Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:41 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:06 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48555
Location: Prison Island
BlueSkys wrote:
AGRO wrote:
BlueSkys wrote:
AGRO wrote:
BlueSkys wrote:
With Smorgon having already signed off on the sponsorships for example very little could be done there.



Well for "budgeted" sponsorships maybe.

But what about over and above what has been budgeted for.

Just because our current administration have set low targets doesn't mean a new board can't go out and get more corporate dollars.

Doesn't stop Eddie at Collingwood - he just creates a new sponsorship category "Super Duper Premium Platinum Plus" :P insert "Crazy Johns or Emirates" here.

I am being a bit flip I know - but I hope the point is made. :wink:



That would make us even less attractive to sponsors in the future. You need to be seen to honour your deals especially when your brand name is not the most attractive in the marketplace. The last thing you would want to do as a new administration would be to be seen as willing to devalue current sponsorship deals.

The deals we have are obviously well below what they should be, but in business if you do not honour your deals when you are not the most attractive option out there, you are in real strife.

In the future perhaps we could afford to put people offside, but our brand name at the moment is nowhere near as strong as Collingwoods :oops:



Sorry dont agree,

We need to think outside the square.

If new board members can bring in new sponsorship dollars over and above what we have - we say no sorry next year. Spare me please.
:roll:

Don't patronise me BlueSkys with a pat on the head and an on your way sonny leave it to me we know better. :roll:

Our revenue streams are 50% less than the Collingwood and Essendons of this world and you want to reject potential new sponsors because you think you will offend the existing sponsors.

There are ways of bringing new sponsors on board, and I dont think exisiting sponsors would be offended if they are associated with "Blue Chip" corporates that have been touted to come on board.

The networking alone would be worthwhile. The President's Lunches back in the late 80s mid 90s were a who's who of Corporate Names - no-one was offended. You think second tier corporates would be offended sitting next to Fahour from the NAB. :wink:

C'mon BlueSkys - get with the program and show us a bit of that MBA acumen. :wink:


Nothing wrong with thinking outside the square. As that is what we need, but it is honestly not as easy as we need more money lets sign up more sponsors if you have existing ones.

Agreements are signed with stipulations.

Nor am I trying to be patronising, although I seem to be doing it :)

Even with our currently poor brandname our current board have obviously undervalued our worth. Lets just hope the agreements are only short-term.

We will just have to agree to disagree I guess :)


agreements are signed with stipulations hey - well if we signed any agreement with a sponsor that guaranteed them we wouldnt sign any more sponsors - well this shows how inept the smorgon led board are.

Sounds like we panicked into signing up sponsorships and as was said undervalued our own brand

pathetic really

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:41 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:42 pm
Posts: 2496
Location: Princess Park
Where's the Doc or Josh?

They seem to be in the know?

I understand you may not be able to give much away but give me some hope.

This saga is similar to Days of Our Lives - lot of shit but no action.

FFS how can there be so many saviours to our club and then all of a sudden the AGM is called a month earlier and our saviours are too busy!!!

Our corporate men of the eighties who basked in our glory seem to have no balls. FFS do they remember Harmes, Johnston, Buckley, Doull and Jezza just to name a few? How about the 1999 preliminary final - Browns endeavour or how the team fought for every contest. They gave their all for the club and we all enjoyed it. However when it comes to our corporates most have been prepared to take a back seat, after all they are too busy.

Now some of our corporates are too busy or frightened to back the club when we require them most. Ten years ago we were so far in front with the corporate dollar compared to Essendon* and Collingwood and now the Saints and the Dogs are financially better off than us.

Too many of us are accepting our failures and our financial position too easily. I plead to the so called backers of the club who have plans and visions too return our club as a heavy weight do not turn your back on us now because the AGM has been called earlier than expected.

At the rate we are reducing our debt we will remain in the red for another 10 years. This spells disaster, we need change NOW. Smorgan is relying on our performance on the field to turn around our financials - no doubt this would help but we need to invigorating and run the club as a business. Smorgan has a simple plan - win games and things will change. YES it will help but not fix our financials. Essendon* have struggled on the field over the last two years but continues to make big $$$$$ why, they have plans and think outside the square when it comes to revenue.

You may have noticed that I'm struggling to accept our position, we all should we had a rich histroy full of passion and success and it seems that we are all to prepared to roll over. The Kangaroos have less corporate backers and heaps less supporters but they show fight and passion.

