sorry club uniforms

Thank you, just seemed strange to me.

Narcism and domination in mind !

And there it is. Melbourne united has nothing to do with Tigers !!!!

OP you are right to be concerned.

They are a sponsor of the VJBL...it would be no difference if it was Ford or a real estate company.

I think it is good marketing to sponsor the VJBL as at least the logo is on every kids uniform that plays a decent level in Victoria.

United tipped in a fairly considerable sum to get those patches on every VJBL uniform. Probably their one positive for the year.

Based on the track record of those running MU, I wonder if the VJBL is actually receiving $75,000 per annum, or it is a figure "created" by putting nominal values on:
· Part-time dedicated VJBL association liaison to be employed
· New referee development courses and focus
· Expansion of other development programs.

Slepoy and Kestleman aren't sponsoring the VJBL because they are "good guys" - they're getting something out of it. If they sell more Dodo subscriptions, good luck to them...

Plenty of "dodos" out there I guess.

Wonder if any money has really changed hands to the benefit of the VJBL? I really hope so for the benefit of junior basketball in Victoria.

75k a year is nothing and a cheap way of selling you soul and independence for the benefit of a few elite. That is not corporate sponsorship that will benifit the masses. Do the math.

$75,000 would be a terrific sponsorship for the VJBL IF they receive $75,000 as cash per year.

Hi HO, where did you get that figure from?

Be outstanding if it is correct.

I heard a rumour that the $75,000 is the salary of the employee that located at Basketball Victoria to market Melbourne United. (a Melbourne United paid employee) so no cash...

That would be absolutely consistent with the track record of the individual involved. Ask the clubs he has been involved with store how much they received in sponsorship revenue.

So the privately owned MU insert a staff member inside the state junior basketball body, receive extremely valuable marketing benefits in return and this is a great thing for the VJBL.

Right, I get it.

Melbourne United or Melbourne Divided?

The reason the name change came in, is because the Melbourne Tigers brand would have seen the franchise go broke as many in Victoria wouldn't association with the Tigers brand due to VJBL rivalaries in their junior playing days.. The problem is the name changed but the same imbeciles who were running Tigers are the same people running United. There are also plenty of imbeciles in BV.

This badging is extremely unpopular among associations, I have talked to four administrators of Associations and unanimously they hate the idea and won't support other Melbourne United initiatives. They have also advised me other Association which don't like the idea. They just need one Association to have the courage to stand up to it. The problem is you do oppose it you risk incurring the wrath of BV and VJBL and they can make life difficult.

One of those clubs I spoke with for example has a real estate agent paying $15,000 a year for a naming rights sponsorship which includes badges on uniforms. They now are forced to share that space with the United badge who don't provide a single dollar.

They had a contact(one phone call) from Melbourne United but none from the VJBL. They have no faith at all in seeing anything from BV or the VJBL of any monetary or development value at all through this initiative. They consider their players uniform sacrosanct, and should only be badged for significant sponsorship dollars or not at all.

Instead if they fail to badge players uniforms with the MU logo they are instead threatened with significant fines. So instead of bringing dollars into the club, there is a strong chance of seeing dollars leave the club if teams or players fail to wear a badge.

What a great strategy of getting grassroots clubs behind your franchise, implement an initiative with no consultation which they will see no dollars for, one that they hate an one that will be fined for if they don't cooperate.

You want to know why the NBL and basketball generally doesn't grow like soccer and the AFL then there is no clearer example than this.

It would be interesting to see what clubs like Bulleen, Melbourne Tiger, Dandenong, Knox who all have NBL, WNBL teams or ambitions for one think about this.

Finally i can understand the management morons at BV implementing this strategy, the thing I don't understand is how the owners of MU who run Dodo and should be smart business operators, think this strategy will work, when all they are doing is pissing of club administrations and through the roll on effect club memberships.

Not smart marketing!

This is effectively a means of blocking any chance of a second Melbourne NBL team being able to grow and draw on Representative program alignment support.

MU want victoria to remain a 1 NBL team town.

If i was a club administrator id be charging the VJBL a fee on that logo appearing on my uniform.

The part time association support officer position has been filled by Lyn Payet.

http://www.vjbl.com.au/index.php?id=10&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=513&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=56b7edb0c2

So no, there is no "paid employee of Melbourne United" that the funds are being used for. They are being used as they said they were going to be.

$75,000 a year for a naming rights sponsorship is a cheap deal when you consider the amount of teams and associations that MU (and by extension Dodo and other business run by Slepoy/Kestelman) now have database access to. However - was any other business offering to pay this kind of money for a naming rights sponsorship? I would think not.

