Major Sponsor

[e25 5]

This is going to be a very interesting AGM tonight...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Bet its a non event.

[Guest hangon007]

Settle down boys lets not forget we are all on the same team here.

I've started a new thread ... Major Sponsor - How as supporters/ members can we add value?

It would be great to get your articulate positive constructive input across there if you could spare a few moments.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

[e25 5]

Bet its a non event.

Even that will be interesting...

[the_russian 17]

according to the herald sun, or maybe it was the age, the tigers are close to announcing luxbet as a new major sponsor. Would this open up a few opportunities for us with other betting agencies?

[Hannabal 4]

Bask? You're kidding me, right? I am distressed to watch Stynes lead this great Club headlong into the valley of tears to the cheers of leghumpers like you who think that he is the man for the moment because he did a good job selling you insurance in the 80's or because he was Brownlow medallist with a great story to tell.

Sorry to bore you. Solution - don't read my posts.

"Leghumpers" ? I never said he did a great job selling insurance and I don't particularly like the bloke. Unlike you, I'm prepared to give him a reasonable time in an invidious position.

Increased membership after taking the reins last year, on track for more members this year, debt demolition of $3 mil, negotiating extra revenue from AFL and MCC, a more inclusive relationship with supporters, cutting loose a wrongly appointed CEO by the previous Board, and regaining an initially reluctant and highly respected CEO in Schwab is a start. There's lots more to do.

Where did the previous Board go wrong Wing ? And how badly did they manage the affairs of the MFC ? What's your take ?

Btw, I don't believe you.

EDIT: Just off to the AGM. I look forward to you and Hazy venting your spleen at the appropriate time. Should be fun.

[Little Goffy 14,530]

It's staggering that the club somehow didn't know about this amazing new European sponsor which the CEO declared as his 'mission critical'.

You'd think that for $1,000 a day he could write a damn memo.

Feels a bit like he had a whole house of cards fantasy - In his mind he had already recruited Brown, and had already convinced the sponsors to sign on, since we were going to have this superstar of the game with us.

And now to undermine the club on the day of the AGM, obviously trying to stir up trouble amongst supporters...

There's some serious ego going on there.

Imagine the damage he'd be doing if he was still at the club.

We sure as #$#@ wouldn't have gotten Brown, and in the meantime we'd still have Carroll, and maybe would have lost Green as salary cap space was opened up to try to lure the imaginary Brown.

[Rogue 585]

Whilst I've been supportive of Stynes, and believe that he was one of the few people capable of driving the Debt Demolition Fund, his views on how we should progress on-field are contributing to our off-field woes.

Any other view of how we should approach list management leads nowhere (except mediocrity).

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

In my biased opinion this was done;

- In spite, to destabilise the AGM.

- To muddy the waters re his capabilities or lack thereof.

Poor form. Put up or shut up PMac.

Best summation of the issue I've heard so far. Either he had 6m sponsorship deals in the works, in which case nobody would have booted him, or he was a guy that sucked us in with a really good powerpoint presentation that was out of his depth and needed to get the boot. Either way he is now a memory and the only worthwile thing any of us can do is unite behind the club and look toward the future.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

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.

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

Whichever way we look at it, we seem to be getting a picture of a CEO who is not on the same page as the board of the club he's supposed to be serving. He seems to have acted on his own and not reported in writing to the board on his progress with sponsorships and then there's the Jonathan Brown issue. These matters seem to vindicate the new board's decision that he was not the right fit for the club.

[montasaurus 0]

Rumor on the radio this morning that a club is having a big media conference today at 10am.... lets cross our fingers

[drdrake 3,163]

You would think that if we had signed one the members would have been told last night that we just done the deal and details will be released tomorrow.

[LeBron James 41]

Rumor on the radio this morning that a club is having a big media conference today at 10am.... lets cross our fingers

Bloody hope so mate.

[Angry_Bird 0]

I don't think it is fair for anyone to character assassinate either PM or Jim. Both of them believe that whilst in their respective roles they have done what they believe is best for the club.

PM should probably not have made those comments the day before the AGM - my guess would be that he has been asked numerous times about the sponsorship at Melbourne (as it has become such a pressing issue) and he believes that he answered it truthfully. There is nothing to suggest that his opinion that two companies that he was in talks with were well on the way to signing up for 2009. It is not in his interest to make the story up. It is not his style.

