MFC back as sporting section of MCC.

[Jarka 767]

If it happens (and it's already been pointed out that it's not near to being set in stone) it would make us part of an organisation worth in excess of $200m rather than being an outfit that's worth in excess of a negative figure of $2m. With due respect to the great RDB, we would still have to worry about the business side of things but we'd certainly have a fair sized cushion of comfort.

However, there might be some pitfalls to consider as well. Once you become a section of the MCC, you lose a measure of your independence. Questions therefore need to be asked about the cost and effect of that and whether it's worth selling your soul to achieve such an outcome.

This is not to say I'm against the idea. Just playing devil's advocate.

At least we'll get our cups back

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

Selling one game to the GABBA hasn't helped make us financially stable, nor the game to Canberra.

The Tassie move worked for the Hawks because it was already a footy mad State desperate to see some AFL action. It helped Hawthorn's money problems not only because of the absurd amount of money poured in by the Tassie Government, but also by the amount of merchandise/memberships sold in the state which we would not receive through selling 3 games to Canberra.

All in all, Canberra is not a viable option going forward.

I also don't think Casey is that far away if we go hard at it. The benefit of Casey is that it can also sell memberships/merchandise/generate supporters.

i hope your correct for the future of the club, but think about 45hotgod if say the tigers wanted to play 3 games a season in your local vacinity, would you be prepared to have a rate rise for it,now my rates are 850 dollars this year,now i wouldnt mind paying a bit extra but not everyone follows our club, i would like it to go ahead but i dont think it will.

[montasaurus 0]

At least we'll get our cups back

or do the MCC get their footballers back?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Selling one game to the GABBA hasn't helped make us financially stable, nor the game to Canberra.

Crap. The alternative was to play the game in Melbourne in front of a small crowd and we would have made a loss on the game.

The Tassie move worked for the Hawks because it was already a footy mad State desperate to see some AFL action. It helped Hawthorn's money problems not only because of the absurd amount of money poured in by the Tassie Government, but also by the amount of merchandise/memberships sold in the state which we would not receive through selling 3 games to Canberra.

If it was not for the absurd amount of money from the Tassie Govt the Hawks venture in the Aplle isle would not have proceeded. Its a finite source of income which will get squeezed heavily in the current financial crisis when the contract comes due for renewal.

All in all, Canberra is not a viable option going forward.

I also don't think Casey is that far away if we go hard at it. The benefit of Casey is that it can also sell memberships/merchandise/generate supporters.

If we recevies dollars as opposed to playing a game in Melbourne at a loss it remains an option.

If Casey would make money for us as against Docklands for a loss then it sould be looked at. But I think the window of opportunity is limited.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

In the '60s and '70s when the MFC was still part of the MCC, us football club members were the poor relations and got no benefits at all from the MCC.

If it happens, there must be some benefits for MFC members and even MFC supporters.

How about a financially stable well resourced club that can compete with the major clubs on and off the field? And some better fixtured games at the MCG???

There is more in it for the MFC and its members and supporters than the MCC and its members. Only 25% of MCC members claim to support MFC. The other 75% would be lookwarm about bringing MFC into the fold if it involve special financial compensation/ funding.

[45HG 1,539]

Perhaps, but I see absolutely no growth potential in Canberra, and don't recall 3 games being touted by the AFL - only by the MFC as a potential revenue raiser.

Given the current financial situation, do you really think Canberra would shell out 1.2 mill to have Melbourne play in front of a crowd of about 1000?

I mentioned the Brisbane set up in response to such a move to Canberra making us "financially stable." The same move before has not made us financially stable in the past and there's no reason to think it will in the future. Obviously it stems the bleeding, but it doesn't make any great strides moving forward.

The Hawthorn model worked because there was room for growth and a ridiculously high amount of money being floated round which would not be available to us if we played in Canberra

[AlphaDee 17]

There is more in it for the MFC and its members and supporters than the MCC and its members. Only 25% of MCC members claim to support MFC. The other 75% would be lookwarm about bringing MFC into the fold if it involve special financial compensation/ funding.

Hey Rhino,

You always contradict everybody else's posts so I couldn't resist the temptation to have a go at your spelling - "lookwarm" is what MCC members like to do when it is cold.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

I'm surprised about that because I can't recall this issue being raised in the media during Gardner's term in office. I suppose if it was, then his board will deserve some of the credit if and when it comes to pass.

However, even with no official word from the MCC, the fact that it's being discussed in an open forum at an official club meeting must be some evidence that it's getting closer.

