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!

Well said Demon Head.

It's premature to be either celebrating or sticking the knives in.

has anyone read the article in the AGE,magpies blow up over rubber sponorship ?

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.

Once again I can only guess at what you are talking about, sounds like more ridiculous identity conspiracies, why don't you just PM your theories to Hannabal? I (and probably everyone else here) am bored with this strange obsession that some poeple seem to have about who I am.

For the record I have no idea what kind of a man Jim is, and I don't dislike him or his board. I simply dislike the fact that we went so long without a sponsor and now that it looks like we'll have something cobbled together just in time for the season propoer, people like you bang on about what a fantastic job Jim has done on this front. In short, I dislike your applauding mediocrity.

To say I have no "points" is ridiculous when your main points are how great Bailey is (not appointed by Jim), how great Casey is (previous board again), that unlike past boards Jim plans sustainably (all we have seen so far is an unsustainable tin-rattle), and that Jim uncovered some shonky accounting and secret debt (false).

You clearly have no idea what you are on about.

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.

Probably reasonably close to the truth, how magnanimous. Whilst we are straintening out the facts, this article also mentions that the Bulldogs' previous sponsorship deal with "Lease Plan" expired on Decemebr 31 which would meant they they went without a sponsor for much less time than us.

The MCC rumours are a very exciting development, in my view this our best chance of keeping a Melbourne Football club in Melbourne sustainably. I'm very pleased that Jim and his board are pursuing this angle and it is to their credit.

Of course, this doesn't excuse them from their very poor performance on the sponsorship front.

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.

Gee, I thought demon3165 did a good line in irony but this might just take the cake. I'm clutching at straws?

If Schwab, who was appointed by Jim, and who works for and with Jim, managed to secure a $3m/year sponsorship deal tomorrow, does this mean that Jim and his board wouldn't get any credit for it? Does this mean that the projected losses for the club in 2008 were not the responsibility of the previous board but, merely that of the CFO? Is this really the best you can come up with? After all I have written, your response is to say that actually, you heard that Connolly was largely responsible for the Casey deal, so clearly the previous board can accept no credit for it and that ipso facto Jim has been doing a great job witht the sponsorship? Talk about tenuous!

Your double standard is obvious and proves, far better than I could hope to, that I am the even-handed and consistent one in this debate. Any genuflexions are coming soley from your corner.

Need I remind you that the quote you use above was written in response to someone who was apparently trying to give the credit for the Casey deal to Jim?

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!

Actually I'm more Melbourne than you becaue I support the club - not merely whoever is chairing it at the time.

What are you trying to prove by coming on here, calling me puerile names and questioning my allegiance to the club?

I hope you skip this post. The last thing I need is another drongo to argue with.

Of course, this doesn't excuse them from their very poor performance on the sponsorship front.

When you weigh up what the club has achieved and under the circumstances they've endured, a $2.1 million dollar sponsorship for 3 years is not a 'very poor performance' regarding sponsorship.

Expiry dates on sponsorship deals are irrelevant IMO, the bottom line is the length of the sponsorship and how much. So what if the Bulldogs 'Lease Plan' expired on Dec 31st....

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!

It would be great if our second co-sponsor and new minor sponsorships made our $700k/year into more than the bulldogs' $1.5M/year. Of course, even if this did happen, going for several months without any sponsor, losing the mission foods deal to the bulldogs, and then cobbling something together just before the start of the main season is hardly "smelling of roses."

When you weigh up what the club has achieved and under the circumstances they've endured, a $2.1 million dollar sponsorship for 3 years is not a 'very poor performance' regarding sponsorship.

Expiry dates on sponsorship deals are irrelevant IMO, the bottom line is the length of the sponsorship and how much. So what if the Bulldogs 'Lease Plan' expired on Dec 31st....

$700k/year would not be "very poor performance" if the deal (in addition to another co-sponsorship deal for a similar amount) was finalised shortly after the Primus sponsorship was not renewed. If this were the case, it would be "expected performance", or maybe even "better than average performance given the circumstances". Of course, this didn't happen and as a result the club lost hundred of thousands of dollars as month after month went by with no major sponsor. But then you probably wouldn't understand this if you can't comprehend the relevance of expiry dates (as if).

Of course, this didn't happen and as a result the club lost hundred of thousands of dollars as month after month went by with no major sponsor. But then you probably wouldn't understand this if you can't comprehend the relevance of expiry dates (as if).

We aren't going into the season 'without' a sponsor and we have more hope than when Jim & Co. took over with Hankook now on board.

Can't wait for the footy to start so pessimists like yourself can start sticking knives into players for their poor performances, rather instead of sticking knives into people on the board who are trying desperately to turn things around, unlike yourself.

We aren't going into the season 'without' a sponsor and we have more hope than when Jim & Co. took over with Hankook now on board.

Can't wait for the footy to start so pessimists like yourself can start sticking knives into players for their poor performances, rather instead of sticking knives into people on the board who are trying desperately to turn things around, unlike yourself.

