Hazyshadeofgrinter

Bailey isn't paid to be our media spokesperson, that's what Jim's not paid to do.

I also heard that rumour. Although I doubt it will be much consolation for many on here who have waited this long, I at least am now confident that we will shortly have two co-sponsors that will add up to approximately $1.5M/year. Thank goodness.

Congratulations lads.

Sorry, I don't really get your reply (unless you're talking about my long-windedness?). Anyway, I meant that the Carlton mob would be throwing punches at each other. Good luck!

Hmmm that's odd. I seem to recall hearing that it was something that Gardner was looking into. Maybe it was just a rumour that I read on here. I'm pretty sure the "boutique stadium" thing at least was a proposed MFC/MCC collaboration deal. Still, I thought that there was more to it than that i.e. talks about incorporation. Maybe this quote form 29th March 2008 was where I got the idea from: "The Club and the AFL – in conjunction with the MCC – are collaborating on a new 5 year strategic plan for the Club, replacing the last plan which was comprehensively overhauled in 2004." Doesn't really sound too convincing now that I read it though. Oh well, either way it's great that Stynes seems to be pursuing it like you say. Still, don't want to count chickens and all that. I'm not really convinced by the public talking thing - not sure it's wise to discuss it if the MCC still haven't committed, but if they're about to, then great. Hannabal, I'm sure the staff were all very approachable but no matter how friendly they are, that isn't really evidence that things are moving on this front (unless you have som information to share with us?) Like Rhino points out, it would be great to hear something encouraging from the MCC end. So far I get the distinct impression that they are keeping us at arms length. And whist I've got you here, I'd like to point out that I have already said that I would have liked to have attended the AGM but that I was unable to for reasons which are none of your business. Whilst you were funny to begin with I am beginning to find you sniping tiresome. I don't know why, I guess you just seem to have lost the verve that intially made you pettiness so amusing. If you continue to hijack these threads to spout off your crazy conspiracy theories and make personal attacks against me then I will be forced to report you to a moderator for irrelevance. Your personal attacks and spelling/grammar policing are clear indications that you have nothing of value to contribute anyway. (They are also indications that you have comprehensively lost an argument). Cheers

Good luck guys. If they start swinging punches my advice is not to get involved.

On the contrary, it is not ironic but rather, apt. Because, unlike you, I do not put much stock in "faith". If snuffling through my old posts like an insane truffle-pig has suddenly lost its appeal, perhaps you could instead start a website about Harris blowing up the twin towers or something. Cheers

More lame excuses, this time featuring not only the common "financial crisis" but the rarer "Free to Air Schedule" and "Sunday Games" varieties. Last year I think it was probably consisdered the Boards fault that the AFL got away with giving us such a poor draw. But then at least that is part of the reason we could justify a bigger AFL handout. This year they do it again, back-to-back - but of course there is nothing that Stynes or Schwab could do about it. Oh and hasn't Jim done a fantastic job getting us another AFL handout. It is clear that you, like the majority of posters on here, have a different set of standards when they are applied to brownlow medallists. That is understandable but also misguided. And I'm glad you brought up tha old post of mine. At the time I remember that I was one of the few people who was apprehensive about the transition and who, like some of the previous board members, wanted some kind of reassurance before jumping headlong onto the bandwagon. I was greatly relieved when Jim finally unvieled his new board who seemed to have some impressive business credentials. You will probably find a post from me in your archive that says as much. The one thing that that post really makes clear is that I belong to a minority of people on this site who are not blinded by celebrity and who does not consider a fantastic career as a ruckman to be a reliable indication of what sort of a chairman that person might make. As you can tell from these sponsorship debates - nothing has changed on that front. However, things got a little shaky from there. Whilst the tin-rattle was a great example of it's type (albeit we can't do it every year), P. Mac was handled poorly, sacked via the media with no replacement lined up and during a crucial period in our negotiations with Primus. Jim came out and publicly supported his mate Schwab for CEO thereby not only violating due process but also raising issues of accountability between the CEO and chairman positions. The Demon Summit gabfest was a good idea and it is to Jim's credit that the Demon Heartland initiative stemmed from that, but the extra layer of management that has allegedly been taken on by Schwab is an expensive concern. However, there is one elephant in the room here that tips the scales quite dramatically. When Jim took control of the club he identified the need to retain our current sponsors and attain new ones. Well, the time has come now, six months after they took control, when Jim and his board can be assessed not only by the contents of their resumes but on their performance also. And going by Jim's own key perfomance indicator of sponsorship, perhaps the single most important issue at the club, they currently get an "F". If they manage to sign a major sponsor before the NAB cup they get a "D", if they get one before the start of the seasaon proper then perhaps a "D-". They are not only running out of excuses but time also. Please enjoy pedantically foraging through my old posts for more spelling/grammatical errors. It would entertain me no end.

