TAC Sponsorship

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,629]

Any hope we could pick up the $500,000 those recidivists at Collingwood lost today because of one of their Rookies being caught 3X over the legal limit today?

According to Eddie, there was a good chance of that amount escalating in the near future.

We've been , I think, the only Melb. based Club without Govt. or Semi-Govt. sponsorship. (bar, of course their input to the new training facility....I think of it as the "difficult facility"!)

Is this our big chance? I think we should give it a big push.

[Hards 2]

In general I'm against the TAC sponsoring any footy club. It's a no win situation for the club and its a waste of money for the commission.

I'd rather we didn't have it. It might be half a mill but all it takes in one incident to throw the whole thing into chaos, and then you've got the flow on effect from the negative publicity you get from someone drink driving and costing us a TAC sponsorship.

It's nieve to think it wouldn't happen, it happens at every club. The pressure of it potentially impacting a major club sponsor didn't stop Sharrod Wellingham or Royce Vardy.

[rumpole 483]

In general I'm against the TAC sponsoring any footy club. It's a no win situation for the club and its a waste of money for the commission.

I'd rather we didn't have it. It might be half a mill but all it takes in one incident to throw the whole thing into chaos, and then you've got the flow on effect from the negative publicity you get from someone drink driving and costing us a TAC sponsorship.

It's nieve to think it wouldn't happen, it happens at every club. The pressure of it potentially impacting a major club sponsor didn't stop Sharrod Wellingham or Royce Vardy.

TAC has received its pound of flesh for its advertising dollar. I'm all for getting sponsorships but the TAC thing doesn't excite me in the way it leaves a sword over the heads of your players.

Besides they only have to look at how some of our players have handled themselves over the off season and I doubt they would be interested.

Let them sponsor Hawthorn or West Coast.

[The Emblem 1]

TAC has received its pound of flesh for its advertising dollar. I'm all for getting sponsorships but the TAC thing doesn't excite me in the way it leaves a sword over the heads of your players.

Besides they only have to look at how some of our players have handled themselves over the off season and I doubt they would be interested.

Let them sponsor Hawthorn or West Coast.

Very tongue-in-cheek of you Mr.Rumpole...it seems apparent that "she who must be obeyed" has passed on the gossip that Hawthorn has replaced West Coast as the AFL's "Little Columbia". So too big a risk for TAC...maybe they could be sponsored by the Air Traffic Controllers Union?

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,629]

Let's get this straight.

Our Club is so strapped for cash that we sell home games for $250000,making it harder to have on-field success, compounding the financial worries.

A chance to earn $500,000-p.a., with a likelihood of annual increases arises and we(several posters on this site, anyway) turn up our noses at it, saying we can't trust our players to co-operate. It strikes me as a little naive(cf."neive")!

I think some posters get a kick of sending negative messages.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

In general I'm against the TAC sponsoring any footy club. It's a no win situation for the club and its a waste of money for the commission.

....

It's nieve to think it wouldn't happen, it happens at every club. The pressure of it potentially impacting a major club sponsor didn't stop Sharrod Wellingham or Royce Vardy.

So far TAC have been lucky with minor incidents. What if player(s) from a TAC Sponsored Club were involved in a serious multi car accident with a number of fatalities. How stupid would TAC look for pouring money into a Club like that? Surely there must be better ways for them to send a message than to have a young bloke publicly humiliated for an action which although illegal is hardly due the public lynching that the media puts them through. There are far worse crimes that dont get the media execution.

Every time I read about one of these incidents each Club must have a sense of "by the grace of God go I". I hope that MFC can avoid some of these pitfalls.

[deanox 8,786]

i reckon we jump at it and put a clause in everyones contract that if they stuff up and get caught they suffer major financial penalty. If we could get 500K a year for a sponsorship surely we could afford to send each player 5 x $50 taxi vouchers for their nights home?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

i reckon we jump at it and put a clause in everyones contract that if they stuff up and get caught they suffer major financial penalty. If we could get 500K a year for a sponsorship surely we could afford to send each player 5 x $50 taxi vouchers for their nights home?

