New sponsorship for the Dees?

[daisycutter 29,431]

I'm amazed this post has been up for nearly 24 hours, and we haven't had the "any publicity is good publicity for sponsors" line that gets thrown about by some in here.

I also found it interesting to read in an article in The Age that our current sponsors have a "get out clause" should we be found guilty of tanking.

what makes you think it is an explicit reference to tanking rather than a generic clause in all sponsorship contracts?

[The Chazz 4,077]

For a club that has, in recent years, been perpetually near the bottom of the ladder and a constant target of the vultures in the media, Melbourne has done extremely well in attracting lucrative new sponsorship deals, something it was less able to do before Cameron Schwab took on the role of CEO.

How do we know the current sponsorship deals are "lucrative", rumpole? I'm the first to say that any $ received from sponsorship is vital/valuable, but considering we all knew how much Energy Watch were meant to be giving us ($5.9m over 3 years or something), as it was the biggest deal in the Club's history, and the fact that nothing has been mentioned as to the financial contributions either Webjet or Opel were required to pay, I am willing to bet that what Webjet and Opel are paying is well under what most would expect. That's not to say they aren't paying market value.

[The Chazz 4,077]

what makes you think it is an explicit reference to tanking rather than a generic clause in all sponsorship contracts?

No doubt it is a generic clause DC, and would cover incidents similar to what we see with TAC sponsorships being pulled should a player be caught speeding/DUI. That said, the sponsorship extension was signed while the invesitagtions were being carried out, so none of know if it is a generic clause or one specific to the allegations.

I'm hopeful that our sponsors will see the benefit of sticking with us, regardless of the outcome of the allegations, therefore, not needing to use the "get out clasue" that may be available to them.

[rpfc 28,079]

How do we know the current sponsorship deals are "lucrative", rumpole? I'm the first to say that any $ received from sponsorship is vital/valuable, but considering we all knew how much Energy Watch were meant to be giving us ($5.9m over 3 years or something), as it was the biggest deal in the Club's history, and the fact that nothing has been mentioned as to the financial contributions either Webjet or Opel were required to pay, I am willing to bet that what Webjet and Opel are paying is well under what most would expect. That's not to say they aren't paying market value.

Well, we managed to post a profit after that dog of a year so they must have put in a fair chunk...

And as for the clauses - DC is right.

It doesn't surprise me that if we are found guilty of match fixing that our sponsors would be allowed to leave us rather easily...

Hell, they might even sue us...

Lance will be.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Well, we managed to post a profit after that dog of a year so they must have put in a fair chunk...

And as for the clauses - DC is right.

It doesn't surprise me that if we are found guilty of match fixing that our sponsors would be allowed to leave us rather easily...

Hell, they might even sue us...

Lance will be.

Was there somewhere that I disagreed with the get out clause?

As I said, all income produced from sponsorship is vital/valuable. I would be very interested to know what contribution both Opel and Webjet were required to make. I would appreciate it if someone could ask at the AGM (I won't be there). As I said, the whole world knew what the Energy Watch deal was worth, but we have no idea what Opel/Webjet are paying. Is it CS keeping this quiet so he avoids criticism? Just throwing it out there.

We are obviously very grateful of any and all contributions made by Webjet/Opel, and of course it helped us post a profit during the year from hell, they were major sponsors afterall.

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with anything I've posted RPFC, so I'll take it that you aren't, and are just contributing to the topic. Cheers.

[rpfc 28,079]

Was there somewhere that I disagreed with the get out clause?

As I said, all income produced from sponsorship is vital/valuable. I would be very interested to know what contribution both Opel and Webjet were required to make. I would appreciate it if someone could ask at the AGM (I won't be there). As I said, the whole world knew what the Energy Watch deal was worth, but we have no idea what Opel/Webjet are paying. Is it CS keeping this quiet so he avoids criticism? Just throwing it out there.

We are obviously very grateful of any and all contributions made by Webjet/Opel, and of course it helped us post a profit during the year from hell, they were major sponsors afterall.

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with anything I've posted RPFC, so I'll take it that you aren't, and are just contributing to the topic. Cheers.

If I was disagreeing with you, Billy - you'd know it...

It's an interesting side note to a tumultuous time. If we are charged and sanctioned we will lose our gambling and liquor licences, and we will lose our sponsors and possibly be sued by them for previous payment.

Some on here don't realise how much the AFL do not want what is happening right now.

I bet the Bloated One has said 'F___ing Adrian' under his breath a few times in this mess.

[old dee 23,541]

If I was disagreeing with you, Billy - you'd know it...

It's an interesting side note to a tumultuous time. If we are charged and sanctioned we will lose our gambling and liquor licences, and we will lose our sponsors and possibly be sued by them for previous payment.

Some on here don't realise how much the AFL do not want what is happening right now.

I bet the Bloated One has said 'F___ing Adrian' under his breath a few times in this mess.

rpfc I have a different view on this I think that as soon as the AFL was forced to hold an inquiry their attitude changed.

