Extremely generous supporters contributed at least $6.2million...

Note that you made the correction.... but the two elements are mutually exclusive. And the first element is questionable but the second element is without doubt.

Dear Fan and other Axe-Grinders,

I'm sure the figures are available for all to see.

If you are a financial guru and want to fix something that aint broke then have a crack.

No point talking to us keyboard supporters on here about the board .

There is little support for toppling the current regime on here.

I am not against people speaking their mind at an AGM or even having a whinge about the Status Quo

but what is the point of whinging about something if you are not prepared to have a crack ?

Peter Costello made a career out of it but not a very brave one.

Like Paul Keating said,

"You have to have the ticker for it ,you have to be able to draw the sword".

Another Keating on Costello and other axe-grinders... "all tip and no iceberg".

Another Keating on Costello and other axe-grinders... "all tip and no iceberg".

"All sizzle and no sausage" is another beauty .

The sense of this will be missed by those bemused by smoke and mirrors.

The FH $700k is not something we can rely on every year and we need to keep pedalling one offs to squeeze a "profit"

As always you look at the elements of the profit figure not just the PR bottomline number.

We can always turn a profit if you have followed many of teh arguements Rhino,

We spent 1.5M more in the FD this year, the 700K helped but if you spend less we could post big numbers we dont we spend, take what we get and post 70K to look neat

Imagine how good our results would be if we could win say half the games of footy we play for a couple of years.

Great to see we're able to invest in the footy Dept and player dev.

It's a fantastic result to remain in the positives and have an increase of ~$1.6 mil spending in the footy department in relations to all the off field issues and the loss of a major sponsor. I would love to see what the club starts turning when they rise up the ladder and all the supporters in the wood work jump back on the band wagon and buy memberships.

WELL DONE MFC!

We can always turn a profit if you have followed many of teh arguements Rhino,

We spent 1.5M more in the FD this year, the 700K helped but if you spend less we could post big numbers we dont we spend, take what we get and post 70K to look neat

Thats not correct Jordie and you missed the point.

The revenue is a one off item (unless members have continual bottomless pockets - I doubt it). The expenditure is not a one off. Its what the Club needs to spend each and every year to barely compete in the AFL. And guess what the costs of running an AFL club are rising all time. The high jump bar to keep competitively afloat is rising. Where is the additional funds going to come from?

We are nowhere near the wealth or the financial strength of the rich clubs and despite the rose coloured glasses of some we are not that far ahead of some of the other clubs we think are borderline.

Our financial position is very exposed (more so than many other clubs) to contingent events (eg loss of a major sponsor). While we hopefully will improve on field next year, the impact of the poor past 5 years while many have bought a dream of success that failed to materialise may cause a drop off in members. I hope we dont have a slow start to the year.

No point turning ur nose up on fundraising. Many incredibly strong and influential organizations make money on these profits. In this ecomomic climate $700.000 is impressive.

It seems that the Kangaroos are following the MFC's model to raise money by trying to delete their debt. Without the same success. Fundraising is a legitimate resource the club is tapping into. REACH is an organization that lives off fundraising and government support. A model the MFC is exploiting. The Board is transfering their skills from the Stynes administration with their experiences through the REACH FOUNDATION.

Fundraising and Government (AFL) support is a legitimate resourse and the club are exploiting this to their full advantage. The TV rights dictate the survival of the club in the near future. Utilize this time to establish the bottom line for the future. Thus the massive expenditure to increase performance, future membership and game attendance.

If the club needed $700000 nextyear to survive, I'd suggest the club would raise 7 million given the resources within the member group.

Another #%#*^ profit!!!

I blame all of this on Schwab.

Never used to happen in the good old days.

Maybe we can afford to by a more secure vault now?? One that does not leak!

No point turning ur nose up on fundraising. Many incredibly strong and influential organizations make money on these profits. In this ecomomic climate $700.000 is impressive.

It seems that the Kangaroos are following the MFC's model to raise money by trying to delete their debt. Without the same success. Fundraising is a legitimate resource the club is tapping into. REACH is an organization that lives off fundraising and government support. A model the MFC is exploiting. The Board is transfering their skills from the Stynes administration with their experiences through the REACH FOUNDATION.

