Bulldogs deny Dees in fight for sponsor

[The Coon Dog]

Bulldogs deny Dees in fight for sponsor

Caroline Wilson

THEY started out like two battling footballers scrapping for the spoils of pre-season. Both were desperate to become major players; in the short term, in fact, simply desperate to survive the often cruel competitive world of the AFL.

When push came to shove and D-Day approached and one delivered the knock-out punch after some heated wrestling, it was said by the loser that the winner had kicked him when he was down with a vicious and ultimately decisive undercut.

But that was only one side of the story. According to the winner, the battle had not been won with dirty tactics at all. Victory had come for a raft of reasons — through professionalism, good form, long-term promise, better preparation and smarter tactics.

The story of how the Western Bulldogs got under Melbourne's guard and won a $4.5 million three-year sponsorship agreement with Mission Foods, a multi-national based in Mexico and the US and the world's largest tortilla supplier, has several versions.

But the fact remains that the Bulldogs are now producing new jumpers with a new backer's name on them while the Demons, who remain $2 million in debt and facing another big loss this year, are not.

This despite the fact that the contracts for a three-year agreement between Mission Foods and Melbourne had already been drawn up and, according to the Demons, were on the verge of being signed. This despite the fact that Mission Foods' US-based Mexican owner Juan Gonzalez had been welcomed on to the middle of the MCG with his name and company emblazoned on the scoreboard as part of the club's big sell.

Genuine tension, resentment even, now exists between the two clubs as the Demons continue to search for a sponsor while fighting off attacks from disenchanted and disenfranchised former stakeholders such as Paul McNamee.

Corporate insiders insist the Bulldogs' victory — and make no mistake, for a club still reliant on $1.7 million a year from the AFL with one of the competition's lowest supporter bases, this was a massive victory — was much more than one club CEO outsmarting another despite the fact that Campbell Rose has good form when it comes to extracting big money from surprising sources.

Mission Foods' Gonzalez, who was also in negotiations with Essendon, liked both Jim Stynes and David Smorgon and what they stood for, but in corporate terms he related better to Smorgon, who took a front seat in the negotiations. His company thought the Bulldogs had a bigger and better future.

At least that's one version. It is also true that former Bulldogs board member Graham Sherry represents Mission Foods in Australia. And that Melbourne was dealing with the company, it says, on the basis of $2 million sponsorship a year.

The Demons believe these were two key ingredients in losing the deal they thought was theirs, although surely they would have accepted the lesser figure had they known the Bulldogs were so heavily involved and also had the naming rights of an elite learning centre with which to bargain.

The fact is the Demons are not exactly an exciting brand. They are without stars, their fixture for 2009 is a shocker in financial terms, they were the worst-performed club in the competition last year and their future looks the shakiest of all the 16 clubs.

So that's how it is these days as AFL clubs struggle for corporate support. Not only are they competing against each other but also against the AFL itself in the sponsorship hunt, not to mention venues such as the MCG and Telstra Dome.

The AFL continues to be locked in battle with its two Melbourne stadiums — as a last resort it will take the litigious route with Telstra Dome and push for state intervention with the MCG — and the pressure for victory has been compounded by the global financial crisis.

Supporters are still buying memberships but businesses are not buying tables at functions or corporate boxes.

Richmond, a club that would seem to have a more solid future and has sold some genuine hope to its members this season and has a much bigger supporter base, has been forced to settle with gambling outfit LuxBet as a co-major sponsor.

Every club is struggling to sell corporate packages this season. The Kangaroos have chosen to be realistic and limited their home-game functions to six out of a possible 11. North Melbourne has budgeted for a $750,000 loss if no significant agreement is struck with Telstra Dome. And the Kangaroos at least have a new major sponsor.

As soon as Gonzalez and his expanding food company mooted a desire for a place in the Melbourne market, the Victorian clubs, like Cameron Cloke and Setanta O'hAilpin, jostled for position until the competition turned a little vicious. Unfortunately there were only so many tacos to go around.

Melbourne was the loser, leaving it the focus of ongoing debate as to whether the oldest AFL club in its current place, like O'hAilpin, could just prove to be expendable.

[hujsh]

A good sign, though beating the Dees couldn't be too hard.

[Scraggers]

She (Caroline Wilson) really doesn't like us, does she ... Even when we do an outstanding job selling our club to attract a major sponsor, Caroline finds a way of putting a negative spin on it.

