Sponsorship Problem?

[Wiseblood 24,637]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

So it is not possible to ask the question Wise one?

Seems to me it is just a question about who the replacement for PJ the man who saved us from extinction might be.

I am truely sorry that you see this as negative.

Of course not.  I just find it bemusing that your line of thinking is to not express any form of pleasure, excitement, good will etc about the club signing a major sponsor for the next 3 years, but it is to instantly look for something else to whinge or worry or panic about.

What's next?  Complaining that the new sponsor starts with a 'Z' and it's too far down the alphabet for you?

[PaulRB 6,392]

So, there's no sponsorship problem.

 

All good.

[Dante 2,739]

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

So it is not possible to ask the question Wise one?

Seems to me it is just a question about who the replacement for PJ the man who saved us from extinction might be.

I am truely sorry that you see this as negative.

I would imagine Old, that any discussions with possible candidates would be kept in strict confidence as the candidates would, presumably, already have a job, unless they are going through CentreLink.

Once the name leaks out the replacement would probably be sacked and replaced, that wouldn't be helpful at all.

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

2 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

So, there's no sponsorship problem.

 

All good.

Yep. Close thread.

[old dee 23,801]

1 minute ago, Dante said:

I would imagine Old, that any discussions with possible candidates would be kept in strict confidence as the candidates would, presumably, already have a job, unless they are going through CentreLink.

Once the name leaks out the replacement would probably be sacked and replaced, that wouldn't be helpful at all.

I understand that Dante it just seems that if you are going to have an understudy then they would be around for a sizable part of the 2018 season. it would appear the person is yet to either be selected or as you say working off some end of contract thing.

To keep the MFC on the right track we need someone  of the equal of PJ.

This is a vital appointment IMO.

Just asking the question had anyone heard anything.

[sue 9,107]

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

I would have thought the missed opportunity to give the sponsors more exposure by playing extra games in September would absolutely be a major consideration. Any other scenario doesn't really make sense from a business perspective. 

Being in the 2017 finals gives no exposure to the sponsor signing in 2018. 

If missing out on the finals gave us a worse draw in 2018 publicity-wise, then it is one of the many factors that would influence a sponsor's decision, but not R23 per se.  Once 2017 is over, the situation is as it is and the sponsor makes a decision looking forward, not backward like some MFCSS obsessives do.

[Cards13 9,117]

21 minutes ago, old dee said:

I understand that Dante it just seems that if you are going to have an understudy then they would be around for a sizable part of the 2018 season. it would appear the person is yet to either be selected or as you say working off some end of contract thing.

To keep the MFC on the right track we need someone  of the equal of PJ.

This is a vital appointment IMO.

Just asking the question had anyone heard anything.

Or a current internal employee so no need for announcement? 

[Smokey 4,389]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

Being in the 2017 finals gives no exposure to the sponsor signing in 2018. 

If missing out on the finals gave us a worse draw in 2018 publicity-wise, then it is one of the many factors that would influence a sponsor's decision, but not R23 per se.  Once 2017 is over, the situation is as it is and the sponsor makes a decision looking forward, not backward like some MFCSS obsessives do.

But surely a history of playing less games in a season than we should have, in turn offering our brands less exposure than was possible, has crossed a potential investors mind? 

This isn't about MFCSS, it's how someone with business sense analyses a potential investment. Historical data is very important. If I buy a product that should have a life span of 26 uses, but I only get 24, I'm going to question my purchase. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

1 hour ago, Smokey said:

I would have thought the missed opportunity to give the sponsors more exposure by playing extra games in September would absolutely be a major consideration. Any other scenario doesn't really make sense from a business perspective. 

Don't confuse the decision to sponsor with the price being paid to sponsor. Zurich may have agreed to sponsor but ended up being able to pay less to do so because the metrics used (number of FTA games, etc) might have lowered the price. It's even possible that the only reason Zurich agreed to sponsor was because the price was lowered because of those same metrics. (I'm not, by the way, suggesting we should lose more games to get more sponsors. All I'm saying is that  decisions like these are sometimes more complex than they might seem.) 

[old dee 23,801]

13 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Or a current internal employee so no need for announcement? 

It is possible but  if so why no announcement?

[Dante 2,739]

16 minutes ago, Smokey said:

But surely a history of playing less games in a season than we should have, in turn offering our brands less exposure than was possible, has crossed a potential investors mind? 

This isn't about MFCSS, it's how someone with business sense analyses a potential investment. Historical data is very important. If I buy a product that should have a life span of 26 uses, but I only get 24, I'm going to question my purchase. 

Yes historical data is important, so I would imagine that Zurich have viewed our upward trajectory over the last few years and doubt they've based their level of participation on the outcome of one game. 

Zurich are a huge company and didn't get to where they are without knowing what they are doing, this is not about one game or one season, this is about getting value out of their sponsorship, we have good exposure at the G and we have a high level of wealthy supporters.

I would imagine the discussions were held over a long period of time and we would have known that we were losing AHG some time ago.

