Rflowerwing

To complete the trifecta, on Derby Day 1930 shots were fired at Phar Lap, raging favourite for the Melbourne Cup to be held the following Tuesday. The incident occurred in Etna St Glenhuntly as Phar Lap was returning from trackwork. He was unhurt. My grandmother was lying in bed in a small hospital close by where she had just given birth to my mother. She heard the shots. The story can be found here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/horseracingf...0400361150.html

You're a good sport!

Console yourself by labelling me a liar. That would make you a good bloke. "Ask me no questions....".

Lloll.

Derrrr! "Carp" is widely used to circumvert net nannies, avoid breach of "language rules" etc. You're going to have to try harder than that. That would be "you had better proof read...". Happy to be of assistance.

Scared weird little guy - keyboard bully - anger management problem. Yawn.

That's better than your BS story about having a bull terrier named Hanna or some such carp explaining your inability to spell your own name.

Would that be "italics"?

From the inception of the Competitive Balance Fund (later re-named the Annual Special Distribution) to the end of season 2008 Melbourne received a total of $6 million in AFL funding from this source. In the same period North and the Bulldogs received $12 million. Even now, that is before their latest funding submission, Port Adelaide receives $250k pa from the same fund.

But I don't understand your opinion. Who will be laughing? What will they be laughing about?

What do you mean by this?

So have they sacked the guy in charge of sponsorships or not? Is this Hazy tilting at windmills or is he onto something? Funny thing to do if the Hankook deal is the triumph most seem to think it is.

What is the difference between a "major co-sponsorship" and a "minor sponsorship"?

Easily pleased aren't you? The Hankook announcement is most welcome and well done to those concerned - we are certainly better off today than we were this time last week. But: - this isn't a "major sponsorship". It isn't even a second tier sponsorship using the AFL's classification system. It's a third tier sponsorship which may cover the cost of a single middle ranked player - there has been a period of over 4 months between the cessation of the Primus sponsorship and the Hankook announcement. Using the Primus $$$ as a baseline this delay in securing a new sponsor equates to a revenue hole of c. $350k in the current financial year. Like everyone else I eagerly await the announcement of the "back of jumper sponsor" soon.

This seems very fair to me. If you take a line through the Bullies/Mission Foods a major sponsorship in the current marketplace is worth $125k (gross) per month. We have been without a major sponsor since 1 November. Even if we sign one up in the next few months we already have a huge revenue hole for the current year. I predict a trading loss of in the order of $2 million this year. This will wipe out the one-off Debt Demolition tin rattle and restore our balance sheet to where it was before Debt Demolition. Everyone is fixated on "Debt" and of course the balance sheet and interest payable on borrowings are important. However of more ominous significance is that in 2008 and again in 2009 we will spend significantly in excess of our revenues. This is a one-way trip to oblivion.

Ah - it was only a matter of time. The ultimate refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. "You can't criticise Rudd, his policies and the performance of his Government unless you can show how you would make a better PM with better policies yourself". Bulldust. The difference between Hazy, other Stynes critics and me on the one hand and Stynes, his Board and his administration on the other is that at no time did we come to the Board of the day, demand that they step aside and then hold ourselves out to members, supporters, the media, the AFL and other stakeholders as having the people, plans and vision to rebuild the Club and make us powerful and successful again. Stynes has made precisely these claims. Unlike us, Stynes and his Board have nominated for election to the Board and received the endorsement of the members. This imposes responsibilities and accountability on Stynes that are not shared by us plebs. I have never said I could do a better job. All I have argued is that Stynes should deliver on his promises.

It was never otherwise. Bask? You're kidding me, right? I am distressed to watch Stynes lead this great Club headlong into the valley of tears to the cheers of leghumpers like you who think that he is the man for the moment because he did a good job selling you insurance in the 80's or because he was Brownlow medallist with a great story to tell. Sorry to bore you. Solution - don't read my posts. No. Have you ever crossed the Alps with elephants? But it's not about us, is it?

