rpfc

Yes, it is valuable to have critical thought. But, this is verging on blanket opposition. And that leads to the Libs giving a leg up to alcohol companies that target 15 - 17 year olds, and the US Republican Party which stands for nothing but the desire to make the sitting President and his policies a complete failure. Fan, I can understand your desire to respectful, and most of us are... But if all you do is criticise, you will be ostracised...

It's not an argument for delaying sponsorship deals, it's an argument for praising our dumb luck and securing a better deal now than we would have 5 months ago. If Hannabal is right about your motives I can understand your vehemence. But, really, criticism of the deal itself, just because it was sparked by a lowly supporter, is a bit rich. Not as rich as $3m over 3 years, but rich nevertheless. Companies don't just fork over cash because their regional sales rep advises them to. They obviously talked with JS and CS and liked their vision.

Is it just me, or is 'Cheers' become a throwaway end of a post/letter/email. I mean, 'Cheers' for what? Being called a d!ckhead? Anywho... Understand what you are saying HSOG, not entirely sure why you are going to such lengths to say it. As a fatalist, I would say that if we signed up a major sponsor in October we would have got far worse a deal than the magnificient deals we have now. I mean, the excitement of footy in March is 20 times that of October. We are an unattractive club at the moment, and we are much less attractive in October...

This is a great story. Jimmy is on fire. And HazyShade is right. It wasn't before time, the place was falling down... I mean, we haven't been close to winning one AFL match so far this year... We are well into March with no premiership points to show for our troubles. Things are looking good boys and girls...

No, it was $1m. Makes it all the more impressive, but with Essendon, Collingwood, and Carlton getting so much from their sponsors, it drives ours up aswell. So... I guess we should thank them... Maybe not.

If anyone is wondering why this deal is more than the Hankook deal it would have to do with the fact that the back sponsorship is larger and easier to see on TV, and also the reference to 'coaches' sponsorship' probably refers to advertising on the coaches' box with is constantly panned to by 7 and 10 during games. As an aside, (a rather large aside) given the extra finances we have secured - pointed out by Hannabal above - and our very managable salary lay-out, we might be out of debt in the next three years.

45k will be a stretch for a Sunday 1pm game. Hoping for more, but with our position and prospects for this year... Not getting to 45k isn't failing.

You still need a solid fwd structure to kick goals. You can do it with smaller players but the disposal from the midfield to them has to be immaculate. It remains to be seen wether our midfield, and the midfield of our near term future, has that immaculate disposal. I'm just happy to have Jack Watts in the stable for the future.

This must be so frustrating for the bloke. He seems like a tough kid though. Cheney would have to have a spot sewn up now, surely.

Yeah, they did. Jesus, we are doing well 24k at this stage?! For all that's been said, two things are for certain - Jimmy is popular and has inspired the masses.

Bate at FF, PJ beside him when he isn't in the ruck. Shouldn't spend much time on the bench. Wonna and Davey switching from flank to pocket. Miller at CHF and Morton and Green switching from flank to wing. Newton maybe off the bench. PJ, Bate, Wonaeamirri. Morton, Miller, Davey. With a 6 like that it is about precise disposal from the midfielders or kicking to advantage by allowing Bate to lead to space or kicking to a contest with PJ/Newton/Bate/Miller up and Davey/Wonna/Green down. It is difficult to tell how many a fwd line like this could kick, needless to say it is fortunate we have a very good backline.

After the debacle with Garland last year, I'm not going to judge anyone until we get into the thick of the season. Newton is half an inch taller than Bate. This 'he ain't big enough' to play KPF rap on Bate is unfounded. He hasn't had the chance to fail or excel at FF or CHF. Last year he spent all his time on a flank with Miller pushing him out and toward the boundary. He has been adequate at HFF but I think he is solid enough and smart enough to average 2.5 goals a game at FF in 2009.