I completely disagree with this move purely because as Bear suggested above, it immediately shackles a second Victorian NBL team. Melbourne United have made calculated moves to ensure that their brand is widespread and have strategically placed barriers on a second team garnering support from certain corners.

However - if the state run junior basketball league is offered $75,000 a year in sponsorship money, they would be a fool to turn it down, unless it came from something completely inappropriate like an alcohol or tobacco company. With so little sponsorship dollars in the basketball market, who are they to turn this down when there are no other offers?

Associations themselves may not see the cash benefit - but they will see benefits through the new employee who is employed to better service them, and through (hopefully, if the press release is to be believed) better development of referees and coaches. Those kind of resources take money.

The press release sounds very much like it was written by Melbourne United, not BV though. The constant need to refer to themselves as "the state's newest National Basketball League team" and the line about "We look forward to working closely with Victoria’s sole representative at the NBL level, CTI Melbourne United" smacks again of MU wanting to monopolise the Victorian market to stifle a second team.

In addition to post above - the league has every right to mandate that a naming rights sponsor of the league have their logo patched onto every uniform (provided it's not at the cost of the club). The same way that the NBL or WNBL or SEABL have the right to mandate that every team wears their league naming rights sponsor.

Sorry but clubs need to protect their brand.

The league can have a naming right sponsor and advertise it in many ways including banners at venues but unless the clubs receive a financial benefit from that arrangement i'm not sure how they can force them to use the logo ahead of their own sponsorship agreements.

Unless it is in direct competition to the association's naming rights sponsor, then no, it does not affect the club's own sponsorship deals. And as MU love to point out, they are the only NBL team in Victoria, so there is no direct competitor.

It is the same across all professional sports - clubs fall in line with the leading body. The LEAGUE sponsor receives priority over the CLUB sponsor for the benefit of everybody, not just clubs who are fortunate enough to have their own team naming rights sponsors.

I think the point is that there appears to be no genuine sponsorship unless I am missing something.

I would have though a pre requisite for naming rights logo on a uniform is a financial spin back to the clubs.

Either by way of subsidized costs or distribution of funds.

So have fees to the VJBL dropped or a distribution of funds occurring as a result of this deal?

Godfreys were naming rights sponsor of SEABL for a number of years with no financial gain to the clubs. The league owns the rights, the league can decide what to do with the funds - in this case the employment of an extra staff member, that you would hope would benefit all clubs.

There is a genuine sponsorhsip - of $75,000 per year - but it goes to the league, not the clubs.

FYI there are approximately 60 associations in VJBL. Which works out to be about $1250 per association if distributed evenly. Some associations have upwards of 30 teams. So about $40 per team.

Does it not make more sense for the league to take that cash injection and use it to better resource all clubs, rather than hand out a $1200 bonus?

^ Goodpoint, there's many ways to look at it.

The main sticking point in my mind is the basketball connection of he sponsor.

Is "a genuine sponsorship" a part time MU employee working inside the VJBL? Which party would benefit most from this do you think?

Anon #514341 - How many clubs have naming rights sponsors for the juniors? They are not taking away any space that can be sold - there is plenty more space for other sponsors to come on board. The fact is sponsorship in basketball is minimal. I agree $75,000 is peanuts for this deal, but what other business offered more? What other business offered anything? Also for the record BA have nothing to do with it, it's BV who have negotiated the deal.

Anon #514341 - again, the employee who has been employed in the position is not an MU employee, check the link of the announcement of her appointment.

I am not in favour of this at all, but I see $75,000 for the league as better off for junior basketball than $0 for the league.

If the monetary gain from the sponsorship was to be filtered down to clubs in some manner I may agree with some posters. The creation of this VJBL position is a nonsense and clubs know it. It will just mean another admin officer in BV who doesn't do too much and they have enough of those already.

Clubs are getting nothing our of this. I also resent the incorporation of the MU logo into the VJBL logo. Does the AFL logo have naming rights sponsors embedded into it's logo for instance.

The clubs are worth way more than $75,000 per year to the VJBL, they would want to be careful on taking them with them on this, as our state and federal governments are finding out atm.

Apparently this was dumped on clubs at a delegates meeting just before Xmas with no communication and no consultation. TV right deals and naming rights sponsorship usually have a revenue benefit for clubs at professional level. The same should happen at this level.

Last thing - what moron at BV negotiated this deal? A badge on every kid playing in the VJBL across every association and every stadium in Melbourne and a significant number in the Vic country region is worth way more than $75,000.00 per annum. That barely covers the cost of a bench player at NBL level.

MU and by Association Dodo could afford much more and should have been brought to the table for much more.

