Stoked to find the tyres i bought about a month ago are Hankooks. My car has never been so smooth on the road. The grip is amazing. best tyres ever

Stoked to find the tyres i bought about a month ago are Hankooks. My car has never been so smooth on the road. The grip is amazing. best tyres ever

That's good to know. Tell us what they are like in 6-12 months.

Stoked to find the tyres i bought about a month ago are Hankooks. My car has never been so smooth on the road. The grip is amazing. best tyres ever

Do they have the famous Hankook Silica Technology?

"A tyre for drivers who care for there cars and the environment"

Can it get any better? not only a co-sponsor but doin there bit for the environment...

Great work Schwabby & Co.. they really are making the right moves...

Hi Demon fans,

I'm with LD Wholesale Tyres, the Hankook distributors in Vic/Tas and new major sponsor for the MFC! Thought it might be a good idea to join the number 1 Demon forum in case any of you have any questions regarding Hankook or LD Wholesale - where to get them, which tyres to choose etc

We are very excited about the opportunity to be officially involved with the Demons and look forward to a long and prosperous association.

Hope to se some of you at family day on Sunday and at the G throughout the year!

Go Dees!

Great to have you on board. I think there is an enormous collective sigh of relief today and Melbourne fans will be forever grateful to this company and whoever the 2nd sponsor turns out to be, more so than any other sponsors in our history.

I too am one of the unfortunate ones who bought a new set of tyres 2 months ago otherwise I`d be buying a set for sure.

Very exciting day for MFC

think about it..we announce the first major sponsor now and they cop a heap of publicity and then the next sponsor gets equal publicity..secondary announcement means that the companies dont share the spotlight. Smart marketing ploy.

Yep - the first one is the 'long awaited relief' - everybody pays attention.

The second one is the 'Demons really firing up' deal which arrives with a real sense of triumph.

Hankook. I can say now I'll remember the name for a long time, since they were there at sch a critical moment.

I didn't think you were blaming me and I agree with you completely about the pointless posts. I just wanted to set the record straight because you deleted the relevant posts.

Perhaps someone might like to start a thread specifially about why they disagree with my views/don't like my attitude. I'd do it myself but I don't want to seem self-important.

Perhaps we should continue this discussion via PM so that we don't make more pointless posts?

Hazy,

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

Get on board (without equivocation or the need to point score) and just recognise that despite what occurred with previous administrations, Jimmy and Schwabby have got the job done in a big way.

The MFC starts its new journey back to power as of now..........no need to rake over the old coals.

Go Dees............let's be united on this one..........OK!!!!!???

Enough with the finger pointing please.......

Congrats to the powers that be within the admin of the club (Schwab etc) to get this done.

And well done and thanks to the people at Hankook for coming on board.

This is a good day for the club and should be celebrated, so lets just do that shall we.

Hazy,

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

Get on board (without equivocation or the need to point score) and just recognise that despite what occurred with previous administrations, Jimmy and Schwabby have got the job done in a big way.

The MFC starts its new journey back to power as of now..........no need to rake over the old coals.

Go Dees............let's be united on this one..........OK!!!!!???

Hi iv'a, I'm glad to see that you are back on the forum. A conspicuous presence if ever I saw one.

Would you mind pointing out what I was wrong about? (You might need to start a new thread though because I don't think I've been wrong about the sponsorship issue to date).

cheers

Would you mind pointing out what I was wrong about? (You might need to start a new thread though because I don't think I've been wrong about the sponsorship issue to date).

Yeah I don't think we need a thread pointing at you Hazy, so if you or anyone else wants to keep this quibble going please take it off the board......please.

Yeah I don't think we need a thread pointing at you Hazy, so if you or anyone else wants to keep this quibble going please take it off the board......please.

couldn't agree more, so let's both stop going on about it - shall we?

To all those Posters on here who a few weeks back REALLY GOT STUCK IN TO STYNESY & THE BOARD....I expect a full apology. Your Behavior was completely childish & disrespectful.

