Second Major Sponsor is...

[casey scorp 2]

Fair enough. The club was all over the place during last year, and the eye wasn't on the sponsorship ball at the critical time - which is understandable I suppose. Realistically, key issues (like who runs the club) tend to take precedence.

I agree - draw a line in the sand and move on. But I suppose its just a salutary lesson for players in the field.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Wrong. $500,000 difference is not the equivalent of 1-2 months difference in announcements. I presume you are attempting to discount the amounts back to when the Bulldogs announced mission, but the maths does not add up. We did better, and did better by delaying. End of story.

End of Buldogs' Lease Plan sponsorship: 31-12-08

Start of Bulldogs' Mission deal: 16-1-09

delay = 17 days

End of Demons' Primus sponsorship: 27-09-08

Start of Hankook deal: 12-03-09

Start of Kaspersky deal: 20-03-09

delay (to Kaspersky deal) = 175 days

value of Bulldogs deal = $4.5m, $1.5m/year

value of Hankook deal = $2.1m, $700k/year

value of Kaspersky deal = $3m, $1m/year (as far as I can tell)

toal demons deal = $5.1m, $1.7m/year

so we are better off by $200k/year, $600k total.

Now, how much money would we have earned so far if we got the Bulldogs' amount in the Bulldogs' timely fashion?

175 days without a sponsor (demons) - 17 days without a sponsor (bulldogs) = 158 days

$1.5m * 158/365.25 = $648.87k

Let's subtract the value of the Hankook sponsorship since 12-03-09 to make it fair:

$700k * 9/365.25 = $17.25k

$648.87k - $17.25k = $631.62k

So our deal is worth $600,000 more, but by taking so much longer to get it, we lost what would've been (going by the rate of $1.5m/year) ~ $631,620

So we're $31,620 worse off.

Like I said, not a huge amount, but worse off nevertheless. Of course, it is also important to note that in three years' time we will presumably be left in the less than ideal position of having to negotiate a sponsorship renewal/deal a week before the season starts.

Now how about you show me your maths?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I don't post on this site very often. But I read often. I've read all the threads about membership, and some of the perceived shortcomings/defending of our current top brass.

I've never made any secret of my absolute 100% respect for Hannabal as a poster on both sites. i think he's the best football poster I've come across. I wish he still posted over our side of the fence where I spend too much time.

But I gotta say, I thought he was on a [censored] witchhunt with his 007 digging on Flowerwing and Grinter. I thought Hazy shade of Grinter was possibly the most clever username i've ever come across, and the bloke behind the name had an intelligence beyond most on either site.

But as times gone on, and I've read more and more of his offerings, I gotta say, Hazy, you're a dikhead mate. You offer nothing positive, and are bordering on a vendetta that flies in the face of everything we all want.

Tim is opening 'ology to new posters this weekend. You're not welcome numb nuts.

Hi Chook, I don't know if you noticed but this is a thread about the Kaspersky sponsorship.

Why don't you take your irrelevant abuse back to demonolgy? If you are representative of their constituency, then you needed worry about me joining your ranks.

Cheers

[45HG 1,539]

This is not the time to be talking of lost revenue in sponsorship.

Onwards and upwards. Hazy, I see what you're saying, but until the next sponsorship drive you'll just have to move on. Otherwise you'll just sound sour.

What's done is done, it is now time to face the future - a pretty bright future at that with the steps we've taken in the past 9 months.

Go Dees!

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Geez Hazy, and I've been sitting here all day thinking it was a great day for my club. Now thanks to reading your posts I can slip back into a comfortable pessimism about things.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

This is not the time to be talking of lost revenue in sponsorship.

Onwards and upwards. Hazy, I see what you're saying, but until the next sponsorship drive you'll just have to move on. Otherwise you'll just sound sour.

What's done is done, it is now time to face the future - a pretty bright future at that with the steps we've taken in the past 9 months.

Go Dees!

Geez Hazy, and I've been sitting here all day thinking it was a great day for my club. Now thanks to reading your posts I can slip back into a comfortable pessimism about things.

Look guys, I'm really happy about the announcement and I'm really loooking forward to seeing some of our great young players take it to them this season.