Correct(ish), we have half of a major sponsor and the other half is likely to get finalised soon so we probably won't start the main season without a major sponsor. We have however, not had a major sponsor for several months now, inculding the NAB cup. It's great that you have more hope now than when JIm took over. I'm actually pretty envious. I just hope that your confidence isn't based upon Jim's time as a ruckman. I certainly have more hope now than I did a week ago anyway.

Also, I'm a realist and a rationalist but not a pessimist. I give both commendation and criticism where I think they are due and, unlike most posters on here, I usually give reasons for my views. This applies to club administrators and players alike. Good luck with all your hard work turning the club around.

This applies to club administrators and players alike. Good luck with all your hard work turning the club around.

Every bit helps. Please, by all means feel free to assist in any way when you feel like rolling your sleeves up.

Every bit helps. Please, by all means feel free to assist in any way when you feel like rolling your sleeves up.

Please, by all means feel free to start another thread soliciting volunteers.

But I'd prefer it if you dropped the assumptions about who I am and what I do.

cheers

Probably reasonably close to the truth, how magnanimous. Whilst we are straintening out the facts, this article also mentions that the Bulldogs' previous sponsorship deal with "Lease Plan" expired on Decemebr 31 which would meant they they went without a sponsor for much less time than us.

The MCC rumours are a very exciting development, in my view this our best chance of keeping a Melbourne Football club in Melbourne sustainably. I'm very pleased that Jim and his board are pursuing this angle and it is to their credit.

Of course, this doesn't excuse them from their very poor performance on the sponsorship front.

The dogs deal wasn't great. I heard somewhere that the proposed Mission Foods deal with Melbourne was for $8m over 4 years.

Please, by all means feel free to start another thread soliciting volunteers.

But I'd prefer it if you dropped the assumptions about who I am and what I do.

cheers

Dude.. i see your glass is half empty.. alot different to most supporters glasses that are half full. Let me top it up for you.

Seriously man, nothing wrong with your opinions, but the constant negative grandstanding is getting old. Embrace where we are at, and like the rest of the best supporters in the land (Demons..) get on board!

The dogs deal wasn't great. I heard somewhere that the proposed Mission Foods deal with Melbourne was for $8m over 4 years.

True, but that's also most likely the reason why Mission switched. Our deal was $2 million a year, the Dogs deal was $1.5 million.

True, but that's also most likely the reason why Mission switched. Our deal was $2 million a year, the Dogs deal was $1.5 million.

For the $4.5 million don't Mission also get naming rights to the new development the Dogs are building? If so it makes it pretty hard for us to compete with that deal.

The dogs deal wasn't great. I heard somewhere that the proposed Mission Foods deal with Melbourne was for $8m over 4 years.

If the dogs deal isn't great then I suppose that you will be disappointed if our two major sponsors don't add up to at least the "not great" figure of $1.5M/year.

Dude.. i see your glass is half empty.. alot different to most supporters glasses that are half full. Let me top it up for you.

Seriously man, nothing wrong with your opinions, but the constant negative grandstanding is getting old. Embrace where we are at, and like the rest of the best supporters in the land (Demons..) get on board!

I'm glad that you don't think anything is wrong with my opinions.

As for the "grandstanding" - have a look at my first post in this thread, not what you would call negative grandstanding.

What am I supposed to do when a a whole raft of anrgy people have a go at me because they don't like my facts getting in the way of their fantasy? Why don't you drop the "positive grandstanding" and embrace where we are at - a week and a bit from the start of season with half a major sponsor and with hundreds of thousands of sponsorship dollars lost over the last few months.

Get on board (the reality train)!

True, but that's also most likely the reason why Mission switched. Our deal was $2 million a year, the Dogs deal was $1.5 million.

Yep, seems they undercut us and Schwab apparently had no idea.

For the $4.5 million don't Mission also get naming rights to the new development the Dogs are building? If so it makes it pretty hard for us to compete with that deal.

Definitely a good idea from the bulldogs management/marketing departments that. They seem like a professional outfit (well they ought to - they are getting paid professional salaries I suppose).

It's a pity our team couldn't put something like that together or come up with an angle of their own.

If the dogs deal isn't great then I suppose that you will be disappointed if our two major sponsors don't add up to at least the "not great" figure of $1.5M/year.

Disappointed...why?

I understand that there's about half a dozen clubs whose major sponsor is due to end at the end of this season, everything suggests that the economy is going to further worsen over the next two quarters so we may have be looking more healthier in comparison.

Sometimes everything needs to be taken in context.

Yep, seems they undercut us and Schwab apparently had no idea.

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.

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?

Disappointed...why?

I understand that there's about half a dozen clubs whose major sponsor is due to end at the end of this season, everything suggests that the economy is going to further worsen over the next two quarters so we may have be looking more healthier in comparison.

Sometimes everything needs to be taken in context.

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 worsen, does not exactly speak highly of our administration.