I think if you read the entire thread again , you will see that I have not made any cheap shots against you. It's more the opposite.
You are the poster who said that I dont comprehend. You also accused me of lying.
Yes you have.
You accuse me of bringing up my background on this thread - saying I did this on page 1 (I challenge you to find this)
You saying I have not answered the Q as to alterntives - I have done this on numerious times.
You say I accuse you of lying when what I actually asked a Q - as to whether you were lying.
My posts have added as much to this discussion as yours have.
Rubbish, your first post on this thread is post #32 - in which
you bring up my background (lifted from another thread & despite what you say had not been mentioned on this thread as you stated) as a means to say I haven't answered the original question.
Your then continue with this line in all your subsequent posts.
That is not adding to the thread.
I on the other hand have directly responded to quotes from a number of gary's & others posts on the thread topic.
You say I haven't offered alternatives - again rubbish.
I have stated with reasons my thoughts on the deal with analysis of what we should have done differently in relation to it - thus I have provided my alternative.
You might say they are not legitimate alternatives but I ask you this question -
If the deal was never done - what do you think the club would have done?
Precisely what I suggested.
You are trying to infer we had no alternative to the deal & that is rubbish as I have stated.
Which in some peoples opinions would be sweet FA. But im not against the Tassie deal. I can see it for what it is and nothing more.I wish we didnt play games in Tassie but we need a sponsor and they dont just grow on trees now , do they.
Strangely as I have said before I am not against playing some games in tasmania - but am concerned with how much we have increased it - especially considering we couldn't get the AFL to increase our exposure to the MCG as compensation to members as the club previously promised.
As far as your proposition saying sponsors don't grow on trees despite what anybody maintains we have attracted one of the worlds largest banks as a sponsor but have chosen to downgrade them from being our naming sponsor, we also have managed to attract another organisation prepared to pay a wad of $$ over 5 years to sponsor us.
As a result and considering no one disputes we have a favorable future over the next 5 years or so why shouldn't we be able to atract other sponsors - who wish to sponsor an improving team with exciting players in the biggest sporting comp in Australia.
And also as a result why couldn't we have insisted on better terms especially around naming rights.
My posts are repetative (I admit that) but thats because you have not answered the question.
Thats all I want.
No you are simply entrenched.