4.8 combined with the Hankook deal?

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

Cheers H !!!

4.8 combined with the Hankook deal?

And isn't it about $5.1 million for three years?

I'm pretty sure I read that in here somewhere.

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.

There's also this article - BEERS IN KAZAKHSTAN LEADS TO DEMON SPONSORSHIP

Less than a year after telling Stynes that Melbourne's playing list was weak and the club's position was "diabolical", AFL chief Andrew Demetriou yesterday heaped praise on the Demons and reaffirmed his commitment to 10 clubs in Victoria.

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'."

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

Despite some mirth on my part I think Hazy is very articulate, very intelligent, and has made some worthwhile points. My only (cause I know you love itallics) problem with him has been his agenda from the start. He is surely involved with the previous Board and has defended them and their inactivity at every opportunity. He's even gone out of his way to laud them in previous threads. Something always smelt from the date he and Liarwing joined, and from the threads that attracted them.

Demetriou told Stynes that we were in a "diabolical" position when he was considering running for the Presidency. Despite Hazy's fondness for the previous administration and their (no doubt) tireless efforts they hadn't managed to alter the course of this once proud club. We'd hit rock bottom and were starting to dig.

I'm all for burying hatchetts and moving on, but I'm not sure some will shelve their agenda. Congratulations surely must go to Andrew Mamonitis. It was a great introduction. But the current admin still had to negotiate the best deal possible and it appears that this has been done. An effort seemingly dismissed by our past Board's lapdog. Talk about being predictable.

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

Are you sure?

4.8 combined with the Hankook deal?

Sorry guys,

My bad, It's 5.2 million combined with Hankook.

Lock it in.

Cheers H !!!

And isn't it about $5.1 million for three years?

I'm pretty sure I read that in here somewhere.

The deal with Hankook is worth 0.7 mil a yr or 2.1mil over 3yrs, the deal with Kaspersky is worth just under 1mil a year or 2.9-3mil over 3yrs. The combined sponsorship/joint sponsorship is said to be 5mil over 3years.

Demons announce new sponsor

Seems to me that Kaspersky coming on board will be great for both parites. I know personally i would of been reluctant to use a Russian company for internet security. Not really sure why as its not like theres anything ive got that is worth protecting but now i will ditch my old provider and sign up this week.

Great work by all involved. Hopefully Kaspersky will become #1 in Australia soon.

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.

It's not an argument for delaying sponsorship deals, it's an argument for praising our dumb luck and securing a better deal now than we would have 5 months ago.

If Hannabal is right about your motives I can understand your vehemence.

But, really, criticism of the deal itself, just because it was sparked by a lowly supporter, is a bit rich.

Not as rich as $3m over 3 years, but rich nevertheless.

Companies don't just fork over cash because their regional sales rep advises them to.

They obviously talked with JS and CS and liked their vision.

I believe that the approach taken by Hazy and RFlowerwing is correct. They are questioning the performance of our Board and our CEO. Not only is that their right it is necessary as complacency can lead to trouble. For those familiar with the concept of "groupthink" it is very important to have diversity of thought and Hazy and RFW have presented their views articulately and intelligently. Moreover they did it without any criticism of any member of this forum, a courtesy that was not extended to them.

I've followed football for a long time but probably only followed the "political" side since 1996. I tire of it now because football is no different to any other business and I've seen Chairman of clubs (and I think I'm right in saying MFC does NOT have a President, we have a Chairman) begin their Chairmanships with the best of intentions only to find that after time they start to run their own agendas. In my opinion this has been the case of every Chairman we have had since 1996.

I hope that Stynes and his Board don't fall into this trap, but having been bitten on so may occasions I have no confidence that it won't happen again.

I therefore support Hazy and RFW. It doesn't mean that I agree with their stance but we must have intelligent and articulate people scrutinizing our clubs management.

Thanks guys and well done particularly in light of the avalanche of opposition you've received.

Yes, it is valuable to have critical thought.

But, this is verging on blanket opposition.

And that leads to the Libs giving a leg up to alcohol companies that target 15 - 17 year olds, and the US Republican Party which stands for nothing but the desire to make the sitting President and his policies a complete failure.

Fan, I can understand your desire to respectful, and most of us are...

But if all you do is criticise, you will be ostracised...

I believe that the approach taken by Hazy and RFlowerwing is correct. They are questioning the performance of our Board and our CEO. Not only is that their right it is necessary as complacency can lead to trouble. For those familiar with the concept of "groupthink" it is very important to have diversity of thought and Hazy and RFW have presented their views articulately and intelligently. Moreover they did it without any criticism of any member of this forum, a courtesy that was not extended to them.

