Wrong my friend.

I still made a profit and i have an excellent credit rating, which means i can diversify later. If i had kept trading in what i was doing i was doomed. The web had killed my market. Better to leave when i did, otherwise i was going to be burdened for life with interest and debt, which too many people sadly go to the grave with.

No, you're wrong WYL. You stated "a small cash flow with a good profit margin can prosper" - you used a poor example of this. That's all. Despite your diversifying later.

It wasn't either, it was sarcasm.

Oops. We must get that sarcasm meter fixed.

It's obvious from these words Rhino ...

As usual you have gone off the track, missed the point and actually skewered yourself in the process. That's quite an achievement.

So what you are saying is that your small well run business had to close down because it would not be able to compete with the large resourced competitor? Great example.

Indeed.

Wrong my friend.

I still made a profit and i have an excellent credit rating, which means i can diversify later. If i had kept trading in what i was doing i was doomed. The web had killed my market. Better to leave when i did, otherwise i was going to be burdened for life with interest and debt, which too many people sadly go to the grave with.

Again moving the goalposts....WYL

You have made these claims

Big is not always better, but to compete with these Giants & Beat them we still need the same resources within our club[/b.

Using assets wisely can be more beneficial than a large Cash flow in many situations.

A small Cash flow with a good Profit margin can prosper.

That is a solid example of good business.

Your record store example flies in the face of those claims:

1. You could not compete with the Giants because you did not have the resources.

2. Having a small cashflow and a good profit margin cannot prosper in the LT.

I will admit that you are showing better prudent management of your record store than you do pitching a point of view.

No, you're wrong WYL. You stated "a small cash flow with a good profit margin can prosper" - you used a poor example of this. That's all. Despite your diversifying later.

My head is still above water HT so i think the example is ok. A club such as the MFC will have to diversify in tems of business far more than a club like collingwood over the next 5-10 years because we are small. We have to be ahead of the markets as much as possible. The good thing about the MFC's position now is that we do not have a huge interest bill to service. Which is the same as running 2 businesses just to stay at zero. (Running just to stand still).

The club is lucky on 2 fronts-We have the MCC alligned with us & the new stadium deals have been underwritten, both happened just when we needed them too-so we can plan for the future. But it does have to be careful planning.

I still believe in what Jimmy said the day the MCC allignment was signed April 1 2009-"This club can be the biggest club in Australia" But to do it, the MFC has to be bold & careful with its capitol, & we must start winning onfield.

I think WYL's point kinda stands because there is not new technology being introduced to the market, making the club's product / service obsolete, but in his case it was.

Again moving the goalposts....WYL

You have made these claims

Still have my credit rating intact RR & that is what counts. Credit rating is like a passport-without it you cannot move.

I got out of my business because it had run its course-I am still in the game, i need to upgrade the vehicle.

which is exactly what the MFC has done over the past 3 years.

Moving the Goal posts as you call it, is actually survival RR-nothing wrong with that.

I think WYL's point kinda stands because there is not new technology being introduced to the market, making the club's product / service obsolete, but in his case it was.

Exactly 25, the principles of business do not change-the vehicles of business do change. And when they become obsolete you must change at the right time, otherwise you get stuck with an asset that is not worth a cent, actually it costs you money because the Bank still wish to get paid.

Still have my credit rating intact RR & that is what counts. Credit rating is like a passport-without it you cannot move.

I got out of my business because it had run its course-I am still in the game, i need to upgrade the vehicle.

which is exactly what the MFC has done over the past 3 years.

What exactly has MFC done in the last 3 years which mimics a sole proprieter closing down their business or "upgrading the vehicle"? Not looking to contend your pov WYL just not sure what you actually mean.

What exactly has MFC done in the last 3 years which mimics a sole proprieter closing down their business or "upgrading the vehicle"? Not looking to contend your pov WYL just not sure what you actually mean.

The interest rates were killing this club, each week the figures were getting bigger. The club had to completely start again in almost every way. The Biggest factor was the allignment back with the MCC as i see it. The club now has a backbone.

Exactly 25, the principles of business do not change-the vehicles of business do change. And when they become obsolete you must change at the right time, otherwise you get stuck with an asset that is not worth a cent, actually it costs you money because the Bank still wish to get paid.

By your own admission they have no relevance to claims you have made and I have quoted just before. I am not sure how you are trying to weave the issues of technology and obselescence into your claims in regard AFL.

So you still have not provide a viable example that applies to your claims in respect of between Collingwoods cashflow (the Giant) and MFC cashflow(the not so Giant).

Nothing new.

The interest rates were killing this club, each week the figures were getting bigger. The club had to completely start again in almost every way. The Biggest factor was the allignment back with the MCC as i see it. The club now has a backbone.

Its still the same business that got gratuitous funding from generous supporters.

The alignment with the MCC provides about $500,000 year plus some distribution benefits of membership flyers. However its small beer in the scheme of things.

MFC has not closed down or changed anything substantial. Its still a cash strapped club that struggles to turn a profit and is at financial risk of being able to compete in the future with the AFL Giants unless it builds a sustainable and profitable business.

