Demons land $2.1 million sponsor

[demon3165 2,801]

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.

1. This club is having a total rebuild from top to bottom and for the first time in a long time they are laying down long term plans for the future not bandages just put on a spot but that takes time if we are to attract the top end of the town then one needs to act like one that is what they are doing.

2. DB and the club has taken the the view of what is needed with our playing group, they are damm young and will take time but as each day goes by things will get better they will become a tighter group and great things can come out of that just look at the Dorks, Cats etc. and an attitude of we will win no matter how far down we are, not we hope to win

3. Think about what would had happened if the board did not reduce the debt at the time doubt we would last another 2-3 years but now with plans in place we will have some hope, and let me say their first job when they took over was to find out the real truth about the finances before they could do anything and that is standard practice so that took some time, then they had to deal with the Casey issue and now that is one of the best things that we have done they also have to mend fences with the MCC and the AFL so you think that takes a phone call do you and all is ok? don't think so

4. Lets wait and see what happens with sponsors if they snare another couple of them might be in better shape than some in the next couple of years.

5. Rome was not built in a day and this club is the same but one can see that we are on the right track at last and about time but I guess you think it is easy to rebuild a whole club eh?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

1. This club is having a total rebuild from top to bottom and for the first time in a long time they are laying down long term plans for the future not bandages just put on a spot but that takes time if we are to attract the top end of the town then one needs to act like one that is what they are doing.

2. DB and the club has taken the the view of what is needed with our playing group, they are damm young and will take time but as each day goes by things will get better they will become a tighter group and great things can come out of that just look at the Dorks, Cats etc. and an attitude of we will win no matter how far down we are, not we hope to win

3. Think about what would had happened if the board did not reduce the debt at the time doubt we would last another 2-3 years but now with plans in place we will have some hope, and let me say their first job when they took over was to find out the real truth about the finances before they could do anything and that is standard practice so that took some time, then they had to deal with the Casey issue and now that is one of the best things that we have done they also have to mend fences with the MCC and the AFL so you think that takes a phone call do you and all is ok? don't think so

4. Lets wait and see what happens with sponsors if they snare another couple of them might be in better shape than some in the next couple of years.

5. Rome was not built in a day and this club is the same but one can see that we are on the right track at last and about time but I guess you think it is easy to rebuild a whole club eh?

1. What are you basing this on? The sustainable tin-rattle?

2. I'm afraid that if you are a Bailey supporter that you will have to give credit for that appointment to the previous board. I share your optimism in regards to our young squad.

3. a ) I will happily engage in a hypothetical discussion about where we would be if Jim hadn't taken over - in another, relevant thread. As I have already stated the tin-rattle is not a sustainable plan but a one-shot pistol that anyone could have used. Having said that, I think Jim and his team did a very good job of it.

b ) There were no surprises about our finances that were uncovered by Jim - everything was above board. Where did you get this idea from?

c ) The Casey issue is another area where I'm afraid that you will have to give credit to the previous board.

d ) I don't know what you mean when you talk about mending fences with the AFL and MCC, they don't seem to be treating us any differently as far as I can tell. Having said that, the MCC/MFC merger prospect is the most exciting news that has come out so far (but sadly, only form the MFC side to date). I have also been assured that this is an angle that was being pursued by Gardner and Co.

4. We won't be getting more than one sponsor on the back of the jumper that's for sure. I got sick of waiting months ago which is why I give Jims board a poor grade on the sponsorship front.

5. blah blah blah. Empty words.

cheers

[Sir Why You Little 37,121]

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

Hazy do you have any idea of the absolute "Train Wreck" that Jimmy & his board picked up last year?? If it were not for the current board i doubt we would be in existance, & if we were we would be run by AFL representatives. Gardiner & Co. left a total Mess Behind, for whatever reason. I am not holding grudges because i think our demise was a slow Burn that started in the mid eighties.

How Dare you even consider putting into words "I will give Jimmy a D for his sponsorship effort" Within 2 weeks of now we will have 2 MAJOR SPONSORS for the next 3 years. That is a Mighty Effort.

Our Poor Fixturing is purely on previous ladder positions, it has nothing to do with Jim's Relationship with the AFL.

During these Global Recession Times Schwabb, Stynes & the Board have done an A GRADE job to put this club back on Track-Be careful how you rebuke this thread as i am sure you will try to do.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

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.

