Sponsor trouble.

[Morpheus]

A meeting was held this weekend between a group of our football club sponsors.

The meeting was arranged in order to chat about the recent goings on at the club at Board level and regarding the coaching situation.

It was the general felling among the group of more than 14 individual companies that the current board is failing the club and has had their time and that until the coaching situation is sorted out in a manner that pleased the group as a whole, all companies will be withholding their sponsorship contracts.

The Group also agreed to actively and aggresively seek changes in the way the football club is run, and uses their sponsorship money . Areas of most concern for the group were Marketing and promotion of the club, fan communication and treatment of fans by the club, crowd numbers and lack of genuine image outside of the shire area, which is important to many sponsors whos business operates outside of the shire. The gross lack of progress regarding future development of the club and the hotch botch approach to the current renovations that lack the substance of a general masterplan of the area os also a matter of concern and the group will seek to use their not insignifigant financial contributions to the club each season as leverage to lay their support behind addressing and fixing these failings by the current board.

How and when this is achieved is not something that can be discussed publicly. Suffice to say that the coaching position at the Sharks is not the only position that is not set in stone for the 2004 season and beyond.

The group is contacting all sponsors of the club and has been overwhelmed by the amount of support their initiative has recieved, although many fellow sponsors speak very freely OFF record of their discontent, yet are afraid of the repurcussions of putting their name to their grievances for fear of becoming victims of the political backlash that has happened to others in the past who have threatened the cushy jobs of a few " untouchables" high up the good chain at the club.

This has not surprised the group after reading the official transcripts of the way some business is conducted at a high level at the club, and jas only heightened their resolve to rid our club of these corrupt and needlessly acrimonius characters.

 

[King of the Hill]

Does this indicate a brave new beginning for the club, or just the beginning of the end?

 

[Frenzy]

This doesn't phase me at all. Could be a very good thing if done right.

Were ALL sponsors invited or only the "select" 14? There was over 100 sponsors at the Sharks in 2003 and if it was only a select group invited it sounds more like a takeover bid by a disgruntled group than a presentation of ideas by a group representing all sponsors.

Whichever, if it means the end of the current regime it'll do me.

 

[PJ]

Fantastic.

Hopefully this group met to put together an alternative board at the upcoming election.

The end of this incompetent management of our club should be a good thing.

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

That's great news Morpheus and it is very pleasing to hear that us fans aren't the only ones disgruntled with the current board. My only worry is their concern over the club's perceived limited geographical appeal - does that foreshadow a possible move to the Gold Coast should they pursue a takeover?

Having spent a bit of time in the US, the AMNRL is starting to gain some coverage and we have a strong link to the New Jersey Sharks, although you wouldn't know it from the club here. The New Jersey club plays in the Cronulla colours, uses a similar logo and has a link from its web site to the Cronulla site. Perhaps the club needs to do a bit more to foster this affiliation and expand on it. It wouldn't hurt to have some sort of linkage with a club in the UK Super League and possible look at the developing countries, say Russia (huge population and dollars), Italy (passionate about their sporting teams and we have a good proportion of population with Italian ancestry) and/or France. Perhaps play some pre-season trials over there, although cost and distance would be factors, and I'm sure that any of these affiliations would help to expand our identity.

I'm not sure if any NRL clubs do this, but cross code linkages are common in the US. Some sort of reciprocal members rights with an AFL club or rugby union club and similar linkage. The Sydney Swans or North Melbourne Kangaroos, as horrible as it sounds, have huge supporter bases in Sydney (and Melbourne). I personally can't stand AFL, but if we could get some of their fans to attend Cronulla games, spend money at the club etc etc, that would all help. Don't shoot me down for even suggesting such a thing, just trying to think outside the square.

Much has been made of the return to the name Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks, but I guess the sponsors want us to make more of the Sharks than the Cronulla-Sutherland bit.

 

[King of the Hill]

The Sydney Swans or North Melbourne Kangaroos, as horrible as it sounds, have huge supporter bases in Sydney (and Melbourne). I personally can't stand AFL, but if we could get some of their fans to attend Cronulla games, spend money at the club etc etc, that would all help. Don't shoot me down for even suggesting such a thing, just trying to think outside the square.

