Hazyshadeofgrinter

Yes, I appreciate that, but your question is not really relevant is it? I mean, the Hankook sporsorship is a done deal so asking how we can improve as a club in terms of the Hankook deal is a bit of a tricky question. If you mean how can the club improve generally then that is a question for another thread. However, at the risk of going too far off-topic, I will indulge you a little and say that a full and frank self-appraisal is important for any improvement, and that in order for one to learn from one's mistakes, it is first necessary for one to admit that one has made them. It is for this reason that I fervently hope that Jim and his team don't rate their performance on sponsorship as highly as most people on here seem to - particularly because there are concerns surrounding the acocuntablilty of the board both internally (because they are mates) and externally (because supporters are apparently eager to make excuses for them- possibly on the basis of Jim's celebrity). But then, like I said, this is really a discussion for another thread.

I tired to spell it out for you in "grown-up" language, but apparently to no avail. Allow me to make another attempt in terms that you are no doubt better aquainted with: "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" That's a great question 45hotgod - you should start a thread on it.

Either way it's a good idea and good media coverage.

You clearly missed the point of my last post. Let me spell it out for you: These one-line jibes that have begun to get thrown in my direction do not bother me. Nor do they add anything to the debate. All any of you acheive by indulging yourselves in this sort of taunting, is to make yourselves look childish and to make yourselves look like you have comprehensively lost an argument. If you and others like you, no longer wish to discuss the sponsorship situation and would instead prefer to spend your time sniping at me, then I suggest you start a thread about me in the general section. It would probably be in breach of the code of conduct but, so low is the esteem in which I regard your opinions, I would not be moved to complain. cheers

no, you are!

I'm glad that you can see that now. I'll just continue to accentuate the reality. Good to have you back.

Was that supposed to be $1Million/year? If so, that is very encouraging news indeed!

The best way to stop me from making so many replies is to stop making so many stupid posts - especially when they are addressed to me specifically. Also, even though it means you have to go on about the same old thing, can you please try and stay on topic? It's getting tiresome. Why don't you move on and get more realistic so I don't go to sleep at the computer responding to your posts?

How droll. You accuse me of tiptoeing around the issues when I have been focused solely on the facts surrounding the Hankook deal. And then you respond with a childish insult. Talk about meaningless! I always know when I have won an argument at the footy with a collingwood supporter. It's when they completely abandon the subject and start hurling abuse. I didn't expect to see it here though! So you have abandoned your ridiculous crusade to make me ? Suits me. I got bored of that a while back. What a load of BS. The bulldogs' "Lease Plan" deal was $1m/year. Clealry the price of sponsorship has gone up over the last few years - not surprising given that the Primus deal was worth more than the LG deal. Which means the price of going without a sponsor for months on end has gone up as well. You must think that the bulldogs admin are simply amazing to tee up their huge $1.5M so promptly and under such trying economic circumstances. You must think that the Tigers getting $1m/year for their back-of-jumper-sponsor only, in the same economic circumstances and despite having made the finals only once since finishing 3rd in 1995, makes them financial wizards. We should send Wayne Swan down to Punt Road to see how it's done!

Yeah, I guess where I went wrong was where I responded to what you actually wrote, not what you wish you wrote. /(dramatic) sigh

Not ideal? Come to think of it, I guess a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in sposonrship revenue is "not ideal" after all.

You said the bulldogs' deal was "not great". Have you changed you mind because our deal is even later, even though we had a head-start on the bulldogs and the global financial situation at the time was better? Or did you change you mind because you realised that after we finally secure our other "major co-sponsor"we are likely to end up with a deal for a simliar amount? I get the feeling that you are trying to wriggle out of your position on the mission deal, have fun with that, cheers

A spot on the jumper and some PR spin?

