New sponsorship for the Dees?

[old dee 22,952]

I am truely amused by a number on here who seem to think that selling sponsorship of the MFC would be easy.

I have spent all of my working life in Sales.

From my view it would be the hardest job in the AFL.

Consider the product

Membership in the bottom half dozen clubs, one of the lowest number of supporters outside of members.

Poor on field performance for the last 7 years on end.

Terrible off field publicity over the last two years.

Reputation now of being tankers.

Very seldom play gamers in peak viewing times with large numbers of games buried on foxtel.

Gee what a great product you have to convince companies to come on board.

If you were selling this product on commission you would be broke in 3 months.

Now I have little knowledge of the skill level of CS / marketing team but they have one tough job.

However there is a way out

It is called winning Games.

Start stringing together seasons in which we win more than we lose and the game changes.

Until then this is one tough gig and any initative that generates leads is well and truely worth it.

2013 is in my opinion going to be a year were we have a number of unfilled sponsorship spots.

Not a good result but you would need to be JC to do any better IMO

Edited January 31, 2013 by old dee

[The Chazz 4,077]

I am truely amused by a number on here who seem to think that selling sponsorship of the MFC would be easy.

I have spent all of my working life in Sales.

From my view it would be the hardest job in the AFL.

Consider the product

Membership in the bottom half dozen clubs, one of the lowest number of supporters outside of members.

Poor on field performance for the last 7 years on end.

Terrible off field publicity over the last two years.

Reputation now of being tankers.

Very seldom play gamers in peak viewing times with large numbers of games buried on foxtel.

Gee what a great product you have to convince companies to come on board.

If you were selling this product on commission you would be broke in 3 months.

Now I have little knowledge of the skill level of CS / marketing team but they have one tough job.

However there is a way out

It is called winning Games.

Start stringing together seasons in which we win more than we lose and the game changes.

Until then this is one tough gig and any initative that generates leads is well and truely worth it.

2013 is in my opinion going to be a year were we have a number of unfilled sponsorship spots.

Not a good result but you would need to be JC to do any better IMO

Brace yourself Old Dee - I'm hearing B59 stomping up to the keyboard as we speak...

[beelzebub 22,269]

Brace yourself Old Dee - I'm hearing B59 stomping up to the keyboard as we speak...

why?

what is to disagree with ( by Old ) ?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,542]

I am truely amused by a number on here who seem to think that selling sponsorship of the MFC would be easy.

I don't care how easy or difficult it is. It's their job, if they can't do it move over and let someone else do it.

Time for excuses is over, that goes for on-field and off. It's not like this is a one-off it's been endemic throughout the current admin.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

I am truely amused by a number on here who seem to think that selling sponsorship of the MFC would be easy.

I have spent all of my working life in Sales.

From my view it would be the hardest job in the AFL.

Consider the product

Membership in the bottom half dozen clubs, one of the lowest number of supporters outside of members.

Poor on field performance for the last 7 years on end.

Terrible off field publicity over the last two years.

Reputation now of being tankers.

Very seldom play gamers in peak viewing times with large numbers of games buried on foxtel.

Gee what a great product you have to convince companies to come on board.

If you were selling this product on commission you would be broke in 3 months.

Now I have little knowledge of the skill level of CS / marketing team but they have one tough job.

However there is a way out

It is called winning Games.

Start stringing together seasons in which we win more than we lose and the game changes.

Until then this is one tough gig and any initative that generates leads is well and truely worth it.

2013 is in my opinion going to be a year were we have a number of unfilled sponsorship spots.

Not a good result but you would need to be JC to do any better IMO

here here!

[Biffen 12,387]

Old Dee ,

Whilst it would be difficult to sell the Demons ,

we are far too often a news headline .

The marketing types know that the Bad News Demons get more exposure than a certain ex Carlton player.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Biffen

[old dee 22,952]

I don't care how easy or difficult it is. It's their job, if they can't do it move over and let someone else do it.

Time for excuses is over, that goes for on-field and off. It's not like this is a one-off it's been endemic throughout the current admin.

So you have put your name up to take over?

I look forward to the much improved results

[Dr. Gonzo 22,542]

So you have put your name up to take over?

I look forward to the much improved results

I don't have the expertise but there are others out there who do and as a paid up premium member of 24 years I'm entitled to query these things and hold the clubs employees to account. I don't have the expertise to coach or play either but I can commen on those too.

[mjt 640]

We are not going to agree on this one rpfc.

They could not give two hoots about the survival of the MFC, North or the Bulldogs in the medium term.

They will not force the issue but they would love one of the above teams in Tassie around the end of this decade.

North must be the most likely but if the MFC went out backwards they would give one blink before moving on.