Like Days of our lives - I feel the issues and saga with our Board will be hanging around for quite a while. I hope I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:56 pm 
Offline
Laurie Kerr

Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 146
grrofunger wrote:
BlueSkys wrote:
AGRO wrote:
BlueSkys wrote:
AGRO wrote:
BlueSkys wrote:
With Smorgon having already signed off on the sponsorships for example very little could be done there.



Well for "budgeted" sponsorships maybe.

But what about over and above what has been budgeted for.

Just because our current administration have set low targets doesn't mean a new board can't go out and get more corporate dollars.

Doesn't stop Eddie at Collingwood - he just creates a new sponsorship category "Super Duper Premium Platinum Plus" :P insert "Crazy Johns or Emirates" here.

I am being a bit flip I know - but I hope the point is made. :wink:



That would make us even less attractive to sponsors in the future. You need to be seen to honour your deals especially when your brand name is not the most attractive in the marketplace. The last thing you would want to do as a new administration would be to be seen as willing to devalue current sponsorship deals.

The deals we have are obviously well below what they should be, but in business if you do not honour your deals when you are not the most attractive option out there, you are in real strife.

In the future perhaps we could afford to put people offside, but our brand name at the moment is nowhere near as strong as Collingwoods :oops:



Sorry dont agree,

We need to think outside the square.

If new board members can bring in new sponsorship dollars over and above what we have - we say no sorry next year. Spare me please.
:roll:

Don't patronise me BlueSkys with a pat on the head and an on your way sonny leave it to me we know better. :roll:

Our revenue streams are 50% less than the Collingwood and Essendons of this world and you want to reject potential new sponsors because you think you will offend the existing sponsors.

There are ways of bringing new sponsors on board, and I dont think exisiting sponsors would be offended if they are associated with "Blue Chip" corporates that have been touted to come on board.

The networking alone would be worthwhile. The President's Lunches back in the late 80s mid 90s were a who's who of Corporate Names - no-one was offended. You think second tier corporates would be offended sitting next to Fahour from the NAB. :wink:

C'mon BlueSkys - get with the program and show us a bit of that MBA acumen. :wink:


Nothing wrong with thinking outside the square. As that is what we need, but it is honestly not as easy as we need more money lets sign up more sponsors if you have existing ones.

Agreements are signed with stipulations.

Nor am I trying to be patronising, although I seem to be doing it :)

Even with our currently poor brandname our current board have obviously undervalued our worth. Lets just hope the agreements are only short-term.

We will just have to agree to disagree I guess :)


agreements are signed with stipulations hey - well if we signed any agreement with a sponsor that guaranteed them we wouldnt sign any more sponsors - well this shows how inept the smorgon led board are.

Sounds like we panicked into signing up sponsorships and as was said undervalued our own brand

pathetic really



I totally agree with that. If we are still budgeting for a 500k loss with 32k members and full sponsorship then we have undersold ourselves.The AFL were very critical of the MC Labour Park deal so it seems our negotiating skills have not improved.

It is standard practice in any agreement to have stipulations and thats not just us. For example if you buy the naming rights to a stadium you don't want a few months down the track your sporting partner selling it to someone else as well, especially not to a business rival, as an extreme example of what could go wrong. If our negotiators were smart then we might have a buyout clause whereby if a significantly better offer came along then we could terminate the agreement. There is also the possibility that any multi year deals may increase in value after each year if we were smart enough to point out that our brand name will start to increase in value. Although that could just be wishful thinking :lol:

There is only so much jumper space, sock space, media airplay time etc etc to make a sponsorship viable. To give bang for the buck so to speak.

My original point was that it was not such a disaster that the Pratt ticket will probably not get in until perhaps the end of next season as they may not have as much room to move as you might think, because some things are already locked in. I'm sure they have lots of great ideas and money to invest, but I imagine they will need to extricate themselves from a few things as well. It would obviously have been better if they came in now to get a better handle on what they need to do, but they just weren't ready yet.


In two to three years time when we start to be successful onfield again, sponsors will be rushing to get onboard. Murphy and Gibbs come across as kids that sponsors will love to be associated with. Even at such young ages they interview well :) Thats what we need to sell to potential sponsors. Look at our list . We aren't far away :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:04 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48555
Location: Prison Island
i fully understand the principle of the stipulations - i understand that if we were to sign up nike for example there would be a stipulation that we couldnt then sign up reebok

but we seem to have signed to stipulations like we cant have more than x amount of sponsors - which is ludicrous

nothing wrong with having a coffee , a liquor , a sport brand, a meat company, an airline, a clothes label, a phone company, a car company, a publication, an IT company, an HR company etc etc as sponsors.

