As I said in another post, I believe there is a sponsorship coordinator so it may be that has failed to check all the facts and not CS.

That's what I said, nor really a statement of fact.

A sponsorship coordinator is not an investigator.

There are three possibilities:

1. Due diligence was done and nothing was found at the time, harmful issues arose later

2. Due diligence was done, some issues were found but a decision was made that they were not harmful enough.

3. Due diligence wasn't done sufficiently well, significant harmful issues should have been found or were ignored.

You (and Billy) are jumping to conclusion No. 3 based purely on the EW outcome, in hindsight. At present, we simply do not have the facts to determine whether the problem is 1, 2 or 3. Anything else is mere supposition masquerading as fact, and you are just guessing.

A sponsorship coordinator is not an investigator.

There are three possibilities:

1. Due diligence was done and nothing was found at the time, harmful issues arose later

2. Due diligence was done, some issues were found but a decision was made that they were not harmful enough.

3. Due diligence wasn't done sufficiently well, significant harmful issues should have been found or were ignored.

You (and Billy) are jumping to conclusion No. 3 based purely on the EW outcome, in hindsight. At present, we simply do not have the facts to determine whether the problem is 1, 2 or 3. Anything else is mere supposition masquerading as fact, and you are just guessing.

Maurie, edit your post and remove my name immedaitely, then, you can post an apology to me on this thread.

Brilliant Maurie. Now, let's actually post the full comment that I wrote...

"The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know."

So, as you can see, and from all my other posts regarding this topic, I have not made the statement that I know they didn't do certain things. As I have questioned above...who knows? Obviously the Club knows, or some within it, but for everyone else, it's gueww work. I have an expectation that it was just a case of bad luck, more than someone now doing their job, but that's an opinion.

Disappointing that you're like that Maurie.

A sponsorship coordinator is not an investigator.

There are three possibilities:

1. Due diligence was done and nothing was found at the time, harmful issues arose later

2. Due diligence was done, some issues were found but a decision was made that they were not harmful enough.

3. Due diligence wasn't done sufficiently well, significant harmful issues should have been found or were ignored.

You (and Billy) are jumping to conclusion No. 3 based purely on the EW outcome, in hindsight. At present, we simply do not have the facts to determine whether the problem is 1, 2 or 3. Anything else is mere supposition masquerading as fact, and you are just guessing.

Here it is for your benefit Maurie...looks to be firmly in possibility 1 if you ask me.

I await your apology.

Here it is for your benefit Maurie...looks to be firmly in possibility 1 if you ask me.

I await your apology.

Mark Neeld?

Mark Neeld?

Was beginning to think that Maurie's surname was Mifsud.

Here's your quote exactly:

The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a major financial "contributor".

A sponsorship coordinator is not an investigator.

There are three possibilities:

1. Due diligence was done and nothing was found at the time, harmful issues arose later

2. Due diligence was done, some issues were found but a decision was made that they were not harmful enough.

3. Due diligence wasn't done sufficiently well, significant harmful issues should have been found or were ignored.

You (and Billy) are jumping to conclusion No. 3 based purely on the EW outcome, in hindsight. At present, we simply do not have the facts to determine whether the problem is 1, 2 or 3. Anything else is mere supposition masquerading as fact, and you are just guessing.

Maurie, RobbieF raised his concerns at the time of the sponsorship announcement - hardly hindsight.

Edited April 11, 201213 yr by Tricky

Maurie, RobbieF raised his concerns at the time of the sponsorship announcement - hardly hindsight.

A number of people did

IIRC they revolved around the capacity of EW to pay such an amount and the original ASIC query

Do you remember any other issues raised at the time?

Here's your quote exactly:

Maurie - highlighting that sentence on it's own is totally incorrect, and is not me making a statement. If you included the second sentence of tha tparagraph, it showed where I sit/sat.

That first sentence was me explaing what the two sides of the arguement was. It was said when I was trying to work out why I was being asked about things I hadn't even mentioned.

And to Nasher and Axis of Bob, I'm not sure why you "liked" his comment. I have asked Maurie on numerous occasions to re-read my post buy he refuses to, but continues to post things to suit his arguement.