The rest in window dressing

I would happily play 6 games a season in Tasmania if it turned us around like the Hawks.

[diesel 420]

Had the 'opportunity' to listen to MMM this morning with McGuire leveraging his radio position to talk constantly about Holden AND play a jingle apparently building up to an announcement that they'll sponsor Collingw**d.

It's ironic that just yesterday I heard Collingwood supporters complaining about 'socialism' in AFL funds distribution are now going to be sponsored by a company being propped up by Tax Payers.

Edited January 31, 2013 by diesel

[beelzebub 22,269]

Had the 'opportunity' to listen to MMM this morning with McGuire leveraging his radio position to talk constantly about Holden AND play a jingle apparently building up to an announcement that they'll sponsor Collingw**d.

It's ironic that just yesterday I heard Collingwood supporters complaining about 'socialism' in AFL funds distribution are now going to be sponsored by a company being propped up by Tax Payers.

You know as much as I despise them for being able to do such I begrudgingly admire them for being able to do such. This rotten bunch of ratbags do get things done and often their way. This is essentially the nature of how we much go about things.

i dont think the socialist argument carries any water really. All companies advertise and sponsor. You wouldnt begrudge them if they gave us buckets would you ??

Collingwood are doing what they do best promote themselves and protect their own interests. You blame them ? I certainly dont

I think only now with the NEED to protect our club at all costs are we starting to see a spine develop. Hopefully it grows and we can become as aggressive in all markets as the Filth.

[The Chazz 4,077]

why?

what is to disagree with ( by Old ) ?

I'm gald you agree with Old Dee's post, especially the line "Terrible off field publicity over the last two years". It may have been the sound of the penny dropping that I heard rather than your stomping.

You have made comments over the past 6 months about how "good" this "publicity" is for our sponsors during the tanking investigations. Absolute tripe. I raised the point that a majority of the coverage we have received, especially when there was footage of us or a photograph used, all displayed 2009 merchandise/sponsors. Very rarely did they use footage of 2012. But what was your comeback to that? Oh that's right, it would've attracted more unique visitors to our web page. You really think supporters from other AFL clubs are rushing to www.melbournefc.com.au to find out the next installment of the saga? Get real B59. I can assure you, I'm an AFL tragic, and on the very rare occasion that I look at another club's webpage, the last thing I'm doing is looking for their sponsors.

Just over 12 months ago you were making comments about the worth/value of the MFC brand. You basically indicated that if EW were going to pay $2m a year for the back of the jumper, that you were convinced that we shouldn't accept the same or less than $2m a year for the front, and questioned me personally for thinking that EW overpaid and that we wouldn't get anywhere near that for the front. There was a link to an article posted in this thread estimating both Opel and Webjet paid $1m a year.

On that article that was posted, I'm amazed that you of all people B59, hasn't torn shreds off CS. You were so vocal about what you believed the front of jumper was worth. If as reported, we managed to sign someone up for $1m, I know for a fact that you would be livid.

[diesel 420]

You know as much as I despise them for being able to do such I begrudgingly admire them for being able to do such. This rotten bunch of ratbags do get things done and often their way. This is essentially the nature of how we much go about things.

i dont think the socialist argument carries any water really. All companies advertise and sponsor. You wouldnt begrudge them if they gave us buckets would you ??

Collingwood are doing what they do best promote themselves and protect their own interests. You blame them ? I certainly dont

I think only now with the NEED to protect our club at all costs are we starting to see a spine develop. Hopefully it grows and we can become as aggressive in all markets as the Filth.

I don't disagree with anything you've said BB. It's too bad ex Melbourne players that have public or media profiles with the exception of Jim have remained at arms length. More that I was ruminating on the irony in relation to the Holden sponsorship. I certainly support some footy socialism and not just because I'm Melbourne supporter either, I've given to other clubs tin-rattling campaigns. I do question the wisdom of Holden throwing in behind behemoths like the NRL and Collingwood though when they are benefiting from hand outs (hand-outs which I also support).

[beelzebub 22,269]

Billy... how did I know..lol

Give that bone a rest !!

The tenet of Olds post was that its a bloody hard gig . It is.

He also alluded to the perilous state of things off field and that it gets a lot of publicity. It is, and it does.

I simply have the capacity, as i would imagine any thinking person , to differentiate the Melbourne of 2009 and the Melbourne of 2013. I reckon business can do similar.

I still maintain our brand is of a worth far greater than yo might suppose, but being and getting can and often are two different things

You want, it seems, to smear anything of now with anything of then. I dont but into that. I doubt many businesses would be bashing down the doors to pin money on the 2009 model. A s to the 2013 version it exists as Old rightly points out in a very congested and much fought over market.. aka Its a hard gig.