Fundraising and Government (AFL) support is a legitimate resourse and the club are exploiting this to their full advantage. The TV rights dictate the survival of the club in the near future. Utilize this time to establish the bottom line for the future. Thus the massive expenditure to increase performance, future membership and game attendance.

If the club needed $700000 nextyear to survive, I'd suggest the club would raise 7 million given the resources within the member group.

Which poster is dismissive of the fundraising? Surely no one on this thread.

Problem is we are not making money unless you consider the fundraising through members good will. Its interesting you believe we are operating on the REACH model. Does that mean we are a charity??

And FWIW, this is the second major tin rattle North have done. The first one was when they sought to sign up people's pets to swell their membership to complement the financial pledges made to show they were a LT arrangement for Melbourne. Well its was all one.

If the Club could raise $7million through the membership group...they should do it sooner rather than later. You cant go to the well too often.....

Rhino, Maybe you compliment urself and believe I was talking to you. My point being, is that fundraising is an integral part of business and can be sustained. Fundraising goes beyond the tin rattling, or pet membership (thinking I might sign up mydog next year, thanks for the heads up). Every club raises funds in their own way. It seems the club has been very strategic in it's form of raising funds tapping in to it's members, and sometimes it's staff. I still laugh at Brock McLean buying an expensive guitar to assist the cause.

To say or think it's un sustainable is just plain wrong. If it be a game day raffle, an auction of goods (donated by businesses) or a dinner targeting the rich members. It's all sustainable to some level. This is not a concept taken by our current administration or board, it's been happening for decades. Our current board just do it fantastically. As I stated, I believe it's skills taken from the success from the Reach Foundation. A youth welfare organization that has flourished in a very difficult economic period. In other words, disposable income is scarce in this day an age and people are very selective when buying goods or donating Money

Nice one Fan. If Gardner was still in charge we would already be in Tasmania.

I am stoked we actually have the head above water with the onfield results of the last 6 seasons.

MFC supporters will gladly open the wallet to celebrate once the wins roll.

Please let the record show that a> it was WYL that asked for Fan's opinion and b> it was WYL that brought up Gardner, not Fan.

Who has an axe to grind again?

Please let the record show that a> it was WYL that asked for Fan's opinion and b> it was WYL that brought up Gardner, not Fan.

Who has an axe to grind again?

No Axe to grind i merely asked the question..

The answer was as i expected, rather dismissive of the current boards work.

No we are not a Rich club (yet)....but we are doing a lot better than quite a few...

The hard work continues.

Rhino, Maybe you compliment urself and believe I was talking to you. My point being, is that fundraising is an integral part of business and can be sustained. Fundraising goes beyond the tin rattling, or pet membership (thinking I might sign up mydog next year, thanks for the heads up). Every club raises funds in their own way. It seems the club has been very strategic in it's form of raising funds tapping in to it's members, and sometimes it's staff. I still laugh at Brock McLean buying an expensive guitar to assist the cause.

To say or think it's un sustainable is just plain wrong. If it be a game day raffle, an auction of goods (donated by businesses) or a dinner targeting the rich members. It's all sustainable to some level. This is not a concept taken by our current administration or board, it's been happening for decades. Our current board just do it fantastically. As I stated, I believe it's skills taken from the success from the Reach Foundation. A youth welfare organization that has flourished in a very difficult economic period. In other words, disposable income is scarce in this day an age and people are very selective when buying goods or donating Money

You cant seperate chook raffles from large strategic efforts to reduce debt/create a heroes club.

The fact that we have had to rely on at least $6.2 million from members to create a slither of profit in an environment where costs are rising is indeed unsustainable.

And you completely missing the point by using REACH. REACH is a charity.. MFC is a sporting brand/organisation that has to compete against better resourced and far more financial clubs. We arent and cant at the moment and we certainly wont unless we diversify our income stream away from a reliance on the generousity of members.

Whilst it's correct to say that a profit figure in one particular year can easily be manipulated by accounting trickery, I think it's also folly to come to any conclusions about the club's financial security based on this set of results alone. Although I'm not an accountant, I would have thought that this could better be assessed by looking at its balance sheet which I understand will be released shortly. From what I recall of the recent figures, we've gone from somewhere in the region of $5m in the red to an amount in excess of that in the black in a very short space of time which I consider to be a monumental feat given the club's insipid on field performances during the same period.