As highlighted by a few, as member clubs of the VJBL, a section of the uniform is reserved for the league logo. Generally when a 'naming rights' sponsorship is sold, the sponsoring organisations logo is incorporated into the league logo - examples already provided; Godfrey's with SEABL, Wattle Valley with WNBL, previously Philips with NBL. Guaranteed the clubs themselves received nor financial benefit from any of these arrangements - but yet, the leagues utilise the funds as they see fit.

The difference in this instance is that MU have actually stated publicly what the funding will be used for. Now, the new role within the VJBL is not a direct appointment, planted in BV by MU but rather part of the sponsorship detailed what 'x' amount was to be used for; in this case a liaison role. Again, clubs do not benefit financially from this move directly but this role may (may not) mean a club doesn't need to employ someone themselves on a PT or casual basis, or rely so heavily on volunteers (do any clubs operate with volunteers anymore or does everyone expect something these days?)

Another allocation of their financial contribution goes into referee development - there are enough forum topics on this website crying in need for referee development, surely no one has any objections to this. Again, perhaps not direct financial benefit to the clubs, but maybe now they don't have to pay out of their own pockets to run referee course etc. Meaning the money can be used/filtered into other avenues to benefit the club - so it is as good as money.

The same goes for coaching clinics. Surely some of this money is associated with the MU Community Coaching Clinics I've heard are available to clubs and associations. Again, clubs don't have to shell out for presenters and coaches don;t pa out of their own pockets to develop themselves, which heaven forbid improves our game. Again no financial benefit other than your club now saves more money that it can direct elsewhere.

The more relevant questions are;
Is you club savvy enough to utilise the sponsorship benefits available to better itself?
Does your club then use the money it saves by embracing these benefits to benefit itself?
Most clubs are set up as not for profit entities - if they can save money by utilising MU programs, then it has more resources at its disposal - the money has to be used for something.

None of the above affects your clubs ability to sell sponsorship in other areas of your uniforms or stadiums or programs. The MU badge is simply going on the part of your uniform you never actually owned anyway - the VJBL does. And that would be in all clubs member agreements when they sign on to the VJBL.

Personally I am not a fan or follower of MU. But I do give them credit for funnelling some money back into junior levels of our sport. Something we all cry for and monotonously plead makes logical sense given the extraordinary participation rates in our state - but no one else has done to this point. If another NBL team is established in Melbourne, be it Dragons or Magic, I will more than likely support them in favour of MU, but again, credit to MU for doing something that no one so far has been prepared to do.

Similarly, the Godfreys sponsorship of SEABL didn't make me trade in my Dyson, nor did I buy a Philips TV when they sponsored the NBL. I think I have had one Wattle Valley product in my entire life and I did;t buy it just because they sponsor the WNBL. Pretty sure my club doesn't purchase uniforms through AND1 (SEABL), Blackchrome (Big V), ISC (NBL) or Peak (WNBL) either but I certainly am aware of their brands which means their sponsorship is working to an extend because I know of them - just like those annoying commercials that make no sense but you know what brand they are associated with. Surely you;re all big enough to make up your own mind who to support regardless of what logo appears on your childs uniform.

And whilst you or your club didn't personally benefit financially from this sponsorship - you are getting offered something for nothing, which means you can then go out and get something else you originally could;t afford.

Without question there are issues with this deal. Id really like to know how the clubs have responded to this.

On sponsorship...

How hard did SEABL or the NBL or the WNBL work to give Godfreys, Phillips or Wattle Valley value for money?

I didn't see any extra promotion of their products outside of logo exposure...

Maybe this is part of the reason why we only hold sponsors for a few years.

Wow such a big deal over $75K , that equates to $7.50 per player per year ($0.25 per game in the grading & regular seasons)and where does the revenue come from? the same bums on seats at MU games, that being its target market, the kids from the VJBL and their parents.

So what BV's has a player FEE increase in late 2013 early 2014 and this is insufficient income? Seems more like continued empire building and jobs for those from fold / board.

Brain phart?

Interesting the amount of posts supporting the BV/VJBL badging of club's juniors and the detail provided. Maybe BV & VJBL staff need to get off this forum and get stuck into their work hey?

MU want a 1 team town, make no mistake about it.

This is as much about blocking another team as it is about helping and developing juniors.

There's a good reason why they wont relinquish the Tigers name to the Gazes..

Good on them if they can do it, but Basketball in this state will be worse for it if it stifles the chances of a second NBL team.

They walked away from the Tigers heritage Daz, they don't have a monopoly on Victorian NBL history.

It would be highly arrogant and ignorant for them to think they represent everyone.