2 hours ago, DemonDing said:

You're right, ads polluting our jumper looks much better..... sponsors look horrible would rather names

To each their own.

But in this day and age, to me it looks unprofessional or amateurish.

I agree that we could and should fill in the space promoting an organisation like Reach. Hell, even have AHG on the back until we find our BOJ sponsor, at the very least it wouldn't hurt when their sponsorship came up for renewal.

On 4/2/2017 at 1:53 PM, Demon Disciple said:

Those that think the back of the jumper looks good without a sponsor are kidding themselves

I must admit the away kit with no sponsor looks really slick.

10 minutes ago, FireOath said:

I must admit the away kit with no sponsor looks really slick.

That's it, your kidding yourself!!!

10 hours ago, Stinga2 said:

Why don't we put reach on the back until a sponsor is found like we did a few years back?

Because it cheapens the brand and spot. It's a monetized aspect of our brand and it should be left empty until the price is met. Reach is great and it's fantastic we give it exposure but you can't just give a spot for sale to free "just to have something there". You devalue the spot and so suddenly offers come in below market value.

Hogan has his jumper sorted for when he returns...

Anyone heard anything about this?

It's dragging out.

Fielding calls from Peter Jackson, Winfield and Marlboro at the moment.

The bidding war has begun.

11 minutes ago, Luther said:

Fielding calls from Peter Jackson, Winfield and Marlboro at the moment.

The bidding war has begun.

8 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Winner!

48 minutes ago, Luther said:

Fielding calls from Peter Jackson, Winfield and Marlboro at the moment.

The bidding war has begun.

I rather like the idea of Peter Jackson fielding calls from Peter Jackson.

About to hit round four. This is a poor look for the club and it's going to take a big hit on the bottom line. 

This would be a good fit, nickname-wise anyway. If we didn't already have AHG, and if they were going to export these into Australia, which they're not.

http://www.dodge.com/demon.html

 

1 hour ago, Gorgoroth said:

About to hit round four. This is a poor look for the club and it's going to take a big hit on the bottom line. 

I don't suspect it's a *massive* hit as we're going to see membership boost and crowd increases. But agree it looks bad. Like we're state-sponsored or something. 

Only thing I can think of is that PJ and Co. aren't budging on price and would rather sell at a premium than lower the price.

Could also be a few potential suitors waiting it out. Very important we perform and win when on FTA. ANZAC Day Eve match is very important.

On 10/04/2017 at 2:06 PM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I rather like the idea of Peter Jackson fielding calls from Peter Jackson.

Get some Peter Jacksons suits too for the trifecta

13 hours ago, praha said:

I don't suspect it's a *massive* hit as we're going to see membership boost and crowd increases. But agree it looks bad. Like we're state-sponsored or something. 

Only thing I can think of is that PJ and Co. aren't budging on price and would rather sell at a premium than lower the price.

Could also be a few potential suitors waiting it out. Very important we perform and win when on FTA. ANZAC Day Eve match is very important.

Actually Praha I think it looks good.

no clutter on the back looks better IMO.

The clean back looks pure class.

4 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The clean back looks pure class.

While that may be the case, it is pretty embarrassing we still don't have a back of jumper sponsor.

 

41 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

While that may be the case, it is pretty embarrassing we still don't have a back of jumper sponsor.

 

Class doesn't pay the bills for cutting edge sports technology. 

I am amazed at the amount of MFC people who are not seeing this

Edited April 14, 20178 yr by Sir Why You Little

18 hours ago, praha said:

I don't suspect it's a *massive* hit as we're going to see membership boost and crowd increases. But agree it looks bad. Like we're state-sponsored or something. 

Only thing I can think of is that PJ and Co. aren't budging on price and would rather sell at a premium than lower the price.

Could also be a few potential suitors waiting it out. Very important we perform and win when on FTA. ANZAC Day Eve match is very important.

It has to be a massive hit to what would have been budgeted for if we don't get a BOJ sponsor. No way the club planned not to have one. I'm not really sure, but I had the impression BOJ sponsorship was worth $500K.

 

23 minutes ago, xarronn said:

I'm not really sure, but I had the impression BOJ sponsorship was worth $500K.

 

At the very least

How can the Bulldogs be sponsored by Work Safe Victoria? Surely, government organisations can't sponsor sporting organisations. Weird.

7 minutes ago, A F said:

How can the Bulldogs be sponsored by Work Safe Victoria? Surely, government organisations can't sponsor sporting organisations. Weird.

NT tourism? 

8 minutes ago, A F said:

How can the Bulldogs be sponsored by Work Safe Victoria? Surely, government organisations can't sponsor sporting organisations. Weird.

TAC. Vic Roads. QUIT. Booze Less. Tasmania. Etc etc 

2 minutes ago, sydneydee said:

NT tourism? 

Haha. Indeed. And Tassie for the Hawks.

Yep. Shut up, Adam.