We can't forget that from 2013? we own 92 pokie machines outright. Which means (from memory) returns of $157,000 on each machine. Thats roughly over $14,000,000 that will be coming into the club per year.

In the past we were only making $2,000,000 per year on pokies when shared with Tatts & Tabcorp.

That $14,000,000 million doesnt include the 30% percent to the government and 30% to tatts / tabcorp? im assuming we still buy the writes off of Tab and tatts? tax will always be there

That $14,000,000 million doesnt include the 30% percent to the government and 30% to tatts / tabcorp? im assuming we still buy the writes off of Tab and tatts? tax will always be there

The State government removed the machines from Tatts/Tabcorp. They are now owned by private oragnisations such as pubs, clubs etc. Thats why Carlton now own over 230 machines, because of their mate Bruce Mathieson. We managed to buy 92 machines.

Tatts & tabcorp lose the Machines from 2013.

Edited November 26, 201014 yr by Dreamin' Demon

But of course you know everything about everything don't you Rhino....i almost forgot. B)

And you clearly dont.

Big is not always better, but to compete with these Giants & Beat them we still need the same resources within our club-and that means very Prudent Management.

We dont need to big but we need the same resources as the Giants. Gotcha. Good work.

We dont need to big but we need the same resources as the Giants. Gotcha. Good work.

You obviously do not understand Prudent Management RR. Suprising since you like to think you know everything.

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

Edited November 27, 201014 yr by why you little

Carlton and Hawthorn are set to make a mint from these pokie machines. I wish we had of bought more! Poor ol north didnt get any.

Carlton and Hawthorn are set to make a mint from these pokie machines. I wish we had of bought more! Poor ol north didnt get any.

Yes it was good we made a pro active decision. Will be just as interesting to see when they are sold. The value of pokies fluctuates so we do not want to hold them too long if they become a liability...Refresh my memory was it a 7-10 year deal with Mathieson?

You obviously do not understand Prudent Management RR. Suprising since you like to think you know everything.

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

Nothing like hiding behind a cliche when you dont understand the issue.

And thanks for the demonstrable examples you gave. They surely give substance to your argument.

Nothing like hiding behind a cliche when you dont understand the issue.

And thanks for the demonstrable examples you gave. They surely give substance to your argument.

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

Nothing wrong with that example RR, pity more people in the western economies don't use it.

The value (and turnover) of the poker machines may decline if Wilkie/Xenephon get their betting limit scheme legislated. Remember that much of the turnover/projit is from people with gambling problems, and placing a limit on what they can lose in a session will reduce turnover.

Even if this legislation never gets up, $14,000,000 is reduced by tax (30%) and costs of running the venues. It's good, but not a goldmine.

I would support something like a continuation of Debt Demolition to establish capital reserves for specific purposes, such as Equipment, premises/training facilities improvements, and even superannuation for players. If done, it should be based on regular, relatively small donations from fans to increase the sense of involvement and ownership.

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

Nothing wrong with that example RR, pity more people in the western economies don't use it.

Haha! You didnt give one. You have just made an unsuppported statement thats all. Apply it to the sporting context....if you can. B)

The value (and turnover) of the poker machines may decline if Wilkie/Xenephon get their betting limit scheme legislated. Remember that much of the turnover/projit is from people with gambling problems, and placing a limit on what they can lose in a session will reduce turnover.

Even if this legislation never gets up, $14,000,000 is reduced by tax (30%) and costs of running the venues. It's good, but not a goldmine.

I would support something like a continuation of Debt Demolition to establish capital reserves for specific purposes, such as Equipment, premises/training facilities improvements, and even superannuation for players. If done, it should be based on regular, relatively small donations from fans to increase the sense of involvement and ownership.

You are right that pokies are only source of revenue. Personally I hate the things but realise that Clubs must leech the public to survive.

The debt demolition was a great thing and it did a great job to eradicate debt and its related interest cost. MFC have the MFC Foundation if supporters want to continue to donate. Unless there is a Dick Pratt like MFC supporter then this is gratuitous small beer to the revenue line.

MFC has to build sustainable business models with growing revenue streams to compete into the future. Thats the challenge of the current administration.

Haha! You didnt give one. You have just made an unsuppported statement thats all. Apply it to the sporting context....if you can. B)

why? a Dollar is still a Dollar in sport. If it is used badly the club suffers just like in any Business.

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

That is a solid example of good business.

Next.....

why? a Dollar is still a Dollar in sport. If it is used badly the club suffers just like in any Business.

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

That is a solid example of good business.

Next.....

No "A small Cash flow with a good Profit margin can prosper." is not an example that substantiates your assertion.

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

They are both generalisation that address different things. Nice try to move the goal posts in the argument. Keep trying.

Big is not always better, but to compete with these Giants & Beat them we still need the same resources within our club-and that means very Prudent Management.