If you want to see a less "trite" response to these tired excuses then please consult the numerous previous threads where I have comprehensively debunked them - I know how much you enjoy snuffling through old threads.

If you want to keep carping on about my amazing secrety identity, please put on your tin hat and start a relevant thread.

If you want to continue to look like you are desperately trying to claw yourself back into a lost arguement and that you have little of value to add, then please continue to take cheap shots at my spelling.

If you wanted to admit that in fact, all I have written is true and that I have a reasonable and realistic take on the sponsorship situation (surrounding circumsatances included) then you should have just stopped here:

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

Fair comment

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Hazy do you have any idea of the absolute "Train Wreck" that Jimmy & his board picked up last year?? If it were not for the current board i doubt we would be in existance, & if we were we would be run by AFL representatives. Gardiner & Co. left a total Mess Behind, for whatever reason. I am not holding grudges because i think our demise was a slow Burn that started in the mid eighties.

How Dare you even consider putting into words "I will give Jimmy a D for his sponsorship effort" Within 2 weeks of now we will have 2 MAJOR SPONSORS for the next 3 years. That is a Mighty Effort.

Our Poor Fixturing is purely on previous ladder positions, it has nothing to do with Jim's Relationship with the AFL.

During these Global Recession Times Schwabb, Stynes & the Board have done an A GRADE job to put this club back on Track-Be careful how you rebuke this thread as i am sure you will try to do.

Let's say, for arguements sake, that I don't have any idea of the clubs situation - would you care to outline it for me (perhaps in a relevant thread)? I do not seem to share your views on the situation.

The main reason I "dare" to give Jimmy a D (minus) on the sponsorship is because it came so late.

If our poor fixturing cannot be influenced by Jim then he can hardly take credit for this years AFL payout. I doubt that you would have been so magnanimous about this years fixture if Jim wasn't in charge.

The recession arguement is a cop-out, the bulldogs were in the same recession and they beat us in the mission foods deal. This is another part of the reason why the efforts of Schwabb, Stynes & the Board as reagrds sponsorship have been very dissapointing ($700k/year two weeks before the start of season notwithstanding).

Why should I be careful with how I respond to your "arguements" (I use the term loosely)? Is that supposed to be some kind of an "e-threat"?

[Hannabal 4]

c ) The Casey issue is another area where I'm afraid that you will have to give credit to the previous board.

I'm informed that the Casey arrangement is completely Chris Connolly's idea. This is from one of your previous Board members. Perhaps you can expand on why the previous Board should be congratulated for Chris' idea and efforts ?

As for your spelling ? It's pretty good. The continual "argu'e'ment" spelling is a little hard to take, but I'm getting used to it.

[rpfc 28,752]

Let's say, for arguements sake, that I don't have any idea of the clubs situation - would you care to outline it for me (perhaps in a relevant thread)? I do not seem to share your views on the situation.

The main reason I "dare" to give Jimmy a D (minus) on the sponsorship is because it came so late.

If our poor fixturing cannot be influenced by Jim then he can hardly take credit for this years AFL payout. I doubt that you would have been so magnanimous about this years fixture if Jim wasn't in charge.

The recession arguement is a cop-out, the bulldogs were in the same recession and they beat us in the mission foods deal. This is another part of the reason why the efforts of Schwabb, Stynes & the Board as reagrds sponsorship have been very dissapointing ($700k/year two weeks before the start of season notwithstanding).

Why should I be careful with how I respond to your "arguements" (I use the term loosely)? Is that supposed to be some kind of an "e-threat"?

We are a basket case.

Any argument that doesn't stipulate the difficulty to convince firms to hand over cash in this climate, with this club, is disingenuous.

The Mission deal is the reason why we are getting this so late. We were courting them for weeks and were close to a deal when it fell apart. And don't give this '$700 000 notwithstanding' rubbish, that is a lot of cash not allowed to stand...

BTW, if we get another $2.1 over 3 years we will have a better deal than the bullies $4.1 over 3 years with Mission.

[Sir Why You Little 37,121]

Let's say, for arguements sake, that I don't have any idea of the clubs situation - would you care to outline it for me (perhaps in a relevant thread)? I do not seem to share your views on the situation.