Easily pleased aren't you?

The Hankook announcement is most welcome and well done to those concerned - we are certainly better off today than we were this time last week. But:

- this isn't a "major sponsorship". It isn't even a second tier sponsorship using the AFL's classification system. It's a third tier sponsorship which may cover the cost of a single middle ranked player

- there has been a period of over 4 months between the cessation of the Primus sponsorship and the Hankook announcement. Using the Primus $$$ as a baseline this delay in securing a new sponsor equates to a revenue hole of c. $350k in the current financial year.

Like everyone else I eagerly await the announcement of the "back of jumper sponsor" soon.

have we sold the sox-space yet ???

To keep this in perspective , we started the week without a major co sponsor and now we have one.To me that sounds like a positive!

In my view the "Glass is half full" ! I have no doubt Jimmy and team will come through with the goods with the 2nd major sponsor. You can't avoid or deny the positive results that Jimmy and the team are bringing to our club.

have we sold the sox-space yet ???

maybe we should do a carlton and mill hana, lets tattoo the next sponsors name on nathan jones head. B)

To keep this in perspective , we started the week without a major co sponsor and now we have one.To me that sounds like a positive!

In my view the "Glass is half full" ! I have no doubt Jimmy and team will come through with the goods with the 2nd major sponsor. You can't avoid or deny the positive results that Jimmy and the team are bringing to our club.

Look it's definitely a great development but I think you are the one lacking perspective here. Yes we have a $700k/year sponsor and another co-sponsor expected to make an announcement soon but that doesn't change the fact that

- this development came much later than anyone would have hoped.

- we did not have a sponsor for the NAB cup games and we came dangerously close to not having one by the start of the season.

- we have been haemorrhaging over the last few months whilst we didn't have a sponsor.

- we were beaten to the mission foods deal by the bulldogs.

- we were the very last team to secure a sponsor this year.

Now none of this changes the fact that the Hankook co-sponsorship deal is great news and all credit to Jim and his team and the good folks at Hankook for sorting it out. However, overall I'd give the current administration a D- on the sponsorship front. Maybe a D if they get both sponsors on the jumper before the start of season and it adds up to more than $1.5M/year.

That's perspective.

Look it's definitely a great development but I think you are the one lacking perspective here. Yes we have a $700k/year sponsor and another co-sponsor expected to make an announcement soon but that doesn't change the fact that

- this development came much later than anyone would have hoped.

- we did not have a sponsor for the NAB cup games and we came dangerously close to not having one by the start of the season.

- we have been haemorrhaging over the last few months whilst we didn't have a sponsor.

- we were beaten to the mission foods deal by the bulldogs.

- we were the very last team to secure a sponsor this year.

Now none of this changes the fact that the Hankook co-sponsorship deal is great news and all credit to Jim and his team and the good folks at Hankook for sorting it out. However, overall I'd give the current administration a D- on the sponsorship front. Maybe a D if they get both sponsors on the jumper before the start of season and it adds up to more than $1.5M/year.

That's perspective.

I think you are forgetting two important facts from 2008

1. We finished a very poor Last & our 2009 Fixture is not great to say the least

2. We are now in a serious world recession whereby thousands of people are losing jobs.

For these reasons i consider the naming of a sponsor & a 2nd one by round 1 to be a fantastic effort.

So get off there back because i doubt you could do a better job.

However, overall I'd give the current administration a D- on the sponsorship front. Maybe a D if they get both sponsors on the jumper before the start of season and it adds up to more than $1.5M/year.

That's perspective.

Wouldn't $1.5m be more than we got last year from our major sponsor? That of course would have been in a better economic climate and not coming off last position on the ladder with a $5m debt.

What mark will you give the Board on a financial basis if they wipe off the debt left by the last Board?

