Foundation dinner

[daisycutter 29,612]

Research show's that the Melbourne badge situated above Hankook's logo is the main eye-catch.

Well I just don't believe that

The hankook logo/emblem on the jumper is one of the clearest most obvious most readable jumper logos in the whole afl

The MFC logo/emblem almost blends into the jumper and certainly doesn't detract from the hankook logo

Was the "research" carried out in a mental asylum?

[e25 5]

No, I think it makes sense.

First I look at the player's face, then follow down to the emblem, then I look at the Hankook logo.

I'm sure 2nd is better than 3rd.

The argument has some merit, but not enough to really have a falling out over.

But then again, this is business.

[e25 5]

Or 10 desks...

I love it.

We have a salmon, a pineapple, a monkey, and now we have the new analogy for an amount of money - a desk.

1 desk = $80K.

Brilliant.

[mrtwister 652]

I think I read somewhere that when players' head shots are in the media, there is obviously a greater chance of the badges further down being cut out of the image.

[H_T 3,043]

From the MFC Twitter "Melbourne has raised $758,901 at its annual Foundation Heroes event at Myer Mural Hall - an outstanding effort by the red and blue faithful".

Well done

The figure was actually $800,000.00.

Great support from the ~450 influential supporters who attended the Foundation dinner. Let's not lose sight of this.

Well done and a pat on the back to those who contributed. This is great support and doesn't go unnoticed - at least I hope it doesn't in this thread !

Hopefully assists in building assets and a sound springboard for our FD.

[mfcrox 143]

Nah, doesn't go unnoticed at all! It is an another unbelievable effort by all those in attendance!

You would think that all of the 'Unpassionate, Range Rover-driving, down-hill skiing' Melbourne supporter stereotyping would have ceased after the last few seasons of donating and debt demolition... however it is probably as loud as ever.

Edited August 10, 2011 by mfcrox

[rpfc 28,380]

Are you kidding? A company tips in 1.5 million, has a deal about logo and placement and shouldn't have an issue about the club reneging (and reducing their exposure)? Hankook is not a charity they're a business looking for a return on an investment.

It was $2.1m over three years and Laurie is a stubborn bastard who can stand his ground on an issue like that if he wants to but the club also is a business that is allowed to stand its ground.

We wanted the emblem - it's our jumper and we got it.

The Hankook logo is one of the easiest to see on any jumper and for $700k a year Laurie got extraordinary value for money over the three years. He should be very happy with his lot - he isn't, and that is his right.

But I am not going to sit here and let Schwab get crucified because of a fight with Laurie.

He's got bigger problems than Laurie...

[rpfc 28,380]

This also extends to his treatment of Green, Moloney, Wonnaemirri, Bell, McDonald and Scully. Also the board for not recognising his mistakes and renewing his contract.

How does he line his own pockets?

And how did he treat these players?

We cannot create pressure for change if we don't know the facts.

[old dee 23,787]

Nah, doesn't go unnoticed at all! It is an another unbelievable effort by all those in attendance!

You would think that all of the 'Unpassionate, Range Rover-driving, down-hill skiing' Melbourne supporter stereotyping would have ceased after the last few seasons of donating and debt demolition... however it is probably as loud as ever.

I cannot ski, don't own a RR but I am passionate.

And you are correct it will not go away.

The likes of Brian Taylor will keep peddling it.

Forget about them.

Win on sunday that will shut them up!

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

He has his reasons rightly or wrongly. He doesn't need to elaborate.

Nah, its a sign of weakness...

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

Or this shot in the age. The phrase "dogs balls" comes to mind.

Imo, the MFC emblem inside the red V looks silly. Not that that is the issue at hand.

[H_T 3,043]

Nah, its a sign of weakness...

haha.

[rpfc 28,380]

Imo, the MFC emblem inside the red V looks silly. Not that that is the issue at hand.

I really like it...

Each to their own.

[rpfc 28,380]

Nah, its a sign of weakness...

Nice one.

[Dannyz 2,737]

So Danny, as you have some inside into the club, do you have any idea who the CEO could or should be?

We need to sort this out soon.

Depends on the vision of the club. David Neitz would be a good shout. A good Melbourne man who has cut his teeth with the Mates of Melbourne brand. If they're looking to point someone with experience there are many of solid candidates out there.

[Mallee Bull 97]

Depends on the vision of the club. David Neitz would be a good shout. A good Melbourne man who has cut his teeth with the Mates of Melbourne brand. If they're looking to point someone with experience there are many of solid candidates out there.

Neitz as CEO of the MFC? Surely you jest....

