What would you pay more money for to help the MFC further stabilize?

[Diamond_Jim 11,676]

2 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Sponsors and corporates are attracted by positive, vibrant, energetic, willing to embrace new ideas and the ability to make changes quickly and efficiently with the minimum of fuss. 

Think its called demographics matching - I sometimes wonder what the demographics of our community would be? 

 

Unfortunately we all know the answer to that one.

On the other hand I do not see the match day supporter as being a vital target for sponsors. It is more about getting the brand onto national television.

Imagine the difference in the sell to sponsors between us and Carlton with all their Friday night games. (Just emphasizes that winning by itself will not answer our long term concerns.)

[DaveyDee 421]

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Unfortunately we all know the answer to that one.

On the other hand I do not see the match day supporter as being a vital target for sponsors. It is more about getting the brand onto national television.

Imagine the difference in the sell to sponsors between us and Carlton with all their Friday night games. (Just emphasizes that winning by itself will not answer our long term concerns.)

When you sponsor a club the support base is your primary target, you look for brand alignment if its a pure business play. 

Sponsorship and corporate support is easy to advocate - but be under no illusions its very tough to land in the Victorian market place, very competitive. 

The fixture you need to discuss with our CEO - think he has said on numerous occasions why we are where we are. 

[daisycutter 28,452]

11 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

Imagine the difference in the sell to sponsors between us and Carlton with all their Friday night games. (Just emphasizes that winning by itself will not answer our long term concerns.)

i thought when fitzpatrick was replaced the brown baggers might get a more realistic fixture

i thought wrong......the influence runs deep

[DaveyDee 421]

2 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Nup.

I don’t think the club is as interested in supporter charity as it was under Jimma anyway.

For starters, the narrative isn’t there to run that kind of campaign. In 2010, we were told that our debt would kill us if we didn’t pay it off. PJ has stated that debt isn’t a bad thing per se. What is fatal is if you don’t have the revenue streams to pay it off. 

With that being said, it appears that he is looking for more sustainable cash flow. Though Foundation Heroes lives on does it not?

I agree I'm not talking about charity - I've stated what Id be prepared to pay for, in fact I would pay twice. 

If somebody else came up with an idea - I could not rule in or rule out paying for that if I thought it was of some value. 

 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,398]

38 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

We are talking about losing Pokies profits - you know the issue you were not aware existed according to one of your earlier posts in this thread. You are talking on other issues and clearly getting the two confused. AFL corporate sponsors have very, very little to do with MFC revenues.

 

Sponsors and corporates are attracted by positive, vibrant, energetic, willing to embrace new ideas and the ability to make changes quickly and efficiently with the minimum of fuss. 

Think its called demographics matching - I sometimes wonder what the demographics of our community would be? 

 

You are obviously incapable of following a conversation. Our pokies profits are not under threat, that's just your incorrect understanding.

Oh now it's the supporters fault the club can't attract sponsors. Jog on mate.

[The Chazz 4,077]

6 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

I agree I'm not talking about charity - I've stated what Id be prepared to pay for, in fact I would pay twice. 

If somebody else came up with an idea - I could not rule in or rule out paying for that if I thought it was of some value. 

 

I think you are being very short-sighted in your search for an additional income stream if you are talking about a business directory.  Don't get me wrong, it has the potential to create some income, but is it sustainable?  This will only be determined by an individual business, and the income it generates for them in the first 1-3 years.  If a business is paying to be part of a directory, they will want to see an increase in their own customers, otherwise they will soon opt out.

You need something that appeals to a broader market, not just Melbourne supporters.  A product or service that a lot of people require, and currently pay big dollars for.  Something that people access every day, and for the long-term future, will continue to be offered.

Things like education, health care, aged care, child care, this sort of stuff is used and paid for every day throughout Australia.  But the question is regarding the expense to get this stuff set up, considering it's a market that is already flooded.  So instead of investing huge amounts of dollars to reinvent the wheel, maybe we look at strategic partnerships with providers that are leading the way already.  Or do we look at having an add-on to what's currently done?

With all that said, I do think there are opportunities to further grow our partnership with the University of Melbourne.  They (UofM) are ranked the number 1 university in Australia, and I'm pretty sure have the highest world ranking of our universities.  They have approx 50,000 students, a lot of international students (potential of new members), and a reputation that sees a lot of people wanting to study there but can't get in.

To give you an idea of the Richmond FC/Swinburne program I mentioned earlier, the offer a 12 months Diploma of Sport Development/Diploma of Leadership and Management.  Fees are $19,000 and this year, they are expecting around 80 students (aka $1.52m gross income).  There is a pathway into other Swinburne degrees at the end of it, which is where Swinburne can see an increase in income.

[DaveyDee 421]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You are obviously incapable of following a conversation. Our pokies profits are not under threat, that's just your incorrect understanding.

Oh now it's the supporters fault the club can't attract sponsors. Jog on mate.