However, when people call me out personally to defend the important facts that I have pointed out previously, I feel compelled to defend myself.

This doen't mean that I don't love my club, it doesn't mean that I hate Jim and the new administration, and it doesn't mean that I want to see the demons fail.

cheers

[Spaghetti 264]

Like I said, not a huge amount, but worse off nevertheless. Of course, it is also important to note that in three years' time we will presumably be left in the less than ideal position of having to negotiate a sponsorship renewal/deal a week before the season starts.

Now how about you show me your maths?

I don't need to show my mayhs because we are clearly talking about different things. I was comparing the two deals from when mission signed with the Bulldogs, in which case ours is far superior. You are merely using numbers to state that it is regrettable that we did not transition straight into a new sponsor, which it is, but we were never going to get the $4.5m immediately after the primus deal. So I'm not sure why you are making calculations based on that.

Sponsor is done now, and good effort given the financial climate. It is unrealistic to expect a club in our position to have a queue of potential sponsors waiting to take over last November. As far as I'm concerned, you're maths is irrelevant in the circumstances and says nothing other than signing up sponsors faster is better.

[rodney_g 63]

But, if you still insist that my criticism of the sponsorship situation over the last few months has somehow become unfounded or irrelevant because of this most recent good news, then try these on for size:

- If the same sponsorship delay happens in three years' time, we won't have a major sponsor until the after the start of the finals series.

- If we had signed up for the equivalent of the Bulldogs $1.5m/year as promptly as the Bulldogs did, we would be better off overall than we are under our current deal(s).

- After months and months of silence and financial losses on the sponsorship front, despite a chairman who works full-time and who boasts of his corporate connections, it took a lone supporter in Russia, working off his own bat, to put the major deal together.

These criticisms seem to be based on some very simplistic assumptions:

1. “If the same sponsorship delay happens in three years' time, we won't have a major sponsor until the after the start of the finals series.”

Assumption: That the current deals will end exactly three years from the day they are signed.

More likely: That Schwab and Co have factored in time after the end of the 2011 season to find/resign sponsors for 2012 and beyond. 'Seasons' and 'years' are pretty interchanegable - the sponsorships are in all reality three season deals.

2. “If we had signed up for the equivalent of the Bulldogs $1.5m/year as promptly as the Bulldogs did, we would be better off overall than we are under our current deal(s).”

Assumption: That sponsorships are doled out like pocket money on a monthly (or now I see daily!) basis.

More likely: That there are specified payment dates throughout the year and given that as we haven’t missed the real ‘value’ in AFL sponsorship – the season itself - we won’t ‘lose’ $31,620 (OMG not $31,620!!)

3. “After months and months of silence and financial losses on the sponsorship front, despite a chairman who works full-time and who boasts of his corporate connections, it took a lone supporter in Russia, working off his own bat, to put the major deal together.”

Assumption: That this doesn’t happen a lot in AFL and other codes.

Reality: Of course it does. Some clubs provide an obvious ROI that would make any corporate interested – others use contacts and supporters to network for sponsors.

Given Cameron Schwab’s undeniable administrative experience, I am happy to assume that these minor contractual ‘criticisms’ have been dealt with.

I would ask Cameron to break some confidentiality clause and confirm these details so that I can satisfy some guy on Demonland who is tilting at windmills.

But I’m sure he has better things to do with his time. And so do I. Go Demons!!

[Chook in Perth 2,012]

Hi Chook, I don't know if you noticed but this is a thread about the Kaspersky sponsorship.

Why don't you take your irrelevant abuse back to demonolgy? If you are representative of their constituency, then you needed worry about me joining your ranks.

Cheers

I'll back myself to go head to head with you on any subject regarding our footy club you wish to choose. But today/tonight, FFS sit back, relax , crack a can and take confort that the regime you have railed against from day dot is delivering their charter.

Stynes is trying to embrace every disenfranchised faction of our fractured club. What the fook are you trying to achieve hiding behind the cloak of anomynity on a boutique website?