Deanox, Every Club has behaviour clauses in their contracts which already imply your objective. However, young men still stuff up.

The taxi vouchers just wont stop the stupidity that plagues some men in their 20s. They would have be of little use to the Collingwood player who has been crucified for the misdemeanour.

By the way who said we were any chance to get the TAC deal? Has it been re-offered by TAC?

[drdrake 3,057]

If we can get sponsership from anywhere take it, if your players don't break the law you don't have to worry about losing the deal.

[mo64 5,262]

Let's get this straight.

Our Club is so strapped for cash that we sell home games for $250000,making it harder to have on-field success, compounding the financial worries.

A chance to earn $500,000-p.a., with a likelihood of annual increases arises and we(several posters on this site, anyway) turn up our noses at it, saying we can't trust our players to co-operate. It strikes me as a little naive(cf."neive")!

I think some posters get a kick of sending negative messages.

I'm with you JJC. AFL players, whether they be young or old, must accept that their job is conditional on upholding certain community standards. If they are incapable of this, they're in the wrong business.

To suggest that Wellingham was lynched is ludicrous. He's lucky that under the AFL Players Association rules, the club doesn't have the power to sack him.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

To suggest that Wellingham was lynched is ludicrous. He's lucky that under the AFL Players Association rules, the club doesn't have the power to sack him.

The kid is 19. He made a poor judgement and then is subject to public condemnation on the front page of the daily media. He did the wrong thing and should and will be punished in other ways. But FCS, Dick Pratt was never put through the same personal scrutiny. Now there is a crime where there should be a lynching.

While TAC is free to seek what forms of sponsorship it chooses, I dont like there process of directly sponsoring an AFL club. I think it leaves them exposed on certain contingent events. And based on the demographics of the AFL these events do and will happen. The TAC seems to get some satisfaction from dragging the Club and the player through the media ringer as putting across their message. To me it only highlights the media circus and by the road toll figures that mode of message is not working too well.

If the sponsorship money is there, MFC should try and win it if it can. I am not sure how a small drawing club like MFC will suit TAC's broadcast of their message.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,629]

quote 'Rhino Richards'

"By the way who said we were any chance to get the TAC deal? Has it been re-offered by TAC?"

The Chief Community Officer of the TAC, a Mr PhilReed(not our filthy Phil, but a guy who does a bloody good impersonation of Billy Thorpe), was quoted in this morning's press that he's expecting calls from AFL Clubs prepared to fill the gap after the departure of Collingwood.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Thanks Jack for the clarification. We can put our best foot forward. I hope it is better than the other clubs.

[Hards 2]

Let's get this straight.

Our Club is so strapped for cash that we sell home games for $250000,making it harder to have on-field success, compounding the financial worries.

A chance to earn $500,000-p.a., with a likelihood of annual increases arises and we(several posters on this site, anyway) turn up our noses at it, saying we can't trust our players to co-operate. It strikes me as a little naive(cf."neive")!

I think some posters get a kick of sending negative messages.

It's not about negative messages Jack, and if you've ever read my posts you'll know that I'm far more positive than many of the posters on here, however it comes down to the simple fact that every club has players that makes stupid mistakes, and when you have a 500k+ sponsorship hanging over their heads the ramifications are incredibly significant.

It's not just drink driving (Sharod Wellingham, Chad Morrison), it's speeding (Cameron Cloke), it's breaking general road rules (Brodie Holland), it's stuff that if the general person did it they'd cop a minimal fine. An AFL player from a club sponsored by the TAC does it and it costs the player $5k and the clubs 100 times that.

Earlier this summer Scott Thompson got done in Adelaide for doing burnouts and crashing his car. If the Crows were sponsored by the TAC, it puts the sponsorship into jepordy, even for a relatively minor infringment of the law.

It's easy to sit here and say oh yeah it'll be fine we'll just make sure our players don't stuff up - in practice it's much harder than that.

TAC aren't the only sponsorship option out there Jack.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,629]

quote'Hards'

"and when you have a 500k+ sponsorship hanging over their heads the ramifications are incredibly significant."

