK'd by the club.

It's hardly something you can hold against him.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

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

More lame excuses, this time featuring not only the common "financial crisis" but the rarer "Free to Air Schedule" and "Sunday Games" varieties.

Last year I think it was probably consisdered the Boards fault that the AFL got away with giving us such a poor draw. But then at least that is part of the reason we could justify a bigger AFL handout.

This year they do it again, back-to-back - but of course there is nothing that Stynes or Schwab could do about it. Oh and hasn't Jim done a fantastic job getting us another AFL handout.

It is clear that you, like the majority of posters on here, have a different set of standards when they are applied to brownlow medallists. That is understandable but also misguided.

And I'm glad you brought up tha old post of mine. At the time I remember that I was one of the few people who was apprehensive about the transition and who, like some of the previous board members, wanted some kind of reassurance before jumping headlong onto the bandwagon. I was greatly relieved when Jim finally unvieled his new board who seemed to have some impressive business credentials. You will probably find a post from me in your archive that says as much. The one thing that that post really makes clear is that I belong to a minority of people on this site who are not blinded by celebrity and who does not consider a fantastic career as a ruckman to be a reliable indication of what sort of a chairman that person might make. As you can tell from these sponsorship debates - nothing has changed on that front.

However, things got a little shaky from there. Whilst the tin-rattle was a great example of it's type (albeit we can't do it every year), P. Mac was handled poorly, sacked via the media with no replacement lined up and during a crucial period in our negotiations with Primus. Jim came out and publicly supported his mate Schwab for CEO thereby not only violating due process but also raising issues of accountability between the CEO and chairman positions. The Demon Summit gabfest was a good idea and it is to Jim's credit that the Demon Heartland initiative stemmed from that, but the extra layer of management that has allegedly been taken on by Schwab is an expensive concern. However, there is one elephant in the room here that tips the scales quite dramatically. When Jim took control of the club he identified the need to retain our current sponsors and attain new ones.

Well, the time has come now, six months after they took control, when Jim and his board can be assessed not only by the contents of their resumes but on their performance also. And going by Jim's own key perfomance indicator of sponsorship, perhaps the single most important issue at the club, they currently get an "F". If they manage to sign a major sponsor before the NAB cup they get a "D", if they get one before the start of the seasaon proper then perhaps a "D-". They are not only running out of excuses but time also.

Please enjoy pedantically foraging through my old posts for more spelling/grammatical errors. It would entertain me no end.

[Hannabal 4]

Please enjoy pedantically foraging through my old posts for more spelling/grammatical errors. It would entertain me no end.

I didn't have to "forage" mate, they're on the previous page.

And I don't expect you to be able to spell sesquipedalian, but 'believe', c'mon ! It's quite ironic that you can't spell the word.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I didn't have to "forage" mate, they're on the previous page.

And I don't expect you to be able to spell sesquipedalian, but 'believe', c'mon ! It's quite ironic that you can't spell the word.

On the contrary, it is not ironic but rather, apt. Because, unlike you, I do not put much stock in "faith".

If snuffling through my old posts like an insane truffle-pig has suddenly lost its appeal, perhaps you could instead start a website about Harris blowing up the twin towers or something.

Cheers

[Slartibartfast 15,872]

Keep to the topic guys, thanks.

[Little Goffy 12,707]

It's creepy how much people are willing to slash eachother's throats sometimes.

I guess it feels odd to just post a message saying

'I'm really tense about the sponsorship',

then add either

'especially since I don't have much confidence in the new board'

or

'but I'm confident that the new board will come through'.

But those three phrases pretty much cover the whole thread, bar the shouting.

I'm with option B there, for the record.

[e25 5]

It's creepy how much people are willing to slash eachother's throats sometimes.

I guess it feels odd to just post a message saying

'I'm really tense about the sponsorship',

then add either

'especially since I don't have much confidence in the new board'

or

'but I'm confident that the new board will come through'.

But those three phrases pretty much cover the whole thread, bar the shouting.

I'm with option B there, for the record.