Good call Eskimo.

Unfortunately our club cant think outside the square, they're basically a footy n' pokies club. Or a casino with a casual link to a footy club. Why use initiative? They'd prefer to just buy a dozen new Superbucks machines.

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

Unfortunately our club cant think outside the square, they're basically a footy n' pokies club. Or a casino with a casual link to a footy club. Why use initiative? They'd prefer to just buy a dozen new Superbucks machines.

And then plead with us to protest on their behalf to the NSW Government to defend their lack of vision!

 

[King of the Hill]

Unfortunately our club cant think outside the square, they're basically a footy n' pokies club. Or a casino with a casual link to a footy club. Why use initiative? They'd prefer to just buy a dozen new Superbucks machines.

And then plead with us to protest on their behalf to the NSW Government to defend their lack of vision!

Precisely!

I'd like to know the specific dollar amount that this tax increase is meant to be costing the club over a year. I'd bet we could find ways of making up the shortfall with sound business ideas, many of which have been tossed around on this forum.

I guess it's easier to b-itch and moan. The irony of the pokie tax is that a sizable amount of punters on the one armed bandits, especially down at Sharks are oldies who are losing their retirement funds or pension cheques. Who are going to need the public hospitals most? Old timers who cant afford private health cover. But for them, I guess that's another whinge for another day.

The Alan Jones brigade is all pro-pokies, and it's whinge whinge whinge about public health facilities. Someone has to pay more to upgrade the system Jones cries. In the same breath he supports the Oasis facility but lo and behold that these clubs should have a guaranteed income source but have to pay a decent amount of tax! Ohh but the work we do for the community they cry! What about the pillaging of the communities money into their one-armed bandits?

This mob is all rights, no responsibilities. And I'm sick of the club movement in general. Most bowling clubs these days should change their name to the Local Poker Machine Club with a bowling green.

Ugh, please, a bit of initiative, is that too much to ask?

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

You won't get any argument from me Shire Shark. Feeding off the social needs of the poor and elderly, as the club industry does, is almost as bad as what the tobacco manufacturers get up to. Proponents of both like to decry the "social" value of their products and conveniently ignore the destructive side effects of their products.

I had an uncle who used to gamble away his pension at the local RSL club. This would often mean that their was little money left to pay bills or to pay for the medications my aunt needed to make life bearable with her chronic arthritis. It was only after she died and some great support from the Salvos that he accepted that he was addicted to gambling. Sadly, he too passed away just over two years ago, nothing related to his gambling, but my aunt finished her days in absolute agony as a result of this and it's the families and friends who need to be around to provide the support and assistance.

It really is an insidious way to make revenue and, if they insist on doing so, it is only far that they contribute to the community by way of increased taxes.

 

[fizman]

I totally agree Frenzy about this being a takeover. For a group of sponsors to get together and discuss the "business" side of the club is fine by me, and quite frankly, I agree 100% with them.

What concerns me most is "that until the coaching situation is sorted out in a manner that pleased the group as a whole". This group rightly or wrongly has THEIR own agenda. I see crossing over the line here, should this group have a say in who is the Coach?? What credentials do they have to make such a decision?? Are they themselves too close to the action to make an unbiased decision?? This is not discrediting this group of obvious loyal and passionate supporters. I believe these are the current positions of supporters/ members/ sponsors.

Keep Board Sack Coach
Sack Board Keep Coach
Keep Board Keep Coach
Sack Board Sack Coach

Morpheous, Can you expand on which position this group is taking??? I am assuming this group is taking the last position???

 

[imasharkie]

Also morph do you know if our major sponsor, LG, were involved in these discussions

 

[cheese]

There's two ways to look at this...

One is: YAY, goodbye current board nuffs

The other is: f**k!!!!!

Having corporate bigwigs running Cronulla has the potential to be disasterous. The scenario contains the possibility of taking away the 'human element' from the cronulla board. Hence, most decisions made will be financial ones, instead of taking into account what may be best for the Shire and the team.

That sounds weird, but what im getting at is that these blokes may feel something along the lines of a relocation is a more financially viable investment for them, rather than toughing it out, and ironing out the problems within the Shire.

