2 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.

Leigh Matthews has been mentioning this for years. He was particularly scathing of it in the context of Brisbane.

The origin of the rule dates back if I recall to the old Fitzroy days where the club was constantly paying unders in its effort to stay afloat.

Cannot really see a way of fixing it and perhaps it is just the price of equalisation.

29 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.

This has been discussed before, but the minimum payment was a quid pro quo for the restrictive practices put in place via the draft. Prior to free agency, most players had no say in where they ended up, meaning clubs could pay unders for no reason. In addition, players weren't always at fault. I'm reasonably confident that some of our poor performances in 2012 and 2013 had a bit to do with the coach. Why should players be penalised for (1) being unable to choose what club they are at and (2) for being poorly coached?

38 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.

Exactly my point and as a Member i was and still am not impressed. 

The best way to improve a “team” is to offer incentives. 

 

It's fairly terrible that we are going into another season looking for a sponsor.

The worst part is the players will have those cheap and nasty looking iron logos on the jumpers.

22 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It's fairly terrible that we are going into another season looking for a sponsor.

The worst part is the players will have those cheap and nasty looking iron logos on the jumpers.

Really the season doesn't start to ramp up until after the Tennis we still have 2 months before the season starts.  You would like to have this locked away before AFLX

23 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Really the season doesn't start to ramp up until after the Tennis we still have 2 months before the season starts.  You would like to have this locked away before AFLX

The big problem is that stock for the replica jumpers will be outdated with old sponsor logos, or even have no logo at all.

It doesn't sound like a big deal, but a lot of people want to buy the exact same jumpers the players use so a lot of sales in merchandise will be lost.

8 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The big problem is that stock for the replica jumpers will be outdated with old sponsor logos, or even have no logo at all.

It doesn't sound like a big deal, but a lot of people want to buy the exact same jumpers the players use so a lot of sales in merchandise will be lost.

I was told by the bloke at the Demon Shop that the jumpers for next season (2018) won’t be ready until mid March. It’s a disgrace. We lose so much in merch sales as a result. New Balance doesn’t even bother stocking our stuff in their stores either. Unlike adidas and Nike. Just another area where we are behind the pack

On 12/27/2017 at 8:00 AM, Frustrated Demon said:

When was the last time we had a long term sponsor. I’m just looking at photos over the last 10 years and gee we go through them.

I consider meself to be a long term sponsor!

1 hour ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

I was told by the bloke at the Demon Shop that the jumpers for next season (2018) won’t be ready until mid March. It’s a disgrace. We lose so much in merch sales as a result. New Balance doesn’t even bother stocking our stuff in their stores either. Unlike adidas and Nike. Just another area where we are behind the pack

We are in the B League....

but the players get paid an A Grade Salary. 

Meanwhile the Members suffer...

I take it we'll be running out in the pre season comp without a sponsor, It's such a poor look for the club & embarrassing for the supporters. 

20 minutes ago, Matt Demon said:

I take it we'll be running out in the pre season comp without a sponsor, It's such a poor look for the club & embarrassing for the supporters. 

As I've said previously, I think it's a great "look" without sponsors. I accept that the dollars from sponsorship are needed, but our jumper looks best without the (necessary) pollution of sponsors' logos. And, quite frankly,  I don't subscribe to the idea that it's "embarrassing" not to have a sponsor locked in yet. I suspect it's only we diehards at Demonland who would actually notice whether there's a sponsor's logo there or not. 

50 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

As I've said previously, I think it's a great "look" without sponsors. I accept that the dollars from sponsorship are needed, but our jumper looks best without the (necessary) pollution of sponsors' logos. And, quite frankly,  I don't subscribe to the idea that it's "embarrassing" not to have a sponsor locked in yet. I suspect it's only we diehards at Demonland who would actually notice whether there's a sponsor's logo there or not. 