Granted we have to continue to work hard as a club to increase revenue streams and that won't be easy in the current climate. However, with improved performances on the field, the potential is there for improvement in our bottom line. I have no issue with the club resorting to supporters and AFL handouts which in effect seek to restore an even playing field for clubs disadvantaged by a fixture skewed in favour of the already richer clubs. I look forward to the day when we are one of them as well and that we're regulars in finals and premiership contention.

In any event, kudos go to the current Board and those who worked with the club previously to improve our financial situation.

I thought this might help people put things into perspective.

2012 Result/Team/Membership No./2012 Net Profit or Loss(-)

1) Hawthorn, 60,841, $2,023,720

6) Geelong, 40,200, -$996,000 (Doug Wade stand write off of $1.3m)

8) North Melbourne, $1,193,080 (reduced debt by $1m)

9) St Kilda, -$436,818

10) Carlton, 45,800, -$683,799

11) Essendon, 47,708, $401,429 (High performance center write off of $11.9m)

12) Richmond, 53,072, $3,017,791 (still has substantial debt of $1.9m)

13) Brisbane Lions, -$2,513,262

14) Port Adelaide, -$2,117,071

15) Western Bulldogs, -$136,679 (reduced debt by $600,000)

16) Melbourne, 35,459, $77,619

Its interesting that we are the only team in the bottom 6 to post a profit.

With increased performance, you can be sure that this modest profit figure will increase and help for 2014's fixture with hopefully a friday night game, which will again increase revenue.

We aren't there yet my any measure, but what a foundation for next season. No debt, small profit, new recruits, better training facilities, and first propper pre-season with coaching staff.

I thought this might help people put things into perspective.

2012 Result/Team/Membership No./2012 Net Profit or Loss(-)

1) Hawthorn, 60,841, $2,023,720

6) Geelong, 40,200, -$996,000 (Doug Wade stand write off of $1.3m)

8) North Melbourne, $1,193,080 (reduced debt by $1m)

9) St Kilda, -$436,818

10) Carlton, 45,800, -$683,799

11) Essendon, 47,708, $401,429 (High performance center write off of $11.9m)

12) Richmond, 53,072, $3,017,791 (still has substantial debt of $1.9m)

13) Brisbane Lions, -$2,513,262

14) Port Adelaide, -$2,117,071

15) Western Bulldogs, -$136,679 (reduced debt by $600,000)

16) Melbourne, 35,459, $77,619

Its interesting that we are the only team in the bottom 6 to post a profit.

With increased performance, you can be sure that this modest profit figure will increase and help for 2014's fixture with hopefully a friday night game, which will again increase revenue.

We aren't there yet my any measure, but what a foundation for next season. No debt, small profit, new recruits, better training facilities, and first propper pre-season with coaching staff.

Brisbane and Port must be worrying the AFL

$4.6 million between them, if my memory serves me I think they had similar results in 2011.

How long can these teams keep on keeping on?

Mine is not a popular view but I struggle with the competition having 18 sides

There should be one in QLD and one in SA and seven in Melbourne.

Of course the only way the Vic numbers will change is if teams go broke.

From what I can recall it's the third year in a row Brisbane has posted a seven figure sum in the red. Last year they posted a $1.9 million loss, now $2.5 million loss this year.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lions-to-post-loss-of-more-than-2-million-20121003-26zqo.html

So we post a profit of $77,000 and Fan is wondering what the loss actually is ? A minor matter, but friends of the previous Board rarely fail to amuse.

As WJ asserts, I believe the Bentleigh Club puts our assets at around $6mil. That doesn't compare too badly with the Dogs, who are $10mil in the red, and many other clubs with millions of dollars worth of debt that they're currently servicing.

I agree that we don't want to have to rely on FH every year, but it's fantastic that there's a group of well-heeled supporters that appear to be in for the long haul.

I'm certain of two things when it comes to the MFC. Firstly, if Gardner was still at the helm our debt would still be at least $5mil and probably worse, and secondly there'd be no FH at all, whose support has been invaluable. It's amusing how Gardner supporters like to poor cold water on this last achievement by constantly questioning its ongoing reliability. I understand their concerns, but I also understand their concerns. Too cryptic for some ?

