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

I wonder if we'll hear from the club whether it's putting in a submission for the sponsorship?

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

Again, take off what we're getting from the sponsor we have at the moment that you're going to replace...

Give them a spot on the coaches and Traners collar back of the Primus quarter time banner spots signage at the MCG and on our press conference banner, won't conflict with any other sponser. Even if we get 2-300,000 we wouldn't of budgeted on this.

Better still Team Melbourne get the deal for the full 500,000 + some

quote 'Hards'

" take off what we're getting from the sponsor we have at the moment that you're going to replace..."

You win, Hards.I can't compete with this hide-bound negativity. Take your half-mill., TAC, and get out of our hair!

quote 'Hards'

" take off what we're getting from the sponsor we have at the moment that you're going to replace..."

You win, Hards.I can't compete with this hide-bound negativity. Take your half-mill., TAC, and get out of our hair!

It's not hide-bound negativity, it's reality. Clubs can't have more than one major sponsor, there isn't room, and potential major sponsors will not want to share. When they get a new, very large sponsorship deal, it is always at the expense of an old one. Hards is spot on.

There's thinking outside the square, and then there is thinking outside the planes of reality.

It's not hide-bound negativity, it's reality. Clubs can't have more than one major sponsor, there isn't room, and potential major sponsors will not want to share. When they get a new, very large sponsorship deal, it is always at the expense of an old one. Hards is spot on.

There's thinking outside the square, and then there is thinking outside the planes of reality.

Agreed and well said Nasher.

It's not hide-bound negativity, it's reality. Clubs can't have more than one major sponsor, there isn't room, and potential major sponsors will not want to share. When they get a new, very large sponsorship deal, it is always at the expense of an old one. Hards is spot on.

There's thinking outside the square, and then there is thinking outside the planes of reality.

So if the TAC approaches MFC with a sponsorship of $300k a year for a series of ads, we tell them to p*ss off! We don't have to take them on as our 'major' sponsor.

Sponors can be serviced in many ways.

So if the TAC approaches MFC with a sponsorship of $300k a year for a series of ads, we tell them to p*ss off! We don't have to take them on as our 'major' sponsor.

Sponors can be serviced in many ways.

Alternatively do we tell our existing major sponsor to p1$$ off and lose their sizeable sponsorship and incur all the bad blood in the industry for doing that. As a small club we struggle for sponsors and that would not be the way to go.

I dont think it is as simplistic as you would like it to be.

A major sponssor is your primary sponsor and enjoys precedent promotion opporutunities from their association with MFC. If MFC have a contractual agreement already with a major sponsor, it will depend upon that contract and what conditions TAC want for their $300,000. If it could be accomodated with the existing arrangements as a secondary sponsor then fine. But you are whistling dixie, if you think TAC will want to go from being a major sponsor at a big crowd pulling club and being a secondary sponsor at a small club with poor exposure and support. I dont see the sense. And if TAC do then they will price the downgrade accordingly. $300,000 would be a steal for MFC. I bet for the same money TAC could achieve its objectives better elsewhere through another Club

How many sponsorships of whatever category does Collingwood have in comparison to Melbourne? I'll bet that it's a lot more in terms of numbers and of sponsorship dollars. If we can cop $300k to $500k from an additional sponsorship like TAC I reckon we grab it and we make sure that all of our players understand the responsibility that goes with it as well as the benefits for the club, themselves and their supporters.

All the Clubs have their major sponsors organised, so I presume the TAC knows that it won't be emblazoned across the front of the successful applicants' jumpers. If there's up to a half-mill. a year up for grabs, I have full confidence in our Club's admin. to be in there negotiating. They will have the expertise to avoid disenchanting sponsors already signed up.

I'm sure they won't have Hard's and Rhino's "it's all too difficult, let's give up" attitude.

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.

it leaves a sword hanging over their heads. are you for real. there would have to be very extreme circumstances to justify someone drink driving. 99% of the time it comes down to attitude. the attitude of wankers. while Melbourne`s public transport isnt great there are enough services along with non English speaking cabbies to not have to drive. i didnt realise Brock, Nathan and Jarred were done for DD whilst overseas.

TAC sponsorship is a poisoned chalice and not worth pursuing regardless of our financial position.

Until the Mormons field a footy team only foolhardy clubs would accept such a deal.

Those with short memories might have forgotten our captain getting turfed out/having an altercation at the taxi stand at the Crown casino, not to mention the photo of some of our key players [censored] to the eyeballs on their recent overseas jaunt. And I won't even begin to list young Col's drunken indiscretions.

Forget it.

Good thinking,Bob. We could lose the 5ook. and end up where we are now! Heaven forbid!

I'm glad you regard my observations as 'good thinking' Jumping Jack.

Forget upper and lower case and appropriate punctuation; it's more like a packet of Tom Thumbs going off under your post/ clacker rather than the old Jumping Jack fireworks.

Regardless of your passion for the club dollar the downside, if the deal went bad, is further negative publicity for our club that can ill-afford it. If the deal soured, it would make us more financially vulnerable than ever. Unlike Collingwood which has a reserve of dollars, investments and members to draw on.

We don't have that luxury but neither should we embrace the first unthought option.

I'm glad you regard my observations as 'good thinking' Jumping Jack.

Forget upper and lower case and appropriate punctuation; it's more like a packet of Tom Thumbs going off under your post/ clacker rather than the old Jumping Jack fireworks.

Regardless of your passion for the club dollar the downside, if the deal went bad, is further negative publicity for our club that can ill-afford it. If the deal soured, it would make us more financially vulnerable than ever. Unlike Collingwood which has a reserve of dollars, investments and members to draw on.

We don't have that luxury but neither should we embrace the first unthought option.

maximum bob, try supporting your arguments with facts rather than 'ifs'. Subsequent to losing their TAC sponsorship, the Tigers this year recorded a record profit of over $1m. Not saying that there is any correlation between the two.

For goodness sake get real. It's fact not 'ifs'.

Every club has its quota of [censored]-head idiots (or no head in one case) and we're part of that percentile. If you think otherwise you've never been near a senior sports club in your life. Yes, even the AFL! Even a little knowledge of the litany of VFL/AFL players' misdemeanours/felonies would inform you let alone some knowledge of what the MFC has worn or hidden over the years.

Facts are numerous. If I started a list I'd end up in court. Get some knowledge and learn your history before having a go at me.

As I said, forget the TAC as a sponsor.

Regardless of your passion for the club dollar the downside, if the deal went bad, is further negative publicity for our club that can ill-afford it. If the deal soured, it would make us more financially vulnerable than ever.

On what basis is this statement factual?

I really can't believe how any true Demon supporter could suggest we shouldn't put ourselves in the running for big money from the TAC.

Watch out, Demonlanders! That mafia-boss lookalike that North poached from Collingwood, Eugene Arocca, will bring the TAC sponsorship( that we should be earnestly chasing) across to the Kangaroos, despite lack of members, and guernsey advertising space!

pretty sure Grey Gloabl is the advertising company TAC uses. Hope our Chairman is on the case on this one !

Thank heavens Carroll wasn't driving!!! But it still won't help our cause.

I presume "Grey Global"is Paul Gardiner's ad. coy. Good get, Adrian!!