Ok, a few things:

- the club is not getting all its money from fundraising, just a portion of it.

- all clubs fundraise

- the marketing dept cannot be blamed for sending out these while we have been shite

- the reason we want to pay 100% now is because we would like to give Jack Trengove an extra $100k now so that we can spend that $100k in 2014 to lure an out-and-out gun during FA, or keep Watts after he plays a blinding 2013. It's called being proactive in your payments - it's very clever.

- we will see how Cam Schwab is doing with other revenue streams, hopefully, shortly

I think your constructive point is full of merit..we all have been generous.. but Schwab and his luitenants have been doing what... loosing our two main sponsors , upsetting our main or a major money man..upsetting our football department.. maybe they- for the free China trip-just maybe they should donate 5% of their salaries..it surely is up to them to plan, organise and direct the income and expenses of the club.. they have had years to get it together.. What are they doing??

I feel they need a rocket up them..it is becoming a joke asking for money all the time..

Interesting comment. The china trip was actually payed by the players. Accomodation and flights...

I think the club are milking every dollars value. But i do agree enough is enough asking for donations.

Interesting comment. The china trip was actually payed by the players. Accomodation and flights...

I think the club are milking every dollars value. But i do agree enough is enough asking for donations.

I think the AFL may also have tipped some coin in for promoting the game in China

Can someone enlighten me.

I don't understand why we would pay the full 100%?

I can understand retaining our young players is vital, but if, for example we pay player x this year $200k, won't that mean in 2 years time when he wants to re-sign with us that he'll want a pay rise, and if we are already paying 100% how can we do it.....

Had a quick glance through the posts on this thread and couldn't see any reference.....apologies in advance if i missed it guys.

Excerpt from The Age , yesterday August 16th 2011....

THE economics of AFL clubs will change forever and dramatically following the AFL's commitment to force clubs to pay 100 per cent of money owed to footballers under the annual salary cap payments, this year set at $8.21m per club. AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou told The Australian yesterday that the league supported wholeheartedly a demand by the players' union, the AFLPA, that clubs be stopped from economising on payments to players so they could fund other football initiatives or pay off debt.

The initiative is expected to be enshrined in the new collective bargaining agreement between the AFL and the players' union beginning next year.....

100% player payment article

Had a quick glance through the posts on this thread and couldn't see any reference.....apologies in advance if i missed it guys.

Excerpt from The Age , yesterday August 16th 2011....

THE economics of AFL clubs will change forever and dramatically following the AFL's commitment to force clubs to pay 100 per cent of money owed to footballers under the annual salary cap payments, this year set at $8.21m per club. AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou told The Australian yesterday that the league supported wholeheartedly a demand by the players' union, the AFLPA, that clubs be stopped from economising on payments to players so they could fund other football initiatives or pay off debt.

The initiative is expected to be enshrined in the new collective bargaining agreement between the AFL and the players' union beginning next year.....

100% player payment article

I disagree so vehemently in paying 100% of the cap - in fact I disagree with it being bottom end limited to 92.5%. Players should be paid what they are worth or at least where the negotiated salary has settled. If it adds up to 50% or 75% or 100% of the cap then so be it. But if Collingwood pay their troops $8.21M and we have to do the same then we are seriously oerpaying some of our cattle.

- the marketing dept cannot be blamed for sending out these while we have been shite

Would it have hurt to wait a week or two?

Would it have hurt to wait a week or two?

Until when?

We get beaten by the Tigers?

Will that be a better time?

I know the impulse, Rogue, but at some point you have to say 'screw it, we cannot change the form of the 22 losers out on the field - let's just do our jobs.'

I disagree so vehemently in paying 100% of the cap - in fact I disagree with it being bottom end limited to 92.5%. Players should be paid what they are worth or at least where the negotiated salary has settled. If it adds up to 50% or 75% or 100% of the cap then so be it. But if Collingwood pay their troops $8.21M and we have to do the same then we are seriously oerpaying some of our cattle.

It is just warming up free agency, forcing clubs to spend all their cap, if their current players dont deserve it lure a star from another to strengthen your team because you have to spend 7.5% more than before

Would it have hurt to wait a week or two?

There's only 3 games left. Of which the first two are home games.

Would it have hurt to wait a week or two?

I think it's perfect timing - get the idea out there right before we are due a string of wins, mainly at home.

Until when?

