Demons land $2.1 million sponsor

[Rflowerwing 0]

Dear rabid Jim supporters,

If the very welcome but nevertheless very late, tier-3, $700k/year Hankook minor sponsorship is such a great deal, why has the club sacked its Commercial Operations Director who has overall charge of the Partners and Corporate areas of the club? This is the area responsible for identifying and securing sponsors.

And does it make sense to sack Brad whilst the back of jumper "major co-sponsorship" is still up in the air?

What is the difference between a "major co-sponsorship" and a "minor sponsorship"?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Do you know what exactly Schwab did or didn't know?

And if our deal was undercut but the Bulldogs what would you have us do? Undercut ourselves even more to get said deal? Because from where I sit that probably would have ended in you being enormously critical of the administration anyway. It seems to have been forgotten in all this wrangling that the potential sponsors hold the cards and the money and therefore they can make any decision they chose. And it really won't matter what we do or how good our current administration is, because at the end of the day it is their choice, and they know we (and other clubs) are a little desperate for their sponsorship. Is this deal the best? Maybe, maybe not, but it could well be the best we could get (and we should still be thrilled that we got it) at this particular junction in our rehab.

And for you to ponder hazy, not agreeing with the current board does not make what is going on there wrong, and while you criticise others in here fore being (too) optimistic, that is not a crime, nor is pessimism, but if you want people to see things from your opinion, you really should have the ability to see things from the other side as well. You talk about your first post being positive, great, but since then it has been an endless stream of negativity against the current administration. That is your right (and it good to have differing opinions it is what makes sites like this work), but while this may not fulfil your criteria for a "good deal" it is what it is, and it is most definitely a huge step in the right direction. And hopefully it is only the first step.

Actually QueenC, if the club had managed to secure the Mission Foods deal I would still be critical of the deal because it would still have been inexcusably late. However, at least it would be less late than our current deal(s) and at least it wouldn't be obvious that our administration lost a head-on confrontation - I might have even given them a "C-". To say that there is nothing we can do on our side to improve our chances of getting sponsorship is the most ridiculous cop out yet and you know it. If this is the case then why does the club pay (and pay-out) executive salaries to people who are employed for just this purpose? Why did Jim make a big deal of his "connections" when he took over? Why does Jim get credit for the Hankook deal?

And by the way, I don't think our sponsorship situation is bad because I disagree with it. I think it's bad because it's late and not particularly good. It's hard to see things form "the other side" when "the other side" simply ignores these facts. The reason you seem to be getting an endless strem of negativity from me is because I am replying to and endless stream of nit-wits who don't acknowledge the facts and who for some reason think that this very late minor sponsorship deal with Hankook should somehomw force me to eat my words.

[Jarka 767]

Why? Because you consider $1.5M/year to be a "not great" outcome.

And, putting things in context - we have (hopefully) been looking for a new major sponsor since the middle of last year so the fact that we have been so slow to get one wihlst the financial crisis continues to worsten, does not exactly speak highly of our administration.

No, you misunderstood my query.

Why would I be dissapointed with having a sponsor in a very unstable environment?

Sure it's not the best deal in the market but the 'not great' comment was in context with the deal that we were initially discussing with them.

I get the feeling that you're trying to create an agrument out of something that doesn't exist, have fun with that, cheers

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

What is the difference between a "major co-sponsorship" and a "minor sponsorship"?

A spot on the jumper and some PR spin?

[Junior 46]

IF we manage to get $1.5 mill/year in the current economic environment, AND after one of the worst onfield performances ever displayed by an AFL club AND despite the fact that we effectively ran at a loss of $3mill+ last year I think we've done very well. The fact that it's late isn't ideal, but we have locked in Hankook and I'm sure there'll be another major sponsor within a week or two.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

No, you misunderstood my query.

Why would I be dissapointed with having a sponsor in a very unstable environment?

Sure it's not the best deal in the market but the 'not great' comment was in context with the deal that we were initially discussing with them.

