Whilst making a healthy profit on the land....

That would be great!

Although anywhere else we buy in the area will cost a bundle as well

The Few times i have been in there, apart from the room upstairs with the Game on the Big Screen, you can seriously count the number of patrons in there on 10 fingers.

Did you count your thumbs as fingers when doing this estimate, or did you have to defer to a mate for the last two?

Did you count your thumbs as fingers when doing this estimate, or did you have to defer to a mate for the last two?

Oh yes i am sorry, i forgot the imposable Thumbs..Well picked up!!! But i think you get my above message!!! B)

That would be great!

Although anywhere else we buy in the area will cost a bundle as well

East Bentleigh, Bentleigh, Caulfield, Elwood...any of these older suburbs do cost a bit, but they will keep or increase their value so i still consider it a solid asset. But yes we want a Business that has a turnover that we can grow.

I've only ever been there for AGMs when they used to be held there, and an hour after the meetings finished it was a bit like a ghost town in there. Zero atmosphere.

I've only ever been there for AGMs when they used to be held there, and an hour after the meetings finished it was a bit like a ghost town in there. Zero atmosphere.

It is a Goldmine in terms of Residential opportunities, so i can understand the reasons for keeping it for the time being.

That would be great!

Although anywhere else we buy in the area will cost a bundle as well

Worth noting that we don't neccesarily have to buy but if we did could do so over a long term and there may be favourable tax reasons to do it this way....cue for the accountants?

Regardless of the land ( which is a bonus in this proposal),.....we are taking on $1.8M of debt, with the 80 poker machines probably having a value of $3M alone.

Once the vote is through we could close the facility and bank the profit.

That is smart business.

Or we can keep TBC on drip feed ( which is what is proposed)...keep the Machines running and wait for a suitable venue to become available in the future.

THEN we sell and relocate. We have a new venue, devoid of all the failings of TBC with an income stream continuing.

That is smarter business. ( and all for $1.8M)

Regardless of the land ( which is a bonus in this proposal),.....we are taking on $1.8M of debt, with the 80 poker machines probably having a value of $3M alone.

Once the vote is through we could close the facility and bank the profit.

That is smart business.

Or we can keep TBC on drip feed ( which is what is proposed)...keep the Machines running and wait for a suitable venue to become available in the future.

THEN we sell and relocate. We have a new venue, devoid of all the failings of TBC with an income stream continuing.

That is smarter business. ( and all for $1.8M)

It is a win/win isn't it, i prefer your second point myself, but i am happy if we do not sell too quickly as Property developers will be lining up for it so it will be a sellers market.

Regardless of the land ( which is a bonus in this proposal),.....we are taking on $1.8M of debt, with the 80 poker machines probably having a value of $3M alone.

Once the vote is through we could close the facility and bank the profit.

That is smart business.

Or we can keep TBC on drip feed ( which is what is proposed)...keep the Machines running and wait for a suitable venue to become available in the future.

THEN we sell and relocate. We have a new venue, devoid of all the failings of TBC with an income stream continuing.

That is smarter business. ( and all for $1.8M)

Option 1 isn't an option in so far as simply profiting and running, read the deed

To sell up and relocate, they would need the BC members in particular categories (ie not those paid for by the MFC) to agree to the sale

The only other out is if Wilkie's bill gets through involving the regulatory change, then an 'independent' report stating that such a regulatory change was SOLELY responsible for $200,000 in losses would allow the MFC to bypass the BC member vote

Even then depending on when it happens we would have to donate a certain % to a charity, only after 6 years would the MFC get 100% of profit on the sale

So basically it's s complex agreement, not as simple as taking the assets and fully controlling them, BUT regardless it is a great move for a footy club which has a poor asset base

Edited May 3, 201114 yr by GoodTimesGrimes

The merger has now gone through.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/114755/default.aspx

Oh yes i am sorry, i forgot the imposable Thumbs..Well picked up!!! But i think you get my above message!!! B)

I would have thought that a thumb was still a finger; in the same way that a square is still a rectangle and a circle still an ellipse.

$4m of assets - by far the least in the AFL- was embarassing and put our long term existence at risk.

Step 1 was getting rid of debt

Step 2 is increasing asset position.

Assets increased by $9m, with the prospect of a profitable business and regular extra income from 2012 and beyond once the pokies laws come into effect.

Can't complain with that... got to take on some debt to make money and that debt , as was explained in the article, should be paid off purely by income produced from the asset.

On the AFL website:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/114771/default.aspx

Not knowing much,but the article indicates on paper we'll have a $6m asset to build on and that the debt will be serviced by the club on current turnover. Until some changes in 2012.

Looks a good long term investment.

I think you have to back the club in on a decision like this.

Having just eradicated the debt, they wouldn't have pursued this unless they were convinced it is the right move for the club.

Now it's officially part of the MFC, I might make the effort to spend a bit more time and money down there!

I think you have to back the club in on a decision like this.

Having just eradicated the debt, they wouldn't have pursued this unless they were convinced it is the right move for the club.

Now it's officially part of the MFC, I might make the effort to spend a bit more time and money down there!

A word of advice RD, don't spend your money on alcohol there as you may become an addict, don't spend it in the pokies/keno/TAB as you will be going straight to hell, especially after it costs you your family/house/job/etc. Don't drive your car there unless it's a hybrid. And lastly, don't eat the deep-fried food they serve in the bistro as it will lead to an obesity crisis.

Bloody hell, what did we do this for? The Club should be ashamed that they are budgeting on income from people doing the "wrong" thing.

A word of advice RD, don't spend your money on alcohol there as you may become an addict, don't spend it in the pokies/keno/TAB as you will be going straight to hell, especially after it costs you your family/house/job/etc. Don't drive your car there unless it's a hybrid. And lastly, don't eat the deep-fried food they serve in the bistro as it will lead to an obesity crisis.

Bloody hell, what did we do this for? The Club should be ashamed that they are budgeting on income from people doing the "wrong" thing.

Opinion noted.

good decision - well done Dees

Admin has performed wonderfuly well under Schwab

Now the job is for all supporters on this side of the yarra to get down to the Bentleigh Club and use it.

Let's get some funds running through the old girl.

good decision - well done Dees

Admin has performed wonderfuly well under Schwab

The Bentleigh proposal orginated in the Gutnick era and has been supported by subsequent administrations.

Can someone here tell me the difference between the Bentleigh Club and Leigh Oak in Oakleigh. Does the Club make any money from Leigh Oak or should we now take our hard earned down to Bentleigh.

The Bentleigh proposal orginated in the Gutnick era and has been supported by subsequent administrations.

Yet the article from the AFL states:

"The merger was originally proposed to members of the Bentleigh Club in July 2010, after discussions with its board."