And of course there is the obligatory mention of her beloved Tiges ... Hhmmm !!

[LostDoggy]

Plaudits for Rose and Smorgs is all I say.

[bornadog]

She (Caroline Wilson) really doesn't like us, does she ... Even when we do an outstanding job selling our club to attract a major sponsor, Caroline finds a way of putting a negative spin on it.

And of course there is the obligatory mention of her beloved Tiges ... Hhmmm !!

I thought the same when I read the article this morning in the Sunday Age. It sounded more like we did the dirty on Melbourne.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I thought the same when I read the article this morning in the Sunday Age. It sounded more like we did the dirty on Melbourne.

Apparently we shafted them by pricing ourselves better and offering naming rights to the ELC. Gee we're bastards.

"The Demons believe these were two key ingredients in losing the deal they thought was theirs, although surely they would have accepted the lesser figure had they known the Bulldogs were so heavily involved"

I am a sales manager and I would absolutely expect any of my sales guys to know what the competition is offering.

This is pure incompetance of the part of the Melbourne administration. Maybe McNamee was right.

[alwaysadog]

It's just pure Caro. Shit stirring but actually telling us nothing new.

Her real purpose is to take the gloss off our achievements by continuing to promote the notion that anything we do is not above board and to continue the denigration by mentioning the $1.7 which she will no doubt argue is "background" but in this context is a red herring , unless she was to list all the other clubs situations as well.

She obviously either didn't know about the independent assesor that Mission employed or chose to ignore it. Either way it's poor journalism because it suggests she has run with sour grapes from Melbourne without checking with Smorgo or she is just fitting the facts to suit her line.

I suspect her real problem is that she is just jealous because she supports the most underperforming club in the comp over the last 20+ years and to compound that insult the upstarts from the West keep topping her and daddies born to rule clique. Nevertheless she manages to give them her biggest boost.

" Richmond, a club that would seem to have a more solid future and has sold some genuine hope to its members this season and has a much bigger supporter base, has been forced to settle with gambling outfit LuxBet as a co-major sponsor."

Now if that's not gilding the lilly in the most flagrant way I don't know what is.

One worries about journalists' standards at The Age when she is appointed Chief Football Writer.

[ledge]

It doesnt take rocket science to see we are on the up compared to Melbourne, I know which club 95% of sponsors would go for and it isnt Melbourne.
New base, 3rd last year, a very happy group, administration stabillity in the last 2 years, young and exciting players. A supporter base that is huge.
Melbourne..last, infighting, admin mess and money problems, not much of a supporter base, (middle of Melb) no good crowds and what fans they do have are not really the young with an up and coming look.
Dont get me wrong I think Jim is doing his best but looking at both clubs at this point in time, sorry Melbourne its just not good.

[GVGjr]

Apparently we shafted them by pricing ourselves better and offering naming rights to the ELC. Gee we're bastards.

"The Demons believe these were two key ingredients in losing the deal they thought was theirs, although surely they would have accepted the lesser figure had they known the Bulldogs were so heavily involved"

I am a sales manager and I would absolutely expect any of my sales guys to know what the competition is offering.

This is pure incompetance of the part of the Melbourne administration. Maybe McNamee was right.

Spot on. The only explanation is that they felt they had a far stronger relationship with Mission Foods than they really did and as such it was only a question of when not if.
That being said, it was very well advertised and known that 3 Melbourne based clubs were looking for sponsorship and unless a contract of intent was signed they all ran the risk of being undercut by one of the others. Mission Foods looked long and hard at a Rugby League club as well so they were definitely shopping around.
It looks like the Dees wanted more but were offering less so it should be no surprise that in a competitive market they were trumped.

I wonder if we are close to signing someone to replace Ezybonds? That would be a nice icing to the cake.

[Mantis]

It doesnt take rocket science to see we are on the up compared to Melbourne, I know which club 95% of sponsors would go for and it isnt Melbourne.
New base, 3rd last year, a very happy group, administration stabillity in the last 2 years, young and exciting players. A supporter base that is huge.
Melbourne..last, infighting, admin mess and money problems, not much of a supporter base, (middle of Melb) no good crowds and what fans they do have are not really the young with an up and coming look.
Dont get me wrong I think Jim is doing his best but looking at both clubs at this point in time, sorry Melbourne its just not good.

While the amount of area we represent may be large, the amount of supporters we represent is very small.