Here's your quote exactly:

Here it is again (in full) so you don't have to go back through the numerous posts;

"The main issue (from what I can understand) is that the MFC didn't do appropriate background checks on a mjor financial "contributor". Who knows, they may have done their ethical checks in regards to facebook pages, twitter, etc, but from a financial point of view, we just don't know."

And here is exactly where I explained I stand (so there is no confusion);

"I have an expectation that it was just a case of bad luck, more than someone now doing their job, but that's an opinion."

In this last quote, the undelined "now" should have been "not", but that is a minor error and not something that confuses my opinion.

And to Nasher and Axis of Bob, I'm not sure why you "liked" his comment. I have asked Maurie on numerous occasions to re-read my post buy he refuses to, but continues to post things to suit his arguement.

I love it when I get addressed in an argument I'm not even part of.

I love it when I get addressed in an argument I'm not even part of.

So you "like" it when people make false claims? Interesting...

So you "like" it when people make false claims? Interesting...

You need to cool down, Billy. I was amused by Maurie's quote, that's all. The whole reason the "like" button exists is so people can smirk in the background without being dragged in to the thread, but alas, here you are, dragging me in to the thread. Stop trying to pick fights where there are none.

I love it more when I come into this thread to read about sponsorship and the like, and all I get is whinging and bitching about who said what!

I love it more when I come into this thread to read about sponsorship and the like, and all I get is whinging and bitching about who said what!

I can't believe you just said that...

You need to cool down, Billy. I was amused by Maurie's quote, that's all. The whole reason the "like" button exists is so people can smirk in the background without being dragged in to the thread, but alas, here you are, dragging me in to the thread. Stop trying to pick fights where there are none.

Sorry Nasher. I don't see how sticking up for myself when I'm being misquoted is picking a fight that's not there. It's totally inaccurate on Maurie's behalf, and quite disrespectful.

I love it more when I come into this thread to read about sponsorship and the like, and all I get is whinging and bitching about who said what!

There's nothing else to talk about Demonator - it's a topic about something we have nothing of - SPONSORS!!!! Gotta fill the pages up with something!

It's high school again.

Got to be very careful what and who to like...

And to Nasher and Axis of Bob, I'm not sure why you "liked" his comment. I have asked Maurie on numerous occasions to re-read my post buy he refuses to, but continues to post things to suit his arguement.

billy, edit your post and remove my name immedaitely, then, you can post an apology to me on this thread.

billy, edit your post and remove my name immedaitely, then, you can post an apology to me on this thread.

Oh dear...

Sorry Nasher. I don't see how sticking up for myself when I'm being misquoted is picking a fight that's not there. It's totally inaccurate on Maurie's behalf, and quite disrespectful.

You're defending yourself from an attack I didn't make. I think everyone but you can see that.

No more comment from me.

Let's try not to be too sensitive here people.

This is a forum full of the most victimised, touchy, paranoid people on Earth - Melbourne supporters.

Let's not treat regular Landers like they are on a School Holidays Flamethrowing Mission.

Got plenty of those at the moment...

Back on the topic of sponsorships. I spoke to a mate at footy training last night, He works at the Dees. He told me Melbourne are trying to get Kaspersky back on board at a discounted rate. He told me it will be announced soon.

Back on subject for everyone's benefit...

As I have said previously, who knows what has happened in the lead-up to signing Energy Watch to a sponsorship deal. We would like to think that our Club operated in a professional manner, and undertook all relevant background checks required in this situation. In other words, I hope it's a case of just plain bad luck that it all turned to cr@p, and as members, the expectation we have on all the decision makers within the Club should be nothing but utmost professionalism.

Let's hope that we can see someone else (sponsor) come on board, and have $2m a year of actual cash sitting in the bank that they believe the MFC brand is worth. I would hate to think that areas such as the Football Department will take a hit from, and we need to restructure due to financial implications. From the players perspective, I'm quite sure they just want stability - there has been a neck of a lot of changes in the past couple of seasons, so let's give them no excuses not to perform to an elite standard.

Cheers

Back on the topic of sponsorships. I spoke to a mate at footy training last night, He works at the Dees. He told me Melbourne are trying to get Kaspersky back on board at a discounted rate. He told me it will be announced soon.

Did he happen to mention how discounted? I know they sponsor Manly but have no idea what amount...

Major sponsor or more minor?