The main reason I "dare" to give Jimmy a D (minus) on the sponsorship is because it came so late.

If our poor fixturing cannot be influenced by Jim then he can hardly take credit for this years AFL payout. I doubt that you would have been so magnanimous about this years fixture if Jim wasn't in charge.

The recession arguement is a cop-out, the bulldogs were in the same recession and they beat us in the mission foods deal. This is another part of the reason why the efforts of Schwabb, Stynes & the Board as reagrds sponsorship have been very dissapointing ($700k/year two weeks before the start of season notwithstanding).

Why should I be careful with how I respond to your "arguements" (I use the term loosely)? Is that supposed to be some kind of an "e-threat"?

You seem to think the Mission Foods deal was the Be all & end all. 2 Sponsorships over 3 years is actually a better deal so i applaud the board for waiting. That deal was not sealed for a reason, Mission Decided to go elsewhere-Good luck to them. It is a lot of coin to commit when the economics of the Business world are not Good.

It also means what a top effort it is to get the deals we now have.

I am trying to work out your agenda & why you are being so Harsh on a group of people who have been working their Butt's off to keep our club Alive.

Don't Forget The President & The Board are not Paid to do this job.

[demon3165 2,801]

1. What are you basing this on? The sustainable tin-rattle?

2. I'm afraid that if you are a Bailey supporter that you will have to give credit for that appointment to the previous board. I share your optimism in regards to our young squad.

3. a ) I will happily engage in a hypothetical discussion about where we would be if Jim hadn't taken over - in another, relevant thread. As I have already stated the tin-rattle is not a sustainable plan but a one-shot pistol that anyone could have used. Having said that, I think Jim and his team did a very good job of it.

b ) There were no surprises about our finances that were uncovered by Jim - everything was above board. Where did you get this idea from?

c ) The Casey issue is another area where I'm afraid that you will have to give credit to the previous board.

d ) I don't know what you mean when you talk about mending fences with the AFL and MCC, they don't seem to be treating us any differently as far as I can tell. Having said that, the MCC/MFC merger prospect is the most exciting news that has come out so far (but sadly, only form the MFC side to date). I have also been assured that this is an angle that was being pursued by Gardner and Co.

4. We won't be getting more than one sponsor on the back of the jumper that's for sure. I got sick of waiting months ago which is why I give Jims board a poor grade on the sponsorship front.

5. blah blah blah. Empty words.

cheers

Don't let the facts get in the way of your rants.....but then again you will.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Anyone going to Casey to see "us" play the Bullies tomorrow?

I'm looking forward to it.

"United we stand...........Divided we fall"

GO YOU MIGHTY DEMONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[demon3165 2,801]

Anyone going to Casey to see "us" play the Bullies tomorrow?

I'm looking forward to it.

"United we stand...........Divided we fall"

GO YOU MIGHTY DEMONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep will be there.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I'm informed that the Casey arrangement is completely Chris Connolly's idea. This is from one of your previous Board members. Perhaps you can expand on why the previous Board should be congratulated for Chris' idea and efforts ?

As for your spelling ? It's pretty good. The continual "argu'e'ment" spelling is a little hard to take, but I'm getting used to it.

Ho hum, more spelling police - the last refuge of the internet scoundrel. There is an entire thread devoted to spelling and grammar in the general section as you would well know, because you started it. I suggest you take your irrelevant observations over there and chortle with all the other pedants.

By the way, Connolly was another appointment by the previous board as I remember, and he was working for/with them at the time.

Your efforts to preclude the previous administraition from any acknowledgement on this score, when coupled with the ardent praise of Jim's small part in the Casey deal, shows just how unbalanced and desperate your views are.

Credit where it is due indeed!

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

We are a basket case.

Any argument that doesn't stipulate the difficulty to convince firms to hand over cash in this climate, with this club, is disingenuous.

The Mission deal is the reason why we are getting this so late. We were courting them for weeks and were close to a deal when it fell apart. And don't give this '$700 000 notwithstanding' rubbish, that is a lot of cash not allowed to stand...

BTW, if we get another $2.1 over 3 years we will have a better deal than the bullies $4.1 over 3 years with Mission.

I am fully aware of the "global recession" context. It didn't seem to bother the other clubs much. If you think Jim did a fantastic job, then you must think that the administrators of other clubs are out and out geniuses.

