Maybe, just maybe?

[Outshined]

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse you may as well not contribute.

All I did was highlight how ridiculous the argument is. If you don't like Rosich and Harris that's fine. If you don't like the jumper change, that is also fine. To suggest though, that they are somehow connected to how the players perform on the field is drawing an incredibly long bow. Like I said earlier, I'd be very worried if rather than voicing their discontent with the new jumper or how the club is being run, the players simply got together and agreed to play like under 12s for the year.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

You haven't even been reading what has been posted. In fact, my post that you responded to specifically said its not just about the jumper.

The point many have tried to make is that the people responsible for running our club appear to be focused on gimmicky marketing exercises and have not addressed operational areas within the club. The point has more validity when you consider that the President is a marketing man and has never played the game.

The club is very well versed at extracting maximum dollar return from their fan base, while other areas such as the coaching department, training facilities, condition of Fremantle oval and others that impact directly on our on-field success aren't given far greater priority.

I wouldn't care if the team won a premiership wearing rags. The club's sole focus should be on winning games of football, everything else is peripheral.

 

[Outshined]

If you read my first post you'll see it was targeted towards the OP's suggestion more so than your point, which is a fair one. I was merely addressing the fact you said what I was saying was obtuse when in reality it's just highlighting one ridiculous train of though that has emerged as a result of our performances. Saying that the players are performing badly because they are pissed off with Harris...really?

To address what you said. My biggest concern with management is how far behind we are falling in terms of facilities (which go a fair way towards contributing to winning games of football) but there are mitigating circumstances such as our friends at the WAFC bleeding us dry every year. I'm happy for those in charge at the top to do everything they can to maintain us as a financially viable club, but this should be reflected in revenue heading straight back to the football department.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Perhaps I over-reacted to the tinfoil hat comment. I'm not keen on people branding anybody not agreeing with absolutely everything the club does as loonies.

I don't think anybody has actually highlighted how much the rebranding exercise cost, but I think it was an unecessary item of expenditure that could have been directed elsewhere.

 

[The Night Shift]

Tin Foil. Good for keeping the Steve's from scanning your brain.

 

[estibador]

The club is very well versed at extracting maximum dollar return from their fan base, while other areas such as the coaching department, training facilities, condition of Fremantle oval and others that impact directly on our on-field success aren't given far greater priority.

From the article posted earlier:

The board decided to redirect $1.4 million of off-field salaries into the club's core football operations. The "painful but worthwhile" move resulted in about 14 redundancies...

Sounds like they're doing a pretty good job of prioritizing resources towards football development there.

Let's not forget we barely make a profit once our royalties are paid to the WAFC. It's not like we're swimming in cash and it's not like we're investing millions into non-footy dept ventures.

The rebranding was obviously done with a view to creating a more profitable club in the future, profits that will then be put into the football dept to keep pace with the richer clubs. It's all part of a bigger overall strategy - not an either/or situation of choosing between making money and chasing success.

 

[blockerhall]

"Do you have the passion?"

Bad Luck.

The bastard couldn't even find some man-purple for the photo.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

From the article posted earlier:

Sounds like they're doing a pretty good job of prioritizing resources towards football development there.

Let's not forget we barely make a profit once our royalties are paid to the WAFC. It's not like we're swimming in cash and it's not like we're investing millions into non-footy dept ventures.

The rebranding was obviously done with a view to creating a more profitable club in the future, profits that will then be put into the football dept to keep pace with the richer clubs. It's all part of a bigger overall strategy - not an either/or situation of choosing between making money and chasing success.

The way to create a more profitable club is to create a more successful club on-field and build the membership base. The rebranding money should also have gone into football operations.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

The way to create a more profitable club is to create a more successful club on-field and build the membership base. The rebranding money should also have gone into football operations.

Yeah, we would have 10 flags by now if we spent every cent on football operations.

Who gives a shit about running a business, or for that matter, bankruptcy.

Am I right Regi?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Are you suggesting that if the rebranding exercise had not been done the club would face bankruptcy?

 

[dugrene]

While all the Shallow Hals get goose bumps about our pretty new outfits the reality is we didn't need a make over. We already had the most iconic strip and logo in the AFL if not the whole bloody world. Not to mention a plenty of membership and sponsors.

Our Club killed some of it's soul.

RIP

 

[Freo4life]

Are you suggesting that if the rebranding exercise had not been done the club would face bankruptcy?

Who knows? They may have identified a trend that revealed that the club was heading into debt if a re brand wasn't done. Or they could just be purple hating eagle lovers in disguise...

 

[Freo4life]

While all the Shallow Hals get goose bumps about our pretty new outfits the reality is we didn't need a make over. We already had the most iconic strip and logo in the AFL if not the whole bloody world. Not to mention a plenty of membership and sponsors.

Our Club killed some of it's soul.

RIP

Yeah christmas tree or not i didn't give a toss. Although it is only cosmetic in the scheme of things, i too feel as if the club lost a part of itself. To me all i wanted was for the team to win a premiership wearing it so that i could shove it up all the naysayers. Alas that will never happen...

