You planning to vote the board out are you D 7...??

Where did you hear the chinese talks have "broken Down"

Absolutely not. Some stability is important in this club the off-season has been turbulent and it's ultra important up top remain how it is for the imminent future because they are not failing. I am a strong advocator of Schwab, most of all for his performance in the Jurrah situation but I don't think business is his forté.

All press reports released by Melbourne went from brushing aside thoughts of a sponsorship deal with a Chinese company, than when it appeared we were getting close he acknowledged it and the rumours begin to service it was nearly done. Now statements such as this are the norm and I for your satisfaction will highlight my favourite parts.

Second Major Sponsor: One thing I can say - I'm glad some of you guys aren't negotiating contracts on our behalf! We have explained the strategic importance of the sponsorship 'property' and we will do a deal when the deal is right, and by strategic we mean long term and having a significance beyond the revenue itself. We have locked away some very important deals over the last few years (in particular EnergyWatch) that now underpin our sponsorship revenue, and we have a number of contingencies from both a revenue and cost perspective in the event that we don't achieve our preferred outcome. We will not compromise the value by agreeing to a sub-optimal long term deal because of external or perceived time pressures. In the meantime, we proudly wear the Reach Logo on our jumpers.

As for the first sentence of that statement. Sarcasm isn't very funny when it's taken you 4+ months to find one. He may well be hiring one of us soon .

The tone has gone from a positive 'we're hammering out the final points of the deal' to we'll do a deal when it is ready to be done. If that doesn't spell out broken down talks nothing will. 'Some very important deals over the years' consist of many below-par sponsorship deals so I do not feel that optimism yet.

The second bolded topic consists of many contingency plans. If confident of a deal these wouldn't even be required so we as a company are either being played by these guys hard, or talks are on a decline. Either way, in the event that we don't achieve our preferred outcome we have a backup plan... It seems to be completely contradictory to the whole sentiment. Here we are going for the best and only the best- but if we fail to achieve preferred outcome we have some shitty backup plan. At which point, do we undertake the backup plan, when do we cut our losses? Is Reach on our guernsey that plan? What have we forgone to miss other alternatives? What will be the implications on other sponsors in the future- will they hold us to ransom? These are questions that must be thought about.

It's one thing to stand tall to the 100 losers who according to Cam would just make terrible businessmen but what about when the media heat comes on come Round 12 and a poor club has no FOJ income stream. Is waiting for the right one still a worthy answer?

If we sign a 3 year deal Round 21 this year for the next 3 years for $1mil per year great... but what about the 600,000 one year deal we could have had since the NAB Cup and we could already be negotiating a deal for the next 3 years starting 2013.

Who knows? At the end of the day all of our points mean nothing but from both an image and income perspective I don't see how this situation can be taken as a positive.

Absolutely not. Some stability is important in this club the off-season has been turbulent and it's ultra important up top remain how it is for the imminent future because they are not failing. I am a strong advocator of Schwab, most of all for his performance in the Jurrah situation but I don't think business is his forté.

All press reports released by Melbourne went from brushing aside thoughts of a sponsorship deal with a Chinese company, than when it appeared we were getting close he acknowledged it and the rumours begin to service it was nearly done. Now statements such as this are the norm and I for your satisfaction will highlight my favourite parts.

Second Major Sponsor: One thing I can say - I'm glad some of you guys aren't negotiating contracts on our behalf! We have explained the strategic importance of the sponsorship 'property' and we will do a deal when the deal is right, and by strategic we mean long term and having a significance beyond the revenue itself. We have locked away some very important deals over the last few years (in particular EnergyWatch) that now underpin our sponsorship revenue, and we have a number of contingencies from both a revenue and cost perspective in the event that we don't achieve our preferred outcome. We will not compromise the value by agreeing to a sub-optimal long term deal because of external or perceived time pressures. In the meantime, we proudly wear the Reach Logo on our jumpers.