This would be a great move in my opinion and it was probably the best intiative to have come out of the Gardner administration. I would be more than happy to forgo my voting rights if it would guarantee that there would always be a Melbourne (demons) Football Club in Melbourne that I could support. Unfortunately, I am yet to see any evidence that we are any closer on this front than we were a year ago.

Even if we get a sponsor in the next three weeks it would already be unacceptably late. The idea that you could then tell me "I told you so" is ridiculous. You're probably one of the nit-wits who thought we were just waiting for the captaincy announcement. If you think that the ability to "chill out" in our current sponsorship situation makes you a better supporter than me then you are sorely mistaken. By the way, nothing would make me happier than if we did get a sponsor in the next 3 weeks.

Look, I'm not about to defend Harris' work off-field or otherwise. And yes, it is likely that he damaged our club's corporate reputation but, Harris is history now. I daresay that at least part of the reason that P. Mac was chosen as his replacement is because he could adress this area. Certainly, when Stynes took over the reigns there was a lot of talk about his connections and how he would make things happen. Six months later and the Primus deal has slipped, the start of the season is around the corner and still no major sponsor. I hear what you're saying about sensible parameters, but in my opinion, 6 months into the job, shifting responsibility by blaming Harris is not sensible. The biggest sensible parameter is probably the financial crisis as some people are quick to point out, but every other team except Richmond have got a sponsor now and at least Richmond supporters have got a rumour to go on. As for the mission foods deal, well I just think that's a bit of a cop out. I have already given a list of angles that our professionally employed management and marketing could have used to secure the deal even if we did have an inferiror product to sell. One major example of this is that we could have taken less money. The truth is that we did corporate battle with the Bulldogs and we were defeated. And let's not forget that quites aside from this deal we could have secured sponsorship by an entirely different company. Now all of this brings me to my main point. You write that "Stynes and his Board need to be actively held to account but this must be done using sensible parameters". This admission puts you in a rational and critically consistent minority at whom my posts are not normally aimed. It then becomes a matter of what parameters (or "excuses") are accepatable and how long we can reasonably be expected to be patient on the sponsorship and other issues. Personally my patience has run out and the "Harris' fault/economic crisis" excuses don't cut it with me anymore. And lets face it, even though these are pretty weak excuses they are better than most of the ones that get thrown around on here (for instance, in another sponsorship thread, I spent some time arguing with one nit-wit who was determined to blame Gardner for taking the Primus deal - which was the right decision and which wasn't Gardner's decision anyway!). My biggest bone of contention is that I suspect that these excuses would get pretty short shrift indeed if our administration was not being headed by a beloved icon of the club. Do you really think that the same people who praised Jimmy for "taking out the trash" by firing P. Mac would be jumping to protect P. Mac and the previous board if they were still in charge and we didn't have a sponsor by now? Does anyone honestly beleive that the "financial crisis" would be cited in their defence? I doubt it. UFO botherers like Hannabal seem to think that I'd have to be an ex-boardmember (or "minion" thereof) to hold the views that I do. Frankly, I'm surprised that more people aren't a little tired of excuses by now. But then I guess I'm part of an ever diminshing minority who aren't easily impressed by celebrity. You say you're difficult to get on with. I beg to differ, you sound like an eminently reasonable person. But let's be honest, blaming Harris is no longer "acceptable parameters", Jim knew what he was taking on back in June and members are right to be disturbed that we still have nothing on the sponsorship front in February. Take the red pill.

What a funny little fellow you are. Of course the biggest cold hard fact in question is that we don't have a sponsor. Here's another pretty big one: The club sponsorship is now, and has been for quite some time, the responibility of Stynes, Schwab and their associates. "the reasons are far too complicated" is the funniest bit though. Such a classic apologist line - nice to see you are staying true to form and not actually discussing these "complications". And then to simulatneously accuse me of holding a simplisitc view and of being too verbose on the McNamee side-issue - well, that was just too much! I think you'd better go back to skipping over my posts - ignorance is bliss and all that. Toodles

I think you need to cut back on the Dr. Phil. See previous post for problems with how P. Mac should have acted as a CEO under Stynes. Good intentions aren't going to pay the bills. It may not be the end of the world but, if we don't get a sponsor - it could be the end of our club.