I think you are forgetting two important facts from 2008

1. We finished a very poor Last & our 2009 Fixture is not great to say the least

2. We are now in a serious world recession whereby thousands of people are losing jobs.

For these reasons i consider the naming of a sponsor & a 2nd one by round 1 to be a fantastic effort.

So get off there back because i doubt you could do a better job.

1. a ) We have a promising young team that can only improve

b ) I thought Jim had a good relationship with the AFL? If so, why do we have another bad fixture? Do you give Jim credit for the AFL payout when this is largely based upon our bad fixture?

2. Every other club, including the bulldogs, is in the same recession. We were the last ones to get a sponsor.

3. I didn't put my hand up for the job in the first place.

4. It's not a fantasitic effort it is only barely a Pass grade.

5. I'm not on their backs, I'm simply adding my view on what constitutes "perspective" - just like you. However, I feel that your "perspective" is decidedly rose-tinted.

And here I was thinking that Melbourne supporters were fed up with applauding mediocrity...

cheers

Wouldn't $1.5m be more than we got last year from our major sponsor? That of course would have been in a better economic climate and not coming off last position on the ladder with a $5m debt.

What mark will you give the Board on a financial basis if they wipe off the debt left by the last Board?

I chose $1.5m/year because that (from memory) is the value of the mission foods deal. I expect that most sponsorship deals are bigger than their predecessors. The Primus deal was certainly bigger than the LG deal. If you beleive the rumours, P. Mac was looking at a deal worth around $2m. There is every chance that Jim could still put together something worth over $1.5m, I think I read that the back-of-the-jumper-only luxbet sponsorship is worth around $1m/year for the tiges. If Jim put together a deal worth around 1.5M several months ago, then I would give him a much better grade.

I don't see what our debt has to do with the sponsorship issue. The tin rattle was great but anyone could have fired that one shot pistol. I just hope that Jim doesn't waste that money hiring and firing and spending months without sponsorship income.

1. a ) We have a promising young team that can only improve

b ) I thought Jim had a good relationship with the AFL? If so, why do we have another bad fixture? Do you give Jim credit for the AFL payout when this is largely based upon our bad fixture?

2. Every other club, including the bulldogs, is in the same recession. We were the last ones to get a sponsor.

3. I didn't put my hand up for the job in the first place.

4. It's not a fantasitic effort it is only barely a Pass grade.

5. I'm not on their backs, I'm simply adding my view on what constitutes "perspective" - just like you. However, I feel that your "perspective" is decidedly rose-tinted.

And here I was thinking that Melbourne supporters were fed up with applauding mediocirty...

cheers

A very simplistic view of things, sometimes people forget where we started from and where they are heading, if it was as easy as you think then all clubs would be doing it on the bit!!

Look it's definitely a great development but I think you are the one lacking perspective here. Yes we have a $700k/year sponsor and another co-sponsor expected to make an announcement soon but that doesn't change the fact that

- this development came much later than anyone would have hoped.

- we did not have a sponsor for the NAB cup games and we came dangerously close to not having one by the start of the season.

- we have been haemorrhaging over the last few months whilst we didn't have a sponsor.

- we were beaten to the mission foods deal by the bulldogs.

- we were the very last team to secure a sponsor this year.

Now none of this changes the fact that the Hankook co-sponsorship deal is great news and all credit to Jim and his team and the good folks at Hankook for sorting it out. However, overall I'd give the current administration a D- on the sponsorship front. Maybe a D if they get both sponsors on the jumper before the start of season and it adds up to more than $1.5M/year.

That's perspective.

your a hard demon to please,i workmate told me today that theres 10clubs whos sponorships expire at the end of 09,so if we can tie another company up for 3yrs we mite be doing a lot better than others,imagine competing against 10 clubs, credit were credits due Hazy.

A very simplistic view of things, sometimes people forget where we started from and where they are heading, if it was as easy as you think then all clubs would be doing it on the bit!!

Actually the simple view is:

"Jim bleeds read and blue for the team and he must be doing a great job because he was such a great player."