As for the first sentence of that statement. Sarcasm isn't very funny when it's taken you 4+ months to find one. He may well be hiring one of us soon .

The tone has gone from a positive 'we're hammering out the final points of the deal' to we'll do a deal when it is ready to be done. If that doesn't spell out broken down talks nothing will. 'Some very important deals over the years' consist of many below-par sponsorship deals so I do not feel that optimism yet.

The second bolded topic consists of many contingency plans. If confident of a deal these wouldn't even be required so we as a company are either being played by these guys hard, or talks are on a decline. Either way, in the event that we don't achieve our preferred outcome we have a backup plan... It seems to be completely contradictory to the whole sentiment. Here we are going for the best and only the best- but if we fail to achieve preferred outcome we have some shitty backup plan. At which point, do we undertake the backup plan, when do we cut our losses? Is Reach on our guernsey that plan? What have we forgone to miss other alternatives? What will be the implications on other sponsors in the future- will they hold us to ransom? These are questions that must be thought about.

It's one thing to stand tall to the 100 losers who according to Cam would just make terrible businessmen but what about when the media heat comes on come Round 12 and a poor club has no FOJ income stream. Is waiting for the right one still a worthy answer?

If we sign a 3 year deal Round 21 this year for the next 3 years for $1mil per year great... but what about the 600,000 one year deal we could have had since the NAB Cup and we could already be negotiating a deal for the next 3 years starting 2013.

Who knows? At the end of the day all of our points mean nothing but from both an image and income perspective I don't see how this situation can be taken as a positive.

Our image is based on winning D7, getting that right is far more pressing, don't worry so much...the sponsors will come, If we were based at Arden St, with their revenue stream of $23mill per year i would agree with you...

But we are not...We have finally after years of struggle got ourselves into a situation off field where we do not have to compromise...and i for one am stoked.

As i said...i would love a second Big Sponsor by now, but i also am happy to keep searching and interviewing until it happens.

Revenue of said club...2008..... around $24-25 mill

Projected 2012...around $40 mill

A new Sponsor would be superb....but we can afford to search for real Gold, rather than a quick fix IMO

You speak like the club has so many assets and a large, growing membership base.

I agree with Demon Land 7. This guy/girl is constantly shot down for his realist take on this club's position. I'm sorry, but considering the club's recent dire state off-field, and the fact we were losing games by 31+goals as early as 6 months ago, I won't accept any excuses.

I think it's a real joke, and I think the club, including Schwab, are making excuses.

Absolutely not. Some stability is important in this club the off-season has been turbulent and it's ultra important up top remain how it is for the imminent future because they are not failing. I am a strong advocator of Schwab, most of all for his performance in the Jurrah situation but I don't think business is his forté.

All press reports released by Melbourne went from brushing aside thoughts of a sponsorship deal with a Chinese company, than when it appeared we were getting close he acknowledged it and the rumours begin to service it was nearly done. Now statements such as this are the norm and I for your satisfaction will highlight my favourite parts.

Second Major Sponsor: One thing I can say - I'm glad some of you guys aren't negotiating contracts on our behalf! We have explained the strategic importance of the sponsorship 'property' and we will do a deal when the deal is right, and by strategic we mean long term and having a significance beyond the revenue itself. We have locked away some very important deals over the last few years (in particular EnergyWatch) that now underpin our sponsorship revenue, and we have a number of contingencies from both a revenue and cost perspective in the event that we don't achieve our preferred outcome. We will not compromise the value by agreeing to a sub-optimal long term deal because of external or perceived time pressures. In the meantime, we proudly wear the Reach Logo on our jumpers.

As for the first sentence of that statement. Sarcasm isn't very funny when it's taken you 4+ months to find one. He may well be hiring one of us soon .

The tone has gone from a positive 'we're hammering out the final points of the deal' to we'll do a deal when it is ready to be done. If that doesn't spell out broken down talks nothing will. 'Some very important deals over the years' consist of many below-par sponsorship deals so I do not feel that optimism yet.