I've followed football for a long time but probably only followed the "political" side since 1996. I tire of it now because football is no different to any other business and I've seen Chairman of clubs (and I think I'm right in saying MFC does NOT have a President, we have a Chairman) begin their Chairmanships with the best of intentions only to find that after time they start to run their own agendas. In my opinion this has been the case of every Chairman we have had since 1996.

I hope that Stynes and his Board don't fall into this trap, but having been bitten on so may occasions I have no confidence that it won't happen again.

I therefore support Hazy and RFW. It doesn't mean that I agree with their stance but we must have intelligent and articulate people scrutinizing our clubs management.

Thanks guys and well done particularly in light of the avalanche of opposition you've received.

I agree completely.

I had faith in them throughout the ordeal of finding a major sponsor (at times it felt like it was bordering on blind & I had to question "why?").

But I'm glad someone is willing to ask questions and make sure they are held accountable.

All the good intentions in the world are meaningless if the club folds due to blind incompetence. Its just that which had put us in the position of 12 months ago.

We all can and do criticize, praise, question and answer. Some do one more than the other. All are useful in different ways.

Welcome to a forum.

It's fantastic to have some positive vibes surrounding our club at the moment, and hopefully this can be translated to great performances on the field as well. It is really starting to feel like the tide is starting to turn our way, and that can sometimes resonate to playing group, in the same way a fractured club can drag the team down.

I had amazingly already put Hankook tyres on my van for the first time only a month before they came on board with us, so that will be a regular purchase now. And once my current internet security subscription lapses, i will be making the switch over to Kapersky. Well done to Andrew and the Board.

Moreover they did it without any criticism of any member of this forum, a courtesy that was not extended to them.

Then maybe you should read some of his posts again, some people live in the past and some people live for the now and some live for the future, and I am sure of the ones that are still stuck in time.

Understandable sentiment, but a bit harsh. Our new Chairman and board are probably not as connected to the big end of town as some previous administrations. They have rallied and relied on Demons general to carry the club forward with collective new ideas and support.

This has proved a successful strategy given;

a. the debt reduction program

b. the 'ideas' forum and,

c. the Demon supporter who was able to initiate the Kaspersky sponsorship.

When you think about it, mobilising the masses creates many more target opportunities than when we all sit back and expect the Chairman and board do do all of the heavy lifting.

Good points. Stynes has openly endeavoured to make the club more inclusive, which hasn't always appeared to be the case with previous regimes.

But whether it was this, or having supporters who understood the dire nature of our situation, the facts are that the current administration got extremely lucky.

I don't think that Cameron Schwab should be gloating about doing the right thing, and holding out for what he believed our sponorship was worth. If not for De La Rue and Mamonitis, we would rightfully be questioning the competency of the current administration, as Hazy does.

Good points. Stynes has openly endeavoured to make the club more inclusive, which hasn't always appeared to be the case with previous regimes.

But whether it was this, or having supporters who understood the dire nature of our situation, the facts are that the current administration got extremely lucky.

I don't think that Cameron Schwab should be gloating about doing the right thing, and holding out for what he believed our sponorship was worth. If not for De La Rue and Mamonitis, we would rightfully be questioning the competency of the current administration, as Hazy does.

Oh and CS had no input into these deals, the supporter who spoke to his boss had done it all sorted out what we could give him then handed it on to the club for a signature and deal was done, come on give some credit will you.

I don't think that Cameron Schwab should be gloating about doing the right thing, and holding out for what he believed our sponorship was worth. If not for De La Rue and Mamonitis, we would rightfully be questioning the competency of the current administration, as Hazy does.

I've not heard any gloating, just reinstating his strategy in negotiations.

Don't try to tell me other clubs don't make use of influential supporters when getting their sponsorships deals done.

These things are ALL about personal relationships and knowing someone that knows someone that knows someone else.

This is not Jimmy's area of expertise and Schwab has been building relationships in the West for the last 8 years or so.

You're also assuming no other companies were in the running.

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

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

delay = 17 days...

(deleted to reduce space)

The whole basis of your argument is underpined by an assumption that is incorrect, which is the structure of the payments and what the 'sponsorship' buys.

Sponsorship contracts are based on a season, the starting date of the contracts are largley irrelevant. It's all about a season of football, ie exposing the market to a brand via several avenues such as matchday crowds, exposure on TV and other media outlets. This means that even if we had of signed this new contract several months earlier it would have been for exactly the same amount.