They aren't in direct competition with each other and as has been said the networking for all those businesses would be priceless and they dont all have to fit on the socks or the shorts , there are plenty of ways for the club to promote its sponsors but we cant even get any because we sign ridiculous stipulations let alone promote any extra sponsors.

And all this in 2-3 years time talk it will be ok , if we dont improve off the field now - in 2 - 3 years time there may not be an on or an off field to speak of.

Interest on loans hurts - dont repay your mortgage for 2 - 3 years and see how much it hurts - in this instance smorgon would probably bank on the equity in the house covering the interest - thats a great plan - then you just run back to the bank to refinance - in a way its what he is doing now- handouts , handouts , handouts

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:25 pm 
Offline
Laurie Kerr

Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 146
grrofunger wrote:
i fully understand the principle of the stipulations - i understand that if we were to sign up nike for example there would be a stipulation that we couldnt then sign up reebok

but we seem to have signed to stipulations like we cant have more than x amount of sponsors - which is ludicrous

nothing wrong with having a coffee , a liquor , a sport brand, a meat company, an airline, a clothes label, a phone company, a car company, a publication, an IT company, an HR company etc etc as sponsors.

They aren't in direct competition with each other and as has been said the networking for all those businesses would be priceless and they dont all have to fit on the socks or the shorts , there are plenty of ways for the club to promote its sponsors but we cant even get any because we sign ridiculous stipulations let alone promote any extra sponsors.



But it's not ridiculous :) It is standard practice.

These are business arrangements not handouts unfortunately :) Changes to the tax laws have made things a bit harder for sporting clubs.

There really isn't much value in calling us the Optus, Dan Murphys, Emerites, Calvein Klein Carlton Blues, but there would be in Calling us the Emerites Carlton Blues. For a start it would be easier to say :lol: , but it is also more likely to stick in a persons mind which is what it is all about .

The main problem is that our current board undersold us not that standard business agreements are in place :)


Last edited by BlueSkys on Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: AGM - 8 Feb 2007
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:25 pm 
Offline
Bruce Comben

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 27
Quote:
From A Season with Ron Barassi - The Coach (1978)

"ANY CLUB WORTH ITS SALT WILL CLEAN OUT ITS NO-HOPERS - FROM THE DOORMAN, TO THE HEAD TRAINER, TO THE CAPTAIN. KEEPING NO-HOPERS IN THESE POSIIONS, OR ANY OTHER POSITION, IS THE MARK OF THE NON-SUCCESSFUL CLUB. YOU'VE GOT TO WEED OUT PEOPLE WHO BREED AN ATMOSPHERE OF NON-PROFESSIONALISM. THEY'RE THERE FOR THE BLOODY JOKE, FOR THE SOCIAL LIFE, FOR THE PRESTIGE. THEY'RE NOT THERE TO WIN. RON BARASSI"

"YOU MAY THINK I'M SETTING TOO HIGH A STANDARD, BUT I BELIEVE THAT UNLESS YOU AIM HIGH YOU WON'T IMPROVE."

Ron Barassi for President, I say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:30 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48555
Location: Prison Island
if its standard practice why is our sponsorship so much worse than other clubs?

is our standard practice not as good as other clubs standard practice :roll:

they dont all have to be naming rights sponsors either :garthp:

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:39 pm 
Offline
Laurie Kerr

Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 146
grrofunger wrote:
if its standard practice why is our sponsorship so much worse than other clubs?

is our standard practice not as good as other clubs standard practice :roll:

they dont all have to be naming rights sponsors either :garthp:


You are right they don't have to all be naming rights sponsors which is where we probably have the most room to move, but it is the naming rights that should earn you the big bucks :)

Unfortunately we are just about the worst brand in the AFL at the moment :oops: Coupled with what seems to be poor negotiating we have been shafted. Until we start winning again and make the headlines for the right reasons we will struggle in a very competitive market for Sponsorship dollars.

Remember I'm not happy with this board either :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:05 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48555
Location: Prison Island
a good negotiator should be able to get us a good naming rights sponsorship deal

worst brand in the AFL is still a good brand with all the exposure the AFL generates

smorgon and co have got to go and go now

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:23 pm 
Offline
Laurie Kerr

Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 146
grrofunger wrote:
a good negotiator should be able to get us a good naming rights sponsorship deal

worst brand in the AFL is still a good brand with all the exposure the AFL generates

smorgon and co have got to go and go now


Indeed mate :) , but we need a viable alternative as well :)

Some members of this board are there because anyone was better than Elliott and they are the ones we are most critical of. Hopefully we don't make the same mistake again. The heavy hitters have pulled out now, but they may challenge again later.
Hopefully we don't vote in a B team just because Smorgon is a dill :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:24 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18107
SA Blue wrote:
It is funny, we were constantly told this rival ticket would come. Any Friday now, we were told. Now that Smorogn has called their bluff, we realise it was all smoke and mirrors. There was no ticket before, the peole who were 'in the know', knew nothing. All there is a loose collection of people who are thinking about it. This crack team was thwarted by an early AGM, which shows they we no further in their planning but the very early preliminary stages.