We get beaten by the Tigers?

Will that be a better time?

I know the impulse, Rogue, but at some point you have to say 'screw it, we cannot change the form of the 22 losers out on the field - let's just do our jobs.'

When? When you're coming off the back of games versus teams you've already beaten earlier in the year, rather than top 4/5

Here are my two premises.

First, that the on-field environment matters; that this campaign is likely to be received better if the team is doing better.

I'm not sure this is a controversial point, but here's a MFC example. Lapsed members responded more positively to calls regarding membership renewal after decent performances, rather than after bad losses.

Second, that we're more likely to have better performances versus teams we're around or above on the ladder and have beaten earlier in the year.

Again, I'm not sure this is a particularly controversial point either. We've been pretty consistent in smashing some teams down the bottom, getting smashed by teams up the top, and putting in average performances against teams around our level.

I'm not suggesting it's guaranteed that we'll have a decent performance versus teams we've already beaten, but I certainly think it's more likely. Even announcing it later in this week, closer to the Richmond game, would have been better IMO.

Does the utility gained by having announced the plan a little earlier really outweigh the fact it was put out there at a time when fans are ranting that players aren't putting in 100%? I can't see that it does, but perhaps that's why I'm not running marketing at the Club

When? When you're coming off the back of games versus teams you've already beaten earlier in the year, rather than top 4/5

Here are my two premises.

First, that the on-field environment matters; that this campaign is likely to be received better if the team is doing better.

I'm not sure this is a controversial point, but here's a MFC example. Lapsed members responded more positively to calls regarding membership renewal after decent performances, rather than after bad losses.

Second, that we're more likely to have better performances versus teams we're around or above on the ladder and have beaten earlier in the year.

Again, I'm not sure this is a particularly controversial point either. We've been pretty consistent in smashing some teams down the bottom, getting smashed by teams up the top, and putting in average performances against teams around our level.

I'm not suggesting it's guaranteed that we'll have a decent performance versus teams we've already beaten, but I certainly think it's more likely. Even announcing it later in this week, closer to the Richmond game, would have been better IMO.

Does the utility gained by having announced the plan a little earlier really outweigh the fact it was put out there at a time when fans are ranting that players aren't putting in 100%? I can't see that it does, but perhaps that's why I'm not running marketing at the Club

I get the impulse to hold off, but as I said - the marketing dept can't have its diary run by the onfield results of the team.

Especially this team...

Have bit my tongue on this....but it hurts so i willstop.

It does bemuse me somewhat that the club is putting it on us as members to support the notion that we're to supplement the coffers to ensure some of these guys are secured.

Maybe when 100% of the team put in 100% of efforts to claim their 100% of their wages that this might fly a little better.

Quite frankly its a bit much in some respects.Is this club ever going to have an effective business model by which it , as opposed to us, will pay its way and that of its employees ?

Club make more money etc etc etc

They thought we'd all ( MFC members and supporters ) had all been touched up sufficiently by now.

Anyone would think this is some sort of perpetual charity.

Maybe some of the players who're only running on 75-80-90 % might refund the monies not earnt. That'd pay for all of this !!

Sorry Jim...not impressed

Have bit my tongue on this....but it hurts so i willstop.

It does bemuse me somewhat that the club is putting it on us as members to support the notion that we're to supplement the coffers to ensure some of these guys are secured.

Maybe when 100% of the team put in 100% of efforts to claim their 100% of their wages that this might fly a little better.

Quite frankly its a bit much in some respects.Is this club ever going to have an effective business model by which it , as opposed to us, will pay its way and that of its employees ?

Club make more money etc etc etc

They thought we'd all ( MFC members and supporters ) had all been touched up sufficiently by now.

Anyone would think this is some sort of perpetual charity.

Maybe some of the players who're only running on 75-80-90 % might refund the monies not earnt. That'd pay for all of this !!

Sorry Jim...not impressed

Would you rather stay at 92.5% and potentially be more at risk of losing players we want to keep ? (Form and effort aside) Or go back into debt ?

I understand about your point on the effective business model. But doing this now whilst "plans" or "foundations" are in place from which to build this model, might make it blossom through very competitive footy under a new coach, meaning more suuport, corporate support, bigger sponsors, better crowds. It might make things more comfortable upon an assault or benefit on big signing or two.

Have bit my tongue on this....but it hurts so i willstop.