Hmmm that's odd. I seem to recall hearing that it was something that Gardner was looking into. Maybe it was just a rumour that I read on here. I'm pretty sure the "boutique stadium" thing at least was a proposed MFC/MCC collaboration deal. Still, I thought that there was more to it than that i.e. talks about incorporation. Maybe this quote form 29th March 2008 was where I got the idea from: "The Club and the AFL – in conjunction with the MCC – are collaborating on a new 5 year strategic plan for the Club, replacing the last plan which was comprehensively overhauled in 2004." Doesn't really sound too convincing now that I read it though.

Oh well, either way it's great that Stynes seems to be pursuing it like you say. Still, don't want to count chickens and all that. I'm not really convinced by the public talking thing - not sure it's wise to discuss it if the MCC still haven't committed, but if they're about to, then great.

If you'd bothered to go to the AGM you would have found that Board members and staff were quite approachable for a chat after the conclusion. You could have asked any question you want.

Hannabal, I'm sure the staff were all very approachable but no matter how friendly they are, that isn't really evidence that things are moving on this front (unless you have som information to share with us?) Like Rhino points out, it would be great to hear something encouraging from the MCC end. So far I get the distinct impression that they are keeping us at arms length.

And whist I've got you here, I'd like to point out that I have already said that I would have liked to have attended the AGM but that I was unable to for reasons which are none of your business. Whilst you were funny to begin with I am beginning to find you sniping tiresome. I don't know why, I guess you just seem to have lost the verve that intially made you pettiness so amusing. If you continue to hijack these threads to spout off your crazy conspiracy theories and make personal attacks against me then I will be forced to report you to a moderator for irrelevance. Your personal attacks and spelling/grammar policing are clear indications that you have nothing of value to contribute anyway. (They are also indications that you have comprehensively lost an argument).

Cheers

[Deeoldfart 7,858]

I'd rather play sold games in Casey.

If Canberra is desperate for footy, a large percentage is only desperate for the Swans. I'd rather play games in our own neighbourhood, I want Casey to be Demon territory - our home town

Couldn't agree more '45, and I live in Canberra!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Perhaps, but I see absolutely no growth potential in Canberra, and don't recall 3 games being touted by the AFL - only by the MFC as a potential revenue raiser.

Given the current financial situation, do you really think Canberra would shell out 1.2 mill to have Melbourne play in front of a crowd of about 1000?

I mentioned the Brisbane set up in response to such a move to Canberra making us "financially stable." The same move before has not made us financially stable in the past and there's no reason to think it will in the future. Obviously it stems the bleeding, but it doesn't make any great strides moving forward.

The Hawthorn model worked because there was room for growth and a ridiculously high amount of money being floated round which would not be available to us if we played in Canberra

You have got it all wrong.

Canberra games are all about getting guaranteed money for a game which we would actually lose on if we played in Melbourne. Its got no growth potential for MFC. There is no matter of us moving or relocating to Canberra. North have proven you cant hold an AFL team there. It allows the AFL to keep up an appearance.

We need to capture revenue now to cover our expenses now. How do you plug the operating losses we run each year. We run a football administration group half the size of the WCE!!!! We have had second rate facilities at Junction oval.

The Hawthorn model only works for the ridiculous money provided by the Tassie GOvernment. What are the Hawks going to do when the contract expires? The economy is in deep recession and Tassie will feel it worse than most.

So what are the options for us to get revenue? Nearly everyone who [censored] about selling games has no other option to bridge the funding gap we have. I hate selling games but I know why we have to do regrettably do it.

By all means MFC should investigate a Casey AFL game as an option. He may be a revenue positive prospect. But its not necessarily a lay down pot of gold. And any flow onto to signficant additional MFC support in the region is a generation away.

Hey Rhino,

You always contradict everybody else's posts so I couldn't resist the temptation to have a go at your spelling - "lookwarm" is what MCC members like to do when it is cold.

Sorry I got sidetracked by a vision of MCC members at the games with their thermos of coffee and the red and blue tweed scarves on!!!

[45HG 1,539]

i don't really see how you're arguing against me. I understand why the hawthorn model works, it's basically the first thing i said.

I said the brisbane games have not made us financially stable, which you refuted by saying we'd lose money if they were played at the g. This is true, but does not counter the fact it will not help us long term.

I am saying, as i said in my original post, that i'd rather us sell games to casey. You've only said that won't happen because of the gfc, but do you really believe that if this is true, that we would still be given over 1million dollars to play games in a low interest area?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

i don't really see how you're arguing against me. I understand why the hawthorn model works, it's basically the first thing i said.

I said the brisbane games have not made us financially stable, which you refuted by saying we'd lose money if they were played at the g. This is true, but does not counter the fact it will not help us long term.