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Are you suggesting that if the rebranding exercise had not been done the club would face bankruptcy?

No, I'm suggesting that your statement about the money spent on rebranding should have been used on football operations instead, was stupid.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

No, I'm suggesting that your statement about the money spent on rebranding should have been used on football operations instead, was stupid.

Would you care to explain why, or are you just going to pluck random statements out of your arse?

 

[MadMac]

Would you care to explain why, or are you just going to pluck random statements out of your arse?

Same could be said for your statements. How much money was spent on re-branding and was that a significant amount that could be spent on footy department, considering there was still $400,000 left over after all expenses. I don't think that made any difference whatsoever.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Would you care to explain why, or are you just going to pluck random statements out of your arse?

I think I explained it in my first post. I'm sure you can see the correlation between financial strength as a club, and success on field, so there's no need to spell it out.

And it would also mean I'd have to get up, put my pants on, and set up the laptop.

 

[Scham]

I think I explained it in my first post. I'm sure you can see the correlation between financial strength as a club, and success on field, so there's no need to spell it out.

And it would also mean I'd have to get up, put my pants on, and set up the laptop.

Can you also see the correlation between on field success and financial success.

If we're successful on field, the sponsors and members will automatically follow - and pay more.

Its not stupid to spend on footy operations instead of re-branding. Like most have said, if we won a flag in an ugly guernsey, we'd still buy it and wear it with pride.

 

[BananaOnTheRun]

everyone is arguing over semantics but the reality is that a change has been made and it's unlikely to go back. the old jumper was great, with the red and green representing port and starboard - i'm a big fan of that consideration in the design, but i'm also a big fan of the new jumper. that aside, the club erred by not shoring up the reserves when chris scott left. it did well by bringing in jason mcartney to help develop the kids and perhaps we've seen the benefit of that in the form of pearce and hinkly, who seem to have turned the corner in their careers. while we can get angry at the missteps, the anger is predominantly a result of our poor form, so we're turning to these kinds of pedantic arguments to work out our frustrations. what we need to do is get behind the club, acknowledge we could have done things better and advocate for harvs to get more support, off field and in the coaches box.

 

[Clay Davis]

advocate for harvs to get more support, off field and in the coaches box.

Agreed.

 

[BananaOnTheRun]

isn't there a members' rep on the board? we really should be making that person work for us.

 

[Lach72]

isn't there a members' rep on the board? we really should be making that person work for us.

There's two.

 

[sportsmaniac89]

As much as I dislike the jumper, the logo and the Steves (eagle blowin ****ers), it's a ridiculously long bow to suggest that our form is linked to the jumpers

Any team with an injury list as barbaric as ours would struggle, no matter what jumper we were wearing

That also being said, I would prefer that those ****ers put the money into the football department/coaches/facilities as opposed to "wasting" it on a re-branding exercise, that frankly wasn't necessary.

 

[BananaOnTheRun]

There's two.

even better.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Can you also see the correlation between on field success and financial success.

Of course I can. To an extent, they are both co dependant. That's one of the reasons I made the initial statement.

If we're successful on field, the sponsors and members will automatically follow - and pay more.

No doubt. I agree 100%. Without getting into the old "pterradactyl or the egg" argument, I think in this day and age it is crucial to be financially competitive with the other clubs, for the benefits it will bring on field.

Nth Melbourne are notoriously cash strapped, to the point where they cannot afford to well and truelly bottom out for a few years in order to build a decent list, because there is a very real possibility that by the time they start the upward progression, they will cease to exist. North are living hand to mouth, they cannot afford to spend 3 or 4 years of reduced sponsorship/membership revenue, which ultimately means they will be incapable of sustained onfield success.

It doesn't just negatively impact onfield success. Collingwood sent it's entire player group, plus the coaching/medical etc to Arizona during preseason, and even several players mid season. They did this because they strongly believe in what it can do for their performance. They do it because they can afford to. Fremantle could afford to use a fandangled anti gravity running machine for Sandilands while he recovered from injury. The list goes on. Because these clubs have more money to spare, they can afford to try cutting edge technology or training methods, while other teams cannot.

The on field performance of FFC isn't wholey and solely up to FFC, there are 16 other clubs that have a significant say in that. On the other hand, FFC is to a large extent able to determine it's own fiscal position, and as a result, pass on the positives/negatives that go along with it, to it's football team.

I've got no experience with things like marketting, but I feel prety safe in the assumption that improving the saleability of your product, is good business. I'm not here to go into all that jumper/logo bullshit, but in my experience, from the people I've spoken with, the majority believe that the rebranding was an improvement. Now if more people than before see one or the other, or both as an improvement, then I have no doubt that this positively impacts FFC's ability to sell it's product.

Selling the product means more money for the club as a whole, which means more money for the football department.

Its not stupid to spend on footy operations instead of re-branding. Like most have said, if we won a flag in an ugly guernsey, we'd still buy it and wear it with pride.

I'm sorry, but it is. There is no reason why we can't have our cake and eat it too. Throwing it all on black and hoping to christ that your number comes up is like it or not, is not a sustainable method for success.