MCC Committee Election

[george_on_the_outer 7,105]

We cannot (, and neither can any of the other tenants), train at the MCG, due to ground damage. As Old Dee said we have up to 3 games on the ground over 3 days. The surface cannot take another 3 days or so of football boots running over it.

If you go on an MCG tour you will see batteries of lights spread out over the ground during the week to keep the grass alive, so that it can cope with the current stresses.

In the finals some teams have been able to train on the ground. But only because there has not been the pressure from games played there in the previous week, or adverse weather conditions.

[tonatopia 278]

thanks for your explanation. Old dee, George and Daisy.

Now for question number 2 about the MCC.

For 90 years, the MCC administered and financially controlled the MFC. It yeilded 12 premierships. Since the seperation we have not won a premiership, become financially insecure, and generally struggled as on on-field and off-field entity.

Q. Is it possible that the MFC surrender their administration and finances to the MCC, so we can focus soley on the football department?

Is this desireable?

Is this possible?

Is this the last resort if all else fails?

Or is this the perfect union?

Edited August 2, 2012 by tonatopia

[H_T 2,941]

We cannot (, and neither can any of the other tenants), train at the MCG, due to ground damage. As Old Dee said we have up to 3 games on the ground over 3 days. The surface cannot take another 3 days or so of football boots running over it.

If you go on an MCG tour you will see batteries of lights spread out over the ground during the week to keep the grass alive, so that it can cope with the current stresses.

In the finals some teams have been able to train on the ground. But only because there has not been the pressure from games played there in the previous week, or adverse weather conditions.

'Kick on the G' after the Suns game this week.Plenty of traffic to contend with.

[Dee Dee 1,060]

thanks for your explanation. Old dee, George and Daisy.

Now for question number 2 about the MCC.

For 90 years, the MCC administered and financially controlled the MFC. It yeilded 12 premierships. Since the seperation we have not won a premiership, become financially insecure, and generally struggled as on on-field and off-field entity.

Q. Is it possible that the MFC surrender their administration and finances to the MCC, so we can focus soley on the football department?

Is this desireable?

Is this possible?

Is this the last resort if all else fails?

Or is this the perfect union?

The MCC supports a number of "Sporting sections", they include Tennis, Golf, Target Shooting, Baseball, Bowls, Hockey, Lacross, Squash, Royal Tennis and of course Cricket.

I believe each section is almost or possibly even fully self administered by its members with little help from the MCC itself.

The MFC gets some help from the MCC but the MFC must show that it is correctly administered to obtain ongoing support. (At least that's what I understand: if anyone has additional information please correct me). And I think that applies to each and every sporting section.

[tonatopia 278]

The MCC supports a number of "Sporting sections", they include Tennis, Golf, Target Shooting, Baseball, Bowls, Hockey, Lacross, Squash, Royal Tennis and of course Cricket.

I believe each section is almost or possibly even fully self administered by its members with little help from the MCC itself.

The MFC gets some help from the MCC but the MFC must show that it is correctly administered to obtain ongoing support. (At least that's what I understand: if anyone has additional information please correct me). And I think that applies to each and every sporting section.

Thanks Dee dee.

Do we have a breakdown on the proportion of MCC members who are MFC supporters?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,808]

thanks for your explanation. Old dee, George and Daisy.

Now for question number 2 about the MCC.

For 90 years, the MCC administered and financially controlled the MFC. It yeilded 12 premierships. Since the seperation we have not won a premiership, become financially insecure, and generally struggled as on on-field and off-field entity.

Q. Is it possible that the MFC surrender their administration and finances to the MCC, so we can focus soley on the football department?

Is this desireable?

Is this possible?

Is this the last resort if all else fails?

Or is this the perfect union?

