How we were dudded by Mission Foods @ The Dogs

[Sydney Pennski 294]

Caro tells the story in today's Age of how the Bulldogs beat us to the Mission Foods sponsorship - Bulldogs deny Dees in fight for sponsor.

On principle I have banned that product and associated products (KFC & Maccas wraps) from my household. I know it won't affect Mission but I'll feel better and healthier!

[grazman 7,406]

Another good article by Caro, and people will take what they want out of the story... hopefully there'll be recognition we were beaten to the punch by a more professional outfit. Expect to see more stories (but far more rabid) along this line the longer we go without a sponsor.

[Guest melbman]

Caro tells the story in today's Age of how the Bulldogs beat us to the Mission Foods sponsorship - Bulldogs deny Dees in fight for sponsor.

On principle I have banned that product and associated products (KFC & Maccas wraps) from my household. I know it won't affect Mission but I'll feel better and healthier!

I'm with you 150% on that one

Along with food made in China, mission foods products will never be bought by myself or by my family

[biggestred 5,015]

it would be nice if caro had pointed out that due to our crappy fixture we offer less exposure, because we play less on free to air and on [censored] sundays.

but noooooo

[Apocalypse XXXI 243]

I'm joining the boycott. Stuff their burritos, nachos and papadams!

[drdrake 3,162]

I like Caro she was a rumour only reporter a few years ago to today beng IMO the best footy Journo going around. In todays article you can see the reasons why the Bulldogs Won this sponser. They have the Australian Distributor on their board, the Dogs threw everyting they had at them, naming rights of their training complex and I'm sure signage that overlooks Geelong Rd. What Mission didn't take into account will be the rapid return to the bottom of the ladder for the bulldogs. If they make the finals this year it will be 6-8th and will not make it next year, they have no respectable KPP, by 2011 they will be bottom four. We are the opposite bottom 4 in 2009, 6-8th 2010, top four 2011, I might be one year ahead but you have to be positive.

We need a sponser that understands AFL and the need to re-build after 10 years of success with out the ultimate success. Don't be fooled by pretenders and that is what the dogs are pretenders they ae no threat to win a flag for the next 10 years.

[pitmaster 3,513]

By the time this contract runs out the dogs will be finishing 10-12 and will still have no KPPs and no flag. last year was as goodf as they can do.

the mexicans have done their dough - but by 2012 they'll be able to walk away in any case.

let's bury these pretenders round 8.

[casey scorp 2]

it would be nice if caro had pointed out that due to our crappy fixture we offer less exposure, because we play less on free to air and on [censored] sundays.

but noooooo

She did:

"The fact is the Demons are not exactly an exciting brand. They are without stars, their fixture for 2009 is a shocker in financial terms, they were the worst-performed club in the competition last year and their future looks the shakiest of all the 16 clubs."

[biggestred 5,015]

She did:

"The fact is the Demons are not exactly an exciting brand. They are without stars, their fixture for 2009 is a shocker in financial terms, they were the worst-performed club in the competition last year and their future looks the shakiest of all the 16 clubs."

i think caro is more pointing out there that we wont get as many people to games, rather than saying that we are intrinisically less attractive to sponsors because we have a [censored] fixture though.

why do we have to be labelled a "brand" anyway?

we are a football club. not a [censored] packaging company

[casey scorp 2]

i think caro is more pointing out there that we wont get as many people to games, rather than saying that we are intrinisically less attractive to sponsors because we have a [censored] fixture though.

I don't think that is the case - because the article is in the context of sponsorship I think she is clearly saying that people don't get excited about the Demons (and therefore MFC doesn't excite a potential sponsor) because:

* the club is without stars

* their fixture for 2009 is a shocker in financial terms

* they were the worst-performed club in the competition last year

* their future looks the shakiest of all the 16 clubs.

The first point should be overcome with the crop of early draft picks over the past couple of years - some of which could legitimately be expected to develop into stars.

The second is in the hands of the AFL for future years.

The third should see an improved result over the next 3 years as the recent high draft picks develop.

The fourth is in the hands of the Board.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

why do we have to be labelled a "brand" anyway?

Because MFC is one of 16 brands licensed by the AFL. And from a marketing and saleability point of view we are a poor brand for some of the reasons Casey Scorp and a few more.

The fourth is in the hands of the Board.

No its in the hands of the AFL and possibly the MCC if by the remote chance they want to take us over (they dont).

[Gouga 566]

Melbourne was the loser, leaving it the focus of ongoing debate as to whether the oldest AFL club in its current place, like O'hAilpin, could just prove to be expendable.

I'm a realist, I understand the Club has a lot of hard work ahead of it, but I'm sick of showboating journalists sticking the boots in when we are down (just like O'Ahilpin Caroline).

[titan_uranus 24,974]

I'm a realist, I understand the Club has a lot of hard work ahead of it, but I'm sick of showboating journalists sticking the boots in when we are down (just like O'Ahilpin Caroline).

That sentence is both clever and true. I too am sick of journalists over-hyping situations like ours. Mind you, I like Caro. But that sentence was a bit too much IMO.

[Clintosaurus 7,838]

I wonder if the Dogs signing up for $1.5 million per year compared to us negotiating and almost signing up for $2 million per year, as mentioned in the article, was a major influence in the final decision? Were we asking for too much?

Anyway, still 12 days until our first NAB Cup game so plenty of time for something to be sorted.

[titan_uranus 24,974]

I wonder if the Dogs signing up for $1.5 million per year compared to us negotiating and almost signing up for $2 million per year, as mentioned in the article, was a major influence in the final decision? Were we asking for too much?

Anyway, still 12 days until our first NAB Cup game so plenty of time for something to be sorted.

If Mission wanted to come to us, then they could have told us of the Bulldogs' deal and ask us to match it. I'm sure we would have.

I think bigger factors were the naming rights to their gym (or whatever the sponsor gets the naming right to) and the Bulldogs director who works for Mission.

[Sir Why You Little 36,971]

12 Days out from the NAB Cup and still no sponsor. I don't like the look of this year at all. We are in serious trouble. Nobody wants to touch our jumper at all. I hope i am wrong but i don't like our chances of long term survival without a major sponsor. Lets be honest, if it was another club we demonlanders would be circling over head waiting to draft a few players. But it is our club that HAS NO SPONSOR before the 2009 Season. Hold on tight Guys we are gonna have to fight Hard here.

[Guest hangon007]

If Mission wanted to come to us, then they could have told us of the Bulldogs' deal and ask us to match it. I'm sure we would have.

I think bigger factors were the naming rights to their gym (or whatever the sponsor gets the naming right to) and the Bulldogs director who works for Mission.

IMHO this was never really ours to win ... more about a deal for the Dogs to lose.

Mission where smart enough to "keep the bastards honest" and we where the pawn in their game.

[Chelly 810]

IMHO this was never really ours to win ... more about a deal for the Dogs to lose.

Mission where smart enough to "keep the bastards honest" and we where the pawn in their game.

Thankfully we won't see the crap logo again in the NAB Cup this year.

[H_T 3,043]

Thankfully we won't see the crap logo again in the NAB Cup this year.

We're in a dog eat dog world out there, get over it. Let's move onto the next sponsor.

[pringle 42]

We're in a dog eat dog world out there, get over it. Let's move onto the next sponsor.

You're right, but it really is a horrible looking logo. Though that takes nothing away from the fact that the Dogs have a sponsor and we don't. They may look terrible on the field, but at least they can be sure they will have the money to field a team over the next few years; we might be extinct.