[mfcrox 143]

The Hankook logo is one of the easiest to see on any jumper and for $700k a year Laurie got extraordinary value for money over the three years. He should be very happy with his lot - he isn't, and that is his right.

Agreed... Laurie has been LUCKY ENOUGH to have been a sponsor of the club during probably it's most news-making period since sponsorship on jumpers was introduced. The last 2-3yrs we have probably seen more frontpage, backpage, and centrefold articles on Melbourne than ever before... all with a photo of the Hankook logo gazing back at the reader:

- 'Dean Bailey Under Pressure'... numerous photo's in club media polo addressing the players, or feeling the heat at a press-conference with the sponsor-board in the background.

- 'Jim Stynes Fighting Cancer'... again in the media polo or with sponsor-board in the background.

- 'Tom Scully Rumoured to GWS'... Uncountable amounts of photo's with media polo's, sponsor-board, full-body photo's of him running down along the MCG or Gosch's Paddock with a Hankook football in hand.

This is not including all of the elevated television exposure that has occurred due to the above stories too.

Yes, more often than not the news has been bad on all those fronts... but exposure is exposure, and no-one can say that we haven't had our FAIR SHARE the last 3 seasons. Contractually you are right Laurie, but jeez!

Edited August 11, 2011 by mfcrox

[beelzebub 23,340]

and then the thread to a jolt to the silly side

[old dee 23,787]

Neitz as CEO of the MFC? Surely you jest....

Have I missed something.

The CEO has just had his contract extended by twelve months.

My reading of the situation was he had a contract till Oct. 2011.

he had to be notified by 31st July 2011 if we wished to continue.

The extension was agreed.

So we have a CEO till October 2012.

i.e. the end of the 2012 season

Why are we looking for a new CEO?

[Guest The Tweed Pig]

Nah, its a sign of weakness...

While I'm much like the bloke in your avatar on these forums I accept that there are those that prefer to shirk expanding upon their view. Imo, they have that right.

If you want to see someone that's prepared to discuss all things happening in the world head over to the General forum where I'm spending much of my spare time handing posters their arse on a plate.

[mfcrox 143]

and then the thread to a jolt to the silly side

What's silly about what I wrote? Haha. It's true, is it not?

Or do you mean David Neitz?

[beelzebub 23,340]

What's silly about what I wrote? Haha. It's true, is it not?

Or do you mean David Neitz?

the latter

[beelzebub 23,340]

Have I missed something.

The CEO has just had his contract extended by twelve months.

My reading of the situation was he had a contract till Oct. 2011.

he had to be notified by 31st July 2011 if we wished to continue.

The extension was agreed.

So we have a CEO till October 2012.

i.e. the end of the 2012 season

Why are we looking for a new CEO?

I believe someone is rattling cages

[mfcrox 143]

the latter

Hahaha. No worries. Yeah, suggestion is a bit left-field. Any insight on that Dannyz?

[e25 5]

It was $2.1m over three years and Laurie is a stubborn bastard who can stand his ground on an issue like that if he wants to but the club also is a business that is allowed to stand its ground.

We wanted the emblem - it's our jumper and we got it.

The Hankook logo is one of the easiest to see on any jumper and for $700k a year Laurie got extraordinary value for money over the three years. He should be very happy with his lot - he isn't, and that is his right.

But I am not going to sit here and let Schwab get crucified because of a fight with Laurie.

He's got bigger problems than Laurie...

It didn't occur to me at the time, but looking back, the legal implications and the wording of the sponsorship contract, surely must be what lead to Schwab's repeated public insistence that "it is an emblem, not a logo."

Therein lies the issue, methinks.

Schwab felt he could dud De La Rue on a technicality, that may or may not have stood up in court.

Technically CS may have been in the right, but he wasn't in the right.

Not good stakeholder relations (which I believe is Neitz's domain, funnily enough).

In the end, it's a cost-benefit analysis...

Was De La Rue already being a pain in the asre and there was little prospect of him continuing on as a sponsor anyway?

Was an opportunity to promote the club's brand too good to pass up? Especially when you can technically justify it?

Was there nowhere else on the jumper suitable to house the emblem? I understand that this sort of thing has been refined into a science, & that it's not something I know well, but I assume the club is well informed in these things. Russell Howcroft would be all over this.

Did CS think he could get away with this because DLR is a longtime supporter? Would he have tried to do it if that were not the case? Did DLR try to have it a bit each way? - purely a business deal when it suits him, a club saviour the other half of the time? (pure & utter speculation)

I'm inclined to think that you want to keep everyone happy, but it's a balancing act.

On what little I know, I'm guessing CS got it wrong this time.

Sackable offence? Hardly.

There are a lot of criticisms accumulating, though.

Edited August 11, 2011 by e25