Thanks for the free character analysis - I'll take it on board and it means a lot to me. Actually my first post was in a thread titled "President Stynes". I have searched the site and can find no thread called "Jim Stynes President". My first words in the first thread were: "The suspense is killing me. Gardner has done a so so job but everyone reaches a use-by date and now it's time for Big Jimma to come on down". My interest as a poster is in the accountability of the Club's administration. I know that this goes against the prevailing starstruck romance surrounding Brand Stynes. I don't expect too many people to see it my way. There was once a point in Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes" where only a single person in the crowd (a kid) was prepared to say "But he has nothing on". The balance you rightly call for is achieved by weighing up the views of the majority ("I have every faith in Stynes and his associates" - see above) with those like me prepared to offer comment on the cut of Stynes' new clothes. Would you prefer not to hear this? And BTW regarding your "only a fool" comment: - there's not a lot of point or interest in debating someone likeminded - we are all anonymous, aren't we? - I will take a position - that does not mean that I am not evenhanded. I will also give credit where credit is due, particularly if someone else has yet to do so.

Actually I don't think any of them are "morons". They are all doing their best in difficult circumstances. Nothing would make me happier than the signing of a major sponsor - I expect it from those who have made us promises. My point is that if someone comes on here and tells us all that we have fumbled the sponsorship ball (again!!!) then the leaking this information does not make its source at the Club a moron. Rather Stynes and Schwab telling us that she'll be apples is far more reprehensible.

It is now nearly 3 weeks since the Doggies announced that they have signed Mission Foods to a 3 year $4.5 million major sponsorship. We continue to hear that Richmond is close to signing a major sponsorship with Luxbet. We have no major sponsorship and none in sight. Here are three takes on the same situation: "Schwab told the Herald Sun this week the Demons were still confident of finding a backer and were looking long-term". C Schwab 17 January. "Meanwhile, Stynes is confident the Demons will be able to secure a major sponsor before the start of the season. "We are talking to everybody. Because we know how important it is, we will bend over backwards to ensure the sponsor gets a great deal". J Stynes 3 February. "Its a fairly poorly kept secret in certain circles, but up until last week, the MFC had been progressing very well in talks with a significantly large global corporate entity regarding sponsorship. That was, until, another club got in their ear singing the virtues of sponsoring a "one-town team" and convinced them that signing on as a secondary sponsor with them would cost them less money and give equal exposure to signing on with a certain unfashionable Victorian club "that only plays on Sunday afternoons". Expect an announcement from up north in the coming weeks from the Brisbane Lions and the worlds biggest sugared beverage company". ImTheGreatRonBarassi 3 February. Unpalatable though it is I would rather hear the truth about our sponsorship situation than listen to two "morons at the MFC" (your language) nailed to crucifixes on Jolimont Hill whistling "Always look on the bright side of life". Thanks ITGRB - great to have transparency over bulldust.

Let's not use the word "blame". I prefer "accountability". There are lots of reasons why signing a major sponsor in the current climate is a major challenge. That's what we pay the big bucks to people like Schwab for. Campbell Rose managed it having come from a long way back it would seem. I'm all about accountability. Schwab and Stynes should be held accountable by the members for this embarassment and the lack of a sponsor with nearly a quarter of the Club's financial year gone. The Board should hold Schwab and his management team accountable for their failure to date to deliver a key revenue line in the budget. The main problem is that a starstruck membership will never hold Stynes accountable - just read this thread. And within the ruling Cabal, Chairman Jimma will never hold mates Schwab and Connolly accountable for underperformance in their areas of the portfolio. Mark my words - key players in the Club and the industry including the State Government, AFL headquarters, the MCC, the media and supporter groups such as Coterie are already asking the hard questions about the ruckman's capacity to lead this Club.

Less than 5 weeks prior to Christmas, Schwab was telling anyone who would listen that the Mission Foods deal was "over the line" for the MFC. What does that say to you? Schwab was very public in expressing his lack of interest in the MFC job when first questioned about it. This continues to be on display.

The results we are comparing here are Bullies $4.5 million v MFC $0. I am not talking about just any result - it is the quality of the respective results that the two organisations are judged by. And i'va - you say this: This, to anyone with an ounce of business acumen, is to state the bleedin obvious and has resulted, due to the mal-administration of previous executives and Boards of the MFC How come everything bad that has happened prior to now can be blamed on past maladministration (which, by the way, Stynes has assiduously avoided doing) whereas everything bad happening now is a product of circumstances beyond the Administration's control? I recall our draw last year involved something like 15 Sundays, one Friday night, minimal FTA exposure, low drawing home games impacting gate revenue, matchday corporate and merchandise sales and sponsor exposure. How come in 2008 this was 'maladministration" and the 2009 version is "poor Jimma"? Just when do Stynes and Schwab become accountable for what's happening at our Club?

If there is some criterion other than results by which to evaluate the performance of the respective management/marketing teams, let's hear it.

What extra info does he need? "Scoreboard, scoreboard...!!!".