Hazyshadeofgrinter

Hey Hannabal, You're way off the mark. Any similarity between my posts and those of Rflowerwing are due to the fact that we belong to a small minority of rational people on this site who judge the situation, past and present, on its merits. In the future I suggest you take a leaf out of my book and argue the merits of the case rather than concoting preposterous and irrelevant theories about the people you are arguing with. On that note, may I suggest you take your conspiracy theory to another thread. I suggest you start it in the "General Discussion" area. Before you do so you might want to get some IP recognition sofware. Your response has so far been the lowest cop out yet. Cheers

Hey guys, I'd just like to thank you all for continuing to prove my point more eloquently than I ever could. Not that it gives me any pleasure to see it proved. Drop me a line when it's ok to start holding Jim and Schwab accountable and judge them by the same standards as any other board/CEO. $1.5 mil per year isn't that much anyway. Cheers

I agree with you that Jim has the best intentions, but this doesn't differentiate him form anyone else willing to donate time to the club. As for Schwab's intentions, well I guess there good too but I have to wonder why he didn't want the job. I have no idea whether they are a "good fit" for their respective roles or not - I can only judge them on their performance. So far I would say that "adequate" is on the charitable side. I agree that the results so far are disappointing. I was also worried about P. Mac involving himself with on-field decisions. However, this could have been resolved in any number of ways. I'm not even going to say that P. Mac was the right choice - It's difficult to say because Jim sacked him at great expense for unknown reasons after 106 days in the job (and after all, we did at least have a sponsor for those 106 days). But should Jim have sacked him when he did and in the way that he did? Before we had a sponsor lined up? Before he had a replacement CEO lined up? When we couldn't really afford it? Through the newspapers? At the time, people tried to defend Jim's decision by laying into P. Mac for being useless but these same people haven't got a bad word to say about Schwab who has been CEO for longer and under easier circumstances and, as far as we can tell, has done no more than P. Mac. I don't know if Schwab is a muppet or not. If what Rflowerwing writes is true then I guess he must be. But even a muppet could get us a sponsor eventually - it's not a matter of it being "ideal or not" anymore, it's a matter of time. And time is of course money. If Schwab got us a sponsor yesterday it would still have been dissapointingly late in my opinion. How long do you give him? Like I said, I don't know if the decision was right or not. The timing of it and the way it was handled definitely were. That was Stynes' fault - even you can't deny that. Are you sure that removing P. Mac 8 days before the Primus renewal didn't cost us the sponsorship? I mean, it can't have helped, right? Don't you think that we should have at least kept him on until we had a confirmed sponsor (after all, that is one of his fortes isn't it?) Are you saying that Stynes and Schwab are not at least part of the reason we don't have a sponsor? It was clear that Schwab was not commited to begin with. I suspect that at least from a professional standpoint that he must be now. It's not like I have a camera in his office though. If Rflowerwings comment is true then that is a serious concern. A really bad stuff up. I agree that the Mission Food deal is an embarrassment. Of course we will find another deal eventually - but when? Your refusal to acknowledge that the current sponsorship problem is the responsibility of Stynes and Schwab is laughable. I have acknowledged other issues like the global economic crisis, time for you to acknowledge that it isn't affecting us more than the Bulldogs. Here's what makes me skeptical about what you have to say: Yep, less than a week ago you were blaming Szondy and Ellis.

The truest thing you've written yet. Cheers.

If you think that McNamee wouldn't have got us a sponsor by now then you have no idea. I guess it's just easier to pretend that "if Jim can't do it no-one can" because otherwise you run the risk that Jim might not actually be the messiah. If this is all pointless masturbation then I suggest you go outside for a bit and forget about it. Or take a cold shower or something. Just promise me that you won't vote at the next meeting if none of this interests you. Personally, I think my arguments about the sponsorship have much more point to them than most of the stuff that gets posted on here.

If it's not blind then what's it based on? How much time is enough before we can judge them? Jim has had over 6 monnths, Schwab has had longer than Jim gave P. Mac. What results? All I can think of is the "debt-demolition" tin-rattle, maybe the Demon Heartland initiative. There are and have been a number of worrying signs as well. Some of these circumstances are of Jim's own making - maybe he shouldn't have sacked P. Mac 8 days before the Primus sponsorship ran out without having something else lined up (both in terms of sponsors and CEOs). Others of these circumstances, like the draw, have been blamed on previous administration but don't get blamed on Jim. And the financial crisis is just carp for everyone but other clubs (like the bulldogs) seem to be coping with their sponsorships. Time is money, the best time would have been as soon as the Primus deal was finished. I propose that people keep a level head, assess the current administration on its merits and by the same standards as any other. I am simply concerned that people are getting swept up with the celebrity factor and that this might prove damaging to the club in the long haul if people keep making excuses whilst the club goes down. If it turns out that the last mob were doing a better job then I would like to be given the opportunity to vote for them again. Of course there is a good chance that they wouldn't want to shoulder that responsibilty again. I am not opposed to an entirely new administration although I would probably prefer that future transitions occured democratically. My aim is to promote reason instead of faith. What aspects am I missing? Why not start a new thread on "finding a solution" then? Don't make it then.

