On 04/04/2012 at 23:34, Nasher said:

But that cuts both ways - what's the cost of losing the $2m/year? I fully agree that in principle the club should be backing away as fast as possible, but that must be decided by someone capable of weighing the options up properly - even if it means putting some members off side. It might be a necessary evil to keep the club viable - how could we as mug supporters possibly know?

All you've done is threaten the club, and wasted 30 seconds of someone who had to listen to your message. I can't see that as being particularly helpful. Like I said, your $1k is the least of their problems right now.

Yes and no.

It was people power that got Roos appointed at the Swans. The rest is history.

Sometimes the club needs to hear from its members, because the rarefied atmosphere of a board room is quite different to the 30000 members' view.

If the view being promoted is a minority view, that's one thing. But if a large proportion of the membership feels the same way, that sentiment will be relevant to the Board's decision making.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:30, titan_uranus said:

Fair points. Except the bold bit.

Are you suggesting Polis' remarks are, in the context of things, unimportant? Because the are not. He has made racist, sexist, abusive and denigrating remarks about multiple people and multiple groups.

What I am suggesting is that his remarks are just that - remarks. Unless they impact upon the way EW does business or interacts with people, they are just the ramblings of their CEO on a social media site. One of the CEOs I mentioned made remarks that impact upon his company's corporate social responsibility. For me, that's much worse.

Make no mistake, this is more about the media response to his comments. It cannot be a surprise to most of you that there are CEOs, just like there are people throughout the community, who make offensive remarks or hold 'offensive' views. It'd be nice if he wasn't racist or sexist, but in the grand scheme of things, there are bigger fish to fry. It is not his comments in isolation that may see the MFC ditch the sponsorship - it is the media attention. I have already pointed out numerous sponsors who contribute in horrific ways to the suffering of people around the world, but receive little media attention. I imagine it is the media frenzy that will push MFC to action here moreso than his comments.

In essence, it is not that Melbourne has a sponsor that is quietly offensive or unethical, as most AFL clubs have, that may see us want to change sponsors. Rather, it's that the stench of our sponsor is being splashed all over the front of newspapers that will do it.

I am heartened by the response on this site we should not be associated with that sort of stuff in any way.

As a club we can be proud of our record.

Dump them straight away.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:39, Robbie57 said:

I am heartened by the response on this site we should not be associated with that sort of stuff in any way.

As a club we can be proud of our record.

Dump them straight away.

Of course, but then we're stuck with NO SPONSORS.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:37, Tricky said:

All this talk of due diligence - that applies to the company's position, not the personal facebook account of the CEO FFS.

You have a right to be [censored] off, but it would be misguided to direct it at the club on this.

the CEO of EW is not fit to be in charge of this company. He is proud of these comments!!

That is the point of due diligence.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:39, pantaloons said:

What I am suggesting is that his remarks are just that - remarks. Unless they impact upon the way EW does business or interacts with people, they are just the ramblings of their CEO on a social media site. One of the CEOs I mentioned made remarks that impact upon his company's corporate social responsibility. For me, that's much worse.

Make no mistake, this is more about the media response to his comments. It cannot be a surprise to most of you that there are CEOs, just like there are people throughout the community, who make offensive remarks or hold 'offensive' views. It'd be nice if he wasn't racist or sexist, but in the grand scheme of things, there are bigger fish to fry. It is not his comments in isolation that may see the MFC ditch the sponsorship - it is the media attention. I have already pointed out numerous sponsors who contribute in horrific ways to the suffering of people around the world, but receive little media attention. I imagine it is the media frenzy that will push MFC to action here moreso than his comments.

That's right. But also, saying that Jurrah getting arrested is good for his business wouldn't exactly endear him to the MFC!

What a mess...

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:42, Striker475 said:

Of course, but then we're stuck with NO SPONSORS.

Yes, but if we keep EnergyWatch it would be almost impossible to attract future sponsors as like it or not, the club and future sponsors would be associated with the rants made by Polis.

Yeah let's dump them!! What a great start guys, then let's dump Jurrah for violence, Moloney for Alcohol abuse etc etc

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:44, Clint Bizkit said:

Yes, but if we keep EnergyWatch it would be almost impossible to attract future sponsors as like it or not, the club and future sponsors would be associated with the rants made by Polis.

I know that. The issue is that we're going to be in a financial [censored] once again. I see no way around it.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:39, Choko said:

If the view being promoted is a minority view, that's one thing. But if a large proportion of the membership feels the same way, that sentiment will be relevant to the Board's decision making.

Will it, though? I'd be surprised and a little bit worried if the decision on how to handle this was driven by the membership who don't and can't understand the intricacies. I think it's clear - either we can afford to cut the sponsorship so we will, or we can't afford to cut it so we won't. I don't see how any "I'm leaving raaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh" calls to the poor old person working on the switchboard is going to change that.

Does anyone know when all these comments were made? The only reason why I ask is because it's too convenient that all this has come out just after the Neeled/Mifsud/Davey BS, I don't usually hold the view that the media is out to get us but are they trying to jump on every little story to do with us?

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:39, pantaloons said:

What I am suggesting is that his remarks are just that - remarks. Unless they impact upon the way EW does business or interacts with people, they are just the ramblings of their CEO on a social media site. One of the CEOs I mentioned made remarks that impact upon his company's corporate social responsibility. For me, that's much worse.