The reason the split happened in the first place was because the MCC controlling our finances restricted our ability to function properly. When we needed to make decisions regarding spending, recruitment etc we would generally have to wait for the MCC to approve and this could take months meaning that we missed opportunities that other clubs were able to jump on straight away (particularly with regards to recruiting players before the days of the salary cap). This was before my time so others may have a better understanding but these are the reasons I thought the split occurred in the first place.

[tonatopia 278]

The reason the split happened in the first place was because the MCC controlling our finances restricted our ability to function properly. When we needed to make decisions regarding spending, recruitment etc we would generally have to wait for the MCC to approve and this could take months meaning that we missed opportunities that other clubs were able to jump on straight away (particularly with regards to recruiting players before the days of the salary cap). This was before my time so others may have a better understanding but these are the reasons I thought the split occurred in the first place.

Yes, good point Gonzo.

What if the MFC had a seasonal allocation provided by the MCC to look after the football department?

The MCC would use the MFC as a commercial arm to its operation as far as sponsorship. I am sure with their weight behind the MFC, they could make this club cash positive.

The MCC would administer all MFC memberships, incorporating dual MCC/MFC memberships and a fair wack of MCG gate reciepts.

Edited August 2, 2012 by tonatopia

[Guest José Mourinho]

It sounds to me like you're proposing to make things much more complicated and clunky than they are and need to be, by for some reason having the MCC administering things the club is already capable of doing itself, and I can't figure out what on earth the potential benefit would be for the club, nor the incentive for the MCC to take these responsibilities on.

It's consummately brainless.

[tonatopia 278]

Thanks for that Jose, I appreciate the support.

The administrative alliance between MFC and mcc lasted for 90 years, yielding 12 premierships. Since separation we have won 0 premiership and struggled financially, even nearly merging.

Don't you think that is interesting Jose?

I am finished with the insults, I just want to explore ideas that can make the MFC the most successful club in the land.

The first thing we must secure is our finances. I just think a financial alliance with the mcc will give us enormous long-lasting strength.

The second thing we should tackle is our core values so we don't ever lose games on purpose.

Change does not just happen by delisting bate, or getting a new coach, or creating a new emblem. True change is to create a philosophy and structure that can deliver sustained success for many many years.

I Would be delighted if someone could give me some constructive advice, for I see the mcc as our financial messiah.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,808]

I'm pretty sure you're not going to see us lose games on purpose any time soon. The 2009 farce was a once off, it's not an ingrained practice.

We had an alliance with the MCC for 90 years yielding 12 premierships. However other than 1939-1964 (when we won 10 of our 12 flags) our history is littered with failure, whether that is due to our relationship or not is up for debate but I think our alliance with the MCC is one of the things that keeps us from being a real & inclusive club. I will never be, and have no desire to be, an MCC member so where does that leave me if we become just an arm of the MCC? The MCC is an elitist "old boys club" that represents everything I hate and by the MFC aligning themselves solely with the MCC it will restrict the opportunity we have to grow and to relate to our membership base. I actually think aligning with the MCC is a step backwards but if all that comes of it is we get some extra cash out of them then no big deal.

[Sir Why You Little 35,321]

I'm pretty sure you're not going to see us lose games on purpose any time soon. The 2009 farce was a once off, it's not an ingrained practice.

We had an alliance with the MCC for 90 years yielding 12 premierships. However other than 1939-1964 (when we won 10 of our 12 flags) our history is littered with failure, whether that is due to our relationship or not is up for debate but I think our alliance with the MCC is one of the things that keeps us from being a real & inclusive club. I will never be, and have no desire to be, an MCC member so where does that leave me if we become just an arm of the MCC? The MCC is an elitist "old boys club" that represents everything I hate and by the MFC aligning themselves solely with the MCC it will restrict the opportunity we have to grow and to relate to our membership base. I actually think aligning with the MCC is a step backwards but if all that comes of it is we get some extra cash out of them then no big deal.

I love being an MCC Member. And i am a long haired 49 year old who never likes authority!! But the MCC is cool. The 'G is like a family member.