I like the look of no sponsors but when there is supposed to be a sponsor and then there isn't one it looks tacky on the front of a jumper.

On the back it looks great.

Edited January 16, 20187 yr by Clint Bizkit

42 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

As I've said previously, I think it's a great "look" without sponsors. I accept that the dollars from sponsorship are needed, but our jumper looks best without the (necessary) pollution of sponsors' logos. And, quite frankly,  I don't subscribe to the idea that it's "embarrassing" not to have a sponsor locked in yet. I suspect it's only we diehards at Demonland who would actually notice whether there's a sponsor's logo there or not. 

I disagree with everything you've said, It looks terrible when your the only team without a sponsor and don't worry it definitely be noticed if we run out in round one without a sponsor. It's hard to change the perception of our club when your running around with a blank space on your jumper, the media will notice & we become the butt of all jokes for other teams supporters. 

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

As I've said previously, I think it's a great "look" without sponsors. I accept that the dollars from sponsorship are needed, but our jumper looks best without the (necessary) pollution of sponsors' logos. And, quite frankly,  I don't subscribe to the idea that it's "embarrassing" not to have a sponsor locked in yet. I suspect it's only we diehards at Demonland who would actually notice whether there's a sponsor's logo there or not. 

Do you mean to say it "looks great" or it's a "great look"? It might look great from an aesthetic point of view but from a branding and reputation standpoint it's a terrible look.

You may dismiss the importance and need for sponsors, that's fine, but to say other people don't notice it is understating the significance. Sponsorship is a reflection of:

1. Amplification - How many people does the MFC reach?

2. Engagement - Of those people that support the MFC, how engaged with the club are they? 

3. Purchase intent - How likely is someone that watches the MFC to purchase a membership, merchandise, or any a brand/product related to the club?

4. Reputation - How does the neutral fam and general public view the club and its brand?

All four of those are either low on the scale or non existent. It is a terrible, terrible look. It literally means that no company ON THE PLANET is interested in committing to the club on the club's terms. Once again we have to compromise and go hand in hat to get someone to pump money into the club.

This is what happens when you are [censored] for ten years and can't even lay a tackle in the first 10 minutes of the most important game of the past decade.

18 hours ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

I was told by the bloke at the Demon Shop that the jumpers for next season (2018) won’t be ready until mid March. It’s a disgrace. We lose so much in merch sales as a result. New Balance doesn’t even bother stocking our stuff in their stores either. Unlike adidas and Nike. Just another area where we are behind the pack

I was in Rebel before xmas. No Melbourne stuff at all. All vic clubs plus Freo, Port, WCE, Adel, Syd

3 hours ago, praha said:

Do you mean to say it "looks great" or it's a "great look"? It might look great from an aesthetic point of view but from a branding and reputation standpoint it's a terrible look.

You may dismiss the importance and need for sponsors, that's fine, but to say other people don't notice it is understating the significance. Sponsorship is a reflection of:

1. Amplification - How many people does the MFC reach?

2. Engagement - Of those people that support the MFC, how engaged with the club are they? 

3. Purchase intent - How likely is someone that watches the MFC to purchase a membership, merchandise, or any a brand/product related to the club?

4. Reputation - How does the neutral fam and general public view the club and its brand?

All four of those are either low on the scale or non existent. It is a terrible, terrible look. It literally means that no company ON THE PLANET is interested in committing to the club on the club's terms. Once again we have to compromise and go hand in hat to get someone to pump money into the club.

This is what happens when you are [censored] for ten years and can't even lay a tackle in the first 10 minutes of the most important game of the past decade.

I was referring to the aesthetics. It looks great when the jumper is clean.

And I can't have been clear. I have no problems with sponsorship and fully appreciate the need. I was just saying that in the perfect world if sponsors weren't needed the jumper looks best in its pristine state.

But, I can't agree that not having a sponsor is a "terrible, terrible look". I still believe most people don't think about it, and if they do, they don't care. 