I am saying, as i said in my original post, that i'd rather us sell games to casey. You've only said that won't happen because of the gfc, but do you really believe that if this is true, that we would still be given over 1million dollars to play games in a low interest area?

The solutions to our numerous LT issues were never going to be solved by selling games. My comment about GFC (the global variety) was to emphasise that Hawks so called model is based on a Tassie grant for a couple of years which is not sustainable beyond its current term. It has nothing to do with the long term. It was short term fix to plug holes in the deficit we have were our expenses on our meagre admin and football operations is greater than the revenue.

Now if we did not get the money from the Brisbane game our loss would only have been bigger and our position more seriously untenable than it is now (if that is possible).

The issue about having AFL games at Casey is as follows:

1. MFC must be sure as they can be that it will bring enough net revenue for the AFL to approve such a plan.

2. The AFL would have to approve having games at venues in Melbourne other than MCG and Docklands.

3. If the AFL are keen to maintain a couple of representative games in Canberra to push the AFL code in general and were prepared to offer say $300,000 to MFC to play there, MFC would have to come up with a good case why the AFL should prefer Casey at the expense of pushing its expansion of interest in AFL outside Victoria.

ATM, the AFL is guaranteeing MFC debt and also picking up the shortfall annually on our operations. If the AFL are going to give us "game sell" money then they are going to seek some return out of it.

The challenge will be for MFC to sell Casey as some unexplored pot of gold for the AFL to develop. And given the AFL's stated objectives, selling Casey as that to the AFL will be harder than attracting a sponsor.

[45HG 1,539]

I would like to ask again though, do you think we would be given 400,000 per game for 3 games in Canberra?

I understand exactly what you mean, and do agree largely in that selling games has provided us with one of the few guaranteed funds that we receive each year.

Just wondering with your first point about generating enough net revenue, if the game was played at the G and attracts 15,000, is it a negative for the AFL (=them being very annoyed) or is it solely a point for the club in question to wear?

I wonder because if we could make a profit from 15,000 at Casey, it would be a better thing than losing money at the G obviously, and I believe we would make greater money in the long term through the growth of memberships.

Unfortunately, being cash strapped means you have to live in the short term, but ideally I'd like to see us make less than 300,000 per game to play at Casey in order to grow the club in a huge growth area

[Swampfox 190]

playing games where we profit versus where we dont is a no brainer

one of our problems is we dont get enough people at our games and havent for decades

people want to watch a real competive game of football every week

MFC have been dismal except a few purple patches since the 50,s and early 60,s

we have had a handful of good players , even 2 or 3 class acts yet only one elite player since those days

We need someone that people will go and watch

I really hope we have one at the club now

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I would like to ask again though, do you think we would be given 400,000 per game for 3 games in Canberra?

If we were offered significant money for interstate games we should seriously consider it in our financial state. Whether it is 200K,300K or 400K?

Just wondering with your first point about generating enough net revenue, if the game was played at the G and attracts 15,000, is it a negative for the AFL (=them being very annoyed) or is it solely a point for the club in question to wear?

The issue is if we cant draw enough at the MCG, our alleged home, then, the AFL will be further wondering what we stand for and who we represent. If it werent for the fact the AFL have contracted to provide 16 teams in 8 games of H&A in the TV rights we would be greater uncertainty. Its not a matter of the AFL being very annoyed. They have already formed a negative view of the Club which has resulted in poor fixturing.

I wonder because if we could make a profit from 15,000 at Casey, it would be a better thing than losing money at the G obviously, and I believe we would make greater money in the long term through the growth of memberships.

15,000 people at Casey would return you a very small profit if at all. The underlying problem if it is 15,000 then again the AFL concerns are vindicated. Beyond your beliefs, the potential for Casey is uncertain and the pay off a long term issue if at all.

I would rather sacrifice a Docklands home game than sacrifice a home game at the MCG. We will look like prize hypocrites citing our likes with the MCC/MCG on one hand and turn our back on it to play games.

Unfortunately, being cash strapped means you have to live in the short term, but ideally I'd like to see us make less than 300,000 per game to play at Casey in order to grow the club in a huge growth area

There is no certainty of either outcome through Casey. I am all for using Casey as a professional traning base but as a future playing venue, the AFL know the Casey deal is slim on the upside and greatly uncertain in the longer term.

I am not sure the AFL would get that excited about another AFL venue in Melbourne if it is only housing 15,000 and that number is uncertain given the fickleness of MFC supporters.

[45HG 1,539]

Do you think Canberra would give us $600,000 to play 3 games there?