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

These criticisms seem to be based on some very simplistic assumptions:

1. “If the same sponsorship delay happens in three years' time, we won't have a major sponsor until the after the start of the finals series.”

Assumption: That the current deals will end exactly three years from the day they are signed.

More likely: That Schwab and Co have factored in time after the end of the 2011 season to find/resign sponsors for 2012 and beyond. 'Seasons' and 'years' are pretty interchanegable - the sponsorships are in all reality three season deals.

2. “If we had signed up for the equivalent of the Bulldogs $1.5m/year as promptly as the Bulldogs did, we would be better off overall than we are under our current deal(s).”

Assumption: That sponsorships are doled out like pocket money on a monthly (or now I see daily!) basis.

More likely: That there are specified payment dates throughout the year and given that as we haven’t missed the real ‘value’ in AFL sponsorship – the season itself - we won’t ‘lose’ $31,620 (OMG not $31,620!!)

3. “After months and months of silence and financial losses on the sponsorship front, despite a chairman who works full-time and who boasts of his corporate connections, it took a lone supporter in Russia, working off his own bat, to put the major deal together.”

Assumption: That this doesn’t happen a lot in AFL and other codes.

Reality: Of course it does. Some clubs provide an obvious ROI that would make any corporate interested – others use contacts and supporters to network for sponsors.

Given Cameron Schwab’s undeniable administrative experience, I am happy to assume that these minor contractual ‘criticisms’ have been dealt with.

I would ask Cameron to break some confidentiality clause and confirm these details so that I can satisfy some guy on Demonland who is tilting at windmills.

But I’m sure he has better things to do with his time. And so do I. Go Demons!!

and your response depends on three weak assumptions/excuses.

Excuse 1 Even though it took Jim and Schwab so long to find a sponsorship this time, they will be able to find the next sponsor much more quickly and the current sponsors won't mind them shopping around during the 2012 equivalent of the NAB cup. I have no doubt that there is some provision in this regard in the contracts but there was also a provision in the primus contract and we still went without a sponsor for almost six months after that deal elapsed.

Excuse 2 Well this is just rubbish. The timing of the payments has nothing to do with it and I never tried to say otherwise. We are simply a little worse off than the bulddogs - I have acknowledged that the amount is not much and I have not tried to make a big deal about it. As I said in my first post in this thread, our sponsorship package is very good and and I'm glad that it mostly mitigates our sponsorship losses over the last few months. Other people have been trying to make a big dreal of how much better off we are.

Excuse 3 Well, this is part cop out and part [censored]. The cop out part is that it happens to other people so it's alright. The [censored] part is that it happens to other people. I'm not talking about any old situation where a supporter helps engineer a sponsoship deal. I'm talking about a situation where a supposedly well connected full-time chairman and his professional team are given many months to put something together and they are out done by a supporter who, at the last minute and completely independently of the club, saves their arses for them by achieving something that they couldn't manage in all of the long time that they had - a $1m/year sponsorship.

[rpfc 27,534]

Is it just me, or is 'Cheers' become a throwaway end of a post/letter/email.

I mean, 'Cheers' for what?

Being called a d!ckhead?

Anywho...

Understand what you are saying HSOG, not entirely sure why you are going to such lengths to say it.

As a fatalist, I would say that if we signed up a major sponsor in October we would have got far worse a deal than the magnificient deals we have now.

I mean, the excitement of footy in March is 20 times that of October.

We are an unattractive club at the moment, and we are much less attractive in October...

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I'll back myself to go head to head with you on any subject regarding our footy club you wish to choose. But today/tonight, FFS sit back, relax , crack a can and take confort that the regime you have railed against from day dot is delivering their charter.

Stynes is trying to embrace every disenfranchised faction of our fractured club. What the fook are you trying to achieve hiding behind the cloak of anomynity on a boutique website?

Mate, the only backing that you are doing is backpedaling.

You come on here and abuse me and then tell me to relax?

What are you trying to acheive? What are you adding to this "boutique" website? How are you helping to embrace fellow club members by calling them "dikhead"s and telling them that they are not welcome on a rival message board?

[rodney_g 63]

and your response depends on three weak assumptions/excuses.