As for Jim, he obviously was not privy to PM's discussions with the European company as his role is chairman of the board which is not a day-to-day management role. It is fair to assume that due to the haste in which PM was terminated, no handover was ever completed and therefore the information could not be shared.

I believe both men are telling the truth. Let's stop assassinating either of these men's character. Whether or not you think PM was right for his role as CEO or you believe Jim is right for the role of President, there is no need to call either of the liars.

Let's move on guys. Yesterdays news is going to keep my chips oily and warm at lunchtime today.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Whichever way we look at it, we seem to be getting a picture of a CEO who is not on the same page as the board of the club he's supposed to be serving. He seems to have acted on his own and not reported in writing to the board on his progress with sponsorships and then there's the Jonathan Brown issue. These matters seem to vindicate the new board's decision that he was not the right fit for the club.

Exactly right Jack. Such behaviour by a CEO regardless of the corporate climate is inexcusable and indefensible no matter what the political saber rattling against the current administration is concocted by those with their own axes to grind

[phoenix 32]

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.

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.

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?

Paul has been damaged by what happened. He has motive but I find it hard to believe this claim came from nothing. From my personal experiences of professional disappointment I think it's easy to rewrite/interpret history favourably. My suspicion is that Paul Mac mentioned sponsorship to someone who didn't dismiss it. But we'll never know.

This whole sponsorship argument is a bit of a pillow fight for mine. Nobody here knows. And I confess to not having waded my way through all the posts but it seems to me that the real culprit here is Harris. During economic glory days we should have been offering Primus an extention or negotiating and signing a new sponsor for when Primus didn't extend. If we couldn't do this for contractual reasons we still had the duty to make such good contract and develop such good relations with other corporates that they were waiting in the wings when Primus didn't continue.

To suggest Paul Mc or Schwab are negligent is missing the point IMO as major sponsorships are rarely established in weeks even in the good times. In today's economic climate it's even more difficult.

MFC's performance with corporates for just about as long as I can remember has been terrible so no major sponsor is no surprise to me. It is certainly not the sole responsibility of Paul Mc or Schwab. It probably rests more comfortably with Harris.

But that probably suits no body's agenda.

[Clintosaurus 7,844]

)This whole sponsorship argument is a bit of a pillow fight for mine. Nobody here knows. And I confess to not having waded my way through all the posts but it seems to me that the real culprit here is Harris. During economic glory days we should have been offering Primus an extention or negotiating and signing a new sponsor for when Primus didn't extend. If we couldn't do this for contractual reasons we still had the duty to make such good contract and develop such good relations with other corporates that they were waiting in the wings when Primus didn't continue.

Negotiating with a new sponsor before the current arrangement expires isn't bad form. Manchester United recently found out that AIG won't be renewing after the current contract expires in June 2010, and since then have been in negotiations with selected organisations for July 2010 onwards. They are asking for upwards of 20 million pounds and it appears that there won't be much trouble in getting it.

I would have thought we would have explored other options even if Primus were going to extend, just in case. Anyway, hopefully something arrives soon.

[H_T 3,043]

Whichever way we look at it, we seem to be getting a picture of a CEO who is not on the same page as the board of the club he's supposed to be serving. He seems to have acted on his own and not reported in writing to the board on his progress with sponsorships and then there's the Jonathan Brown issue. These matters seem to vindicate the new board's decision that he was not the right fit for the club.

Exactly right Jack. Such behaviour by a CEO regardless of the corporate climate is inexcusable and indefensible no matter what the political saber rattling against the current administration is concocted by those with their own axes to grind

Totally agree.

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. Whether or not that has stemmed from PM himself or Mark Stevens, its pathetic to say the very least.

[Hannabal 4]

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.

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 ?

[Mousey 47]

Did that rumour end up being true? anything said at 10am anywhere?

[Demonator 93]

Did that rumour end up being true? anything said at 10am anywhere?

I havent seen or heard anything mate?! nothing on any website either?

[Mousey 47]

dam it.... back to my waiting cage..

[Rogue 585]

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.

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.

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.

[Demon_Tingles 211]

Real Estate why don't we go after a sponsor like that. They are sure to have some cash and as far as I know no sporting team in Australia is sponsored by a real estate company.