I get the feeling that you're trying to create an agrument out of something that doesn't exist, have fun with that, cheers

You said the bulldogs' deal was "not great". Have you changed you mind because our deal is even later, even though we had a head-start on the bulldogs and the global financial situation at the time was better? Or did you change you mind because you realised that after we finally secure our other "major co-sponsor"we are likely to end up with a deal for a simliar amount?

I get the feeling that you are trying to wriggle out of your position on the mission deal, have fun with that, cheers

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

IF we manage to get $1.5 mill/year in the current economic environment, AND after one of the worst onfield performances ever displayed by an AFL club AND despite the fact that we effectively ran at a loss of $3mill+ last year I think we've done very well. The fact that it's late isn't ideal, but we have locked in Hankook and I'm sure there'll be another major sponsor within a week or two.

Not ideal? Come to think of it, I guess a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in sposonrship revenue is "not ideal" after all.

[Jarka 767]

You said the bulldogs' deal was "not great". Have you changed you mind because our deal is even later, even though we had a head-start on the bulldogs and the global financial situation at the time was better? Or did you change you mind because you realised that after we finally secure our other "major co-sponsor"we are likely to end up with a deal for a simliar amount?

I get the feeling that you are trying to wriggle out of your position on the mission deal, have fun with that, cheers

The doggies deal with Mission is not great compared to the initial deal that we were discussing with them.

Surely this concept isn't too difficult to understand, even for you. It's a simple matter of the dollar amounts invovled.

/sigh

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

The doggies deal with Mission is not great compared to the initial deal that we were discussing with them.

Surely this concept isn't too difficult to understand, even for you. It's a simple matter of the dollar amounts invovled.

/sigh

Yeah, I guess where I went wrong was where I responded to what you actually wrote, not what you wish you wrote.

/(dramatic) sigh

[Jarka 767]

Yeah, I guess where I went wrong was where I responded to what you actually wrote, not what you wish you wrote.

/(dramatic) sigh

Whatever helps you sleep at night kid.

Clearly you're up for an argument, let's not bother tip toeing around meaningless discussions, I'll assist in the matter...

I think you're a mindless [censored] who only sees what they want to see in a post to start a non-existant argument.

The ball is now in your court, enjoy the next 5 minutes of your life getting uptight and red faced over the verbal diarrhoea that you're about to reply with

[Junior 46]

Not ideal? Come to think of it, I guess a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in sposonrship revenue is "not ideal" after all.

Assuming we get the second sponsor, we will receive 1.5 mill a year for shirt sponsorship, which is 50% more than what we were on previously. As I said, this is despite the economy and our woeful onfield in 08.

Worth the wait.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Sorry guys, but this is now getting very boring.

Let's just get on with it, shall we? The seasons is just under 2 weeks away and you can't undo what you can't undo.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Whatever helps you sleep at night kid.

Clearly you're up for an argument, let's not bother tip toeing around meaningless discussions, I'll assist in the matter...

I think you're a mindless [censored] who only sees what they want to see in a post to start a non-existant argument.

The ball is now in your court, enjoy the next 5 minutes of your life getting uptight and red faced over the verbal diarrhoea that you're about to reply with

How droll. You accuse me of tiptoeing around the issues when I have been focused solely on the facts surrounding the Hankook deal.

And then you respond with a childish insult. Talk about meaningless!

I always know when I have won an argument at the footy with a collingwood supporter. It's when they completely abandon the subject and start hurling abuse. I didn't expect to see it here though!

Sorry guys, but this is now getting very boring.

Let's just get on with it, shall we? The seasons is just under 2 weeks away and you can't undo what you can't undo.

So you have abandoned your ridiculous crusade to make me

Be a big man and a good Dees supporter and just admit you were wrong.

?

Suits me. I got bored of that a while back.

Assuming we get the second sponsor, we will receive 1.5 mill a year for shirt sponsorship, which is 50% more than what we were on previously. As I said, this is despite the economy and our woeful onfield in 08.

Worth the wait.

