Hazyshadeofgrinter

Actually I'm more Melbourne than you becaue I support the club - not merely whoever is chairing it at the time. What are you trying to prove by coming on here, calling me puerile names and questioning my allegiance to the club? I hope you skip this post. The last thing I need is another drongo to argue with.

Gee, I thought demon3165 did a good line in irony but this might just take the cake. I'm clutching at straws? If Schwab, who was appointed by Jim, and who works for and with Jim, managed to secure a $3m/year sponsorship deal tomorrow, does this mean that Jim and his board wouldn't get any credit for it? Does this mean that the projected losses for the club in 2008 were not the responsibility of the previous board but, merely that of the CFO? Is this really the best you can come up with? After all I have written, your response is to say that actually, you heard that Connolly was largely responsible for the Casey deal, so clearly the previous board can accept no credit for it and that ipso facto Jim has been doing a great job witht the sponsorship? Talk about tenuous! Your double standard is obvious and proves, far better than I could hope to, that I am the even-handed and consistent one in this debate. Any genuflexions are coming soley from your corner. Need I remind you that the quote you use above was written in response to someone who was apparently trying to give the credit for the Casey deal to Jim?

Probably reasonably close to the truth, how magnanimous. Whilst we are straintening out the facts, this article also mentions that the Bulldogs' previous sponsorship deal with "Lease Plan" expired on Decemebr 31 which would meant they they went without a sponsor for much less time than us. The MCC rumours are a very exciting development, in my view this our best chance of keeping a Melbourne Football club in Melbourne sustainably. I'm very pleased that Jim and his board are pursuing this angle and it is to their credit. Of course, this doesn't excuse them from their very poor performance on the sponsorship front.

Once again I can only guess at what you are talking about, sounds like more ridiculous identity conspiracies, why don't you just PM your theories to Hannabal? I (and probably everyone else here) am bored with this strange obsession that some poeple seem to have about who I am. For the record I have no idea what kind of a man Jim is, and I don't dislike him or his board. I simply dislike the fact that we went so long without a sponsor and now that it looks like we'll have something cobbled together just in time for the season propoer, people like you bang on about what a fantastic job Jim has done on this front. In short, I dislike your applauding mediocrity. To say I have no "points" is ridiculous when your main points are how great Bailey is (not appointed by Jim), how great Casey is (previous board again), that unlike past boards Jim plans sustainably (all we have seen so far is an unsustainable tin-rattle), and that Jim uncovered some shonky accounting and secret debt (false). You clearly have no idea what you are on about.

I see you have gone back to your unsubstantiated and barely comprehensible one-liners. Probably for the best. If you don't mind I will save myself the trouble of specifically addressing all of the many reasons why your statemnt is so very silly and just copy and paste from my response to your last "zinger". Your accusation is barely comprehesible, does not address any of the points I have made, does not add anything to this debate and smacks of serious irony.

2 sponsorships over 3 years would be a better deal if they started at the same time and if they added up to more than the $4.5m Mission deal. Our sponsorship deal has come very late indeed (half of it still isn't secured) and every day waiting costs the club in terms of lost revenue. It remains to be seen whether the second sponsorship will make our yearly major sponsorship total add up to more than the $4.5m doggies deal, I have every hope that it will. Of course, the main reason that the Mission foods deal is relevant to this debate is not becaue it is worth a lot, but rather, because it is a clear cut case of the respective club admins doing corporate battle and Jim's mob coming off second best. The likelihood that Schwab thought that it was in the bag, only to be outmanoeuvred and left floundering with no back up plan, compounds this. Saying that the reason we lost the Mission deal is simply "because they decided to go elsewhere" is extremely disingenuous and typical of the mentality that Jim and his board are always responsible for good things and never accountable for negatives. I could just as well say that the only reason we got the Hankook deal is "because they decided to come to the MFC", however, I give credit where it is due. If the Hankook/company x deal came into effect when the primus deal expired months ago, I would be much more upbeat about it. I don't know what you are talking about with "agendas" - what's yours? I'm merely adding what I consider to be a realistic, empirical take on the clubs off-field performance to what otherwise seems like a star-struck love-fest. If I have an agenda it is to spread the capacity for critical thought and robust debate amongst other Melbourne supporters. A membership that is well informed, rational, and demands accountability can only be good for our club, irrespective of who is in charge. I'm thankful to the current board for donating their time (by the way - does anyone know where Jim gets his income from? Is his wife the bread-winner?). However, they took over the club without being voted in and promised to make big improvements. It would be irresponsible of me as a member to not hold the current administration accountable for their tardy performance on the sponsorship front, given that they identified this as an area of particular importance when they took over.