It does bemuse me somewhat that the club is putting it on us as members to support the notion that we're to supplement the coffers to ensure some of these guys are secured.

Maybe when 100% of the team put in 100% of efforts to claim their 100% of their wages that this might fly a little better.

Quite frankly its a bit much in some respects.Is this club ever going to have an effective business model by which it , as opposed to us, will pay its way and that of its employees ?

Club make more money etc etc etc

They thought we'd all ( MFC members and supporters ) had all been touched up sufficiently by now.

Anyone would think this is some sort of perpetual charity.

Maybe some of the players who're only running on 75-80-90 % might refund the monies not earnt. That'd pay for all of this !!

Sorry Jim...not impressed

Should they be paying us then?

Clubs fundraise.

If you don't want to give, you don't have to.

Should they be paying us then?

Clubs fundraise.

If you don't want to give, you don't have to.

as to the first .... I actually wonder ..lol

the second.. yes they do...but its the pretext !

the latter. In this instance I wont. I think its a bit rich. As to other solicitations and other events, they'll be judged on their merits also.

as to the first .... I actually wonder ..lol

the second.. yes they do...but its the pretext !

the latter. In this instance I wont. I think its a bit rich. As to other solicitations and other events, they'll be judged on their merits also.

All understandable views.

But there will be people still willing, and I say...

Take their money, Dees.

Spend it wisely.

I'm I the only one who didnt like the letter? Bad timing for one. We have been disgusting the last three weeks. Secondly he mentions how he has fought for our future and apart from mentioning the foundation heroes has failed to realise that it was the members and supporters who wiped the debt, not an astute business model. Thirdly he reckons that we are only playing the players 92.5% of the salary cap. Considering that the side consists of no current elite players I find it hard to comprehend how paying 100% of the salary cap is beneficial. It would be good to keep Scully but if we lose him its not the end of the world, we will receive compensation. Geelong can fit their whole list within the salary cap, a list which has earned them two flags with sustained success. It has a stable administration which means that players want to remain at the club and have shown loyalty. Who could blame Scully for leaving? We are a basketcase. I know Jim is currently ill, so I am at pains to criticise him, but surely renewing Schwabs contract for another year is a potential waste of money. Garry Lyon is conducting an investigation which will more then likely show that Schwab has been incapable in which he must sacked, ironically the same verdict the board reached on the Friday before the Geelong massacre. The club spent 80,000 on the Andrew's report that was buried. Therefore before asking members for more money the club needs to show that the administration is in some way functioning. Also the on field performances needs to lift considerably. Why should people invest money in the club other then loyalty?

Just hand over some cash and move on. Without money will remain a basket case. The Schwab saga does feel like very poor management but hey what's new!

The amount of carrying on I've heard on here regarding a $100 is a joke. The club is trying to lift itself up to be a powerhouse again and we just sook.. No wonder our players are soft it's in our culture. It's time to harden up and make a difference

It's easy pay it or don't, don't be selfish enough to air your displeasure on it and discouraging others to donate. I say go for it you can. Importantly if you don't have a spare $100 don't. They aren't asking you to give your last pennies up. The club is trying it's hardest to raise money from as many different places they can. If you have a better idea email the club ([email protected]) or even better give them a call (03 9652 1111)

Edited August 17, 201113 yr by Clanger King

I partially agree with both sides.

However, my opinion is that with the foundation dinner 2 weeks ago raising nearly $800,000 it makes you think.

Someone would have donated some serious coin in the 5 to 6 figure region and how grateful we are they did. But if it was me who donated $100,000 and then two weeks later got a later saying please re-donate you'd start saying where is the line.

You either do a foundation dinner or you do 100%. We're not a junior footy club or a charity drive.

I get the impulse to hold off, but as I said - the marketing dept can't have its diary run by the onfield results of the team.

I disagree with the idea that the marketing department shouldn't take into accout the likely - note: not actual - on-field results of the team. Each to their own, though.

I'll tip in what I can, because I love the Club and desperately want to see them succeed. This has been a heart-breaking season for most Melbourne fans, and I guess its times like these that really test the strength of our loyalty ...... but it's also times like these that our Club needs our support more than ever. Sadly, it's unlikely that we will ever be a rich and powerful Club (a la Collingwood or Essendon) so I expect the Club will always be reliant on the good will and generosity of our passionate fans to some extent.