Excuse 1 Even though it took Jim and Schwab so long to find a sponsorship this time, they will be able to find the next sponsor much more quickly and the current sponsors won't mind them shopping around during the 2012 equivalent of the NAB cup. I have no doubt that there is some provision in this regard in the contracts but there was also a provision in the primus contract and we still went without a sponsor for almost six months after that deal elapsed.

Excuse 2 Well this is just rubbish. The timing of the payments has nothing to do with it and I never tried to say otherwise. We are simply a little worse off than the bulddogs - I have acknowledged that the amount is not much and I have not tried to make a big deal about it. As I said in my first post in this thread, our sponsorship package is very good and and I'm glad that it mostly mitigates our sponsorship losses over the last few months. Other people have been trying to make a big dreal of how much better off we are.

Excuse 3 Well, this is part cop out and part [censored]. The cop out part is that it happens to other people so it's alright. The [censored] part is that it happens to other people. I'm not talking about any old situation where a supporter helps engineer a sponsoship deal. I'm talking about a situation where a supposedly well connected full-time chairman and his professional team are given many months to put something together and they are out done by a supporter who, at the last minute and completely independently of the club, saves their arses for them by achieving something that they couldn't manage in all of the long time that they had - a $1m/year sponsorship.

Geez Hazy - the more you post the less sensible you sound.

1. If you think Hankook and Kaspersky will be our sponsors for the 2012 NAB Cup but potentially not the 2012 season proper you are truly delusional.

2. Riddle me this. Which is worth more: A contract starting 1 July 2008 and ending 31 December 2011 totaling $5M or contract starting 20 March 2009 and ending 31 December 2011 totaling $5M? Different length. SAME money.

3. It's great isn't it! Supporter talks to boss. Boss contacts club. Club seals deal.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Is it just me, or is 'Cheers' become a throwaway end of a post/letter/email.

I mean, 'Cheers' for what?

Being called a d!ckhead?

Anywho...

Understand what you are saying HSOG, not entirely sure why you are going to such lengths to say it.

As a fatalist, I would say that if we signed up a major sponsor in October we would have got far worse a deal than the magnificient deals we have now.

I mean, the excitement of footy in March is 20 times that of October.

We are an unattractive club at the moment, and we are much less attractive in October...

I don't really buy your argument. I mean, none of the other clubs think that it's a good idea to wait until after the NAB cup so they can get a good deal.

Anyway, about the "going to such lengths" bit. I guess it just seems that way because I attract so much anger and argument on this topic. I'm a pretty argumentative person and I don't like to let others have the last word when they are calling me out by name and especially when they are incorrect (like that guy above who was trying to make out that we only went without a sponsor for 1-2 months longer than the bulldogs). Because my views and my emphasis on the facts are so unpopular, I end up with having to respond to lots of people rather than being able to line up to take a kick at a lone dissenter.

I'm not surprised that this is the case because most supporters here (including me), are desperately hoping that the club will succeed, and hate to hear anything that might make that seem less likely. But I have always considered the truth to be more important than happiness.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Geez Hazy - the more you post the less sensible you sound.

1. If you think Hankook and Kaspersky will be our sponsors for the 2012 NAB Cup but potentially not the 2012 season proper you are truly delusional.

2. Riddle me this. Which is worth more: A contract starting 1 July 2008 and ending 31 December 2011 totaling $5M or contract starting 20 March 2009 and ending 31 December 2011 totaling $5M? Different length. SAME money.

3. It's great isn't it! Supporter talks to boss. Boss contacts club. Club seals deal.

1. If Hankook and Kaspersky will not be our sponsors for the NAB cup in 2012 then we don't have a 3-year deal. That's fine, if it's a shorter time but the smae money then that is even better. If Hankook and Kaspersky are definitely going to be our sponsors for the NAB cup and the season then we have a longer than 3-year sponsorship and that is not so good.