I am fully aware of the "global recession" context. It didn't seem to bother the other clubs much. If you think Jim did a fantastic job, then you must think that the administrators of other clubs are out and out geniuses. If the mission deal is why we got the Hankook deal so late then that is even more damning. A "full-time president" should be able to court more than one company at a time and a responsible president should not count chickens before they hatch. I do agree that the mission deal is probably why we kept hearing from Schwab and others that the club was confident of announcing a major sponsor last year though. Makes them look pretty silly really. Also, I am of the understanding that the mission foods deal is worth $4.5m/year so another $2.1m would leave us short. Of course we would be even better off if we secured a sponsor months ago.

Ho hum, more spelling police - the last refuge of the internet scoundrel. There is an entire thread devoted to spelling and grammar in the general section as you would well know, because you started it. I suggest you take your irrelevant observations over there and chortle with all the other pedants. By the way, Connolly was another appointment by the previous board as I remember, and he was working for/with them at the time. Your efforts to preclude the previous administraition from any acknowledgement on this score, when coupled with the ardent praise of Jim's small part in the Casey deal, shows just how unbalanced and desperate your views are. Credit where it is due indeed!

Let's say, for arguements sake, that I don't have any idea of the clubs situation - would you care to outline it for me (perhaps in a relevant thread)? I do not seem to share your views on the situation. The main reason I "dare" to give Jimmy a D (minus) on the sponsorship is because it came so late. If our poor fixturing cannot be influenced by Jim then he can hardly take credit for this years AFL payout. I doubt that you would have been so magnanimous about this years fixture if Jim wasn't in charge. The recession arguement is a cop-out, the bulldogs were in the same recession and they beat us in the mission foods deal. This is another part of the reason why the efforts of Schwabb, Stynes & the Board as reagrds sponsorship have been very dissapointing ($700k/year two weeks before the start of season notwithstanding). Why should I be careful with how I respond to your "arguements" (I use the term loosely)? Is that supposed to be some kind of an "e-threat"?

If you want to see a less "trite" response to these tired excuses then please consult the numerous previous threads where I have comprehensively debunked them - I know how much you enjoy snuffling through old threads. If you want to keep carping on about my amazing secrety identity, please put on your tin hat and start a relevant thread. If you want to continue to look like you are desperately trying to claw yourself back into a lost arguement and that you have little of value to add, then please continue to take cheap shots at my spelling. If you wanted to admit that in fact, all I have written is true and that I have a reasonable and realistic take on the sponsorship situation (surrounding circumsatances included) then you should have just stopped here:

1. What are you basing this on? The sustainable tin-rattle? 2. I'm afraid that if you are a Bailey supporter that you will have to give credit for that appointment to the previous board. I share your optimism in regards to our young squad. 3. a ) I will happily engage in a hypothetical discussion about where we would be if Jim hadn't taken over - in another, relevant thread. As I have already stated the tin-rattle is not a sustainable plan but a one-shot pistol that anyone could have used. Having said that, I think Jim and his team did a very good job of it. b ) There were no surprises about our finances that were uncovered by Jim - everything was above board. Where did you get this idea from? c ) The Casey issue is another area where I'm afraid that you will have to give credit to the previous board. d ) I don't know what you mean when you talk about mending fences with the AFL and MCC, they don't seem to be treating us any differently as far as I can tell. Having said that, the MCC/MFC merger prospect is the most exciting news that has come out so far (but sadly, only form the MFC side to date). I have also been assured that this is an angle that was being pursued by Gardner and Co. 4. We won't be getting more than one sponsor on the back of the jumper that's for sure. I got sick of waiting months ago which is why I give Jims board a poor grade on the sponsorship front. 5. blah blah blah. Empty words. cheers

I think you will find that I have given credit for the $700k Hankook sponsorship deal, made at the end of the NAB cup, several times already. I suspect that you just want me to give it more credit than it deserves. I think you will also find that expecting a timely sponsorship deal for an averagish amount is not "hard to please".

Actually the simple view is: "Jim bleeds read and blue for the team and he must be doing a great job because he was such a great player." As far as I know all clubs are doing it, if by "it" you mean getting sponsors. We just happened to be the last ones to get it done. Your accusation is barely comprehesible, does not address any of the points I have made, does not add anything to this debate and smacks of serious irony.