Synbad asks for people to get behind them, when there is nothing to get behind. It is time for all the people like Synbad, to quiet down until they have something real, other than posting rumours and hearsay as fact.

Is this the crack rival ticket people kept telling us about? Are we know no better off?


Have you been hiding under the table hoping it would fall over giving you the opportunity to make a pathetic post like that?
There are many credible people who have offered details on this ticket.
Their thoughts are valued and appreciated by most.

Skip back to Bigfooty where you belong. :roll:

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:38 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48555
Location: Prison Island
i might run then

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:42 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:10 am
Posts: 4827
Blue Vain wrote:
SA Blue wrote:
It is funny, we were constantly told this rival ticket would come. Any Friday now, we were told. Now that Smorogn has called their bluff, we realise it was all smoke and mirrors. There was no ticket before, the peole who were 'in the know', knew nothing. All there is a loose collection of people who are thinking about it. This crack team was thwarted by an early AGM, which shows they we no further in their planning but the very early preliminary stages.

Synbad asks for people to get behind them, when there is nothing to get behind. It is time for all the people like Synbad, to quiet down until they have something real, other than posting rumours and hearsay as fact.

Is this the crack rival ticket people kept telling us about? Are we know no better off?


Have you been hiding under the table hoping it would fall over giving you the opportunity to make a pathetic post like that?
There are many credible people who have offered details on this ticket.
Their thoughts are valued and appreciated by most.

Skip back to Bigfooty where you belong. :roll:


Agree with BV.... posters such as Synbad, Italian Blue, Josh, KennyH, etc keep us better informed than most and its not their fault that info that is correct at the time of posting changes. Its not easy posting this info and putting yourself up for ridicule when circumstances change and in many cases these posters have probably told us more than their sources would want and I think the service they provide the rest of us makes up an important part of why many visit this site.
They should not be put off posting especially by posters lacking in credibility themselves...

Its dissapointing that Smorgon has used his position to manipulate events and deny members and supporters a chance to choose a established rival ticket but thats the game he is playing and clearly his personal ambitions are more important than the clubs future.....
The worry is another fractured board with deals being done to allow Directors to survive rather than board being united and having any sort of plan....I see the only hope as an EGM after the AGM with the rival tickets being allowed sufficent time to gather their numbers and formulate some plans...this AGM will become another token effort at appeasing members and I look forward to the farcical new pictures of a united front appearing in the media like we had before.
I'm hoping the football dept are a bit more united than the board and can offer us some hope on the field this season....

_________________
"When you have the attitude of a champion, you see adversity as your
training partner."
- Conor Gillen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:56 pm 
Offline
John James

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:18 pm
Posts: 675
Location: Adelaide
Blue Vain wrote:
SA Blue wrote:
It is funny, we were constantly told this rival ticket would come. Any Friday now, we were told. Now that Smorogn has called their bluff, we realise it was all smoke and mirrors. There was no ticket before, the peole who were 'in the know', knew nothing. All there is a loose collection of people who are thinking about it. This crack team was thwarted by an early AGM, which shows they we no further in their planning but the very early preliminary stages.

Synbad asks for people to get behind them, when there is nothing to get behind. It is time for all the people like Synbad, to quiet down until they have something real, other than posting rumours and hearsay as fact.

Is this the crack rival ticket people kept telling us about? Are we know no better off?


Have you been hiding under the table hoping it would fall over giving you the opportunity to make a pathetic post like that?
There are many credible people who have offered details on this ticket.
Their thoughts are valued and appreciated by most.

Skip back to Bigfooty where you belong. :roll:


I haven't been hiding anywhere. If you think that the good of Carlton is being served by people posting rumours and hearsay as fact on these sites the you are sadly mistaken. These credible people have been shown as posting rumours and hearsay. This is a supposed high power group, and we are too believe they are leaking their plans for people to post here!

I want a credible alternative as much as the next person, and this process is not helped by people leaking info and posting it on this site. It makes the alternative ticket look inept, when in probable case, they are no where near advanced as we have been led to think.