If, by some freakish miracle, what Hazy is saying was correct then the new contract would have been for a considerably less amount because we have already lost so much time. All this meaning that the above wall of text full of calculations that I replied to are completely useless and irrelevant.

Hazy's monotonous postings on this topic are now repetitive and boring (and have been for some time). His/her arguments are obviously becoming more and more desperate with each day the club gets stronger and stronger, you can actually see the dissapointment in the posts because his agenda is further exposed.

Every true Melbourne supporter should be proud of what this club has achieved since the supporters pitched in and wiped out millions of dollars of debt last year, and there is no more room for personal political agenda's, those days belong to the old MFC, the pathetic irrelevant MFC that landed us in the position we're currently in. Previous administrations failed our club dismally, but now is not the time to reflect, we just need to focus on the present and the future.

I feel nothing but pity and disgust for anyone who tries to continue in Hazy's way.

Oh and CS had no input into these deals, the supporter who spoke to his boss had done it all sorted out what we could give him then handed it on to the club for a signature and deal was done, come on give some credit will you.

Without the initial contact by the supporter, there was no deal. In fact, with the Kaspersky deal, it was the company that initiated contact with the club.

Without the initial contact by the supporter, there was no deal. In fact, with the Kaspersky deal, it was the company that initiated contact with the club.

So what?

A very similiar thing happened with Emirates and Collingwood, it wasn't the CFC who contacted Emirates and talked them into a sponsorship, someone who had a contact within their organisation found out their expansion plans in Aus and introduced them.

At high level business deals it almost always happens like this, it's not what you know, it's who you know.

Without the initial contact by the supporter, there was no deal. In fact, with the Kaspersky deal, it was the company that initiated contact with the club.

As has been said, So what? Do you honestly think club presidents/CEOs sit in their office cold calling companies hoping to miraculously find a company wanting to sponsor us? No, don't be ridiculous. Clubs announce they are seeking sponsorship, then interested parties come forward. Which is what has happened here, the fact that the initial idea came from a fellow supporter is largely irrelevant.

I believe that the approach taken by Hazy and RFlowerwing is correct. They are questioning the performance of our Board and our CEO. Not only is that their right it is necessary as complacency can lead to trouble. For those familiar with the concept of "groupthink" it is very important to have diversity of thought and Hazy and RFW have presented their views articulately and intelligently. Moreover they did it without any criticism of any member of this forum, a courtesy that was not extended to them.

I therefore support Hazy and RFW. It doesn't mean that I agree with their stance but we must have intelligent and articulate people scrutinizing our clubs management.

Thanks guys and well done particularly in light of the avalanche of opposition you've received.

That's great Fan. A previous Labor leader may have called you a 'suck hole', but I won't.

But a couple of questions:

Do you think Hazy and Liarwing know each other ?

And do you think that they have relevant connections with the previous Board ?

Just your opinion obviously. But of course, you know I know your answer.

That's great Fan. A previous Labor leader may have called you a 'suck hole', but I won't.

But a couple of questions:

Do you think Hazy and Liarwing know each other ?

And do you think that they have relevant connections with the previous Board ?

Just your opinion obviously. But of course, you know I know your answer.

If you didn't want to call me a suck hole you shouldn't have.

Does it matter if Hazy and RFW know each other? Does that make their contributions any less relevant? I think not but everyone is able to make their own decisions on that.

Do they have some connections to the Board? I hope so, it would be good to get that sort of input.

Do I agree with them in this instance. Mostly no although I do think any Board and CEO should be held accountable.

If we shot everyone because they had a particularly strong view on something very few of the interesting posters would be left, including you and me probably.

Does it matter if Hazy and RFW know each other? Does that make their contributions any less relevant? I think not but everyone is able to make their own decisions on that.

Do they have some connections to the Board? I hope so, it would be good to get that sort of input.

Liarwing and Hazy claim that they don't know each other. They claim (Hazy) that they have no affiliation with the previous Board.

So, yes it matters.

Norm Smith famously said, "I walk a straight line and I never deviate". I'd like to think that's the way I post. I can't say the same for others.

Liarwing and Hazy claim that they don't know each other. They claim (Hazy) that they have no affiliation with the previous Board.

So, yes it matters.

Norm Smith famously said, "I walk a straight line and I never deviate". I'd like to think that's the way I post. I can't say the same for others.

Fan claims he doesn't know me, even though I have taught so much in the last few years.