[ox_5 163]

Gonzo, love the passion, but one important question for you.

What do the MCC get out of your plan? I can't see the benefit to them, all I see is costs.

[tonatopia 278]

Gonzo, love the passion, but one important question for you.

What do the MCC get out of your plan? I can't see the benefit to them, all I see is costs.

Good point ox.

That's why it is important to have MFC supporters on the board of the mcc.

You would think the mcc would have a vested interest in keeping MFC alive and successful.

After all, in the 50's and 60's, Melbourne was the most powerful club in the land and generated enormous revenue for the mcc.human nature tends to suggest that if the mcc and MFC already a have close affinity, then the mcc would do all that it can to have it's home club and founder club be as successful as possible so once again we can pack out the g and make money for everyone.

Basically, I think it may be a challenge that they may find enticing and if done correctly, very profitable for them.

Afterall, they are getting the MFC for free.

Considering most mcc members are MFC supporters, you would think they would be open to the suggestion.

As for the MFC, us supporters and football purists can follow the game without having to worry about whether we are going to financially exist.

Remember, if it wasn't for generous supporters, we would be in dire straights.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,808]

Gonzo, love the passion, but one important question for you.

What do the MCC get out of your plan? I can't see the benefit to them, all I see is costs.

I was more stating what I felt was the current relationship - what do the MCC get out of it at the moment other than to let the 20% or so MFC supporting MCC members know that they are aligned with us?

[tonatopia 278]

I was more stating what I felt was the current relationship - what do the MCC get out of it at the moment other than to let the 20% or so MFC supporting MCC members know that they are aligned with us?

Really, only 20% of MCC members are MFC supporters.

Are you sure?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,808]

Really, only 20% of MCC members are MFC supporters.

Are you sure?

Yep there are approx. 102,500 MCC members with MFC supporters making up "over 20,000" so about 20%.

As at August 2011, there are 102,500 MCC members, which comprises 61,500 Full members and 41,000 Restricted members.

All aboard Generation D

More than 20,000 MCC members support the Melbourne Football Club, which remains the most popular AFL team among our membership.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Really, only 20% of MCC members are MFC supporters.

Are you sure?

Do you ever do any of your own research? Or do you expect others to spoon feed you?

[tonatopia 278]

Some people might just know.

Sorry Rhino, I am sorry I offended you.

I am not in the MCC and I dont know where to access the data.

Really, do you need to talk to people like that?

[tonatopia 278]

Yep there are approx. 102,500 MCC members with MFC supporters making up "over 20,000" so about 20%.

Thanks Gonzo.

Well, those figures suggest that the majority MCC members would not really want to help MFC, which is dissapointing.

[Sir Why You Little 35,321]

Thanks Gonzo.

Well, those figures suggest that the majority MCC members would not really want to help MFC, which is dissapointing.

Yes. It is up to the Football club to improve itself.

[John Crow Batty 8,375]

I wish there could be permanent and irrevocable split. We will always be Cinderella monstered by MCC ugly sisters.

Edited August 3, 2012 by america de cali

[Sir Why You Little 35,321]

I wish there could be permanent and irrevocable split. We will always be Cinderella monstered by MCC ugly sisters.

Must disagree there. One of the main reasons our debt was spiralling up till 2008 was because we had lost our roots. No home.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I am not in the MCC and I dont know where to access the data.

Google

[Miles from Nowhere 199]

I wish there could be permanent and irrevocable split. We will always be Cinderella monstered by MCC ugly sisters.

This is just wrong on so many levels. Suggest you consult Dick Seddon and see how well "permanent and irrevocable splits" work out. Remember there is no Jim Stynes to galvanise tin rattlers next time around.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Miles from Nowhere

[John Crow Batty 8,375]

Must disagree there. One of the main reasons our debt was spiralling up till 2008 was because we had lost our roots. No home.

Better to try and make it on our own than rely on the begging bowl