If the mission deal is why we got the Hankook deal so late then that is even more damning. A "full-time president" should be able to court more than one company at a time and a responsible president should not count chickens before they hatch. I do agree that the mission deal is probably why we kept hearing from Schwab and others that the club was confident of announcing a major sponsor last year though. Makes them look pretty silly really.

Also, I am of the understanding that the mission foods deal is worth $4.5m/year so another $2.1m would leave us short. Of course we would be even better off if we secured a sponsor months ago.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

You seem to think the Mission Foods deal was the Be all & end all. 2 Sponsorships over 3 years is actually a better deal so i applaud the board for waiting. That deal was not sealed for a reason, Mission Decided to go elsewhere-Good luck to them. It is a lot of coin to commit when the economics of the Business world are not Good.

It also means what a top effort it is to get the deals we now have.

I am trying to work out your agenda & why you are being so Harsh on a group of people who have been working their Butt's off to keep our club Alive.

Don't Forget The President & The Board are not Paid to do this job.

2 sponsorships over 3 years would be a better deal if they started at the same time and if they added up to more than the $4.5m Mission deal. Our sponsorship deal has come very late indeed (half of it still isn't secured) and every day waiting costs the club in terms of lost revenue. It remains to be seen whether the second sponsorship will make our yearly major sponsorship total add up to more than the $4.5m doggies deal, I have every hope that it will. Of course, the main reason that the Mission foods deal is relevant to this debate is not becaue it is worth a lot, but rather, because it is a clear cut case of the respective club admins doing corporate battle and Jim's mob coming off second best. The likelihood that Schwab thought that it was in the bag, only to be outmanoeuvred and left floundering with no back up plan, compounds this.

Saying that the reason we lost the Mission deal is simply "because they decided to go elsewhere" is extremely disingenuous and typical of the mentality that Jim and his board are always responsible for good things and never accountable for negatives. I could just as well say that the only reason we got the Hankook deal is "because they decided to come to the MFC", however, I give credit where it is due. If the Hankook/company x deal came into effect when the primus deal expired months ago, I would be much more upbeat about it.

I don't know what you are talking about with "agendas" - what's yours? I'm merely adding what I consider to be a realistic, empirical take on the clubs off-field performance to what otherwise seems like a star-struck love-fest. If I have an agenda it is to spread the capacity for critical thought and robust debate amongst other Melbourne supporters. A membership that is well informed, rational, and demands accountability can only be good for our club, irrespective of who is in charge.

I'm thankful to the current board for donating their time (by the way - does anyone know where Jim gets his income from? Is his wife the bread-winner?). However, they took over the club without being voted in and promised to make big improvements. It would be irresponsible of me as a member to not hold the current administration accountable for their tardy performance on the sponsorship front, given that they identified this as an area of particular importance when they took over.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Don't let the facts get in the way of your rants.....but then again you will.

I see you have gone back to your unsubstantiated and barely comprehensible one-liners. Probably for the best. If you don't mind I will save myself the trouble of specifically addressing all of the many reasons why your statemnt is so very silly and just copy and paste from my response to your last "zinger".

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.

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

2 sponsorships over 3 years would be a better deal if they started at the same time and if they added up to more than the $4.5m Mission deal. Our sponsorship deal has come very late indeed (half of it still isn't secured) and every day waiting costs the club in terms of lost revenue. It remains to be seen whether the second sponsorship will make our yearly major sponsorship total add up to more than the $4.5m doggies deal, I have every hope that it will. Of course, the main reason that the Mission foods deal is relevant to this debate is not becaue it is worth a lot, but rather, because it is a clear cut case of the respective club admins doing corporate battle and Jim's mob coming off second best. The likelihood that Schwab thought that it was in the bag, only to be outmanoeuvred and left floundering with no back up plan, compounds this.

Saying that the reason we lost the Mission deal is simply "because they decided to go elsewhere" is extremely disingenuous and typical of the mentality that Jim and his board are always responsible for good things and never accountable for negatives. I could just as well say that the only reason we got the Hankook deal is "because they decided to come to the MFC", however, I give credit where it is due. If the Hankook/company x deal came into effect when the primus deal expired months ago, I would be much more upbeat about it.