Mindful of that I can hardly accuse CS of slouching as it would seem either yo would , or want me to. he has shown remarkable stewardship corporately and fiscally through these turbulent times. He has been able to retain Major sponsors when they could easily have walked ( for any number of reasons, associated or not)

Your arguments are clever but inclusively cyclic. if EW was paying what it was too then logic demands the front be worth more. an you argue otherwise ?

That we dont have that anymore presents us with what we do have. If they EW overpaid thats one thing, but doesnt detract from the front being normally worth more than the back.

Am happy for anyone to show the facts ( ie verified amounts ) of the current deals. Not reports..

I am sure those who support us currently do so as to the the values and actions we present now.

Edited January 31, 2013 by belzebub59

[Sir Why You Little 34,711]

Holden Headquarters is now next to the MFC.

How do we grow a business to the level of the Filth?

It is possible.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

Iv'e always wondered if MFC gain any $$$ from AMMI park naming rights???

If not I'd like to club to stop calling it AMMI park.

[mjt 640]

Iv'e always wondered if MFC gain any $$$ from AMMI park naming rights???

If not I'd like to club to stop calling it AMMI park.

Its not there stadium mate.

[beelzebub 22,269]

Its not there stadium mate.

very true.

We are a tenant of AAMI park, not its owner.

[John Dee 438]

Its not there stadium mate.

It is there, I've seen it.

[daisycutter 28,641]

Iv'e always wondered if MFC gain any $$$ from AMMI park naming rights???

If not I'd like to club to stop calling it AMMI park.

I agree. Lets call it AAMI instead. That'll stuff 'em

[Grimes Times 1,278]

Its not there stadium mate.

and do you think coll owns there building and land, or Carlton owns princess park, or Geelong owns Kardina, Rich Punt road. There all tenants.

[beelzebub 22,269]

and do you think coll owns there building and land, or Carlton owns princess park, or Geelong owns Kardina, Rich Punt road. There all tenants.

but they are the only tenants and they have naming rights..

we arent and dont

[mjt 640]

and do you think coll owns there building and land, or Carlton owns princess park, or Geelong owns Kardina, Rich Punt road. There all tenants.

Yeah single tenants.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

but they are the only tenants and they have naming rights..

we arent and dont

that's fine then, the club can/should stop using the name

[The Chazz 4,077]

Billy... how did I know..lol

Give that bone a rest !!

The tenet of Olds post was that its a bloody hard gig . It is.

He also alluded to the perilous state of things off field and that it gets a lot of publicity. It is, and it does.

I simply have the capacity, as i would imagine any thinking person , to differentiate the Melbourne of 2009 and the Melbourne of 2013. I reckon business can do similar.

I still maintain our brand is of a worth far greater than yo might suppose, but being and getting can and often are two different things

You want, it seems, to smear anything of now with anything of then. I dont but into that. I doubt many businesses would be bashing down the doors to pin money on the 2009 model. A s to the 2013 version it exists as Old rightly points out in a very congested and much fought over market.. aka Its a hard gig.

Mindful of that I can hardly accuse CS of slouching as it would seem either yo would , or want me to. he has shown remarkable stewardship corporately and fiscally through these turbulent times. He has been able to retain Major sponsors when they could easily have walked ( for any number of reasons, associated or not)

Your arguments are clever but inclusively cyclic. if EW was paying what it was too then logic demands the front be worth more. an you argue otherwise ?

That we dont have that anymore presents us with what we do have. If they EW overpaid thats one thing, but doesnt detract from the front being normally worth more than the back.

Am happy for anyone to show the facts ( ie verified amounts ) of the current deals. Not reports..

I am sure those who support us currently do so as to the the values and actions we present now.

Round and round she goes...

What is the 2013 model? C'mon B59, give me your sales pitch. I could have millions I want to invest, so I would love to hear why I should. It would want to be a bloody good one, because I will strongly argue that the negatives to date (especially those that Old Dee listed) would far outweigh the potential positives, especially for any smart business folk. Sadly, you would sound like an Indian trying to sell telco products to me at this stage.

It would've been easier for CS to sell our potential when Bailey took over as opposed to now. Sure, in hindsight it was a mistake, but we didn't have as much baggage back then as we do now. I am quite confident that's how businesses would be thinking if CS were to walk through their door.

If we are basicaly breaking even based given the sponsorship amounts received in 2012, I hope to Christ that CS in his renegotiations has managed to squeeze a few more dollars out of them somehow this year, which would be bloody near impossible. Perhaps he put in a performance-based clause, ie the more we win (over 2012), the more you pay.