So how do achieve the same resources as the Giants with a "small Cash flow with a good Profit margin"? See if you can get beyond a label of "Prudent management". And a real life example to demonstrate your "many situations" claim would help too.

You are right that pokies are only source of revenue. Personally I hate the things but realise that Clubs must leech the public to survive.

The debt demolition was a great thing and it did a great job to eradicate debt and its related interest cost. MFC have the MFC Foundation if supporters want to continue to donate. Unless there is a Dick Pratt like MFC supporter then this is gratuitous small beer to the revenue line.

MFC has to build sustainable business models with growing revenue streams to compete into the future. Thats the challenge of the current administration.

Of The 14Million what is the nett return to the club?

I agree that the club needs to build new models. The two venues we run Bentleigh and Leighoak are disgracful. I have tried on a number of occasions to have dinners there with groups of Demon supporters only to be dissapointed

The facilities and experience are woefull. I would never go back!

Why doesnt the club run a venue near our home ground? Some where accessible for lunches. At the memoment my group who lunches regualarly give our money to other venues.

Somewhere to go after the foot ball or just to be with other demon supporters

No "A small Cash flow with a good Profit margin can prosper." is not an example that substantiates your assertion.

They are both generalisation that address different things. Nice try to move the goal posts in the argument. Keep trying.

So how do achieve the same resources as the Giants with a "small Cash flow with a good Profit margin"? See if you can get beyond a label of "Prudent management". And a real life example to demonstrate your "many situations" claim would help too.

I'm sure it's becuase the big revenue clubs have never thought about using their money wisely. We are much smarter than other clubs, they do not think about Prudent management.

I'm sure it's becuase the big revenue clubs have never thought about using their money wisely. We are much smarter than other clubs, they do not think about Prudent management.

That's an assumption. Not a fact.

No "A small Cash flow with a good Profit margin can prosper." is not an example that substantiates your assertion.

So how do achieve the same resources as the Giants with a "small Cash flow with a good Profit margin"? See if you can get beyond a label of "Prudent management". And a real life example to demonstrate your "many situations" claim would help too.

It's obvious from these words Rhino that you have never been involved in a small business that has actually made a profit as well as paid its staff. Let me tell you with careful management it is possible.

The Example you wish is the same in any situation....Do not spend more than you can make.

As the MFC membership and sponsorship increases the club can spend more, increasing Marketing and assets, I have no doubt this club will always be close to the bone, but we can still grow as long as we keep the cash flow moving.

Pity the kangaroos didn't go North though. The sporting Dollar in Victoria is getting tight. Bring on the Chinese. B)

That's an assumption. Not a fact.

It wasn't either, it was sarcasm.

It's obvious from these words Rhino that you have never been involved in a small business that has actually made a profit as well as paid its staff. Let me tell you with careful management it is possible.

The Example you wish is the same in any situation....Do not spend more than you can make.

As the MFC membership and sponsorship increases the club can spend more, increasing Marketing and assets, I have no doubt this club will always be close to the bone, but we can still grow as long as we keep the cash flow moving.

Pity the kangaroos didn't go North though. The sporting Dollar in Victoria is getting tight. Bring on the Chinese. B)

I think RR asked for you to give a real life example to demonstrate your "many situations" claim, WYL.

I think RR asked for you to give a real life example to demonstrate your "many situations" claim, WYL.

sure i ran a small business selling Vinyl Music for 3 years, paid 3 staff and all the bills. Only reason i wound it up was because Amazon online would have got me-so i wound it up whilst in front. I think that basically tells the same as what i wrote above HT.

sure i ran a small business selling Vinyl Music for 3 years, paid 3 staff and all the bills. Only reason i wound it up was because Amazon online would have got me-so i wound it up whilst in front. I think that basically tells the same as what i wrote above HT.

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.

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.

That small business could not compete with the internet yes. So rather than go into ridiculous debt that was never going to recover i closed that chapter with a profit.

You cannot make money from music now-people download from youtube. Doesn't mean small business cannot survive, i just have to find another market.

Business is the same whatever the stock.

I Believe the MFC will always have to be ready to move with the markets, which is why i think we have entered the Chinese Borders.

sure i ran a small business selling Vinyl Music for 3 years, paid 3 staff and all the bills. Only reason i wound it up was because Amazon online would have got me-so i wound it up whilst in front. I think that basically tells the same as what i wrote above HT.

Doesn't look like it "prospered" which is what your initial claim was...doesn't substantiate your assertion.

Edited November 29, 201014 yr by High Tower
spell.

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?

Interesting analysis. Imagine he had created a "future fund" to buy him time to allow him to investigate alternative cash flows, without being burdened by crippling debt or the possibility of no further line of credit.

Doesn't look like it "prospered" which is what your initial claim was...doesn't substantiate your assertion either.

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.