2. Riddle me this, which is worth more:

A sponsorship from Jan-Jun worth $500, and a sponsorship from Jul-Dec worth $500 (hint: 500+500=1000)

or

No sponsorship from Jan-August, and a sponsorship from Augst-Feb worth $800 (hint: 0+800=800)

3. Sure is great, definitely inspires confidence in the common Melbourne supporter. The fact that the full-time chairman and professionally paid admin can't acheive in many months what the common Melbourne supporter can acheive in (how long, days?), does not inspire confidence.

[rodney_g 63]

1. If Hankook and Kaspersky will not be our sponsors for the NAB cup in 2012 then we don't have a 3-year deal, that's fine, if it's a shorter time but the smae money then that is even better. If Hankook and Kaspersky are definitely going to be our sponsors for the NAB cup and the season then we have a longer than 3-year sponsorship and that is not so good.

2. Riddle me this, which is worth more:

A sponsorship from Jan-Jun worth $500, and a sponsorship from Jul-Dec worth $500 (hint: 500+500=1000)

or

No sponsorship from Jan-August, and a sponsorship from Augst-Feb worth $800 (hint: 0+800=800)

3. Sure is great, definitely inspires confidence in the common Melbourne supporter. The fact that the full-time chairman and professionally paid admin can't acheive in many months what the common Melbourne supporter can acheive in (how long, days?), does not inspire confidence.

Mate, its not just that you are are "a pretty argumentative person" - I'm sensing some comprehension problems.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

Mate, its not just that you are are "a pretty argumentative person" - I'm sensing some comprehension problems.

me too - solved the riddle yet?

[Whispering_Jack 28,010]

During the early days of Jimmy's new administration I think most of us believed that it wasn't going to be all that difficult to find a new major sponsor but things are far different now compared to that honeymoon period of July/August last year.

The world was plunged into what appears to be the worst economic crisis in 80 years and, in that climate, securing major sponsorships was never going to be as easy as we thought. In this new atmosphere, we had our setbacks (Mission Foods), made mistakes and looked desperate and perhaps unprofessional at times (I would have preferred the announcement of joint sponsors to take place after both were secured). It's all water under the bridge now and there's not much to be gained by wondering what might have been as long as we've learned from the experience.

For my part, it's a good thing that we have critics like Hazy around to provide reality checks from time to time and we've had a terrific and lively debate about the major sponsorship issue but now that it's been put to bed (I acknowledge there are still some announcements to come) I think we should give our vote of thanks to the Board for their efforts to date to revitalise the club.

The debt demolition, the MCC & AFL funding deals and now a major sponsorship crafted in difficult circumstances and more advantageous than in the past are all major achievements. There's lots more to do - on and off the field - but it's clear that we're starting to win back some respect. Vlad's comments yesterday bear witness to that.

Now it's time for the boys to do it on the field.

I can't wait!

[Spaghetti 264]

Anyway, about the "going to such lengths" bit. I guess it just seems that way because I attract so much anger and argument on this topic. I'm a pretty argumentative person and I don't like to let others have the last word when they are calling me out by name and especially when they are incorrect (like that guy above who was trying to make out that we only went without a sponsor for 1-2 months longer than the bulldogs). Because my views and my emphasis on the facts are so unpopular, I end up with having to respond to lots of people rather than being able to line up to take a kick at a lone dissenter.

Did you even bother to read my last response? No.

[demon3165 1,976]

Well I'll be the third person is back and still going on and on and on and on and on and on and on will somebody take the record off.

[QueenC 74]

During the early days of Jimmy's new administration I think most of us believed that it wasn't going to be all that difficult to find a new major sponsor but things are far different now compared to that honeymoon period of July/August last year.

The world was plunged into what appears to be the worst economic crisis in 80 years and, in that climate, securing major sponsorships was never going to be as easy as we thought. In this new atmosphere, we had our setbacks (Mission Foods), made mistakes and looked desperate and perhaps unprofessional at times (I would have preferred the announcement of joint sponsors to take place after both were secured). It's all water under the bridge now and there's not much to be gained by wondering what might have been as long as we've learned from the experience.

For my part, it's a good thing that we have critics like Hazy around to provide reality checks from time to time and we've had a terrific and lively debate about the major sponsorship issue but now that it's been put to bed (I acknowledge there are still some announcements to come) I think we should give our vote of thanks to the Board for their efforts to date to revitalise the club.

