45hotgod - you are making a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately RR doesn't seem to be able to comprehend your pretty simple arguements and resorts to insults and arrogant VD.

With some creative negotiating, it is more than possible to broker a deal that benefits us more than the yearly "charity" QB home game. As long as we maintain our position on the QB fixture, and receive some sort of benefit from the "deal" then why not. It would be nice not to have supporters of the Filth believeing they are contributing to a charity by attending.

45hotgod - you are making a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately RR doesn't seem to be able to comprehend your pretty simple arguements and resorts to insults and arrogant VD.

With some creative negotiating, it is more than possible to broker a deal that benefits us more than the yearly "charity" QB home game. As long as we maintain our position on the QB fixture, and receive some sort of benefit from the "deal" then why not. It would be nice not to have supporters of the Filth believeing they are contributing to a charity by attending.

Sorry S T. I am more than happy if the creative negotiating leads to a win win situation. The examples shown clearly dont. However lets remember where we currently are (financial stricken but with the QBW as a home game) and that the game is not a charity game but also a consequence of the lopsided draw the AFL has delivered us. FWIW, in your estimation any home game we have against an opposition with bigger membership numbers in Victoria is a charity game.

And when you negotiate you do so on what you can offer to give back to ensure you get what you want. We dont bring alot to the table based on the AFL criteria. We need to fight hard for what we get and fight to retain what we have. When it comes to fixturing unless we have fought hard like the current Board has for fixtures rights we would just have to take what we are given.

From an AFL perspective MFC does not bring many value elements to the table for fixturing and their attitude toward MFC with regard fixturing will determine not only the QBW but potentially the future of the MFC.

FWIW, in your estimation any home game we have against an opposition with bigger membership numbers in Victoria is a charity game.

No, any long term arrangement that on a specific day every year a small club (US) plays against a big club (THEM) where the small club is ALWAYS the home team, taking all of the gate will be seen by many as a game exisiting for the sole purpose of making money for the small club (charity).

I can't think of any other game in a given year that fits under that criteria, for us or anyone else for that matter.

No, any long term arrangement that on a specific day every year a small club (US) plays against a big club (THEM) where the small club is ALWAYS the home team, taking all of the gate will be seen by many as a game exisiting for the sole purpose of making money for the small club (charity).

I can't think of any other game in a given year that fits under that criteria, for us or anyone else for that matter.

Melbourne vs Carlton this year or any future year that Carlton are competitive. Essendon is another Club that would fit the bill.

Why is it that everything Melbourne gets is "charity"?

We play the QBW round as a home game as the only marque game we get in fixture that is otherwise deliberately slated against us in favour of other Clubs --- That's charity.

We get CBF Fund from the AFL like some other Clubs do yet we actually receive less in payments from the AFL than other Clubs - Oh MFC is receiving charity!

Lets get over the guilts of whatever we get from the AFL or whatever and start realising that MFC deserves its right to existence is entitled to receive whatever compensation it receives if the AFL wants a "competitive" competition ( ). Furthermore we need to also recognise that the threat or removal of just one of those sources of income will threaten our continued existence given our difficult and protracted financial malaise. The loss of any income source is not easily or simply replaced in the short term and possibly in the longer term. Its not about creative negotiation its about fighting tooth and nail. We dont have a financially viable fall back position to negotiate from.

How is it weird that if it's a Collingwood home game next year, their members would get free entry?

I reckon it would build the spectacle, which i've said numerous times, and help in future QB matches to truly make it a blockbuster.

But i feel you aren't listening and would much rather attack

How is it weird that if it's a Collingwood home game next year, their members would get free entry?

I reckon it would build the spectacle, which i've said numerous times, and help in future QB matches to truly make it a blockbuster.

But i feel you aren't listening and would much rather attack

So how do we replace the income lost?

Its already a marque game on the AFL calendar and is already a spectacle with big coverage. Its a block buster if both teams are competitive on the ladder. They are not at the moment and that affects the interest.

Its disappointing you so readily willing to easily to give up something without a tangible alternative to fall back on.

It may happen but it will hit us financially and hard.

As i have previously stated, i would give it up as a yearly home game if the club was able to get something in return.

I worry that if it's a home game next year and gets less than 60 again, we might lose it all together. If we're proactive and can get the AFL to rethink its cutting of the (Competitive balance fund?) and thus suplementing the loss of takings from the gate and give us a home game to replace it, i would seriously consider it as an option.

Out of interest, what is the financial difference between the 59,000 we got for QB and the 41 we got for the Hawks?

As i have previously stated, i would give it up as a yearly home game if the club was able to get something in return.

I worry that if it's a home game next year and gets less than 60 again, we might lose it all together. If we're proactive and can get the AFL to rethink its cutting of the (Competitive balance fund?) and thus suplementing the loss of takings from the gate and give us a home game to replace it, i would seriously consider it as an option.

Out of interest, what is the financial difference between the 59,000 we got for QB and the 41 we got for the Hawks?

Good question.

You could say its 18,000 x $?? per head but it does not work like that simply. It is going to depend on the mix of MCC and AFL members that make up the pot. I know we get something per head off the MCC for each MCC member that turns up for to a MFC home game. Too many variables,too few equations to work them!

I think AFL will extend a limited and finite funding supply to the end of the next TV contract if our attendances are low. If QBW attendances are around 50k, we are in trouble and the Club is in trouble.

Our on field performance in 2007 and 2008 has dictated low attendances levels that are approx. 20% below where they should be at a mid point. We need to build on that mid point.

I hope Stynes with new Board, new CEO, nearly new Coach with a talented young team supplemented with draft picks can move forward.

...

Agreed

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Queens Birthday our initiative to begin with?

I'm happy, if Triple Chins is insisting on it, to split the takings 50-50. However there is no way we should let them take yet another bucket of cash from yet another blockbuster game. They already have too many of these... just ask their coach!

Why? I reckon every single thing he said was valid. It's a question most of us have been asking all year. Why can we get up for the big games and hold our own against quality sides / big stage (Geelong, Hawthorn #2 and now Collingwood) but get comprehensively smashed by middle of the road sides like Adelaide and St. Kilda? It's extremely frustrating.

I reckon the people having a dip at Malthouse for his comments need to take their green glasses off and read them again. He's a coach trying to look after his side. Nothing he said was invalid or unfair.

our side is less experienced and more likely to have form fluctuations............his side hs much experience in front of big crowds, even the youngsters.........did his players get up mpre for MFC or the Geelong game 2 weeks ago??? fact of the matter is even top sides put in different levels of effort from week to week for various reasons.........until his team puts in the same effort week in week out as they did against to Geelong, he can stick this critism up his cracker!!!!!!!!!!

master of deflecting attention from his own team, just like Mark Williams........I lik Bailey, but someone like Sheedy would've fired back my point and made a fool of him through th media..........I hope Stynes gets more aggressive defending our club!!! cause its easy to have a crack when we're struggling, but malthouse's point can be attributed to all clubs, difference is more experienced sides are more consistent in approach and the great teams can still pull off a win even if they aren't 'up' for he game........