From "Clubs don't tank"to We will root out tankers and punish them.

IMO they don't give too hoots about the MFC, they would probably be happy to have one less Melbourne based club.

The MFC has made itself an irrelevance over the last decade and what would the competition lose if there was no MFC?

A small amount of the viewing audience, a small amount of lost merchandise sales.

Whatever talent the MFC has and the money they give us could be diverted to GCS and GWS .

The MFC needs the AFL way more than the reverse

IMO they have the MFC in the gun and are doing their best to penalise us.

We are in a fight for our existance make no mistake

Edited January 30, 2013 by old dee

[Bossdog 2,002]

rpfc I have a different view on this I think that as soon as the AFL was forced to hold an inquiry their attitude changed.

From "Clubs don't tank"to We will root out tankers and punish them.

IMO they don't give too hoots about the MFC, they would probably be happy to have one less Melbourne based club.

The MFC has made itself an irrelevance over the last decade and what would the competition lose if there was no MFC?

A small amount of the viewing audience, a small amount of lost merchandise sales.

Whatever talent the MFC has and the money they give us could be diverted to GCS and GWS .

The MFC needs the AFL way more than the reverse

IMO they have the MFC in the gun and are doing their best to penalise us.

We are in a fight for our existance make no mistake

Come on old dee.......Why would the AFL want to get rid of it's oldest club....There has been more irrelevant clubs in the AFL's history than ours.......StKilda,Bulldogs, ......Clubs that cannot make a profit even in premership years....Clubs that are millions in debt......Is Nth relevant?????....We are going through a tough time but the world turns....Clubs go up and down very quickly these days.....

In the Northey years we had supporters hanging off the roof (not members) but the supporters were there.....We have an inferiority complex...We are apart of an 18 team competition....and it will stay that way in the forseeable future....

[rpfc 28,079]

rpfc I have a different view on this I think that as soon as the AFL was forced to hold an inquiry their attitude changed.

From "Clubs don't tank"to We will root out tankers and punish them.

IMO they don't give too hoots about the MFC, they would probably be happy to have one less Melbourne based club.

The MFC has made itself an irrelevance over the last decade and what would the competition lose if there was no MFC?

A small amount of the viewing audience, a small amount of lost merchandise sales.

Whatever talent the MFC has and the money they give us could be diverted to GCS and GWS .

The MFC needs the AFL way more than the reverse

IMO they have the MFC in the gun and are doing their best to penalise us.

We are in a fight for our existance make no mistake

Yeah, I don't see that.

They sign a deal for 18 teams and that is that. They could have killed off us, NM, and Port a number of times over the past few years and there is no benefit in finding anything against us and kicking off what would be the end of the financial viability of the club.

They will extricate themselves this week with a heartfelt whitewash - an explosion of nothing.

And we will have absolution.

[daisycutter 29,431]

Yeah, I don't see that.

They sign a deal for 18 teams and that is that. They could have killed off us, NM, and Port a number of times over the past few years and there is no benefit in finding anything against us and kicking off what would be the end of the financial viability of the club.

They will extricate themselves this week with a heartfelt whitewash - an explosion of nothing.

And we will have absolution.

....but will we have redemption?

[rpfc 28,079]

....but will we have redemption?

That comes later.

It will happen though, and I plan to be there and then spend the next week turning into a foggy feeling that I can't quite remember but knew I loved every minute of.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Yeah, I don't see that.

They sign a deal for 18 teams and that is that. They could have killed off us, NM, and Port a number of times over the past few years and there is no benefit in finding anything against us and kicking off what would be the end of the financial viability of the club.

They will extricate themselves this week with a heartfelt whitewash - an explosion of nothing.

And we will have absolution.

Was the 18 team deal in place when they offered North sh!tloads to go to the GC about 5 years ago? Would've made it a 17 team comp then.

It would be silly to think that the AFL aren't wanting a team in Tasmania.

[The Reverend 1,736]

rpfc I have a different view on this I think that as soon as the AFL was forced to hold an inquiry their attitude changed.

From "Clubs don't tank"to We will root out tankers and punish them.

IMO they don't give too hoots about the MFC, they would probably be happy to have one less Melbourne based club.

The MFC has made itself an irrelevance over the last decade and what would the competition lose if there was no MFC?

A small amount of the viewing audience, a small amount of lost merchandise sales.

Whatever talent the MFC has and the money they give us could be diverted to GCS and GWS .

The MFC needs the AFL way more than the reverse

IMO they have the MFC in the gun and are doing their best to penalise us.

We are in a fight for our existance make no mistake

Hey, whoa old fella! Grab hold of the rope and pull yourself out of the morass of despair you've slipped into.

All will be well. We're being tested by adversity at present but look at the future...

What have we got to worry about? Does young Jack look like he's worried about the future of the MFC?