As for the BF post, it just shows how arrogant people can be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:56 pm 
Offline
John James

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:18 pm
Posts: 675
Location: Adelaide
Elwood Blues1 wrote:
Agree with BV.... posters such as Synbad, Italian Blue, Josh, KennyH, etc keep us better informed than most and its not their fault that info that is correct at the time of posting changes. Its not easy posting this info and putting yourself up for ridicule when circumstances change and in many cases these posters have probably told us more than their sources would want and I think the service they provide the rest of us makes up an important part of why many visit this site.
They should not be put off posting especially by posters lacking in credibility themselves...

Its dissapointing that Smorgon has used his position to manipulate events and deny members and supporters a chance to choose a established rival ticket but thats the game he is playing and clearly his personal ambitions are more important than the clubs future.....
The worry is another fractured board with deals being done to allow Directors to survive rather than board being united and having any sort of plan....I see the only hope as an EGM after the AGM with the rival tickets being allowed sufficent time to gather their numbers and formulate some plans...this AGM will become another token effort at appeasing members and I look forward to the farcical new pictures of a united front appearing in the media like we had before.
I'm hoping the football dept are a bit more united than the board and can offer us some hope on the field this season....


I agree with your sentiments of a united board, rather than a fractured one. This is the only way forward.

The problem I have is being told by some, not all, that the change is imminent and that we are blind sheep if we think otherwise. Posters are ridiculed for not blindly following an unknown ticket that has no plans and no platform. SOME of these posters act as if they have a keen inside knowledge of the ticket, when they have now been shown to have none.

As for time, there has been plenty of time for people to organise a ticket. We have been in this state for years.

Hopefully a credible alternative can be found and the members are given a choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:03 pm 
Offline
Bob Chitty
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 890
Surely we are going to have something to vote for
and the reality is that it will probably be better than the current situation.... COULD IT BE WORSE.

How can I get up and ask for the person who leaks everything to the Hun and the Age to make themselves known to the members.

Would they admit to it?

_________________
Stay tuned We're in for a BUMPY ride


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:32 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
Wild Blue Yonder wrote:
Umm, I think you're dribbling a bit synbad.


Yeah well you just run along and come out when our club is fixed.
Some of you blokes have no idea what an eight million dollar NAB debt coupled with a 1.5 million AFL debt... and a full aray of sponsors (which means no money is coming in via that route).. and all of our money has been forwarded to us from the TV rights and AFL park means...

Yes were in a great situation.

We cant even control who is coach of this football club ...


I might be dribbling but you dont have a cell in your head to think with...

As for the newies???

Name me a professional organisation that has AGM dates changing on the whim of the president???

PS Moulton Harrison Fried were out soliciting the endorsement of the UCS the other day....with some outlandish promises...

:lol:

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:38 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
And SA?
who is saying that the there wont be an alternative?
Are you praying its the case to hope im wrong? :lol:

God there are some pathetic types who follow Carlton.. they dont give a shit about the position were in....

The whole thing is there will eb an alternative but we do want it planned in a way that we can get full value out of it.....and that means time...

You will have a choice SA blue... its just do you want a choice or the best choice for this club to go forward???

Eh???

and what do you have to offer this board if you dont like what i and others offer???

Can you please fill us in???


are you a contributer or an oxygen thief???

My guess is the latter.. :wink:

Just a guess mind you...

but my instincts are pretty good...

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:48 pm 
Offline
John James

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:18 pm
Posts: 675
Location: Adelaide
Synbad wrote:
And SA?
who is saying that the there wont be an alternative?
Are you praying its the case to hope im wrong? :lol:

God there are some pathetic types who follow Carlton.. they dont give a shit about the position were in....

The whole thing is there will eb an alternative but we do want it planned in a way that we can get full value out of it.....and that means time...

You will have a choice SA blue... its just do you want a choice or the best choice for this club to go forward???

Eh???

and what do you have to offer this board if you dont like what i and others offer???

Can you please fill us in???


are you a contributer or an oxygen thief???

My guess is the latter.. :wink:

Just a guess mind you...

but my instincts are pretty good...


Are you that arrogant that you believe you are offering the members anything?

I would like to know one thing from you though. Is this the ticket you have been banging on about for a while? Is this the ticket we should pin our hopes on?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:56 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
No, im saying you offer nothing ... but nothing.. and youre arrogant...

I reckon ive offered more to these boards than you could ever dream.

What would you ever be doing on a board if it wasnt for people who fill you in???.... whether its me or anyone else.

Run off and find me one salient post you have offered to this board about anything that doesnt have someone like me initiating it..something that hasnt isnt you reacting to a post but initiating something...

Go on then... run along....

Just one...
Id love to see it.. cos i cant think of even one...

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group