The debt demolition, the MCC & AFL funding deals and now a major sponsorship crafted in difficult circumstances and more advantageous than in the past are all major achievements. There's lots more to do - on and off the field - but it's clear that we're starting to win back some respect. Vlad's comments yesterday bear witness to that.

Now it's time for the boys to do it on the field.

I can't wait!

Excellent post Jack (hopefully this will be read and paid attention to all)......

And could someone please tell me what Demetriou actually said yesterday? I have not seen any quotes or opinions from him regarding our current sponsorship (and overall financial) situation, and new deals, and I am interested (to my surprise) to actually see what he has to say now that we seem to be meeting the AFL's requirements. Thanks in advance.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

I actually have quite a bit to do with both Andrew Mamonitis and to a lesser extent Pavel Torudd through Kaspersky Labs here in Melbourne.

I can tell you that they initially were vying for the major sponsorship role back in December 2008 but held off at the time due to the climate caused by the fall of the Global Economy.

Currently, there's speculation that Kaspersky on the back of their $4.8 million dollars over 3 years are also looking to join forces with an A-League Club (probably Perth Glory at this stage) and I can state right now that Melbourne FC memberships will rise given Kaspersky's presence globally - they are rapidly growing in what little markets they don't yet dominate.

They are currently designing systems to implement into the heath industry with Cabrini Hospital being the first medical facillity in Australia to use Kaspersky Labs systems.

Andrew is a top bloke also, loves a laugh and a beer and ill be enjoying his corporate box while he's away in China for the larger part of 2009

Both will be here for the round 1 clash vs. Nth - and I can tell you that there will be a rather huge do in Round 11 for the Queens Birthday clash, don't be suprised to hear about many more heavy hitters from Kaspersky being at the game.

It really is great news for Melbourne.

[45HG 1,539]

Absolutely Jack, great write.

Hazy, I think you've argued your point very well and I can understand why you would want to defend yourself in the attacks of often misguided criciticism (I never said you didn't love the club or anything like that).

To those arguing against Hazy, claiming that he's trying to bring the club down or anything like that, aren't you doing the exact same thing by continually attacking a fellow Melbourne fan?

This issue has been solved now, there's no point going on about it until the next round of sponsorships are up, so we may as well look at the positives now which Jack has laid out for us.

We're moving in a positive direction, I really do believe this, can't we just stop trying to point score off one another. As our President pointed out, this club will be saved by its members, not by a cruisader. Move on everyone - it's not achieving anything

Go Dees

[rumpole 480]

Currently, there's speculation that Kaspersky on the back of their $4.8 million dollars over 3 years are also looking to join forces with an A-League Club (probably Perth Glory at this stage) and I can state right now that Melbourne FC memberships will rise given Kaspersky's presence globally - they are rapidly growing in what little markets they don't yet dominate.

$4.8m for 3 years. That's considerably more than has been stated previously!

Are you sure?

[Hannabal 4]

Excellent post Jack (hopefully this will be read and paid attention to all)......

And could someone please tell me what Demetriou actually said yesterday? I have not seen any quotes or opinions from him regarding our current sponsorship (and overall financial) situation, and new deals, and I am interested (to my surprise) to actually see what he has to say now that we seem to be meeting the AFL's requirements. Thanks in advance.

I don't have all the quotes, Queenie, but this from The Age:

Demetriou, speaking at Melbourne's season launch, recalled meeting Stynes when he was considering running for the presidency last year. "We had a pretty frank discussion. I think I might have said some things to Jim that he wasn't expecting to hear. It was pretty honest and pretty brutal … 'This club is the oldest football club in Australia, is rich in tradition and history but where it sits today is diabolical.' And, 'We don't know what the club stands for, it's lost its way, it's in significant debt, its playing list isn't great and where do you want this football club to be in five or 10 years? What is the vision for this club? You haven't articulated that vision'.

" … he said, 'I want to be part of this, I want to do this', and quite incredibly he's managed to harass, terrorise, persuade people and has just formed a wonderful, wonderful board with some really talented board members … they said, 'We're going to make a difference'."