I think WYL's point kinda stands because there is not new technology being introduced to the market, making the club's product / service obsolete, but in his case it was.

The product - Music - is still there, the delivery of it in the changing marketplace has changed, and WYL had to leave the marketplace because he could not to change with it due to the size of his capital. I'd say his point is 100% correct for the opposing argument.

The product - Music - is still there, the delivery of it in the changing marketplace has changed, and WYL had to leave the marketplace because he could not to change with it due to the size of his capital. I'd say his point is 100% correct for the opposing argument.

No. If i had stayed in my business and kept trying to make it work then you would be correct. I got out of that chapter at the right time. It's like selling shares at the right time-Gotta pick your moment & back yourself.

Its still the same business that got gratuitous funding from generous supporters.

The alignment with the MCC provides about $500,000 year plus some distribution benefits of membership flyers. However its small beer in the scheme of things.

MFC has not closed down or changed anything substantial. Its still a cash strapped club that struggles to turn a profit and is at financial risk of being able to compete in the future with the AFL Giants unless it builds a sustainable and profitable business.

I have never said the MFC is out of danger, not yet-But by God its in a hell of a lot better shape than it was in, in mid 2008.

Having zero debt is a massive step forward.

The product - Music - is still there, the delivery of it in the changing marketplace has changed, and WYL had to leave the marketplace because he could not to change with it due to the size of his capital. I'd say his point is 100% correct for the opposing argument.

I understand what you are saying, But there is a difference. People now get there music for free. The market is not there even if the music is.

When i was a kid the Music industry was Huge, now it is gone. Music is still there yes, but it is no longer a product.

When the first CD burners were sold to the Public that was the time i got out with my cash and credit rating intact, a lot of people didn't sadly.

I have never said the MFC is out of danger, not yet-But by God its in a hell of a lot better shape than it was in, in mid 2008.

Having zero debt is a massive step forward.

While I agree with your comments. This is not relevant to the substantiation of your statements before which I quoted.

You are trying to divert attention from addressing this by:

1. Reinforcing how sensible you were to get out the record business when you did. This may be so be its irrelevant to the claims you made about competing with Giants in the AFL.

2. Your comments above while true are also not relevant to addressing your claims before.

I understand what you are saying, But there is a difference. People now get there music for free. The market is not there even if the music is.

The music industry therefore is an inappropriate example of the claims you made about MFC. The AFL is the market here and it has not changed.

The introduction of the record company is a sideshow you introduced and have sought to perpetuate to draw attention away from making incorrect and unsubstantiated claims about AFL business.

The music industry therefore is an inappropriate example of the claims you made about MFC. The AFL is the market here and it has not changed.

The introduction of the record company is a sideshow you introduced and have sought to perpetuate to draw attention away from making incorrect and unsubstantiated claims about AFL business.

Aah, but you miss the point RR, by mid 2008 the MFC was out of the game. We were so close to Fitzroy, only our name gave us any credibility. I use the analogy of my small business to illustrate that you have to be sharp and nimble when you are a small business, a factor that the MFC of 2008 was not.

Jimma & the present board have re ignited life back into the old club like i have not ever seen before. We are still small but we will grow. Maybe never to the size of collingwood, but we can get close and still have a dam healthy profit margin in 5-10 years.

The analogy with my business is that i jumped at the right time, thankfully so i am still alive without debt. In time i can repaint and start again.

The secret to a small business (small AFL club) is not to get to greedy to quickly. That's what killed us in the 70's (Big Carl-$63,000 in 1973 i still remember the Sun front page). That was huge dollars. Our house was worth $15,000 back then!!

The interest rates were killing this club, each week the figures were getting bigger. The club had to completely start again in almost every way. The Biggest factor was the allignment back with the MCC as i see it. The club now has a backbone.

I see the semantics but that is about it.

wrt to business models though, which I think this debate has centred on, there isn't much of an analogy here IMO.

You made a sound decision as a sole proprieter to leave a particular market, in fact wind up a business, with (from what you suggest) minimal loss in realising your original capital.

MFC has certainly made some important strategic decisions with the MCC (MCG deals) and expanding in Casey and debt demolition was crucial towards us being a going concern but it hasn't really (from a business model pov) emulated your sole proprietor example IMO. I think to a large degree our full business model remains to be seen from a public pov, ie how we'll go about expanding our asset base (both monetary and physical).

The music industry therefore is an inappropriate example of the claims you made about MFC. The AFL is the market here and it has not changed.

The introduction of the record company is a sideshow you introduced and have sought to perpetuate to draw attention away from making incorrect and unsubstantiated claims about AFL business.

The AFL market has changed incredibly in the last 30 year RR. Chook Raffles and donating coins on the Half time rug do not cut it anymore. Back in those days Footy clubs were run by ex footballers, you know that.

Now they are run like Business's. The Music industry is a great analogy because even though the Music still exists, the way it operates has Totally changed, in every way.

Same with Footy clubs-The only thing the same as 30 years ago is the game, once the siren goes. Everything else is unrecognizable.

I see the semantics but that is about it.

wrt to business models though, which I think this debate has centred on, there isn't much of an analogy here IMO.