I chose $1.5m/year because that (from memory) is the value of the mission foods deal. I expect that most sponsorship deals are bigger than their predecessors. The Primus deal was certainly bigger than the LG deal. If you beleive the rumours, P. Mac was looking at a deal worth around $2m. There is every chance that Jim could still put together something worth over $1.5m, I think I read that the back-of-the-jumper-only luxbet sponsorship is worth around $1m/year for the tiges. If Jim put together a deal worth around 1.5M several months ago, then I would give him a much better grade. I don't see what our debt has to do with the sponsorship issue. The tin rattle was great but anyone could have fired that one shot pistol. I just hope that Jim doesn't waste that money hiring and firing and spending months without sponsorship income.

1. a ) We have a promising young team that can only improve b ) I thought Jim had a good relationship with the AFL? If so, why do we have another bad fixture? Do you give Jim credit for the AFL payout when this is largely based upon our bad fixture? 2. Every other club, including the bulldogs, is in the same recession. We were the last ones to get a sponsor. 3. I didn't put my hand up for the job in the first place. 4. It's not a fantasitic effort it is only barely a Pass grade. 5. I'm not on their backs, I'm simply adding my view on what constitutes "perspective" - just like you. However, I feel that your "perspective" is decidedly rose-tinted. And here I was thinking that Melbourne supporters were fed up with applauding mediocrity... cheers

Look it's definitely a great development but I think you are the one lacking perspective here. Yes we have a $700k/year sponsor and another co-sponsor expected to make an announcement soon but that doesn't change the fact that - this development came much later than anyone would have hoped. - we did not have a sponsor for the NAB cup games and we came dangerously close to not having one by the start of the season. - we have been haemorrhaging over the last few months whilst we didn't have a sponsor. - we were beaten to the mission foods deal by the bulldogs. - we were the very last team to secure a sponsor this year. Now none of this changes the fact that the Hankook co-sponsorship deal is great news and all credit to Jim and his team and the good folks at Hankook for sorting it out. However, overall I'd give the current administration a D- on the sponsorship front. Maybe a D if they get both sponsors on the jumper before the start of season and it adds up to more than $1.5M/year. That's perspective.

couldn't agree more, so let's both stop going on about it - shall we?

Hi iv'a, I'm glad to see that you are back on the forum. A conspicuous presence if ever I saw one. Would you mind pointing out what I was wrong about? (You might need to start a new thread though because I don't think I've been wrong about the sponsorship issue to date). cheers

I was referring to when Harley took over as captain of Geelong and the new leadership group started to demand a more professional attitude from players like Mooney, Ablett and Steve Johnson. I was not making a direct comparison between the playing styles of Ablett and Sylvia and I acknowledge that it would be wishful thinking in the extreme to expect that level of performance from Colin. Having said that, there are some similarities as Ablett was little more than a better than mediocre smallish forward for much of his career. The point I'm trying to make is that I find the leadership groups' strict response to what sounds like a mild infringemnent by Sylvia to be encouraging. I hope that this is a sign of things to come and that under J. Mac's leadership our players continue to demand a high level of commitment and professionalism from themselves. It might be wishful thinking but it would be fantastic if such a climate elicited a positive on-field response, particularly from those players that are deemed by some to be underachievers.

I know I'm dreaming but wouldn't it be great if this was a Gary Ablett Jnr moment...

I didn't think you were blaming me and I agree with you completely about the pointless posts. I just wanted to set the record straight because you deleted the relevant posts. Perhaps someone might like to start a thread specifially about why they disagree with my views/don't like my attitude. I'd do it myself but I don't want to seem self-important. Perhaps we should continue this discussion via PM so that we don't make more pointless posts?

I think you missed some: But then none of these posters are willing to name names so I guess they aren't having personal tantrums. I didn't bother replying to them until I was named personally. Let the record show that I was not the one looking to drag this thread off the rails and into a personal arguement - but neither will I back down from one if challenged. Let the record show also that whilst I am as glad as the next supporter that Hankook have got behind the mighty D's, I stand by everything that I have said on the matter. - Hazy the conspicuously present.

Lovely sentiment and all, but you might want to spell the company name correctly

Great news and not a moment too soon. Looking forward to hearing who the other sponsor will be.

What a wonderfully insightful post. To echo your sentiments, I have long suspected that the harsh/fickle/shallow criticism doled out to some of our less experienced players is rooted in the desperate wish for an on-field messiah. Unfortunately I can empathise with the frustration and despondency that underlies this thinking. With any luck they will both have a good season in 2009. I expect Brock in particular to assert himself this year, and hopefully Jones will benefit from having more people to share the load/handball to (in the midfield).