Make no mistake, this is more about the media response to his comments. It cannot be a surprise to most of you that there are CEOs, just like there are people throughout the community, who make offensive remarks or hold 'offensive' views. It'd be nice if he wasn't racist or sexist, but in the grand scheme of things, there are bigger fish to fry. It is not his comments in isolation that may see the MFC ditch the sponsorship - it is the media attention. I have already pointed out numerous sponsors who contribute in horrific ways to the suffering of people around the world, but receive little media attention. I imagine it is the media frenzy that will push MFC to action here moreso than his comments.

In essence, it is not that Melbourne has a sponsor that is quietly offensive or unethical, as most AFL clubs have, that may see us want to change sponsors. Rather, it's that the stench of our sponsor is being splashed all over the front of newspapers that will do it.

Football clubs are public property mate. We are in deep poo over this one..

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:45, Pates said:

Does anyone know when all these comments were made? The only reason why I ask is because it's too convenient that all this has come out just after the Neeled/Mifsud/Davey BS, I don't usually hold the view that the media is out to get us but are they trying to jump on every little story to do with us?

Replace 'St Kilda schoolgirl' with 'Melbourne racism'. It's literally the same thing, and it's sickening. Worst, it may actually kill our footy club.

There might be an opportunity in this to flip the perspective.

Initiate discussions with the appropriate federal government agencies to switch out support of Energy Watch in favour of becoming the paid face of multi-cultural focus programs (for the remaining term of the EW contract). Reclaim the moral high ground by distancing ourselves from racism while helping promote appropriate government propgrmas. Richmond and others have been sponsored over the years by TAC - what's the difference?

Need to do more research but certainly you would think Gillard would be a bit interested, given she was also targeted in this nutbag's rants. That and the federal government gave $7m this week to a nothing soccer franchise in Sydneys west.

Energy Watch would have to pay out at least this year's sponsorship if we dump them, we should insist on it. In fact, they may have already paid up the $2mil, and there is no way we're giving that back.

At least that should give us 12 months breathing space to find a new sponsor.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:45, Nasher said:

Will it, though? I'd be surprised and a little bit worried if the decision on how to handle this was driven by the membership who don't and can't understand the intricacies. I think it's clear - either we can afford to cut the sponsorship so we will, or we can't afford to cut it so we won't. I don't see how any "I'm leaving raaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh" calls to the poor old person working on the switchboard is going to change that.

Maybe members' outside views shouldn't matter, but if the voice is united and loud enough, it does. Explain Paul Roos - how could supporters know better who should coach them. Ultimately, the Board is accountable to members and Boards do actually feel the weight of members. Not one, not two, but a resonant force.

I personally think the issue is that it is reactive and hysterical to demand anything of the MFC at this point, and I absolutely agree that members who think they know the intricacies are seldom right.

By the way, I give Schwab 6 weeks unfortunately.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:46, Striker475 said:

Replace 'St Kilda schoolgirl' with 'Melbourne racism'. It's literally the same thing, and it's sickening. Worst, it may actually kill our footy club.

And that is exactly why we must end the association.

"Kill our football club" as if!!!! Some of you guys are worse than the media, in fact alot of you are probably shock jocks in your spare time, god knows U must have alot of spare time.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:45, Pates said:

Does anyone know when all these comments were made? The only reason why I ask is because it's too convenient that all this has come out just after the Neeled/Mifsud/Davey BS, I don't usually hold the view that the media is out to get us but are they trying to jump on every little story to do with us?

I was keen to know that to and thought they may have been holding this out of respect for Jim.

Imagine this had all popped up 2 or 3 weeks ago...

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:50, Lordweaver said:

"Kill our football club" as if!!!! Some of you guys are worse than the media, in fact alot of you are probably shock jocks in your spare time, god knows U must have alot of spare time.

What's your solution then, Einstein?

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:46, Striker475 said:

Replace 'St Kilda schoolgirl' with 'Melbourne racism'. It's literally the same thing, and it's sickening. Worst, it may actually kill our footy club.

No, it's not even close to 'literally the same thing'. We can still hold our heads high about our behaviour over the last week.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:50, Lordweaver said:

"Kill our football club" as if!!!! Some of you guys are worse than the media, in fact alot of you are probably shock jocks in your spare time, god knows U must have alot of spare time.

Going from a $2mil/year sponsor to nothing.

Melbourne being tarnished as racist - a public perception that is bloody hard to shake.

Thus being untouchable from a sponsorship perspective.

Simply about revenue streams, really.

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:50, Lordweaver said:

"Kill our football club" as if!!!! Some of you guys are worse than the media, in fact alot of you are probably shock jocks in your spare time, god knows U must have alot of spare time.

I agree, I don't think this is the end. Our fans have proven we will not go quietly into the night, if we have to have another "debt demolition" or something of the sort, it will happen and we will dig deep to fill the possible hole the Polis may have created.

But all the work that has been done to get us in the black may be undone by this latest story. It would be too much to ask that the media back off to give us a chance to breathe, FCS just over a week ago we were laying Jimmy to rest. Talk about a baptism of fire for Neeled!

  On 04/04/2012 at 23:48, Choko said:

Maybe members' outside views shouldn't matter, but if the voice is united and loud enough, it does. Explain Paul Roos - how could supporters know better who should coach them. Ultimately, the Board is accountable to members and Boards do actually feel the weight of members. Not one, not two, but a resonant force.

I think appointing a coach is a little different to cutting loose a major source of revenue, especially when there (presumably) isn't another lined up. This is a business decision that requires a great deal of care, because it may impact the viability of the club.

In reading my own posts and yours again, I think our positions are very close.