3 hours ago, praha said:

 

This is what happens when you are [censored] for ten years and can't even lay a tackle in the first 10 minutes of the most important game of the past decade.

Exactly right.

What Company would even consider putting in Marketing dollars to the MFC, when the attitude and execution was so bad. When the clubs balls were on the line, not one tackle was laid....

Edited January 17, 20187 yr by Sir Why You Little

38 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

I was in Rebel before xmas. No Melbourne stuff at all. All vic clubs plus Freo, Port, WCE, Adel, Syd

Wow....

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Exactly right.

What Company would even consider putting in Marketing dollars to the MFC, when the attitude and execution was so bad. When the clubs balls were on the line, not one tackle was laid....

Even if we were after a sponsor whose decision makers were AFL fans, I rather suspect that selling a potential sponsor that we are a team on the rise which only missed the finals by a tiny percentage would carry more weight than the tackle count in Q1.   Factors like the draw, TV etc would weigh far more heavily than supporters' dismay about that last game.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Exactly right.

What Company would even consider putting in Marketing dollars to the MFC, when the attitude and execution was so bad. When the clubs balls were on the line, not one tackle was laid....

Sounds like a tagline for a bad Hollywood movie.

 

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

As I've said previously, I think it's a great "look" without sponsors. I accept that the dollars from sponsorship are needed, but our jumper looks best without the (necessary) pollution of sponsors' logos. And, quite frankly,  I don't subscribe to the idea that it's "embarrassing" not to have a sponsor locked in yet. I suspect it's only we diehards at Demonland who would actually notice whether there's a sponsor's logo there or not. 

Gold Coast didn't have a sponsor's logo on their away jumper this year and they looked like complete amateur hour.

I really hope we don't kick off the season in a round 1 blockbuster V's Geelong minus a sponsor on the front of our jumper. Would be such a crap look.

52 minutes ago, sue said:

Even if we were after a sponsor whose decision makers were AFL fans, I rather suspect that selling a potential sponsor that we are a team on the rise which only missed the finals by a tiny percentage would carry more weight than the tackle count in Q1.   Factors like the draw, TV etc would weigh far more heavily than supporters' dismay about that last game.

You are not fitting in with the narrative.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Even if we were after a sponsor whose decision makers were AFL fans, I rather suspect that selling a potential sponsor that we are a team on the rise which only missed the finals by a tiny percentage would carry more weight than the tackle count in Q1.   Factors like the draw, TV etc would weigh far more heavily than supporters' dismay about that last game.

You don’t think our 2018 Draw and dismal TV deal has anything to do with the Round 23 result (choke)??

it’s all connected and in this city we are obviously last in line when it comes to Sponsorships, been the same for a long time

1 hour ago, sue said:

Even if we were after a sponsor whose decision makers were AFL fans, I rather suspect that selling a potential sponsor that we are a team on the rise which only missed the finals by a tiny percentage would carry more weight than the tackle count in Q1.   Factors like the draw, TV etc would weigh far more heavily than supporters' dismay about that last game.

And our round 23 performance kept us out of finals, which dictates the likes of broadcasting and scheduling. It was bad for fans, but worse for the club. Missing finals, and missing them in such a way, has a huge chain reaction across multiple variables. 

21 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We are in the B League....

but the players get paid an A Grade Salary. 

Meanwhile the Members suffer...

Winning games fixes just about everything SWYL.

On that form we have been atrocious for over a decade add our small supporter base and less than wonderful draw/ Free to air TV coverage and you have the perfect recipe    for low sponsors numbers or poor paying sponsors.

Would we be in this position if we had won the last game of 2017?

Who knows but I suspect not.

We just have to win 14+ games in 2018 and play finals in 2018.

As you say the players are being paid the full amount so IMO it is up to the players.

Win games guys or we will continue to be amongst bottom few teams.

Edited January 17, 20187 yr by old dee