Club Finances

[Red and Blue Flame 142]

the good wasnt good enough

[Rflowerwing 0]

the good wasnt good enough

Agree.

[Yencks 8]

the good wasnt good enough

yyeepp

too true

we are accepting mediocrity which is something we have done for too long

yes, the old board did some good things

but we would be out of debt with a tilt with a much better on field performance if they were that good

the new board will achieve much more

[Little Goffy 13,037]

Actually, I checked those figures with the club, and Caroline Wilson, along with a few other media outlets in the last few months, has mis-stated our debt position.

Her mistake is taking the $5mil declared as the debt demolition target as being the current position, and then she's added this years operating loss to that. Very dissapointing, lazy journalism.

I can confirm the $5mil as the end of year anticipated result, as last years debt statement was $3.2mil (in the official, audited financial reports) and add to that the expected losses this year and you get the $5mil debt demolition target.

The point of concern raised by the auditors was Travis Johnstone's 'payout' - MFC is paying approx $200,000 of his salary this year as part of the trade arrangement with Brisbane. The club accounted for that as a 2008 expense, the auditors thought it should have been a 2007 expense, which would technically have meant a loss that year.

Note that this 200k is part of our losses for 08 now, and will not recur. It also goes alongside the retirements of Neitz, White, Yze and Holland as a step clear in our total player payments.

[deanox 9,006]

Cameron Schwab staerts next week, that is a major positive, and when our new journey really starts.

interesting he hasnt started yet. i saw him around the redlegs social club before the richmond game in round 22. he was wearing an official badge and an mfc tie, looked like he was at work really...

[deanox 9,006]

Actually, I checked those figures with the club...

could you tell us what the club said exactly regarding our finances, and how much you were ed to believe our official debt is now?

is it the $5mil minus the debt demo money like we thought?

[Little Goffy 13,037]

The $5mil statement is the target to kill, which includes all leftover debt that the Gardiner/Harris administration didn't manage to kill (remember that they did knock down something like $4mil in their time) plus the 'between 1.5 and 2' in losses this year.

So $3 mil down, $2million to go.

The 2008 loss of... lets split the difference and call it $1.75mil, includes

$200,000 for Travis Johnstone in Brisbane. (now finished)

$250,000 payout of Steve Harris (a right call, nonetheless)

Around $100,000 'dead loss' on the McNamee hiring/firing, and the costs of transfer and information exhange etc with new boards, administration, securing new CEO, etc.. this is after acknowledging 'Super-Spargo' who saved the club tens of thousands of dollars by stepping in as interim CEO without payment.

So there half a million we shouldn't have to worry about next year.

Hmm... Neitz, Yze, White, Holland... that'll be another million off the expenses ledger, even after a few other players are offered a little more.

So now the tally is one and a half million in expenses we shouldn't have to worry about next year.

Also, of course, we've made progress at killing debt. But on balance, our debt position has moved from about $3.2 million to about $2 million. So it's probably about $100,000, plus however much more debt we can kill over the summer.

So, after clearing out all those things, we need to make about $250,000 more in revenue next year than this year and we're back on an even keel.

That, ladies and gentleman, is all rather do-able!

Pause and think on that. We can do it, it's right there to be done.

All else being equal, it's about 1,500 extra attendences per home game. A margin that small means every extra effort by an individual counts.

[Yencks 8]

so forgive me for being bad at business

because the club figured around a $2 mil loss this year (plus the $3 mil already in debt)

and we have raised $3 mil

does that mean technically this year, we have made a 1 mil profit

i know we are in debt, but this year alone; will we go down as making a 1 mil profit

cos thats kinda nice

[deanox 9,006]

So, after clearing out all those things, we need to make about $250,000 more in revenue next year than this year and we're back on an even keel.

nice, but that expects that all expenses stay the same, and we know they don't. TPP increase, general running costs may increase. how much are we committing to casey? unfortunately when you have a 30mil or so turnover, the chances of the expenses staying within 250K are pretty low.

i know we are in debt, but this year alone; will we go down as making a 1 mil profit

cos thats kinda nice

possibly, but i doubt they will advertise it like that, seeing that we had to beg members to donate...

[Yencks 8]

but deanox, do u think if some stupid journo like the last couple of years made an article showing which clubs made a yearly profit and which clubs didnt, technically you would have to say melbourne made a 1 mil profit

[Rflowerwing 0]

but deanox, do u think if some stupid journo like the last couple of years made an article showing which clubs made a yearly profit and which clubs didnt, technically you would have to say melbourne made a 1 mil profit

Before you count the "debt demolition" funds raised as revenue in the current period (year to 31 October 2008) you would need to know:

1. How much of the c. $3 million is "clean" and how much has been pledged in return for benefits. So for example, if someone donated $100k in return for a table at 11 home games next year which costs the Club, say, $42k to fulfil then the impact on the Club's P&L (ie "profit") is $58k, not $100k.