Ramifications like losing the 500k and being in the same financial position we're in now!

Have a chat to our marketing people about all those other sponsorship options, Hards!

[rednblue2009 0]

It's not that easy to get/accept a sponsor - we have to have available what the particular prospective sponsor may want - eg. jumper space , shorts sponsorship etc.

I imagine all these premium spots are already committed / contracted by us for 2008 ( and possibly beyond).

but, hey - the idea is right to go for it if we can.

[Hards 2]

quote'Hards'

"and when you have a 500k+ sponsorship hanging over their heads the ramifications are incredibly significant."

Ramifications like losing the 500k and being in the same financial position we're in now!

Have a chat to our marketing people about all those other sponsorship options, Hards!

Where are you going to place the sponsorship? Tattoo it to the players foreheads? Write it down their arms like the boxers do on their backs? :D

You don't just lose the 500k, the negative publicity impacts on the next sponsorship deals if you aren't a club with a big enough base to push past it like Collingwood

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,629]

Let's just give up then. Richmond or North will probably be clever enough to find room on their jumpers.

[rednblue2009 0]

Let's just give up then. Richmond or North will probably be clever enough to find room on their jumpers.

the amount of permitted advertising space on jumpers and shorts is regulated by AFL - it is limited - the best opportunity would be to try and get other promotional exposure eg. signage on our new home base etc.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Let's just give up then. Richmond or North will probably be clever enough to find room on their jumpers.

Richmond can find all the jumper space they want...I doubt the TAC will sponsor them though...

[Hards 2]

Exactly, so instead of adding 500k you're adding the difference between that and what we're currently getting.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,629]

Quote'Hards'........" Exactly, so instead of adding 500k you're adding the difference between that and what we're currently getting."

?????????

Even if there was some logic in your negativity, I still like the idea of getting SOME money,even if it's less than $500k(though I don't see why it should be) . But I care about our future!

If all our advertising space is used up, why are we paying people to try to attract sponsors?

[red&blue&true 0]

IT's silly IMHO not to go after this sponsership - and yes i understand it may very well fail. SO WHAT.

RE: space on the jumper. The Collingwood deal didn't involve 'real estate' on their jumper or shorts. They got 500k-1million a year they cannot replace with another sponser due to this, theirs was a message of road safety - remember all the Malthouse - Buckley commercials.

Now back to my SO WHAT statement about it possibly failing, yes it may and if it did we have a dead set template to follow in the way Eddie McGuire handled it - He did it perfectly.

He terminated the contract (before the TAC would, or allowing speculation over would it/wonit) thus controlling the media spin, He went out on a big PR drive turning into a positive 'proving Colllingwood are zero tolerance' amazing consindering this was their 3rd incident in 3 odd years - yet at the same time ramming the TAC message down everyones throats. You think the TAC are upset? they LOVED it.

It 'the player' has been shown to many young people (the core audience they are trying to reach) that drink driving has CONSEQUENCES, its win win for TAC - they want to be involved in another football club and we should be making sure thats us.

We may stuff up, but when? maybe immediatly, thats not good, but it could be in 5-6 even 10 goddamn years down the track, thats as much as 7-8million odd dollars that this football club otherwise wouldn't have without taking a risk and having some hope instead of pessimism towards our players and education programs.

[Hards 2]

If all our advertising space is used up, why are we paying people to try to attract sponsors?

Because sponsorship isn't only about avertising space on the jumper, shorts and foreheads of the guys on the field.

Collingwood's deal with the TAC use to contain a jumper space element, when they got a better deal with Emerites, they replaced the jumper element with the commericals that were used on TV, as well as Pies players making more public appearances at TAC associated causes. They also still had significant signage at Collingwood games, which due to the added exposure of being attached to Collingwood was still considered effective advertising.

If you think we'd get the same deal as Collingwood then you are absolutely kidding yourself.

That's not being negative, it's being real. If it was so simple that we could just get whatever we wanted out of deals then we'd be sweet, but it's not the case.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,629]

Oh Darn! We might only get $250000 per year. Let's forget it!