Sponsorship Problem?

[puntkick 325]

Hilux the 4 x4 of the great Aussie out dawes ! 

[Skuit 10,031]

8 hours ago, puntkick said:

Hilux the 4 x4 of the great Aussie out dawes ! 

#pedomyths

[Deemania since 56 6,662]

On 12/11/2017 at 1:43 PM, praha said:

it ain't 1964, 64. that just doesn't cut it anymore.

Cut what? The links between supporter and member alliances with the team and the rights of the club to ignore these for the sake of some short-term, corporate influence? Do we really want our team to be an advertising agency for greedy business interests? Nothing more silly than seeing a footballer hired to advertise on behalf of a 'sponsor'. I'd support 64, above, in this case.

 

[rjay 25,000]

1 hour ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Do we really want our team to be an advertising agency for greedy business interests?

If we want our team to survive in the modern era then yes...

There are many things I would like to be, times to go back to but unfortunately time waits for no one 'Deemania'.

[Demon Disciple 12,186]

4 hours ago, rjay said:

unfortunately time waits for no one 'Deemania'.

I see you are not familiar with the stopwatch then rjay!

[rjay 25,000]

1 hour ago, Demon Disciple said:

I see you are not familiar with the stopwatch then rjay!

The watch can stop as often as it wants 'Demon Disciple' but time moves on...

[praha 11,240]

14 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Cut what? The links between supporter and member alliances with the team and the rights of the club to ignore these for the sake of some short-term, corporate influence? Do we really want our team to be an advertising agency for greedy business interests? Nothing more silly than seeing a footballer hired to advertise on behalf of a 'sponsor'. I'd support 64, above, in this case.

 

[old dee 23,801]

Still nothing!

I suspect there is no one waiting in the wings.

 

[daisycutter 29,627]

see http://www.saints.com.au/

[Diamond_Jim 12,600]

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

see http://www.saints.com.au/

Yes... but isn't that the issue. Saints along with us, North and Dogs are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sponsor attraction.

[daisycutter 29,627]

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

Yes... but isn't that the issue. Saints along with us, North and Dogs are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sponsor attraction.

never said it was the issue, dj.......i just thought it was funny they would highlight it like that......ymmv

[Sir Why You Little 37,053]

Who would want to sponsor us in 2018 with hard earned

Our fixture is a f$&8ing wasteland

that Round 23 game last year put us back a long way....

[daisycutter 29,627]

10 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Who would want to sponsor us in 2018 with hard earned

Our fixture is a f$&8ing wasteland

that Round 23 game last year put us back a long way....

you need vegemite, wyl  

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

MFCSS kicks in because it's the 13th and no announcement? Unbelievable. 

[Wiseblood 24,637]

You guys need to get out more.

[praha 11,240]

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Who would want to sponsor us in 2018 with hard earned

Our fixture is a f$&8ing wasteland

that Round 23 game last year put us back a long way....

It definitely did. Just putrid.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

I wouldn't want to be announcing a new sponsor any time in the next fortnight. The Australian Open will be consuming virtually all the media interest. Any leftovers will be absorbed by the Big Bash League.

 

[old dee 23,801]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I wouldn't want to be announcing a new sponsor any time in the next fortnight. The Australian Open will be consuming virtually all the media interest. Any leftovers will be absorbed by the Big Bash League.

 

Handy ldc when there probably isn't one to announce.

Also have you heard Djokovic's comments today?

He announced today at a meeting of players that they should make a breakaway group because they are not getting paid enough.

A loser today in the first round gets $60k.

When greed is being thrown at the general public it is probably not good to be announcing sponsors tipping in money to professional sports people.

[Sir Why You Little 37,053]

39 minutes ago, old dee said:

Handy ldc when there probably isn't one to announce.

Also have you heard Djokovic's comments today?

He announced today at a meeting of players that they should make a breakaway group because they are not getting paid enough.

A loser today in the first round gets $60k.

When greed is being thrown at the general public it is probably not good to be announcing sponsors tipping in money to professional sports people.

Being a professional loser can be very lucrative in todays world ? 

MFC players have been overpaid for a very long time

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

7 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Being a professional loser can be very lucrative in todays world ? 

MFC players have been overpaid for a very long time

For example, Bernard Tomic. Although he possibly hasn't yet worked out how much of a loser he actually is.

[Sir Why You Little 37,053]

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

For example, Bernard Tomic. Although he possibly hasn't yet worked out how much of a loser he actually is.

Tomic got $30,000 for yesterdays loss

no wonder he doesn’t care

[DaveyDee 421]

On 1/13/2018 at 3:39 PM, old dee said:

Still nothing!

I suspect there is no one waiting in the wings.

 

Sponsorship is a two way street - generally you look for positive communities, young vibrant and forward thinking with the propensity to spend, spend, spend. 

I'm not sure that is our claim to fame as a community - dare I use the word negative !!!

 

[Willmoy1947 4,104]

Yep, it's a bit of a racquet, isn't it................

[nutbean 8,838]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Being a professional loser can be very lucrative in todays world ? 

MFC players have been overpaid for a very long time

I understand equalisation through the salary cap and i understand that you have to offer competitive contracts to keep a player. What irked me was that you had to pay 90% of the salary cap when it was obvious that our during our dark times the difference in talent between our players and the "Hawthorns" was not a 10% differential. Our players were well and truly overpaid because we had to.

[old dee 23,801]

3 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I understand equalisation through the salary cap and i understand that you have to offer competitive contracts to keep a player. What irked me was that you had to pay 90% of the salary cap when it was obvious that our during our dark times the difference in talent between our players and the "Hawthorns" was not a 10% differential. Our players were well and truly overpaid because we had to.

Nutbean I believe that the figure was reduced to 95% some years ago.

I am confident but I would bet your leftie on it.

That as you say makes it even worse