I am reticient to split up our backline and with that in mind Garland, Martin, and Rivers - who have all had supporters claim they can play forward - must stay back. Garland and Frawley can play small. Warnock and Rivers are very smart, selfless workers, they play a similar role so it depends if there is a match up for Warnock as Rivers will always play the extra man if fit. Martin plays on the 'gorillas' and the resting ruckman, something the Kangas exploit very well with Petrie and Hale. They may go with ruckmen and quick smalls which makes it difficult for match-ups. Harding - Petrie - Thomas Grimes - Warnock - Garland Campbell - McIntosh/Hale - Jones Cheney - Martin - Rivers That was tougher than I thought, Frawley may miss because Jones and Edwards are both on the outer with Laidley. Can't see both playing.

Agree with that. Preferably Watts at CHF, but if he becomes FF then Morton/Bate at CHF. Garland is just so valuable in the backline. He was near faultless on Saturday.

Bennell, Petterd, and Jones were very pleasing to the eye. Bennell's disposal is silky and accurate. Rivers, Moloney, and Brock were always amongst it and that is good to see. Wasn't a day for Newton, Bate, and Miller so they get a reprieve. Newton did some awful things, but he also did some great things. One attempted mark on the wing in the 1st Qtr comes to mind when he ran back with the flight and went A over T. Don't know how we will go against the Kangas but I don't think we will be let down.

$300k over 3 years is much worse? The $4.1m figure is what I thought the Bullies were getting, it may be infact what we were going to get with Mission before it was hijacked. This is such an inconsequential argument we are having. We aren't going into the season without a sponsor and we are looking up from the bottom with more hope than when Jim took over. The whingers will say hope ain't worth sh!t, but it's worth a lot when you have nothing else.

Only a couple of blowouts this season. Top 5 team in the tackle count. Periphery roles played by Bruce, Green, Wheatley, Whelan, Robertson, and McDonald. Bate at FF and kept there the whole year. Play with some boldness and confidence.

We are a basket case. Any argument that doesn't stipulate the difficulty to convince firms to hand over cash in this climate, with this club, is disingenuous. The Mission deal is the reason why we are getting this so late. We were courting them for weeks and were close to a deal when it fell apart. And don't give this '$700 000 notwithstanding' rubbish, that is a lot of cash not allowed to stand... BTW, if we get another $2.1 over 3 years we will have a better deal than the bullies $4.1 over 3 years with Mission.

Great stuff. I think Hankook will be the only ones confirmed for a week at least as you may aswell give both sponsors time on stage to themselves. The Primus deal was $1m a year, so this is really promising stuff. Here is hoping that we can turn a couple of the companies that miss out on the major sponsor slot to be second tier sponsors. Also, in Caro's article she referred to the MCC taking us back (or us going back) and I was wondering whether that means we could share some space in their merchandise store which is much less hidden away at the G. It's a small thing, I know, but just something I thought about when reading the article.

Bailey meant that 'coming second' remark as a way of not allowing the team to be happy with honourable losses. As in - we came second, we lost, it doesn't matter if we were the better team for 75% of the game, etc. I think you need to re-read his remarks before your next rant.

This is where our list is at its thinnest. Don't think that DB is too keen to play him but the options are Meesen, or throwing Martin into the centre, which I think is a pathetic move. Meesen is a ruckman. We have 2 eligible, fit ruckman - PJ and Meesen. Play Meesen.

I reckon Miller and Bate are capable of kicking 70-80 goals between them. But that is with half decent service from midfield... Bate out of the square and Miller creating havoc off the square. Davey, Wonna, Sylvia, Johnson, Maric, Robertson (maybe??) and Bruce rotating through and it's not a half bad fwd line. Newton should earn a spot through Casey.

Yeah... Bailey was the reason we didn't get Judd... What sh!t. Bailey is going to get a fair shot at building and guiding this list no matter the amount of reflective whining.

Personally, I'm not sure what Jones will become. He has to hit more targets with his feet, it's a non-issue with me that he can't kick 40m, he needs to lower his eyes or hand it off to someone with a better kick. Bottom line is that can get the footy, which is great. But he had an awful 2008, due in part to close tagging and his own decision making. Hoping for a solid 2009.

You are talking in terms of the extra couple thousand memberships. But what if he doesn't stay on the wagon? Imagine the sh!t we would be in with a new, reluctant (as we can see from the delay) sponsor if Cousins did what he has done for the past 5 years? As a player, he is very good. But he has a 31 yr old body and a recent history of soft tissue problems. He'll be gone a lot sooner than Liam Jurrah.