Not surprised that you aren't interested in replying to any of the points that I have made. In fact you should be congratulated on sticking to your new approach of not reading my posts. It is clear that they agitate you and clear also that you would rather live in ignorance than face cold truths like the fact that we don't have a sponsor and we are running out of time/excuses/things other than Jim and Schwab to blame. I was unable to attend last night. Why, is none of your business (actually, even whether I did or not is none of your business). It is a shame because not only do I have plenty of questions to ask but I was really looking forward to seeing you sitting in your car out front in dark glasses and a tin-foil hat, drinking coffee and scribbling in a notepad. You make a good point about the boutique/premium angle vs. the common/grassroots angle. Of course even if this was the main reason for the sacking (a pretty weak one), it doesn't change the dubious timing or execution of it. It doesn't change the fact that we might have lost sponsors because of it. As for the "Melbourne has no brand/stands for nothing" thing, I have always considered that to be tripe, but I don't think that's what you're saying. Frankly, I think the whole P.Mac debate is a bit of a side show anyway. Jim made his decision and I'm sure he did what he thought was in the best interests of the club. The lack of sponsorship is the main issue here, and as far as that is concerned the buck stops with Stynes and Schwab. We wouldn't hear a peep about P. Mac if Jim had secured us a sponsor by now. Phoenix, you raise an interesting point about why P. Mac would pursue a sponsorship when his number was up. Seems to me like it's a bit of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" situation. If McNamee was told to keep a low profile and stay out of the way when the new mob took over then he could either: a) Not look for a sponsor (thus he is negligent) or b ) Look for a sponsor on his own (thus he is dysfunctional) I suspect that P. Mac knew that his job was finished even if he did secure a sponsor (he may not have even wanted to keep it given the new administation/the big payout he would get) so, as you point out, why would he bother looking into it at Wimbledon? I think the most likely explanation is that that networky stuff is simply what people like McNamee do. Some CEO type: "So Paul what are you doing with yourself these days" P. Mac : "As it happens I'm in the football game these days. The demons are a great young team and the club has an amazing history - there could be a marketing opportunity for you if you're interested" etc. Of course this also raises the issue of just how "secure" these alleged sponsorship deals were. My point was merely that people are writing him off too quickly because they don't want the decision to sack him to reflect poorly on Jim. I mean, we even had one guy on here saying that not having a sponsor is a good thing, so that shows the lengths to which people are prepared to stretch reality in order to acommodate their cozy fantasies. I think you're a little off with the Harris call. Sure, it would have been great if he teed something up, but let's face it, we're not talking about "weeks" when it comes to the new administration, we are talking about months. It's their responsibility and results on this front are dangerously overdue.