As far as I know all clubs are doing it, if by "it" you mean getting sponsors. We just happened to be the last ones to get it done.

Your accusation is barely comprehesible, does not address any of the points I have made, does not add anything to this debate and smacks of serious irony.

your a hard demon to please,i workmate told me today that theres 10clubs whos sponorships expire at the end of 09,so if we can tie another company up for 3yrs we mite be doing a lot better than others,imagine competing against 10 clubs, credit were credits due Hazy.

I think you will find that I have given credit for the $700k Hankook sponsorship deal, made at the end of the NAB cup, several times already. I suspect that you just want me to give it more credit than it deserves.

I think you will also find that expecting a timely sponsorship deal for an averagish amount is not "hard to please".

1. a ) We have a promising young team that can only improve

b ) I thought Jim had a good relationship with the AFL? If so, why do we have another bad fixture? Do you give Jim credit for the AFL payout when this is largely based upon our bad fixture?

2. Every other club, including the bulldogs, is in the same recession. We were the last ones to get a sponsor.

3. I didn't put my hand up for the job in the first place.

4. It's not a fantasitic effort it is only barely a Pass grade.

5. I'm not on their backs, I'm simply adding my view on what constitutes "perspective" - just like you. However, I feel that your "perspective" is decidedly rose-tinted.

And here I was thinking that Melbourne supporters were fed up with applauding mediocrity...

cheers

1. a ) We have a promising young team that can only improve

What a trite response. Doesn't every club have a team with potential ? Does our team have potential because it's young and they're the reigning wooden spooners, or because you have facts that make it more appealing. You're trying to convey that we're attractive to sponsors because our team "can only improve". On prospective sponsors list of key criterion in choosing a club to sponsor yours doesn't make top 50. Especially when it's so subjective. However, it's no surprise that it suits your jaundiced views.

2. Every other club, including the bulldogs, is in the same recession. We were the last ones to get a sponsor.

Was every club looking for a naming rights sponsor at the same time ? No, but it doesn't suit your agenda to point out such inconveniences. Not even one fifth of the competition was coming out of sponsorship. And every impartial AFL fan would say that we were the least attractive.

3. I didn't put my hand up for the job in the first place.

How do we know ? You're an anonymous forum user. From your past offerings I'd hardly wager that the 'truth' was your major at Uni.

4. It's not a fantasitic effort it is only barely a Pass grade.

Fair comment in isolation. More work needs to be done. And most of us recognise the extenuating circumstances.

5. I'm not on their backs, I'm simply adding my view on what constitutes "perspective" - just like you. However, I feel that your "perspective" is decidedly rose-tinted.

Fancy you calling someone 'rose-tinted' when your only reason for joining this forum was to agitate against Stynes and his new Board due to your connections with the old Board.

You've got about as much chance of getting a dose of perspective as you have of spelling the word 'believe' correctly.

Easily pleased aren't you?

The Hankook announcement is most welcome and well done to those concerned - we are certainly better off today than we were this time last week. But:

- this isn't a "major sponsorship". It isn't even a second tier sponsorship using the AFL's classification system. It's a third tier sponsorship which may cover the cost of a single middle ranked player

- there has been a period of over 4 months between the cessation of the Primus sponsorship and the Hankook announcement. Using the Primus $$$ as a baseline this delay in securing a new sponsor equates to a revenue hole of c. $350k in the current financial year.

Like everyone else I eagerly await the announcement of the "back of jumper sponsor" soon.

First, yes it is a major sponsor, a third tier sponsor we'd be talking about a digit less.

Secondly, a mid-ranked player is typically less than $200,000 a year - Brendan Fevola is barely more than $700k a year.

Finally, $700k a season is $700k a season. Are you suggesting that they would have paid an extra $350k to have the four months of off-season over 08-09?

Frankly, I'm struggling to understand your attitude there, except for possible sour grapes? That is very much what it looks like, I'm afraid.