I agree we need an overhaul at board level, with a well regarded professional running the show. But i personally would rather have people who arent just there for the possible financial gains involved. I would prefer someone who has a genuine love for the Sharks, and in particular, The Shire.


Bigwigs = Relocation/Merge imo .......The LG Gold Coast Sharks anyone?!

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

Having corporate bigwigs running Cronulla has the potential to be disasterous. The scenario contains the possibility of taking away the 'human element' from the cronulla board. Hence, most decisions made will be financial ones, instead of taking into account what may be best for the Shire and the team.

It's probably jumping the gun a little, but that would be almost a certainty if there were to be a takeover. I've worked in corporate law advising on contractual and taxation issues for the last 20 years and it's a simple fact of life that the first thing that usually goes in a takeover is the landed assets. The land is worth a bomb and it wouldn't be all that difficult to level the stands etc. The club sells the land to relocate and lease elsewhere. I can think of a couple of suitable stadiums that are currently vacant (Carrara and Gosford for starters). The club realises a financial windfall from the sale and all its lease payments are tax deductible.

The downside so far as the owners would be concerned is the lack of support from the Shire locals. We are a parochial lot, but I don't think threats to change allegiance would wash to halt any such plans. The likely counter through new supporters at the new location would offset any such threats and it would probably increase our overall supporter base and brand image. Or call it the Cronulla-Sutherland Gold or Central Coast Sharks and play an occasional "home" game in the general vicinity of the Shire. That was good enough to fool St George supporters that they still had a club! I think they would realise that most of us have such a long standing and emotional attachment to the club that we could change allegiance even if we wanted to.

I agree we need an overhaul at board level, with a well regarded professional running the show. But i personally would rather have people who arent just there for the possible financial gains involved. I would prefer someone who has a genuine love for the Sharks, and in particular, The Shire.

There is another way. There's nothing wrong with employing a professional to run the club and have them reporting to the Board. Sadly, the current Board seem to blur the lines between their personal and financial interests and treat the club like a bit of a personal cash cow. We've got nepotism and conflicting interests all over the shop and the place needs a huge shake up if we are to survive for the long term. But you do need someone who can make the tough decisions without emotion getting in the way as well. It's better to have a Board with a genuine love for the Sharks and the Shire, with a dispassionate CEO that needs to sell these tough decisions, than the other way around.

 

[PJ]

There is another way. There's nothing wrong with employing a professional to run the club and have them reporting to the Board

There's no need for that. One of the papers said Barry's son was being groomed to take over the running of the club. I'm sure Barry's taught him all he knows so it should be fine.

As to the rest of what you said Eskimo that may be well and true in a purely business sense but if they tried to get rid of the landed assets and there was a hint of moving I think a registered club can get the members to force an extra-ordinary meeting and put a stop to it. I could be wrong but that is my understanding of the clubs rules etc.

 

[Morpheus]

To clarify a few things that a few good people have focused on but should not be worrying about :-

No Frenzy, not ALL sponsors were present or invited, but not due to any conspiracy, due simply to logistics and time . The common factor of lack of convidence in current proceedings and likely future proceedings was discovered at an event that many Sponsors attended recently. Over the course of the event discussions were held and it was decided to meet more formally this weekend past.

You will note my sentance Frenzy :- " The group is contacting all sponsors of the club and has been overwhelmed by the amount of support their initiative has recieved" this task has not yet been completed and may not be possible yet, however the groups intention was to canvass the entire sponsorship base where possible, obviously getting official lists from the club is not something that was or is possible in this instance. I will say however that the sponsors group of 14 contains the majority of Diamond and partner sponsors of the club, meaning many the large contributers of funds each year.

A "takeover" by this group, or any sponsor/business based group is not what the group is about, nor would it be possible anyway. Our football club is run by a board based on tickets and annual elections. All of the sponsors present with the exception of two representatives for national based companies have been members of the club for over 10 years, most since the clubs birth and none have felt the need in the past to be at all active in the running of the club, or felt the need to excercise their power over the running of the club in any way, shape or form. It is not the groups intention to have ANY say in the running of the club.

The intention of the group is to use their collective power, as given by the large amount of funds they provide for the specific purpose of running and NRL football team, to right the wrong direction the current heirachy is taking our club.