Figures in the past have showed we are placed in the bottom 3 in terms of total supporters.

[LostDoggy]

...I suspect her real problem is that she is just jealous because she supports the most underperforming club in the comp over the last 20+ years and to compound that insult the upstarts from the West keep topping her and daddies born to rule clique.
....

She a journalist looking for a different angle that will attract readership. The club put its version of the Mission signing out a few weeks ago, now, this article is another angle on it, that's all. The 2 points of underhanded behaviour she says Melbourne claim are

(a) under cutting the price. Sockeye Salmon's dealt with that; and
(b) Graham Sherry, former Board member (from the '70s) being Mission's Australian representative. Last I heard, Sherry was a solicitor. Perhaps he's left the law and is a business representative - I dunno but he's not going to damage his own credentials by recommending a dud organisation to a client or business principal - if that's what he did.

Nothing wrong with reporting both sides of Melbourne's story. We do have one of the lower supporter bases and still need the competitive balance fund contribution. Look at the article from Melbourne's point of view. It's supporters would be far more justified in complaining about bias.

I found it interesting and non offensive.

[ledge]

While the amount of area we represent may be large, the amount of supporters we represent is very small.

Figures in the past have showed we are placed in the bottom 3 in terms of total supporters.

When i said base i meant base as in the Western area growing, Melbournes area has moved this year in a bid to try and grow in an area not there own.
Our membership is going up every year.
Our club has a lot of potential, it can be seen and is getting bigger everyday, where as Melbourne is in an unknown at this moment.

At the moment i see Melbourne as a bit of a gypsy and looking to find new ways to go, but we seem to know what we are doing and where we are headed, we have always been loyal to the west as a club with school visits and other community efforts, basically we are settled as far as area goes and always have been.
Another reason to jump on our bandwagon.
As a company looking at the big picture its not really a hard decision between the 2 clubs.
My thoughts are Melbourne would have pushed tradition and history etc where we probably pushed going foward, young, exciting club and times ahead.
Just my thoughts on how it might have panned out.

[Mofra]

I found it interesting and non offensive.

I agree, it seems almost as cultural to attack any Caro article as it does to boo umpires before the game has even started.
The main point is we offered more than the Demons, slightly cheaper (albeit bigger then our Leaseplan deal) so we were by far the better deal for Mission.

[azabob]

She (Caroline Wilson) really doesn't like us, does she ... Even when we do an outstanding job selling our club to attract a major sponsor, Caroline finds a way of putting a negative spin on it.

And of course there is the obligatory mention of her beloved Tiges ... Hhmmm !!

There is always two sides to a story, and Caroline Wilson reported on both sides. And she complemented on a how good of a job both Rose and Smorgan have done.
And if anything I think she was having a dig at Richmond by saying they have a bigger supporter and membership base which they do, and have sold hope to members this year, which they have in the Cousins signing yet they had to settle for something less than the Bulldogs got.

[alwaysadog]

She a journalist looking for a different angle that will attract readership. The club put its version of the Mission signing out a few weeks ago, now, this article is another angle on it, that's all. The 2 points of underhanded behaviour she says Melbourne claim are

(a) under cutting the price. Sockeye Salmon's dealt with that; and
(b) Graham Sherry, former Board member (from the '70s) being Mission's Australian representative. Last I heard, Sherry was a solicitor. Perhaps he's left the law and is a business representative - I dunno but he's not going to damage his own credentials by recommending a dud organisation to a client or business principal - if that's what he did.

Nothing wrong with reporting both sides of Melbourne's story. We do have one of the lower supporter bases and still need the competitive balance fund contribution. Look at the article from Melbourne's point of view. It's supporters would be far more justified in complaining about bias.

I found it interesting and non offensive.

I had made myself a promise to not read her stuff anymore because it doesn't matter where she starts or what the subject is the same themes get hammered. I'm just bored with her dribble and amusing myself by imagining what a well researched article on club sponsorship and the difficulty club's are having would look like.

I'm not offended, I'm no longer even upset by her continual tabloid approach; it's just not her job to put the opposition's case for them.

She is entitled to an opinion, I would just like it to be well informed, balanced and tell us something we didn't know not tell how clever she is at yet again concocting things to reflect her very lopsided view of the world and how it works, and of course how wonderful the yellow and blacks are.

Not too much to ask of someone in her position unless she is both professionally and intellectually lazy.