In words Fan will understand, "Keep up the good work".

I don't know why we look at the FH money and say "we can't rely on FH money".

I will never see it as a "given" and am extremely grateful to the wealthier benefactors who tip large sums in regularly and do not downplay this generosity - but we are not the only club that do this and get this kind of support. Collingwood and Carlton are extremely well fed by FH type donations.

We should be the kind of club where its supporters are happy ( well..maybe willing is a better word) to contribute and strive to make the club stronger.

Rhino is the only one who seems to have a problem woth FH $$$

I hope it becomes an annual event.

It should.

Edited December 4, 201212 yr by why you little

There is no doubt that the balance sheet will be healthier than it has been in living memory - it was last year and - assuming that the quotedfigures include "Other Comprehensive Income and Expenses "this year's result will only improve that. Having demolished the debt, we have eliminated the hefty annual interest charge we used to have to absorb

I have no problem with AFL special distributions being included - because I think they can properly be regarded as recurring.If the $700k raised from the Foundation Heroes was genuinely raised to assist with next year's salary bill, then under accounting standards there is a strong argument to say that the income should be deferred and brought to account next year. I will be interested to see if it has somehow been deemed revenue of 2011/12.[As if you hadn't guessed from all my boring posts , I suppose I'd better fess up to being an accountant!]

Even if the $700k has somehow been included in this year's result,I am pleased that we have finished in front. With a relatively low membership, the early loss of a key sponsor and a dreadful year on the field - the club has done well to stay in the black - particularly in the tough economic conditions Victoria has experienced.The fact that we did so despite lifting football department expenditure makes it even better.

If we improve on the field , we should be able to lift revenues next year - even if the $700k has already been taken up and is not repeated .............. as long as the AFL doesn't beat us up for tanking!!

Edited December 4, 201212 yr by hoopla

There is no doubt that the balance sheet will be healthier than it has been in living memory - it was last year and - assuming that the quotedfigures include "Other Comprehensive Income and Expenses "this year's result will only improve that. Having demolished the debt, we have eliminated the hefty annual interest charge we used to have to absorb

I have no problem with AFL special distributions being included - because I think they can properly be regarded as recurring.If the $700k raised from the Foundation Heroes was genuinely raised to assist with next year's salary bill, then under accounting standards there is a strong argument to say that the income should be deferred and brought to account next year. I will be interested to see if it has somehow been deemed revenue of 2011/12.[As if you hadn't guessed from all my boring posts , I suppose I'd better fess up to being an accountant!]

Even if the $700k has somehow been included in this year's result,I am pleased that we have finished in front. With a relatively low membership, the early loss of a key sponsor and a dreadful year on the field - the club has done well to stay in the black - particularly in the tough economic conditions Victoria has experienced.The fact that we did so despite lifting football department expenditure makes it even better.

If we improve on the field , we should be able to lift revenues next year - even if the $700k has already been taken up and is not repeated .............. as long as the AFL doesn't beat us up for tanking!!

Well balanced post 'hoopla', even for an accountant.

Brisbane and Port must be worrying the AFL

$4.6 million between them, if my memory serves me I think they had similar results in 2011.

How long can these teams keep on keeping on?

Mine is not a popular view but I struggle with the competition having 18 sides

There should be one in QLD and one in SA and seven in Melbourne.

Of course the only way the Vic numbers will change is if teams go broke.

From what I can recall it's the third year in a row Brisbane has posted a seven figure sum in the red. Last year they posted a $1.9 million loss, now $2.5 million loss this year.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lions-to-post-loss-of-more-than-2-million-20121003-26zqo.html

I'll be really interested in having a look at their fiancial report when they post it.

With a membership base of around 20,000, finishing 13th, long-term sponsors like Suncorp, their membership increasing at the Lions@springfield club and AFL piggy backing them as they aren't a Vic team there has to be something happening that we can't see yet - most likely some serious debt/membership decrease

Here is their membership history over the past 5 years:

2008, 23,073 [+0.03%]

2009, 26,324 [+12.3%]

2010, 29,014 [+9.3%]

2011, 20,792 [-39.5%] - boom

2012, 20,762 [-0.14%]