Actually QueenC, if the club had managed to secure the Mission Foods deal I would still be critical of the deal because it would still have been inexcusably late. However, at least it would be less late than our current deal(s) and at least it wouldn't be obvious that our administration lost a head-on confrontation - I might have even given them a "C-". To say that there is nothing we can do on our side to improve our chances of getting sponsorship is the most ridiculous cop out yet and you know it. If this is the case then why does the club pay (and pay-out) executive salaries to people who are employed for just this purpose? Why did Jim make a big deal of his "connections" when he took over? Why does Jim get credit for the Hankook deal? And by the way, I don't think our sponsorship situation is bad because I disagree with it. I think it's bad because it's late and not particularly good. It's hard to see things form "the other side" when "the other side" simply ignores these facts. The reason you seem to be getting an endless strem of negativity from me is because I am replying to and endless stream of nit-wits who don't acknowledge the facts and who for some reason think that this very late minor sponsorship deal with Hankook should somehomw force me to eat my words.

Why? Because you consider $1.5M/year to be a "not great" outcome. And, putting things in context - we have (hopefully) been looking for a new major sponsor since the middle of last year so the fact that we have been so slow to get one wihlst the financial crisis continues to worsen, does not exactly speak highly of our administration.

Dear rabid Jim supporters, If the very welcome but nevertheless very late, tier-3, $700k/year Hankook minor sponsorship is such a great deal, why has the club sacked its Commercial Operations Director who has overall charge of the Partners and Corporate areas of the club? This is the area responsible for identifying and securing sponsors. And does it make sense to sack Brad whilst the back of jumper "major co-sponsorship" is still up in the air?

Definitely a good idea from the bulldogs management/marketing departments that. They seem like a professional outfit (well they ought to - they are getting paid professional salaries I suppose). It's a pity our team couldn't put something like that together or come up with an angle of their own.

Yep, seems they undercut us and Schwab apparently had no idea.

I'm glad that you don't think anything is wrong with my opinions. As for the "grandstanding" - have a look at my first post in this thread, not what you would call negative grandstanding. What am I supposed to do when a a whole raft of anrgy people have a go at me because they don't like my facts getting in the way of their fantasy? Why don't you drop the "positive grandstanding" and embrace where we are at - a week and a bit from the start of season with half a major sponsor and with hundreds of thousands of sponsorship dollars lost over the last few months. Get on board (the reality train)!

If the dogs deal isn't great then I suppose that you will be disappointed if our two major sponsors don't add up to at least the "not great" figure of $1.5M/year.

Please, by all means feel free to start another thread soliciting volunteers. But I'd prefer it if you dropped the assumptions about who I am and what I do. cheers

Correct(ish), we have half of a major sponsor and the other half is likely to get finalised soon so we probably won't start the main season without a major sponsor. We have however, not had a major sponsor for several months now, inculding the NAB cup. It's great that you have more hope now than when JIm took over. I'm actually pretty envious. I just hope that your confidence isn't based upon Jim's time as a ruckman. I certainly have more hope now than I did a week ago anyway. Also, I'm a realist and a rationalist but not a pessimist. I give both commendation and criticism where I think they are due and, unlike most posters on here, I usually give reasons for my views. This applies to club administrators and players alike. Good luck with all your hard work turning the club around.

Newton is even worse below his knees than Bate, and far less committed. I don't think I'll ever understand what people see in him and I hope he isn't given any more chances to show me.

$700k/year would not be "very poor performance" if the deal (in addition to another co-sponsorship deal for a similar amount) was finalised shortly after the Primus sponsorship was not renewed. If this were the case, it would be "expected performance", or maybe even "better than average performance given the circumstances". Of course, this didn't happen and as a result the club lost hundred of thousands of dollars as month after month went by with no major sponsor. But then you probably wouldn't understand this if you can't comprehend the relevance of expiry dates (as if).

It would be great if our second co-sponsor and new minor sponsorships made our $700k/year into more than the bulldogs' $1.5M/year. Of course, even if this did happen, going for several months without any sponsor, losing the mission foods deal to the bulldogs, and then cobbling something together just before the start of the main season is hardly "smelling of roses."