Whilst there is no way that any of us can verify his claims about the sponsors, the denigration and dissmissal of Paul McNamee in this thread continues the worrying trend of Jimma jingoism. The notion that Stynes would have kept him on if he got the sponsorships is laughable. Stynes was clearly falling over himself to appoint his mate Schwab to the position (even nominating him as a "mentor" for P. Mac). It seems to me that replacing P. Mac with Schwab was a bigger priority for Jim then securing a sponsor. I doubt not only the wisdom of this position but the motivations also. P. Mac is a high profile type, his blackberry is probabaly nuclear powered. He was the ideal candidate for securing sponsorships for the club and I'm sure that this was one of the reasons he was given the job in the first place. The contemptuous dismissal of the possibility that P. Mac may have secured sponsors whilst at Wimbeldon not only shows an ignorance of corporate diplomacy generally (apparently the Primus deal was nutted out by Szondy and Primus MD Greg Wilson on a golf course), it also illustrates the desperation that certain people have when defending Jim's decisions right or wrong. Similarly, the idea that P. Mac was being negligent during his 40 day tenure with Stynes pays no heed to the reality of the situation i.e. he knew his number was up. Furthermore, despite the inherently un-empiricle nature of P. Mac's claim, it does smack of veracity. Firstly, because he was sacked 8 days before the expiration of the extention of the Primus deal. And secondly, and more worryingly, because it is unsurprising that a sponsor would get cold feet in an environment where the CEO/negotiator is getting the sack a few months into the job, and where there has been a hostile board takeover. Frankly, I would not be surpirsed if the company in question had greater faith in P. Macs business acumen than in that of Stynes and his unknown potential appointee, I share those reservations. So why was Jim in such a hurry to sack P. Mac during such a sensitive period anyway? Some of you have stated that P. Mac has some "serious ego". I suspect this is correct. He, like Jim, is a high profile sports celebrity. Perhaps it is possible that Jim didn't want to share the limelight? Could there have two egos to consider? If this was the case then it is to P. Mac's credit that he pursued sponsorship deals independently and opportunistically when it is likely that he was advised to keep a low profile. Of course the whole "mates" thing is also a worrying consideration. I beleive the reason that Jim cited for the sacking was that P. Mac didn't share the same "vision" or somesuch. Aside from the whole J. Brown fiasco (in my opinion the on-field stuff should be left to the expert on-field staff appointed by the board), I wonder how these "visions" were so different. I suspect sponsorship and finacial viabilty at least would have featured quite prominently in both of them. Lastly, there is another possible motivation for P. Mac's hasty sacking, that is, that he apparently wasn't Jim's first choice to begin with. Of course, it is (hopefully) to the previous board's credit that they consulted Jim on this matter, but I would hope that this wasn't the sole reason for sacking P. Mac so summarily at such a crucial time. We will never truly know if Jim's decision (and the timing of it's execution) to dismiss P. Mac was the right one, but one thing is certain: it was Jim's call and it is Jim's responsibily, much like the current sopnsorship situation is. In any case, I started this post by pointung out that P. Mac's assertions are unverifiable. And it is true that he might have reason to make these claims (be they true or false) given the way he was treated by the Stynes board (i.e. reading about his dismissal in The Age). However, some of you state that P. Mac's reputation was damaged by the way in which he was brushed off. My worry is that this could end up damaging Jim's reputation, particularly if what P. Mac said is true. Amidst all this conjecture and the spite that is defensively being doled out to P. Mac, there are some facts that remain: - P. Mac spent his last 40 days under a hostile administration. - Whilst he was there we had a major sponsor and the option to renew our deal with them so this issue was less urgent. - P. Mac had less time in the job then both Stynes and Schwab have had. - We are not waiting for the draft to announce our new major sponsor. - We are not waiting for the captaincy announcement to announce our new major sponsor. - We are not waiting for the end of the Australian Open to announce our new major sponsor. - We are not waiting for the AGM to announce our new major sponsor. - We are (hopefully) not waiting for the "Youth Summit", the NAB Cup or the end of the "financial crisis" to announce our new major sponsor, - WE DON'T HAVE A MAJOR SPONSOR, WE SHOULD HAVE ONE ALREADY, AND IF WE DON'T GET ONE SOON WE ARE SUNK Some of you probably took something away from the announcement at the AGM tonight that we have something in the works. Apparently, we had the Mission Foods deal in the works. Words don't cut it for me anymore. Cheers P.S. As for you Hannabal Hugh, I (once again) suggest that you take your irrelevant crackpot theories and start a new thread with them in the "General" section. I'm sure that it will get all the attention that it deserves.

Somehitng can be taken from what you said alright. I don't think it's what you intended though.

Thanks for the pics and reports

Intersting link. On a related note, I have dug up a post of mine from about round 21 or so comparing aome of our younger players with Ablett Jnr.'s early years. The post itself was part of an argument with another poster about whether any of our players had star potential. It's an encouragiing if somewhat unscientific/wishful read:

I have argued wth people of "faith" on other forums on other topics under other pseudonyms. If I have learned one thing it is that there is no point using reason. I may as well bang my head against a wall. For what it's worth I was saying that my fellow supporters are burying their heads in the sand, not Jim and Schwab. As far as they go, well, I'll judge them by their results. So far, I'm not impressed.