[Sir Why You Little 36,739]

Hey, whoa old fella! Grab hold of the rope and pull yourself out of the morass of despair you've slipped into.

All will be well. We're being tested by adversity at present but look at the future...

What have we got to worry about? Does young Jack look like he's worried about the future of the MFC?

great photo that one.

I get the strong impression this entire list has "bought in" & will fight for each other, unlike last years dysfunctional debacle.

I do hope Beamer enjoys his new home....

[Bossdog 2,002]

great photo that one.

I get the strong impression this entire list has "bought in" & will fight for each other, unlike last years dysfunctional debacle.

I do hope Beamer enjoys his new home....

Couldn't resist a shot at Beamer,WYL...Could you???

[Sir Why You Little 36,739]

Couldn't resist a shot at Beamer,WYL...Could you???

no. His behavior last year i will not forget. Held the whole club to ransom i believe. Couldn't be happier he has gone.

[The Chazz 4,077]

no. His behavior last year i will not forget. Held the whole club to ransom i believe. Couldn't be happier he has gone.

Only last year? I hope there are certain times the year before that too WYL, in particular a trip down to Geelong. He is a part of a select group that have "represented" the MFC that I will never forget, I'm just appreciative of Neeld that they are no longer associated with the MFC.

[The Reverend 1,736]

great photo that one.

I get the strong impression this entire list has "bought in" & will fight for each other, unlike last years dysfunctional debacle.

I do hope Beamer enjoys his new home....

Yeah, I love the fact that it's the young and the old. There seems to be a bond between these guys. I'm confident we're finally on the way. Bring on the season.

Go DEES!

[daisycutter 29,431]

Was the 18 team deal in place when they offered North sh!tloads to go to the GC about 5 years ago? Would've made it a 17 team comp then.

It would be silly to think that the AFL aren't wanting a team in Tasmania.

actually its the afl who don't want a team in tassie

they reckon there isn't the money there (true) and the natives are already captive afl supporters

[Sir Why You Little 36,739]

Only last year? I hope there are certain times the year before that too WYL, in particular a trip down to Geelong. He is a part of a select group that have "represented" the MFC that I will never forget, I'm just appreciative of Neeld that they are no longer associated with the MFC.

oh you are very right Billy don't worry. I just used last year as an example.

It amazes me how many on here forgive Beamer for his disgraceful and selfish actions.

Neeld has cleaned out the bad blood i have no doubt.

[rpfc 28,079]

Was the 18 team deal in place when they offered North sh!tloads to go to the GC about 5 years ago? Would've made it a 17 team comp then.

It would be silly to think that the AFL aren't wanting a team in Tasmania.

Well, call me silly, Billy...

The AFL don't care about Tassie.

They may be pressured into it down the track but I doubt it.

There are zero commercial reasons to go to Tassie and now that they are happy to [censored] themselves out to Hawthorn and NM there is less of a chance.

And I happen to know the bloke in charge of the PR for the proposed Tassie team.

Let's just say he hasn't had much to do on that front for a couple of years...

[The Chazz 4,077]

actually its the afl who don't want a team in tassie

they reckon there isn't the money there (true) and the natives are already captive afl supporters

It will come. While it may not be as high, the income would be far more sustainable than the Gold Coast.

I would expect within the next 5-10 years a team will be in Tassie. Gives the AFL plenty of time to "watch" a team like North (or us, depending on the result of you-know-what) die a slow death.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Well, call me silly, Billy...

The AFL don't care about Tassie.

They may be pressured into it down the track but I doubt it.

There are zero commercial reasons to go to Tassie and now that they are happy to [censored] themselves out to Hawthorn and NM there is less of a chance.

And I happen to know the bloke in charge of the PR for the proposed Tassie team.

Let's just say he hasn't had much to do on that front for a couple of years...

Cheers RP. What about the first part of my post re. the potential of a 17 club comp should NOrth have taken the lucrative offer of moving to the Gold Coast? I'm presuming that 18 team deal wasn't in place back then?

[rpfc 28,079]

Cheers RP. What about the first part of my post re. the potential of a 17 club comp should NOrth have taken the lucrative offer of moving to the Gold Coast? I'm presuming that 18 team deal wasn't in place back then?

The '18 team deal' is simply the TV rights agreement of 9 games a week...

Where is the groundswell for another team or a place for relocation?

Don't be so paranoid as to think that the AFL wants to destroy us on a whim, or because of some deepseated unease about the amount of teams in Melbourne.

The AFL don't want to prop us up, they want us to thrive and an adverse ruling will cripple us - they won't deliver it.

[old dee 23,541]

Cheers RP. What about the first part of my post re. the potential of a 17 club comp should NOrth have taken the lucrative offer of moving to the Gold Coast? I'm presuming that 18 team deal wasn't in place back then?

If North had gone to the GC it would have remained a 16 competition.

By not going it became 17 teams when the GCS were created.

Add GWS and we now have 18 teams.

Too many in my view but I seem to belong to a small group on this subject.