I don't know what you are talking about with "agendas" - what's yours? I'm merely adding what I consider to be a realistic, empirical take on the clubs off-field performance to what otherwise seems like a star-struck love-fest. If I have an agenda it is to spread the capacity for critical thought and robust debate amongst other Melbourne supporters. A membership that is well informed, rational, and demands accountability can only be good for our club, irrespective of who is in charge.

I'm thankful to the current board for donating their time (by the way - does anyone know where Jim gets his income from? Is his wife the bread-winner?). However, they took over the club without being voted in and promised to make big improvements. It would be irresponsible of me as a member to not hold the current administration accountable for their tardy performance on the sponsorship front, given that they identified this as an area of particular importance when they took over.

maybe you should nominate for president :

[hoopla 418]

There's no point bagging Jimmy because we were pipped at the post on the Mission deal........just like there is no point bagging the previous administration. I seem to recall Gardner, Phillips and Co walking into untter chaos with substantial unpaid tax invoices sitting in a desk drawer!

The club lost its way in the mid 60s. The writing has been on the wall for years.....

Schwab is on the record as saying that all we have is "hope "and "heritage". Well- at least now - we also have half a sponsor. Things are slowly getting better - and there are hints of further improvements in the pipeline ie closer community ties ( at Casey) and closer afiliation with the MCC.

I'm just keen to get that second sponsorship confirmed ... so we can forget MIssion ...and move on.

[The Great Pretender 473]

BTW, if we get another $2.1 over 3 years we will have a better deal than the bullies $4.1 over 3 years with Mission.

BTW the bullies deal is $4.5 not $4.1 and our second co-sponsorship is unlikely to get us $2.1 over 3 years. We end up much worse off than them.

[demon3165 2,801]

I see you have gone back to your unsubstantiated and barely comprehensible one-liners. Probably for the best. If you don't mind I will save myself the trouble of specifically addressing all of the many reasons why your statemnt is so very silly and just copy and paste from my response to your last "zinger".

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.

Over from Demonology eh SD? you have no points just a dislike of Jimmy and the board and that's all you go on about, let's face it it, does not matter what people say or do you will just disagree anyway.

[Jarka 767]

BTW the bullies deal is $4.5 not $4.1 and our second co-sponsorship is unlikely to get us $2.1 over 3 years. We end up much worse off than them.

Sure, that's probably reasonably close to the truth however the agreement that Jimmy & co have been negotiating with the MCC will easily eclipse anything the doggies will be able to do at the Docklands. Sponsorship dollars are important but the real income comes from the AFL and matchday income.

[Hannabal 4]

By the way, Connolly was another appointment by the previous board as I remember, and he was working for/with them at the time.

In other words, the reason that "c ) The Casey issue is another area where I'm afraid that you will have to give credit to the previous board." is due to Chris Connolly being employed by the previous Board. A tenuous reason to hand out the plaudits at best, but hardly surprising coming from the previous Board's sycophant, or should I say 'lap-dog'.

Keep clutching at straws.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

maybe you should nominate for president :

Maybe he has.

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,294]

I think you should chnge your name to hazyshadeofwhinger.

You come across as a very well educated person H and everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, your angst towards Jim and the current board is just bloody awful and unnecessary. What are you trying to prove?

We are Melbourne FFS, and you are not!

Keep posting and whinging mate But I will skip every one of `em, I am sick of your negativity.

Go you bloody Demons!

[Demon Head 292]

Maybe he has.

The best way for the MFC to come out of this smelling of roses is for us to not only snare the second co-sponsor for a similar sum to Hankook but also to get the others we're talking with to come in as sponsors at a lesser level. If we can come up with a better overall sponsorship deal than we would have had we gone with Mission Foods, then we end up with our noses in front!

[rpfc 28,752]

BTW the bullies deal is $4.5 not $4.1 and our second co-sponsorship is unlikely to get us $2.1 over 3 years. We end up much worse off than them.

$300k over 3 years is much worse?

The $4.1m figure is what I thought the Bullies were getting, it may be infact what we were going to get with Mission before it was hijacked.

This is such an inconsequential argument we are having. We aren't going into the season without a sponsor and we are looking up from the bottom with more hope than when Jim took over.

The whingers will say hope ain't worth sh!t, but it's worth a lot when you have nothing else.