What a load of BS. The bulldogs' "Lease Plan" deal was $1m/year. Clealry the price of sponsorship has gone up over the last few years - not surprising given that the Primus deal was worth more than the LG deal. Which means the price of going without a sponsor for months on end has gone up as well. You must think that the bulldogs admin are simply amazing to tee up their huge $1.5M so promptly and under such trying economic circumstances. You must think that the Tigers getting $1m/year for their back-of-jumper-sponsor only, in the same economic circumstances and despite having made the finals only once since finishing 3rd in 1995, makes them financial wizards. We should send Wayne Swan down to Punt Road to see how it's done!

[demon3165 2,718]

Hazyshadeofgrinter you still going on about the same old thing it is becoming tiresome are you hoping for a flood of people to start agreeing with you because that is not happening, you are also becoming the third person on your posts answering a post then posting again are you trying to be number one in this area, as for being obsessed if asking a question is being obsessed then you clearly don't know the meaning of the word so how about moving on, get a bit more positive so we all don't go the sleep at the computer skimming over your posts!!

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

So you have abandoned your ridiculous crusade to make me

?

Absolutely correct. Clearly a pointless exercise and I just want to now accentuate the positive. As I said, the [censored] for tat argument is getting boring and not just from your side Hazy.

[Dannyz 2,740]

I can today confirm Melbourne Football Club have rejected a deal from Thaibev company Chang Beer worth $1AUD over 4 years for the Shirt Back corp. sponsorship.

More news as I'm told.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Hazyshadeofgrinter you still going on about the same old thing it is becoming tiresome are you hoping for a flood of people to start agreeing with you because that is not happening, you are also becoming the third person on your posts answering a post then posting again are you trying to be number one in this area, as for being obsessed if asking a question is being obsessed then you clearly don't know the meaning of the word so how about moving on, get a bit more positive so we all don't go the sleep at the computer skimming over your posts!!

The best way to stop me from making so many replies is to stop making so many stupid posts - especially when they are addressed to me specifically.

Also, even though it means you have to go on about the same old thing, can you please try and stay on topic? It's getting tiresome.

Why don't you move on and get more realistic so I don't go to sleep at the computer responding to your posts?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I can today confirm Melbourne Football Club have rejected a deal from Thai company Chang Beer worth $1AUD over 4 years for the Shirt Back corp. sponsorship.

More news as I'm told.

Was that supposed to be $1Million/year? If so, that is very encouraging news indeed!

[Dannyz 2,740]

Was that supposed to be $1Million/year? If so, that is very encouraging news indeed!

No, $250,000 per year.

From what I can gather, the deal was rejected because of geographical terms as well as lack of funding.

[demon3165 2,718]

The best way to stop me from making so many replies is to stop making so many stupid posts - especially when they are addressed to me specifically.

Also, even though it means you have to go on about the same old thing, can you please try and stay on topic? It's getting tiresome.

Why don't you move on and get more realistic so I don't go to sleep at the computer responding to your posts?

Wish you would!!!....

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Absolutely correct. Clearly a pointless exercise and I just want to now accentuate the positive. As I said, the [censored] for tat argument is getting boring and not just from your side Hazy.

I'm glad that you can see that now. I'll just continue to accentuate the reality.

Good to have you back.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Wish you would!!!....

no, you are!

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

no, you are!

hazy,i admire your blind courage,you simply just dont give up.

[gOLLy 401]

Can I start chanting "Fight... Fight... Fight?"

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

hazy,i admire your blind courage,you simply just dont give up.

You clearly missed the point of my last post. Let me spell it out for you:

These one-line jibes that have begun to get thrown in my direction do not bother me. Nor do they add anything to the debate.

All any of you acheive by indulging yourselves in this sort of taunting, is to make yourselves look childish and to make yourselves look like you have comprehensively lost an argument.

If you and others like you, no longer wish to discuss the sponsorship situation and would instead prefer to spend your time sniping at me, then I suggest you start a thread about me in the general section. It would probably be in breach of the code of conduct but, so low is the esteem in which I regard your opinions, I would not be moved to complain.

cheers