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

Do you think Canberra would give us $600,000 to play 3 games there?

we would ask for 300 to 400,000 a game, were not going to do it for nothing, 600 for three games is laughable, good to see you changed your photo.

[45HG 1,539]

This is my point. I can't see them throwing too much at a team to play there when, as you yourself pointed out RR, there is no real stronghold an away team can grab up there.

Yeah, he's much more beautiul than Vlad

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Do you think Canberra would give us $600,000 to play 3 games there?

Its got nothig to do with Canberra....its the AFL.

Given the GFC, there is no easy handouts coming from Canberra to play AFL football.

This is my point. I can't see them throwing too much at a team to play there when, as you yourself pointed out RR, there is no real stronghold an away team can grab up there.

Yeah, he's much more beautiul than Vlad

So what is the option to playing a loss game at Docklands?

And BTW, its not about basing a team there its about increasing general interest in AFL that translates into TV ratings.

And if its Casey, how would you convince the AFL its a better bet for them than increasing exposure outside the state?

[45HG 1,539]

we don't play home games at td this year nor last year, so that's not part of the equation.

Whether it's canberra or the afl is irrelevant, do you think we would be given a significant amount of money to play there?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

we don't play home games at td this year nor last year, so that's not part of the equation.

Play a loss game at MCG then.

Whether it's canberra or the afl is irrelevant, do you think we would be given a significant amount of money to play there?

Havent I already answered this one?

If we were offered significant money for interstate games we should seriously consider it in our financial state. Whether it is 200K,300K or 400K?

Its a rock and hard place. Play at MCG at a loss or Canberra for AFL dollars.

BTW, it is relevant who the provider of cash is. We would be hard up to put to go for special assistance if we knock back Canberra.

[Rogue 585]

Surely we could also push for the top level to be closed against Interstate sides

Indeed - I can't understand why this isn't the case already.

IIRC Gough mentioned this when talking about the Freo game last year, but I don't think anything came of it.

[Alf Stewart 73]

If it happens (and it's already been pointed out that it's not near to being set in stone) it would make us part of an organisation worth in excess of $200m rather than being an outfit that's worth in excess of a negative figure of $2m. With due respect to the great RDB, we would still have to worry about the business side of things but we'd certainly have a fair sized cushion of comfort.

However, there might be some pitfalls to consider as well. Once you become a section of the MCC, you lose a measure of your independence. Questions therefore need to be asked about the cost and effect of that and whether it's worth selling your soul to achieve such an outcome.

This is not to say I'm against the idea. Just playing devil's advocate.

I would rather follow an MFC with a tight budget and financial secrity, than no club at all. Beggars cant be chooses....

[45HG 1,539]

Haha I got very confused reading your post RR. Identity crisis!

So you do believe there would be significant AFL dollars for us to play there? I'd have thought with the game trying to spread into GC and *cough*West Sydney *cough* the AFL wouldn't be willing to pay us to play three games at Canberra, they just want a Sydney "away game there" I think.

Yeah I didn't mean it was irrelevant who provides, silly choice of words. Is part of the assistance we receive from the AFL dependant on us playing a game in Canberra? That would make sense I suppose.

I maintain hope that in years to come we can play games in Casey against interstate teams, after all Casey/GC only hold 10,000 or so, so 15,000 isn't too bad. That's just what I would like to see happen, and I'd say no to selling three home games a year to Canberra. I think it sells our brand even shorter with no longterm positives, aside from plugging holes as the GABBA deal did.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Haha I got very confused reading your post RR. Identity crisis!

So you do believe there would be significant AFL dollars for us to play there? I'd have thought with the game trying to spread into GC and *cough*West Sydney *cough* the AFL wouldn't be willing to pay us to play three games at Canberra, they just want a Sydney "away game there" I think.

Yeah I didn't mean it was irrelevant who provides, silly choice of words. Is part of the assistance we receive from the AFL dependant on us playing a game in Canberra? That would make sense I suppose.

I maintain hope that in years to come we can play games in Casey against interstate teams, after all Casey/GC only hold 10,000 or so, so 15,000 isn't too bad. That's just what I would like to see happen, and I'd say no to selling three home games a year to Canberra. I think it sells our brand even shorter with no longterm positives, aside from plugging holes as the GABBA deal did.

I dont know how much the AFL would offer us to do a home game or two in the ACT.

The AFL is keen on expanding in NSW and Qld. Its not just about geographically where you play games. Its about translating interest into TV ratings by which TV rights contracts are priced.

There are a number of hurdles that MFC would overcome for the AFL to buy into the third AFL stadium. We would have to financially strong on a sustainable basis to saying No to selling home games.