This is only slightly on topic. It has almost nothing to do with the sponsorship. But I'll indulge you. I have very little idea where the club would be if Jim hadn't taken over. To be honest although I don't think it would be any worse off, I can't be certain that it would be better. We might not have had the debt demolition or the demon heartland, but we probably would have a major sponsor and we wouldn't have wasted money/got a bad reputation by sacking P. Mac. We wouldn't have taken on another expensive layer of management. We would definitely have Casey because that was their idea anyway. The AFL and MCC payments were always well taken care of by the previous board from memory and we had a record membership in 2007 and nearly another record membership in 2008 before Jim signed up. As far as I know even Jim hasn't criticised the previous board so there's no point in you doing it for him. One of the biggest concerns for me is that the debt demolition thing isn't a sustainable plan. It's realistically only going to work once and it's a weapon of last resort which Jim used up as soon as he stepped in. We were told there was a "plan" when Jim took over the board last year but I still don't know what it is. I hope it wasn't just the tin-rattle. Another area of great concern for me is accountability. By this I mean both the problem that members have criticising Jim and Co (as seen in this thread), ans the problems Jim will have criticising his mates at work (as Rflowerwing pointed out). Personally, I was pretty happy with the performance of the last board when you compare them to others. But if you or anyone else want to discuss this further I suggest you start a new thread. Hannabal, or "Hugh" as he is known, has reminded me of some old posts of mine that might interest you. Sadly, I am running out of hope for the club. I'm crossing my fingers for incorporation with the MCC (something that the previous board was working on). Cheers P.S. I think it was Jim himself who came up with the "President" tag.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a jack daniels or a beer or whatever your poison is with a fellow supporter, before, after, or during a game. In fact, I think it should be encouraged. However, it doesn't have anything to do with us not having a sponsor. You say I lack faith in the people running the club. The truth is I lack faith in everything. There is no room for faith in my life. The reality is that 6 moths ago Jim identified that we need to maintain current sponsors and find new ones. Today we don't have a major sponsor. How long is long enough? I honestly don't know. People seem to think that I am saying that Jim should be thrown out right away or that he doesn't want to help the club. That is rubbish. Like you, I don't even know the guy. But that is why I am keeping a critical eye on the situation irrespective of how great he was as a player. All I am saying is that we have been without a major sponsor for long enough now that it should be a serious concern. If my fellow supporters are not worried about the situation and what it might say about the current, largely untested administration that is responsible for it, then then that is a concern for me also. If our supporters are burying their heads in the sand and pretending that we are not in a bad situation because they want to make excuses for Jim because they loved him as a player, well, that's the biggest concern. How long do you give Jim and Schwab before our lack of sponsor becomes an issue for you? Cheers edit: dangling modifier. It's our supporters with their heads in the sand.

It was an attempt to change the topic. Enjoy your shandy.

You've got to be kidding me - You're the worst person on here when it comes to the failure to address counter arguements. Heres a gem of yours from another recent sponsorship thread by way of example: Yeah, nice focus there. "What do you mean Jim might be responsible for the current sponsorship problems? Let s get [censored]!" sounds like you've had too many Jack Daniels. The really nice bit about it is that YOU ACTUALLY CRITICISE ME FOR REPLYING TO THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN. You and Hannabal and the rest should, to borrow a football catchphrase "Play the ball - not the man" Yeah, so like I said, drop me a line when I can argue these matters with you intelligently and without having to spend all of my time defending myself from stupid accusations about who I am and how much I love the cluib. I won't hold my breath though, I reckon we could go another full year without a sponsor before most of you stopped making excuses. I hope we still have a club by then. Cheers

I'll delete this transcript of his Pm's from June as soon as he deletes his post and its ridiculous assertion that I am a bitter ex-board member. No-one is more disappointed than me that this thread has gone off-topic. Unfortunately, it seems to happen every time that there is a valid criticism of the current administration. It stops becoming about the fact that WE STILL DON'T HAVE A SPONSOR and start becoming about: If you don't love Jim you don't love the club Let's all just go and get [censored] This is all a waste of time (or "masturbation" as one poster likes to repeatedly put it) You are an ex-baordmember with a hidden agenda Take your neagtivity elsewhere Sadly this not only stifles legitimate debate but proves my point even further. Cheers

Hannabal Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Add to PM block list Forward PM Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts PM, Jun 23 2008, 12:40 PM Sorry mate - you've got the wrong guy. I'm glad that you enjoy my contributions though! Cheers Hmmm, I could have sworn ... Oh well, welcome and yes, I'm enjoying your posts. See you on the Boards Well what do you know Hannabal? Looks like you haven't stopped making up crazy conspiracy theories since Jun 23 2008 when you thought I was "Tim". pity you're not enjoying my posts anymore. get a grip.