Still waiting to hear why you "remain confident, Schwab and the current Board will be able to deliver us a major sponsor." Is it because of the tin-rattle? Do you have any other reasons - or just a "gut feeling"? How many excuses would you have made if we lost our sponsor this time last year? zero

Here are just some of the reasons that I have seen given over the last week for why we don't have a sponsor: PEOPLE AND THINGS THAT ARE TO BLAME: Harris Gardner "New Boy Syndrome" Board transition period Economic crisis The Draw/Free to air exposure Past inabilty to build "relationships" Administrative change On-field performance Club finances Bad publicity Club members Club supporters Not Jims fault because it's the CEOs responsibility Not Schwabs fault because he's only had 3-4 months Unrealistic expectations Other sponsors create conflict Essendon Bulldogs State competition Primus EFC Blandness Choice of captain Need to wait fot the "right deal" Need to wait for the captaincy announcement Sunshine Moonlight Good Times Boogie Here are some somewhat suprising omissions: PEOPLE/THINGS THAT ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT TO BLAME: Jim Schwab Anyone who has anything to do with Jim or Schwab I'm tired of excuses already. We could have accepted less money, we could have effectively communicated how promising our young list is, we could have cast doubt on the future of the Bulldogs, we could have accepted some kind of perfomance incentive scheme, we could have leveraged our number 1 draft pick, we could have spoken about how the sponsorship would mean a lot more to Melbourne supporters, we could have tried to engineer a naming rights deal at Casey, we could have come up with an entirely different way to make our bid more attractive - after all that's what Schwab and his employees are paid to do - right? I wouldn't have cared if we even GOT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SPONSOR! We were outmanoeuvred by the Bulldogs adminstartion who, it would appear, might the the second worst in the AFL at securing sponsors. Nothing you have said changes that. When you say: I call [censored] When you say: I say I've been watching that space, the space that Primus has left empty, for months - my confidence has flagged. Why are you so confident? It is clear to me now that you and others like you are more concerned about maintaining your perfect mental image of Jim than you are about the good of the club.

Here's all of the info I need - they got it, we didn't.

Just as long as nobody blames Cam or Jim eh?

You're not worried about this? Do you have any info on this - or are you talking carp? Have a little reason Anyone else think that we would have a sponsor by now if Paul McNamee was allowed to finish the year? People need to stop making excuses. The reason the Bulldogs got this sponsorship deal is because their management/marketing outmanoeuvred our management/marketing.

Too much for words. Here is the link.

Tell me about it Demonator - Last time I checked the thread, people had degenterated to trying to organise some kind of [censored] up! Can't wait to see someone new on that banner.

I'm just saying what it is. Jim has been in charge for six months. He has failed to re-sign our major sponsor. He has failed to secure a new one. The resonsibilty for the CEO ultimately lies with the chairman. Jim sacked a CEO whose greatest strength was probably his ability to attract sponsors, 8 days before the Primus deal could be finalised! Back in August, Jim groupies like you were saying stuff like this: Jim sacked the "well-connected CEO" before he had a replacement lined up. Jim oversaw the Spargo caretakership. Jim refused the offer of potentially stabilising free assitance from previous board-member John Phillips. And, Jim appointed his mate Schwab as the new CEO (in what can only be described as a debacle). So lets not have any of this - "just because Jim's been the chairman for the last six months doesn't matter because he wasn't the CEO", we both know that this line is utter rubbish. And on the matter of the current CEO and his responsibilities - just how long would you give him before you started raising an eyebrow at our lack of sponsorship anyway? By my calculations, Schwab has been in the role for exactly the same amount of time that Paul McNamee was. Of course, Schwab hasn't had to contend with board upheaval and unsupportive administration like P MAc did. Shall I remind you of what the unthinking acolytes of Jim were saying about the decision to drop McNamee after his 106 day tenure? (which was also a complete fiasco by the way) (false allegation by the way) (Nice to see someone putting the boot into Gardner again.) (how about we judge by the outcome over the next 6 months or so?) I could go on, but the point is made. When it involves Jimmy then people will come up with any excuse they can. 106 days is not long enough for Schwab to get a sponsor but it's long enough for P. Mac to be useless. People would be using very different language in their discussion of our current sponsorship situation if Jim wasn't in charge. This is not good enough. The neverending propensity of people to just "have faith in Jimma" because he's a brownlow medallist may end up costing our club dearly. This state of affairs is made all the more worrying by people like I'va. People who love the club completely and want what's best for it but who can't possibly bring themselves to beleive that Jim might be a mortal man like any other. I'va, I don't doubt that you love the club. I'm sure you'd be a great person to stand next to at the footy. I wasn't "slagging you off" at all (not that that would make me less passionate about my club anyway) - I was criticising the misplaced jingoism that you represent. Whilst we can both agree that the Jim Stynes story was a great one, this does not mean that he will be good for the club in an administrative role. When I was trying to make this point six months ago I copped a lot of flack from posters like you. People seemed to think that I didn't love the club just because I didn't uncritically jump on the Stynes bandwagon. At the time I was merely reserving my judgement whilst pointing out some early signs of concern (like P. MAc learning about his dismissal through the papers). Six months later and no sponsor and I am beginning to become seriously and legitimately concerned about the situation - regardless of what Jim acheived for the club on the field. I only hope, like everyone else here, that this current chapter in the Stynes story doesn't end as bitterly as the Ridley story did. You do not have to have blind faith in Jim in order to care about your club. People with mature minds will judge the current board by the same standards as any other - because it is ultimately the future of the club that matters, not the playing history of the chairman.