The group feels that they have a right to say, " if you want our money, without which you cannot operate as a football club, they run the bloody ship properly or we will take our money elsewhere"

When referring to the exposure outside of the shire, do not read anything into this other than from a promotional and marketing point of view. None of the sponsors present want the sharks to be anything else but a shire based Cronulla-Sutherland football team playing in Blue black and white. What the sponsors DO want is some pro-active marketing to get our colours and logos on the national and international stage. 15 Years agao any AFL fan or Rugby Fan in any part of australia knew who the Sharks were because of our mermaids, ET, and our image as a healthy, Local area club that could play good footy and mix it with the big spenders from the top end of town. The group wants nothing more than to welcome back that national exposure and image, to capatilise and nurture our wonderful support base in QLD ( without moving there of course) to capitalise on the popularity of our club in NZ and many country areas thanks to the likes of David Peachey.

The idea of forging strong sister club relationships with other codes in other nations is a fantastic one and that is what the sponsors wish to see, it should NOT be up to loyal and passionate fans on web forums to think of such great plans, and it should NOT be up to the sponsors to get together to kick the bums at the club in the right direction to forge such ideas, it is up to the people who are PAID and in EMPLOY at the club to do such things off their own back and using their own enthusiasm and loyalty and passion for the club to give them the energy and will to come up with these great ideas themselves. If they do NOT have the ideas or the passion, then they do not have the credentials required to work for the best club in the NRL, the mighty sharks.

That is what the sponsors group is about, nothing more, nothing less. They are a group of people no different to every fan on this forum, they have amazing passion and wish for the clubs success, wish for the blue black and white colours to succeed so much that they get tight in the guts and sick with frustration when witnessing some of the recent events, or when witnessing staff at the club fail to capitalise on such passion and the wonderful asset our club is to all of us. The only difference between these sponsors and many of the fans here is that because their companies combine to give the club over $1.5 million per year to the club, there is every chance the club might listen.

unfortunately for the club and board members, most of these sponsors have individually over the past 6 months saught to speak to members of staff and the board about their disatisfaction, only to be fobbed of with age old lines and a slap on the back. Now they come back as a group, more powerful and more pissed off than ever, and they are not interested in hearing the boards excuses and lines anymore. The board has their chance to take action and missed their chance, now the board will have no choice, the decision will not be theirs to make.

 

[Frenzy]

Thanks Morph

 

[fatshark]

I'm not sure if any NRL clubs do this, but cross code linkages are common in the US.

Yes, and so is millions of more dollars.
Unfortunatly the Sharks have limited funds to play with, but I can see from the sponsors side we have something huge to tap into and no progress is being made.
Lets hope it is sorted very soon.

 

[millersnose]

well i am amazed

if this report is true it spells disaster for the sharks

realistically if there is a sponsors group applying pressure i doubt it would be from a "fan" viewpoint rather a "we want our name on TV thats what we f**king paid for" viewpoint and there would be some serious ultimatums from such a body

it means the sharks have to perform very well next year or they could suffer serious dents in finances

and i see no indication of a massive turn around in playing fortunes

 

[Morpheus]

Millersnose, you have failed to understand most of what I report.

This group of individuals and companies have stuck by happily and followed the club since inception. It has little to do with on field performance, did you read the above posts at all ?

There will be no ultimatums regarding playing performance, only ultimatums on the management of the club . IF these people wished to pull their money from the club based on performance on-field, then there have been worse times in the past to do so. It is not about that and never will be.


You also did not seem to read properly regarding the money factor, it has nothing to do with next season, it has to do with NOW. The funding will be removed if the current board stays in place at the helm. Simple. And yes, financially that could be catastrophic for the football club, no question about that. Of course none of the group wish for that to happen, but you are a big boy Millers, sometimes threats need to be made to stop being taken for granted, whether or not one every goes thru with such threats is not the point, I doubt this group would ever stop supporting the sharks financially of otherwise, but sometimes the threat of walking is what is needed to make the powers that be pull up their socks.

There is no faster way to lose great support than to allow that support to feel taken for granted.

 

[Alan Shore]

How could we lose sponsors for poor pefromances when Souths still have them? :lol:

I'll reserve comment on these proceedings for now, but it could be disastrous for the club.