I did not post these links - but you may consider reading them

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-looks-to-reduce-football-clubs-reliance-on-poker-machines-20170816-gxxrzk.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/richard-goyder-says-afl-needs-to-tackle-pokies-issue-that-sees-problem-gamblers-losing-money/news-story/ed71b63ec5e49ef1460e4c12f5102ba1

[drdrake 3,035]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Absolute Bollocks. 

We were sitting at the top of the pile 50-60  years ago, and got lazy

and then people got your attitude

”oh it’s all too hard”

the worst decision was not taking the Lexus Centre. That put us back years. 

What was and what is are a mile apart and our supporter base that witness and experienced our last successful period would be all over 65 years old.  We have lost generations of supporters due to 50 odd years with out success and unfortunately for our club we had sustain periods like the period we are hopefully coming out of now.

The Lexus centre has nothing to do with it, all last 50 years of basically being irrelevant killed us, we showed signs of recovery through the Northey and  Daniher years on field but that was followed by the Bailey/Neeld era which again would have lost us future members.  My 2 kids have zero interest in supporting Melbourne, for the first 8 years of a kids life we can push them to follow the team we do.  After that kids jump on the team their mates support and successful teams.

If you want to change we need to stop having 10 odd year periods that we don't play finals.  You accept that at some stage clubs bottom out, good clubs bounce back quick, bad ones seem to stay down a lot longer

[ding 5,126]

I would buy out whatever pokies the other clubs wanted to sell. As long as its legal, i say BUY BUY BUY.

 If it got us closer to a premiership, and made us financially secure/independent and viable well into the future, i say go for it. If that made some people feel bad about themselves i could live with that. As for what i would pay extra for the answer is nothing. Club needs to finally deliver and stand on its merits.

No doubt the haters will be along shortly. 

 

[DaveyDee 421]

5 minutes ago, ding said:

I would buy out whatever pokies the other clubs wanted to sell. As long as its legal, i say BUY BUY BUY.

 If it got us closer to a premiership, and made us financially secure/independent and viable well into the future, i say go for it. If that made some people feel bad about themselves i could live with that. As for what i would pay extra for the answer is nothing. Club needs to finally deliver and stand on its merits.

No doubt the haters will be along shortly. 

 

Are you advocating taking no notice of the AFL - interesting. Good luck - you might need it. 

[ding 5,126]

3 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Are you advocating taking no notice of the AFL - interesting. Good luck - you might need it. 

AFL have no business telling clubs where they can make an income as long as its legal.

As long as they (AFL) continue to take big $$'s from betting companies they wont have a leg to stand on.

 

[DaveyDee 421]

6 minutes ago, ding said:

AFL have no business telling clubs where they can make an income as long as its legal.

As long as they (AFL) continue to take big $$'s from betting companies they wont have a leg to stand on.

 

Best of luck with this idea - would love hearing what our CEO thought about this idea. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by DaveyDee

[The Chazz 4,077]

34 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

Are you advocating taking no notice of the AFL - interesting. Good luck - you might need it. 

As I have said, I am told one club (Geelong) that will bypass any introduction of AFL anti-pokie revenue rule as they have set up at least one gaming venue that isn't under their name.

Also, if the AFL bring this rule in, will it be across the board in terms of lower level/grassroots leagues?  I know many clubs across Australia that receive sponsorship from venues that also receive income from gaming.

Edited November 22, 2017 by The Chazz
Covering my ass

[Sir Why You Little 34,407]

1 hour ago, drdrake said:

What was and what is are a mile apart and our supporter base that witness and experienced our last successful period would be all over 65 years old.  We have lost generations of supporters due to 50 odd years with out success and unfortunately for our club we had sustain periods like the period we are hopefully coming out of now.

The Lexus centre has nothing to do with it, all last 50 years of basically being irrelevant killed us, we showed signs of recovery through the Northey and  Daniher years on field but that was followed by the Bailey/Neeld era which again would have lost us future members.  My 2 kids have zero interest in supporting Melbourne, for the first 8 years of a kids life we can push them to follow the team we do.  After that kids jump on the team their mates support and successful teams.

If you want to change we need to stop having 10 odd year periods that we don't play finals.  You accept that at some stage clubs bottom out, good clubs bounce back quick, bad ones seem to stay down a lot longer

Sure as i said earlier. It’s all about winning

A winning Melbourne can become big. 

A winning Nought Melbourne means very little...

[Dr. Gonzo 22,398]

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

I did not post these links - but you may consider reading them

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-looks-to-reduce-football-clubs-reliance-on-poker-machines-20170816-gxxrzk.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/richard-goyder-says-afl-needs-to-tackle-pokies-issue-that-sees-problem-gamblers-losing-money/news-story/ed71b63ec5e49ef1460e4c12f5102ba1

I've read them, nothing in there indicates our pokies revenue is in danger or that the AFL could do anything about it even if they wanted to.

You've also conveniently ignored the fact that in order for the clubs to take the AFL's preaching seriously the AFL would themselves have to give up sponsorships/partnerships with TAB, Sportsbet, Crown etc something that is not going to happen.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,398]

1 hour ago, ding said:

AFL have no business telling clubs where they can make an income as long as its legal.