Jim's had 6 months in which he could have either secured our last major sponsor or found a new one. If you don't want to approtion blame then that's your rose-tinted perogative but there can be no doubt that the current situation is Jim's responsibilty. The longer we wait the more money we are forgoing - the new administration has had 6 months already to find the "right deal." However, if this level of reality impinges too greatly upon your Jim fantasies I guess you could always come up with some half-baked conspiracy theory and blame a random member of a previous administration for letting Tooheys slip through their fingers. Give me a break.

Mate, you should have quit back here: - you're just making yourself look silly. You were already drawing a very long bow by trying to suggest that Jim and Co. are not resposible for our current sponsorship situation by making out that it was Harris' (and also Gardners by proxy) fault for not sticking with LG. Carping on about "relationships" doesn't change the fact that neither Harris nor Gardner were responsible (not that that is even relevant). It doesn't change the fact that the Primus desicion was the right one at the time. And it doesn't change the fact that six months ago when we had a major sponsor Jim identified the importance of retaining sponsors and attracting new ones, and now we have no-one. Now that Harris and Gardner are out of the equation I suppose you'll blame it on the Boogie? Or will you just cop out with some refence to the financial crisis (which other clubs seem to be dealing with)? This kind of rabid fan-boi attitude is ridiculous - just because someone played ruck for us does not excuse them from being judged by the same standards as anyone else who runs the club - and in this case by their own standards. As for you I'va - you're not much better. Give me a break - who else are you going to blame? This has all happened on Jim's watch. It seems like nothing could be blamed on the current board if you had it your way. And as for well that's just the lowest cop out yet. Allow me to remind you again of what you posted back in August. The best "timing" for the announcement would have been the same day that Primus announced that they were not renewing their sponsorship. Most people on these forums seem to be more one-eyed than Collingwood supporters when it comes to "big Jimma and the boys." Well, the honeymoon is over. Time for a little bit of reality, critical thinking and common sense in these debates please.

We've had for six months now. We have since lost our major sponsor and have no replacement. The status of the existing arrangments for primus customers is in doubt. The real question here is who is to blame - Harris or Gardner?

bump

So there's this AFL strategy game being developed. It's along the lines of "Championship Manager" (for those who know what I'm talking about), but for Aussie rules of course. premiership coach The game will rely upon assigned "ratings" to determine the behaviour of players on field. These ratings are scores out of 100, and are general as well as specific e.g. "agility", "courage", "aggression", "speed" etc. Anyway, I'm a little concerned that the bloke who is supposed to be doing the stats forMelbourne doesn't know what he's on about. For instance, he attributes a speed rating of 84 for Wonaeamirri (presumably because he is aboriginal?) and a rating of 61 for Martin (maybe because he's tall?). Now I don't want to knock whoever has put their hand up to help out with this project - it's more than I have done or will do probably, but if any of you football tragics are interested in helping out in this tedious off-season you might want to check out the forum. That way I don't have to do anything and I won't have to put up with an unduly sluggish Martin. The tentatively expected date of release is March this year.

If this is true, then I suspect his motivation would have more to do with CJ 's accurate kick than the kind of mutually destructive spite that forms the basis of your ridiculous idea. People can argue about whether CJ might have found a spot in the team. Given the contenders for half back flank I suspect that most would think that he is a tenuous proposition at best. But this isn't why your "re-draft CJ" suggestion is so stupid - it's the reasons that you give for it.

Normally I'd agree with this sentiment. Instead I have to agree with TheShaft. Your "Get tough by re-drafting CJ" idea is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read. It is so stupid that simply insulting you is a more appropriate response than attempting to shine the light of reason on your vacuous notions.

I've got to admit that I was hoping for Shoenmakers around this pick, as well as Blease. Having read a little more about Strauss though I'm happy with this selection.

Still no love for Kade Klemke. Not that I rate him.

I'm stoked with Blease, but I was also hoping that Johnston or Shoenmakers might slide into contention. Not sure what to make of Strauss or Bennell. I thought Jetta might go a bit earlier than 51. No idea who Rohan Bail is.