You made a sound decision as a sole proprieter to leave a particular market, in fact wind up a business, with (from what you suggest) minimal loss in realising your original capital.

MFC has certainly made some important strategic decisions with the MCC (MCG deals) and expanding in Casey and debt demolition was crucial towards us being a going concern but it hasn't really (from a business model pov) emulated your sole proprietor example IMO. I think to a large degree our full business model remains to be seen from a public pov, ie how we'll go about expanding our asset base (both monetary and physical).

Correct, the MFC is now starting a new journey. Where it will end up is yet to unfold-But killing off those interest payments is the best thing we could have done.

The MFC can now "spend Money to Make money" as long as it is careful (prudent).

The club hasn't been able to do that in years...we have been drowning in debt. Now the club can plan & grow.

The analogy with my small business was just to illustrate that you can survive small if you are willing to jump when needed rather than fight the Quicksand, which is what the MFC pretty much did for 30 years-That's not too say that many people did a magnificent job, but once in debt to a certain level, you cannot win-The Bank kills you.

The analogy with my small business was just to illustrate that you can survive small if you are willing to jump when needed rather than fight the Quicksand, which is what the MFC pretty much did for 30 years

Yeah look, the semantics are becoming more abstract by the post but I'll concede you know what you mean.

Having said that, if you can survive small in AFL why is the club significantly focused on building its market in Casey, building its membership base, building its asset base and building its brand?

MFC had some confronting issues which threatened its position as an AFL club and as far as I can see faced them head on so I'm not sure about "jumped". Perhaps you could say we "jumped into action" but if that is the whole substance of your analogy then sheesh.

I'm really enjoying this discussion on Micro Economics

If I ever start up an University, I will know where to look for lecturers

Can I suggest we start a new thread on "Brain Surgery in the 21st Century"?

Edit: Sp

Edited November 29, 201014 yr by daisycutter

Yeah look, the semantics are becoming more abstract by the post but I'll concede you know what you mean.

Having said that, if you can survive small in AFL why is the club significantly focused on building its market in Casey, building its membership base, building its asset base and building its brand?

MFC had some confronting issues which threatened its position as an AFL club and as far as I can see faced them head on so I'm not sure about "jumped". Perhaps you could say we "jumped into action" but if that is the whole substance of your analogy then sheesh.

I am not suggesting we always stay small, My point is that we can survive small against the Giants and very slowly and carefully build. i doubt to the level of the Collingwoods, but you never know.

The 2008 MFC could never survive because the debt was taking our cash flow (and more) The Club had to swallow its pride & go to the members and to its original Parent and reconcile.

By clearing the Debt we can now start to grow. Before that we were Gone.

Aah, but you........ then!!

Its still irrelevant in regard to your earlier comments. And semantics to the point of stretching reality does not hide that you have no substance to support your earlier comments.

All the above is really fluff. The fact of the matter is that an AFL Club is not analogous to a small business and particularly not to the one you had. Its a nice story and well done but it is not relevant.

The AFL market has changed incredibly in the last 30 year RR. Chook Raffles and donating coins on the Half time rug do not cut it anymore. Back in those days Footy clubs were run by ex footballers, you know that.

Now they are run like Business's. The Music industry is a great analogy because even though the Music still exists, the way it operates has Totally changed, in every way.

Same with Footy clubs-The only thing the same as 30 years ago is the game, once the siren goes. Everything else is unrecognizable.

Your industry changed in the space of 2 years and small operators could not compete against bigger players. The change in the AFL over a generation (30 years) is different and irrelevant to the points you asserted earlier. Your comments were made about the here and now. And they have been run like businesses for the past 15 to 20 years (in many cases poorly). Its just that the money in the game has changed and the whole issue of the Giants and the not so Giants.

The music industry is not an analogy for AFL at all.

BTW, the last time I look Jim Stynes was Chairman at MFC. Andrew Demetriou was AFL Chairman. Benny Gale was Richmond CEO. Gary Pert was Collingwood CEO. Ex footballers are still very much alive in all areas of football administration off the ground.

Nice try but you keep digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Its still irrelevant in regard to your earlier comments. And semantics to the point of stretching reality does not hide that you have no substance to support your earlier comments.

All the above is really fluff. The fact of the matter is that an AFL Club is not analogous to a small business and particularly not to the one you had. Its a nice story and well done but it is not relevant.

Your industry changed in the space of 2 years and small operators could not compete against bigger players. The change in the AFL over a generation (30 years) is different and irrelevant to the points you asserted earlier. Your comments were made about the here and now. And they have been run like businesses for the past 15 to 20 years (in many cases poorly). Its just that the money in the game has changed and the whole issue of the Giants and the not so Giants.

The music industry is not an analogy for AFL at all.

BTW, the last time I look Jim Stynes was Chairman at MFC. Andrew Demetriou was AFL Chairman. Benny Gale was Richmond CEO. Gary Pert was Collingwood CEO. Ex footballers are still very much alive in all areas of football administration off the ground.

Nice try but you keep digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Whatever Rhino.....Your answers are always so predictable.

Do you think the MFC will survive in its own right going forward??