Give that man a standing ovation

[52k2 0]

Now I am no genius in regards to all things financial, dont even own a wallet. My wife handles all the money. But one thing seems to me pretty easy to

understand. WHERE WOULD WE BE NOW IF NO BOARD CHANGED.

Well we MIGHT have a major sponsor [ no hard evidence of one] and we would be trying to service a debt approaching 6 MILLION dollars. I guess that made

the previous admin. the 6 MILLION dollar men.

This HUGE debt came out of nowhere, according to the previous admin in last years [2007] annual report we were doing fine.

Our membership base now wouldnt be as high as it is.

The alleged major sponsorship over 3 years would only pay for the debt incurred NOW, what were we going to use as money in the next 2 years of the

deal?

[Supreme_Demon 3,011]

I just want the MFC to have a major sponsor by the time our NAB cup match starts in a few days time.

Hopefully we have it all sorted out by then...

[Cards13 9,117]

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.

Hugh

...... I would hope they were magnanimous after presiding over a $5mill debt and almost the loss of our club. Laughable. Although the way the worlds financial institutions are run they would have been given $$ million dollar bonuses slapped on the back and told to carry, jolly good show old chap just before the institution goes out of business.

[Cards13 9,117]

Whilst there is no way that any of us can verify his claims about the sponsors, the denigration and dissmissal of Paul McNamee in this thread continues the worrying trend of Jimma jingoism.

The notion that Stynes would have kept him on if he got the sponsorships is laughable. Stynes was clearly falling over himself to appoint his mate Schwab to the position (even nominating him as a "mentor" for P. Mac). It seems to me that replacing P. Mac with Schwab was a bigger priority for Jim then securing a sponsor. I doubt not only the wisdom of this position but the motivations also.

P. Mac is a high profile type, his blackberry is probabaly nuclear powered. He was the ideal candidate for securing sponsorships for the club and I'm sure that this was one of the reasons he was given the job in the first place. The contemptuous dismissal of the possibility that P. Mac may have secured sponsors whilst at Wimbeldon not only shows an ignorance of corporate diplomacy generally (apparently the Primus deal was nutted out by Szondy and Primus MD Greg Wilson on a golf course), it also illustrates the desperation that certain people have when defending Jim's decisions right or wrong. Similarly, the idea that P. Mac was being negligent during his 40 day tenure with Stynes pays no heed to the reality of the situation i.e. he knew his number was up.

Furthermore, despite the inherently un-empiricle nature of P. Mac's claim, it does smack of veracity. Firstly, because he was sacked 8 days before the expiration of the extention of the Primus deal. And secondly, and more worryingly, because it is unsurprising that a sponsor would get cold feet in an environment where the CEO/negotiator is getting the sack a few months into the job, and where there has been a hostile board takeover. Frankly, I would not be surpirsed if the company in question had greater faith in P. Macs business acumen than in that of Stynes and his unknown potential appointee, I share those reservations.

So why was Jim in such a hurry to sack P. Mac during such a sensitive period anyway? Some of you have stated that P. Mac has some "serious ego". I suspect this is correct. He, like Jim, is a high profile sports celebrity. Perhaps it is possible that Jim didn't want to share the limelight? Could there have two egos to consider? If this was the case then it is to P. Mac's credit that he pursued sponsorship deals independently and opportunistically when it is likely that he was advised to keep a low profile. Of course the whole "mates" thing is also a worrying consideration. I beleive the reason that Jim cited for the sacking was that P. Mac didn't share the same "vision" or somesuch. Aside from the whole J. Brown fiasco (in my opinion the on-field stuff should be left to the expert on-field staff appointed by the board), I wonder how these "visions" were so different. I suspect sponsorship and finacial viabilty at least would have featured quite prominently in both of them. Lastly, there is another possible motivation for P. Mac's hasty sacking, that is, that he apparently wasn't Jim's first choice to begin with. Of course, it is (hopefully) to the previous board's credit that they consulted Jim on this matter, but I would hope that this wasn't the sole reason for sacking P. Mac so summarily at such a crucial time. We will never truly know if Jim's decision (and the timing of it's execution) to dismiss P. Mac was the right one, but one thing is certain: it was Jim's call and it is Jim's responsibily, much like the current sopnsorship situation is.