2. How much of the $3 million has been either received or is recoverable as a legally enforceable debt? If the money is simply promised and not received before 31 October then it cannot be booked as income.

[cheech666 0]

I am sure Gardner and his Board made some very bad decisions just as Jim's Board will on their watch.

What would you consider to be the 5 worst "very bad decisions" that you think Gardner made?

1. Ignoring AFL advice on a range of issues.

2. Not becoming closer with the MCC.

3. Extending ND's last contract.

4. China.

5. CEO fiasco.

[cheech666 0]

I am sure Gardner and his Board made some very bad decisions just as Jim's Board will on their watch.

What would you consider to be the 5 worst "very bad decisions" that you think Gardner made?

1. Ignoring AFL advice on a range of issues.

2. Not becoming closer with the MCC.

3. Extending ND's last contract.

4. China.

5. CEO fiasco.

[Sir Why You Little 35,324]

Well you're the one who stated with such authority that Gardner made some very bad decisions.

I agree that management of our aging list was not optimal. Do you really want the siuts in the Boardroom deciding whether to not to give Robbo another 2 years or 3? I don't - that's what the Board employs the Footy experts in the Footy Dept to do and then hold them accountable for their performance. Gardner, not Stynes, overhauled the Footy Dept in response to performance issues - appointments included Connolly, Bailey, Prendergast, Wellman, Mahoney, O'Donnell and Mark Williams. From memory 14 new players were introduced to the Club post-2007 with more changes this year. Big tick for Gardner from me on this one.

Debt? You couldn't have taken much notice while Gardner was Chairman because it came down in each of his 4 years in the Chair.

Accountable? Blah, blah, blah.

MCC? This problem has been around since 1981 and Gardner was not the fiirst to be defeated by it. Jim is giving it the priority it deserves and the very existence of our Club swings on the outcome of his efforts.

No mention of MOP home, Casey, membership (36%) and revenue (37%) growth over 4 years, stable Board with 3 female Directors, finals footy in 3 of 4 seasons etc. At least mention the good with the bad.

I dont have to state anything with great Authority, it's all their in front of all of us to see. Our Club is an absolute Cot Case at present compared to the rest of the AFL. I am not Blaming Individuals but as a member i think its reasnoable to ask questions as to why it all happened. Maybe Joe Gutnick mneeded another Term. Who Knows in hindsight. But Christ it couldn't have been worse.

The whole china thing was a farce. In time maybe but the old "backyard" needed to be sorted first.

Let me ask you something...what positive things did the last board achieve before they left in silence..i am trying to think of some. We went backwards in a hurry.

[Yencks 8]

has the new board completely scrapped the whole china thing?

[Sir Why You Little 35,324]

has the new board completely scrapped the whole china thing?

I doubt they have even got to thinking about it as yet-I think the AFL put a stop to it after their first big Audit

[52k2 0]

On the question of money, I wonder how much money people direct debited to the club in the forms sent out?

There were a few options we took the one for the next year, I know I have bought this up before but this is the way to go.

A steady stream of money, every month, get on board...... donate a little often.

I still wonder how much a month?

Boy will this years AGM be interesting.

[Rflowerwing 0]

I doubt they have even got to thinking about it as yet-I think the AFL put a stop to it after their first big Audit

What big audit?

The AFL finance people have met monthly with the MFC finance people for the last 4 years. This was a condition of MFC's access to the CBF. The AFL has at all times been aware of the state of the Club's finances.

China cost us next to nothing - almost all the China activities were externally funded. The AFL agrees that China is part of the game's expansion strategy and will take the lead in this initiative, maintaining MFC's prominent involvement. Given that we have the smallest supporter base in the league and no major sponsor, and given that China cost us nothing and involved no risk, I say good on Gardner and Harris for thinking outside the square.

[Yencks 8]

yes, they thought outside the square but i would rather them have put their precious time into fixing ties with the MCC or other more important things

lets not bother doing crap until we have the time (and also the money, but not in this case)

[Little Goffy 13,037]

The actual trip to China cost about $100,000.

Part of the reason the China program overall has cost so little is because it has been, to date, done in a pathetic half-arsed manner. There were more announcements about it and publicity efforts back home than there was actual, diligent effort at covering all of the bases (stakeholders, promotional options, networks, etc..)

But there's still a bit of life in it, and it could still be a big positive if done right, and targeted to the right areas of China.

[Rflowerwing 0]

The actual trip to China cost about $100,000.

Part of the reason the China program overall has cost so little is because it has been, to date, done in a pathetic half-arsed manner. There were more announcements about it and publicity efforts back home than there was actual, diligent effort at covering all of the bases (stakeholders, promotional options, networks, etc..)

But there's still a bit of life in it, and it could still be a big positive if done right, and targeted to the right areas of China.

How much of the stated $100k was MFC funds and how much externally sourced/contributed?