The second bolded topic consists of many contingency plans. If confident of a deal these wouldn't even be required so we as a company are either being played by these guys hard, or talks are on a decline. Either way, in the event that we don't achieve our preferred outcome we have a backup plan... It seems to be completely contradictory to the whole sentiment. Here we are going for the best and only the best- but if we fail to achieve preferred outcome we have some shitty backup plan. At which point, do we undertake the backup plan, when do we cut our losses? Is Reach on our guernsey that plan? What have we forgone to miss other alternatives? What will be the implications on other sponsors in the future- will they hold us to ransom? These are questions that must be thought about.

It's one thing to stand tall to the 100 losers who according to Cam would just make terrible businessmen but what about when the media heat comes on come Round 12 and a poor club has no FOJ income stream. Is waiting for the right one still a worthy answer?

If we sign a 3 year deal Round 21 this year for the next 3 years for $1mil per year great... but what about the 600,000 one year deal we could have had since the NAB Cup and we could already be negotiating a deal for the next 3 years starting 2013.

Who knows? At the end of the day all of our points mean nothing but from both an image and income perspective I don't see how this situation can be taken as a positive.

I am really glad you are not negotiating our sponsorship deal.

Do you actually have any idea how difficult these things are to land? Do you think in the economic climate we have at the moment with retrenchments and lay-ffs everywhere not to mention the European sovereign debt saga and the fact that the USA is pretty much stuffed and we have Japan in a 20 year deflationary spiral, that there are sponsors tripping over themselves to throw money after footy clubs? If you do think that then you are in dreamland.

As for taking "$600k for a one year deal and then negotiating a 3 yr deal" on vastly better terms you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding, logic and frankly intelligence. Do you really think $600k for 1 yr would be a good thing?? It would completely de-value our business proposition and place us in a terrible situation. The chances of negotiating a 3 yr deal at decent rates would be crippled.

It's clearly not ideal to be at this point and not have a FOJ sponsor. But stop with the inane ranting when you don't really understand the sponsorship market. Leave it to the club and let them be judged over time on their performance.

As for taking "$600k for a one year deal and then negotiating a 3 yr deal" on vastly better terms you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding, logic and frankly intelligence. Do you really think $600k for 1 yr would be a good thing?? It would completely de-value our business proposition and place us in a terrible situation. The chances of negotiating a 3 yr deal at decent rates would be crippled.

It's clearly not ideal to be at this point and not have a FOJ sponsor. But stop with the inane ranting when you don't really understand the sponsorship market. Leave it to the club and let them be judged over time on their performance.

Yeah, this is my view of it.

It's not great, but if we are to step up with the big boys we can't devalue our brand. It will set us back years, and be detrimental to the relationship with our other major sponsor.

It's clearly not ideal to be at this point and not have a FOJ sponsor. But stop with the inane ranting when you don't really understand the sponsorship market. Leave it to the club and let them be judged over time on their performance.

YES, ty jrnmac

Don't think he talks to me anymore wyl

I keep disagreeing with his terrible choice of the colour RED

So the answer is yes!

I dont know if you saw the herald sun today OD

but the team photo looked really RED to me, here is another example, what do you think?

i think it is really close if not perfect

edit - here is the link haha

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/Players/Playerprofiles/tabid/8357/default.aspx?playerid=14357

I dont know if you saw the herald sun today OD

but the team photo looked really RED to me, here is another example, what do you think?

i think it is really close if not perfect

edit - here is the link haha

http://www.melbourne...?playerid=14357

Late play for Red Rooster? Get that chicken on there.

I dont know if you saw the herald sun today OD

but the team photo looked really RED to me, here is another example, what do you think?

i think it is really close if not perfect

edit - here is the link haha

http://www.melbourne...?playerid=14357

I have my fingers cossed

I will with hold final approval until I see them in the flesh and on TV at night.

Anyone know what the scarf colour is this year?