As long as they (AFL) continue to take big $$'s from betting companies they wont have a leg to stand on.

 

Also as long as they continue to disadvantage certain clubs through fixturing thereby restricting their ability to trade. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

As I have said, I am told one club (Geelong) that will bypass any introduction of AFL anti-pokie revenue rule as they have set up at least one gaming venue that isn't under their name.

Also, if the AFL bring this rule in, will it be across the board in terms of lower level/grassroots leagues?  I know many clubs across Australia that receive sponsorship from venues that also receive income from gaming.

Given the President of the Geelong Football Club, Colin Carter, is on the Board of World Vision, a Christian charity of which anti-pokies campaigner Tim Costello was recently CEO, I find this claim hard to believe.

[The Chazz 4,077]

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Given the President of the Geelong Football Club, Colin Carter, is on the Board of World Vision, a Christian charity of which anti-pokies campaigner Tim Costello was recently CEO, I find this claim hard to believe.

You're entitled to do that.  I'm telling you what I've heard from a reliable source.

But let's not forget, AFL club presidents want to win premierships, in an industry that demands you be ahead of the game in all facets to be successful.

[DaveyDee 421]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I've read them, nothing in there indicates our pokies revenue is in danger or that the AFL could do anything about it even if they wanted to.

Dr Gonzo you are more than entitled to your opinion - as I said I did not post the articles, think the message is quite clear, I will let others determine what they want from the articles. 

28 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You've also conveniently ignored the fact that in order for the clubs to take the AFL's preaching seriously the AFL would themselves have to give up sponsorships/partnerships with TAB, Sportsbet, Crown etc something that is not going to happen.

With all due respect think you are confusing two topics a/ Poker Machines and b/ Sports Betting but you have done that from your very first post. If you dont understand the difference far be it from me to explain it to you. 

[drdrake 3,035]

54 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Sure as i said earlier. It’s all about winning

A winning Melbourne can become big. 

A winning Nought Melbourne means very little...

We have done so much damage it will take a long period of success followed by another one real quick to get the next generation of supporters.

[Diamond_Jim 11,676]

Peter Gordon of Footscray was asked about pokies during his regular spot on 774.

It was obvious that he was uncomfortable with them but said it's all about money. Sounds like motor sports and cricket during the tobacco sponsorship debate.

While I am not sure how you get pokies out of the NRL or the local bowls club etc there is no excuse for the AFL in not at least having a declared say 10 year strategy to rid themselves of pokies plus the gambling ad revenue. It will only get worse.

[DaveyDee 421]

1 hour ago, drdrake said:

We have done so much damage it will take a long period of success followed by another one real quick to get the next generation of supporters.

Looking on the positive side - some clubs in the AFL may disagree with you and somewhat down play the need for a "long period of success". Many years ago in the education system I agree winning was everything but things may have marginally changed and that is exploitable.  

Edited November 22, 2017 by DaveyDee

[DaveyDee 421]

50 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Peter Gordon of Footscray was asked about pokies during his regular spot on 774.

It was obvious that he was uncomfortable with them but said it's all about money. Sounds like motor sports and cricket during the tobacco sponsorship debate.

While I am not sure how you get pokies out of the NRL or the local bowls club etc there is no excuse for the AFL in not at least having a declared say 10 year strategy to rid themselves of pokies plus the gambling ad revenue. It will only get worse.

Interesting - but according Dr Gonzo what you heard with your ears is wrong, but I will let you decide. 

Think its clear poker machines revenue are under attack and there is a push led by AFL Commission Chairman to look at ways of getting AFL clubs out of Poker machines. So no doubt some forms of gambling ad revenues are also under attack - but not all forms of gambling ad revenues are up for discussion - in fact if people read the articles it clear states the AFL took the government to court to protect its Sports Betting revenues. Weather the AFL extend it to all forms of gambling ad revenues - who knows. 

This all said and done - this thread is about finding alternative revenue streams in the event poker machines revenues may or may not be removed. If they are not removed - huge bonus to us we get to spend more money in our FD and move one step closer to a flag for our long time supporters. But I also appreciate some supporters wont to do nothing - that is their choice. 

Go Dees

[Dr. Gonzo 22,398]

1 hour ago, DaveyDee said:

Dr Gonzo you are more than entitled to your opinion - as I said I did not post the articles, think the message is quite clear, I will let others determine what they want from the articles. 

With all due respect think you are confusing two topics a/ Poker Machines and b/ Sports Betting but you have done that from your very first post. If you dont understand the difference far be it from me to explain it to you. 

There is no difference, it's all legal gambling. It would be hypocritical in the extreme for the AFL to demand clubs give up their pokies on one hand while taking money from betting agencies with the other. Clubs would rightfully tell them to get stuffed or demand compensation.

[DaveyDee 421]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

There is no difference, it's all legal gambling. It would be hypocritical in the extreme for the AFL to demand clubs give up their pokies on one hand while taking money from betting agencies with the other. Clubs would rightfully tell them to get stuffed or demand compensation.

"There is no difference" - you are more than entitled to your opinion. Cheers