There are two schools here, one that's happy we have a new sponsor and another that will look at every negative aspect, even if they don't know what that aspect is.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Dante

[Smokey 4,389]

1 minute ago, Dante said:

Yes historical data is important, so I would imagine that Zurich have viewed our upward trajectory over the last few years and doubt they've based their level of participation on the outcome of one game. 

Zurich are a huge company and didn't get to where they are without knowing what they are doing, this is not about one game or one season, this is about getting value out of their sponsorship, we have good exposure at the G and we have a high level of wealthy supporters.

I would imagine the discussions were held over a long period of time and we would have known that we were losing AHG some time ago.

Agree with all of that. Just thought it was a bit ridiculous to say that our performance in 2017 would have zero bearing on potential investors. 

[Adam The God 30,283]

My tip is Toyota will be shorts sponsor.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

On 17/01/2018 at 8:43 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i think Round 23 last year has an impact on the fact, that as of now we have no Major Sponsor. 

What point have i missed??

Well looks like all your points are like a panicked mother thinking her child is drowning only to find out that  pool is only 10 centimetres deep and  that her child is 15 years old. When this thread stated the season was months from starting, that why I did not panic and make up things as to why we had not signed a new major sponsor, if round 1 had come  long  and we still had no new major sponsor only  then we should point fingers. This is a big sponsor known world wide, where is your postive post. Well done PJ for not panicking and just signing the first company that comes a long.

 

[sue 9,107]

32 minutes ago, Smokey said:

Agree with all of that. Just thought it was a bit ridiculous to say that our performance in 2017 would have zero bearing on potential investors. 

Of course that is right.  I'm only saying the inept R23 performance was not the be-all and end-all of the sponsorship (now non) problem.  That in response to some who said no sponsor would ever touch us because of that.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

1 hour ago, old dee said:

It is possible but  if so why no announcement?

Probably because we didn't lay a tackle until 10 minutes in in round 23

[DeeZone 9,875]

Well done PJ and Zurich, just the news that were all hanging out for. All we need now is a decent run with injuries and who knows how far we can go this season.

Go you mighty Dee’s'!!!!!!!

 

[Spirit of '87 333]

4 hours ago, old dee said:

Speaking of Mr. Jackson he leaves at the end of the year and there was going to be understudy in place this year to take over from him in much the same way they handled the coaching transition. No replacement announced yet that I have heard is there any news out there?
Time marches on.

Why the enquiry about Jackson and the CEO position on the Sponshorship thread? Seems to be taking is all off at a bit of a tangeant and derailing the thread topic. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

1 hour ago, don't make me angry said:

Well looks like all your points are like a panicked mother thinking her child is drowning only to find out that  pool is only 10 centimetres deep and  that her child is 15 years old. When this thread stated the season was months from starting, that why I did not panic and make up things as to why we had not signed a new major sponsor, if round 1 had come  long  and we still had no new major sponsor only  then we should point fingers. This is a big sponsor known world wide, where is your postive post. Well done PJ for not panicking and just signing the first company that comes a long.

 

I have been working all day. Sorry for not being logged in

great we got a sponsor. Standard issue for most clubs...

we have to battle for a signature

play finals. Gain interest

[Clintosaurus 7,852]

12 minutes ago, Spirit of '87 said:

Why the enquiry about Jackson and the CEO position on the Sponshorship thread? Seems to be taking is all off at a bit of a tangeant and derailing the thread topic. 

Maybe there should be a MFCSS Topic of the Week thread?

Edited January 22, 2018 by Clintosaurus

[jnrmac 20,104]

4 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Maybe there should be a MFCSS Topic of the Week thread?

"Topics" plural....

[Ethan Tremblay 30,876]

On 23/12/2017 at 7:16 AM, the rolling fog said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere on here or if it warrants a seperate thread, but MFC is due to unveil a new major sponsor most likely in mid-January.

Haven't heard any precise details regarding $ value or deal term as yet, but I have seen a mock up of the jumper as the front-of-jumper logo is being refined for best visibility over the red and blue chest area.  

Anyway, MFC and the sponsor will announce in due course, however I think you'll be seeing a lot of MFC players getting around town in luxury Japanese vehicles from next year. 

 

You thought Zurich made Japanese cars? Or do they just offer cheap insurance on Japanese luxury vehicles? 

Edited January 22, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Dante 2,739]

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I have been working all day. Sorry for not being logged in

great we got a sponsor. Standard issue for most clubs...

we have to battle for a signature

play finals. Gain interest

How do you know we had to battle for a signature, this may have been completed weeks ago and they were waiting for most to come back from holidays to announce it. Anything to put a negative slant on it.

You almost sound disappointed we've announced it.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Dante

[Willmoy1947 4,099]

Perhaps new Insurers of Melbourne Cricket Ground

[Cards13 9,117]

2 hours ago, old dee said:

It is possible but  if so why no announcement?

Why bother? Just get on with it and let them develop a little bit out of the spotlight rather than having their job history/suitability questioned by us?