I have my fingers cossed

I will with hold final approval until I see them in the flesh and on TV at night.

Anyone know what the scarf colour is this year?

i dont think you will approve.... very close if maybe slightly better than last years imo

i dont think you will approve.... very close if maybe slightly better than last years imo

Oh no JT is it another maroon?

Oh no JT is it another maroon?

it is pretty much the same as last years in colour new design

it is pretty much the same as last years in colour new design

Oh well the old one from 2010 will be around my neck again in 2012.

For the life of me I do not understand why we have a totally different coloured scarf to Jumper

I guess it seems logical and also serves as a remidner/tribute to Big Jim that we leave the Reach logo on our FOJ for the 2012 regular season.. ?

I guess it seems logical and also serves as a remidner/tribute to Big Jim that we leave the Reach logo on our FOJ for the 2012 regular season.. ?

Yes stiza_007 and it is not as though we have a choice to make.

Yes stiza_007 and it is not as though we have a choice to make.

Yes, it may well happen (I don't think it will) but it won't be by choice and will mean we will have to get through 2012 minus $1.5m+.

Yes, it may well happen (I don't think it will) but it won't be by choice and will mean we will have to get through 2012 minus $1.5m+.

100% correct

Yes, it may well happen (I don't think it will) but it won't be by choice and will mean we will have to get through 2012 minus $1.5m+.

Not if a sponsors logo can sit above or below the REACH logo. Could be easily done.

Not if a sponsors logo can sit above or below the REACH logo. Could be easily done.

if that's too hard there is always the shorts or socks or the training gear

if that's too hard there is always the shorts or socks or the training gear

I think many companies would happily share space with Reach this year.

Could be very smart strategy.

I think many companies would happily share space with Reach this year.

Could be very smart strategy.

I agree. The biggest hurdle might be the AFL.

Not if a sponsors logo can sit above or below the REACH logo. Could be easily done.

We will look like a NASCAR outfit...

Let's get serious.

Reach will stay until a sponsor is found, and then we will bow to our new masters - as we should.

I think many companies would happily share space with Reach this year.

Could be very smart strategy.

You are more generous than me wyl

companies spending $1+ million would want no deluotion of their image/ meesage.

I think you are mistaken if you think JS dying will make any difference to wether a company comes on board as the FOJS.

business is business

Now you may reply that they will want to take advantage of the current sympathy.

Big Jim will be buried next Tuesday the first real games start on thursday by the following monday all will be forgotten to all except die hard dees fans.

IMO It will be business as usual.

Ok, so after reading CS' post on here, especially the part about strategic moves regarding sponsorships, and not selling our brand short, etc, etc, I have a new theory that may make a lot of sense.

One would imagine that Reach are getting FoJ for nothing at the moment. If we were getting anything, it would basically mean we are under-selling our brand. I can't see Reach putting in the $ to ensure this isn't happening.

So, as we are trying to get "the right deal", and given that we are really trying to crack this Asian market, could we see a goodwill-type deal where our home game jumpers are sponsored, or more precisely, supporting Tourism China. If we are supporting the Reach Foundation by "giving" them the FoJ space at the moment as a good gesture, would a gesture like this to Tourism China be seen as a smart strategic move? We would not be seen as underselling our brand, because we would be doing it for free (which is generating the same income as no sponsor at all), we will be promoting China as a Country, not just a company, so could it be used it negotiations with individual companies down the track?

Reach would still have FoJ for away games, as I quite like the Reach logo on the white jumpers.

Thoughts?

Reach will prosper and Jim's legacy honoured irrespective of the logo on jumpers.

I think any company considering sponsoring Melb will be well impressed by the clubs poise, professionalism and ambition over the last couple of days since Jimmy passed, and now be very keen to deal themselves into our story, season, club.

Sad as it is, my daughter asked me after watching the heartfelt interviews and tributes to Jimmy, "are we the coolest club in the league?". I could only agree.