In any case, I started this post by pointung out that P. Mac's assertions are unverifiable. And it is true that he might have reason to make these claims (be they true or false) given the way he was treated by the Stynes board (i.e. reading about his dismissal in The Age). However, some of you state that P. Mac's reputation was damaged by the way in which he was brushed off. My worry is that this could end up damaging Jim's reputation, particularly if what P. Mac said is true. Amidst all this conjecture and the spite that is defensively being doled out to P. Mac, there are some facts that remain:

- P. Mac spent his last 40 days under a hostile administration.

- Whilst he was there we had a major sponsor and the option to renew our deal with them so this issue was less urgent.

- P. Mac had less time in the job then both Stynes and Schwab have had.

- We are not waiting for the draft to announce our new major sponsor.

- We are not waiting for the captaincy announcement to announce our new major sponsor.

- We are not waiting for the end of the Australian Open to announce our new major sponsor.

- We are not waiting for the AGM to announce our new major sponsor.

- We are (hopefully) not waiting for the "Youth Summit", the NAB Cup or the end of the "financial crisis" to announce our new major sponsor,

- WE DON'T HAVE A MAJOR SPONSOR, WE SHOULD HAVE ONE ALREADY, AND IF WE DON'T GET ONE SOON WE ARE SUNK

Some of you probably took something away from the announcement at the AGM tonight that we have something in the works. Apparently, we had the Mission Foods deal in the works. Words don't cut it for me anymore.

Cheers

P.S. As for you Hannabal Hugh, I (once again) suggest that you take your irrelevant crackpot theories and start a new thread with them in the "General" section. I'm sure that it will get all the attention that it deserves.

It is all done and dusted, Stynes and co are leading the club, PMac is no longer around for better or for worse we will never know. We have to deal with what we have now. A man who has put himself on the line for this club once again, working is tail off to try and save us from following Fitzroy into histories pages. It is fine to have concerns but you also have to have solutions otherwise it is just whinging. Where are you solutions to go with your concerns Haze? How are you helping the current admin bring on and retain a new sponsor long term and get the most value possible from the sponsor? How are you offering your services to ensure we have a membership base that grows instead of diminishing? How are you helping bring the fragmented sections of MFC people together as one and get behind the current board as ONE?

[Dees of 26 15]

I just want the MFC to have a major sponsor by the time our NAB cup match starts in a few days time.

Hopefully we have it all sorted out by then...

We will have and before the NAB cup game next week I think..

[BLWNBA 366]

We will have and before the NAB cup game next week I think..

On what grounds do you base this on? Hope you're right mate, but I'm getting very anxious!

[Dees of 26 15]

We will have and before the NAB cup game next week I think..

On what Jimmy and Cameron said at the AGM. I reckon they will want to wrap it up before the start of the NAB cup..

[Whispering_Jack 28,013]

On what grounds do you base this on? Hope you're right mate, but I'm getting very anxious!

I think what he means is that we're closer now than we were a week ago and in a week's time we'll be closer than we are now.

Other than that, nobody has a clue what's going on.

[Sir Why You Little 34,654]

On what Jimmy and Cameron said at the AGM. I reckon they will want to wrap it up before the start of the NAB cup..

Well they Better Hurry Up or we will be playing at the Amateurs at Elsternwick Park. I am very Worried about this

[Redleg 37,891]

I think what he means is that we're closer now than we were a week ago and in a week's time we'll be closer than we are now.

Other than that, nobody has a clue what's going on.

Or does he mean that we are now closer to our Nab cup game than we were a week ago and in a weeks time we will be closer to it than we are now?

[Supreme_Demon 3,011]

Well as long as we have a major sponsor at least a DAY before the start of our first NAB Cup match then it should be alright.

Because the MFC have gotta have enough time to put the new sponsor logos onto the jumpers.

How many more days is it to our first NAB Cup match by the way? About a week? 2 weeks? That should be enough time...

Otherwise, it's going to be very embarrassing for all of us who support or are involved with the Melbourne Demons at the start of the 2009 season....

[Rogue 585]

Otherwise, it's going to be very embarrassing for all of us who support or are involved with the Melbourne Demons

I won't be embarassed.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Otherwise, it's going to be very embarrassing for all of us who support or are involved with the Melbourne Demons at the start of the 2009 season....

No embarrassment here either.

[Dees of 26 15]

I think what he means is that we're closer now than we were a week ago and in a week's time we'll be closer than we are now.

Other than that, nobody has a clue what's going on.

Well put Jack... That list Jimmy was given at the AGM looked fairly long...It will happen.

[dreamin' man 0]

Crikey reports today on a deal between Vodafone & Hutchison:

"Vodafone will be the winner, and Hutchison will depart Australia eventually, with losses of well over $A2 billion...

It will spell the end of the "3" brand in Australia."

Bad news for Essendon (as far as I know 3 is their major sponsor) & further indication of how sponsorships are tightening up.

[e25 5]

Crikey reports today on a deal between Vodafone & Hutchison:

"Vodafone will be the winner, and Hutchison will depart Australia eventually, with losses of well over $A2 billion...

It will spell the end of the "3" brand in Australia."

Bad news for Essendon (as far as I know 3 is their major sponsor) & further indication of how sponsorships are tightening up.

I have a bit of inside info that says the mobile phone network market will be very tough for the current key players in about a years time.

3 is only the beginning.

[Rflowerwing 0]

It is all done and dusted, Stynes and co are leading the club, PMac is no longer around for better or for worse we will never know. We have to deal with what we have now. A man who has put himself on the line for this club once again, working is tail off to try and save us from following Fitzroy into histories pages. It is fine to have concerns but you also have to have solutions otherwise it is just whinging. Where are you solutions to go with your concerns Haze? How are you helping the current admin bring on and retain a new sponsor long term and get the most value possible from the sponsor? How are you offering your services to ensure we have a membership base that grows instead of diminishing? How are you helping bring the fragmented sections of MFC people together as one and get behind the current board as ONE?

Ah - it was only a matter of time.

The ultimate refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

"You can't criticise Rudd, his policies and the performance of his Government unless you can show how you would make a better PM with better policies yourself".

Bulldust.

The difference between Hazy, other Stynes critics and me on the one hand and Stynes, his Board and his administration on the other is that at no time did we come to the Board of the day, demand that they step aside and then hold ourselves out to members, supporters, the media, the AFL and other stakeholders as having the people, plans and vision to rebuild the Club and make us powerful and successful again. Stynes has made precisely these claims.

Unlike us, Stynes and his Board have nominated for election to the Board and received the endorsement of the members. This imposes responsibilities and accountability on Stynes that are not shared by us plebs. I have never said I could do a better job. All I have argued is that Stynes should deliver on his promises.

[Redleg 37,891]

The difference between Hazy, other Stynes critics and me on the one hand and Stynes, his Board and his administration on the other is that at no time did we come to the Board of the day, demand that they step aside and then hold ourselves out to members, supporters, the media, the AFL and other stakeholders as having the people, plans and vision to rebuild the Club and make us powerful and successful again. Stynes has made precisely these claims.

Unlike us, Stynes and his Board have nominated for election to the Board and received the endorsement of the members. This imposes responsibilities and accountability on Stynes that are not shared by us plebs. I have never said I could do a better job. All I have argued is that Stynes should deliver on his promises.

There is merit in your argument as if the Stynes led Board was seeking to replace the incumbent Board on the basis they could do it better, then they need to demonstrate exactly that. To date in respect to sponsorship they have not done so.

The real question might be how long are they given to achieve a sponsorship position improvement, that is more sponsorship in dollar terms. When is the date for comparison to be. I would suggest that by mid year at the latest an examination of the comparative positions could be taken and we would know the answer.

While we all know it is a difficult period to chase sponsorship I would have thought that a Board seeking to replace another would have had a few potential sponsors lined up before seeking to replace the incumbent Board. This does not appear to be the case. I must admit that is both surprising and disappointing.