Fourth consecutive profit for Dees

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

2012 was seriously the year from hell so even if some of the figures are "managed" a little it is still a great effort to still have the head above water.

I was expecting a much worse bottom line.

It didn't happen.

[george_on_the_outer 7,692]

...because usually when a company with a turnover the size of ours registers a profit the size we have, it usually is because the books have been manipulated. I've seen first hand the level of manipulation that goes on in companies with big turnovers to ensure a particular threshold is crossed when it's borderline. It isn't even accusing the board of anything sinister; this is common practice. It happens all the time. I'd expect the board to do it. It is simply pointing out that the profit doesn't tell the entire story, and it doesn't.

This view is borne out of business experience, not out of an unreasonable bias for mine.

...except that this is not a company charged with making a profit. It is a business charged with winning Premierships.

If perfect budgeting is performed the MFC ( and every club in the AFL) should spend every bit of their revenue on attaining that goal. They do not have objectives of making financial gains to return dividends to shareholders.

IF a club makes a high level of profit ala Collingwood, then good on them. That just means they have more money to spend on achieving their objectives next year. Which they should...because they didn't win the Premiership this year. And If they do that then their profit will also approach zero.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Robbie your bleating is becoming rather tiresome. You seem to think that the current administration is beyond critique and that all blame lies with the past administration and that's your right. But stop thinking you're better than the rest because if you can look past your misguided prejudice you'll see the comments about our accounts are quite valid.

Why do you think we've made as many recruiting errors as we have? Because we can't compete with the recruiting departments of other clubs. Why do you think we have been mismanaged in the past. Because we haven't had the funds to employ top administrators. If you think that our current position isn't in some way related to our lack of funds you're kidding yourself.

The comments that I have made have nothing to do with Gardner or Stynes or McLardy, they have everything to do with a realistic analysis of our financial position. You rate yourself as a supporter and I rate you too because you've put your hand deep in your pocket. So have others here but they don't go around telling everyone. You've got no idea what I have done for the club in the past nor what I'm doing now. But despite this you want me to cease my support because I dare to question.

Our club will be stronger if it's questioned but you're obviously [censored] yourself that some anonymous poster on Demonland can have a detrimental effect. How pathetic would the club be if that were the case. Are you really worried what I can do or what RR can do. I reckon that McLardy and Schwab are big boys and can stand being questioned.and I reckon that we will better if we understand our position and don't have people painting unrealistic and false rosy financial pictures when in fact things ain't that rosy.

Nobody here has been anything but positive about the wonderful job this Board has done reducing the debt and the role of the Foundation Hero's. But it's simply folly to think that because we manage to scrape together a break even situation with a still underfunded FD we are out of the woods.

I'd suggest you welcome anyone who supports the club and have a little more confidence in those that are running it than to think they can't cope with sensible debate. Your pathetic waffle is so insulting to them it's actually mind boggling.

You're the one that's bleating not me, you can't help yourself, every time something good comes out of the club you jump on it and look for the negative. Have you seen the accounts, have you any reason to believe they are cooked and that payments have been delayed to allow for a profit? You can criticise the board all you like and you certainly like to, but do you think you might slip some positivity in to it as well? This is a Melbourne supporters board but I do expect to see criticism as well as praise and I've given the club heaps over the recruiting but what about credit when it's due. You however, you're something else.

It's you not me that keeps bringing this up last two times it's been mentioned it's been in your posts so wtf are you on about?

I don't know what you do for the club, or what you've done for the club and to be quite honest I don't really care but from what you post on here I guess they have got up your nose somehow.

You and Rhino only ever come on here to have a go at someone or the club, ever thought of having a go at posting something positive. We all know the club is down at the moment and probably fractured to some extent, so how about you just get behind the club instead of just finding the negative, or that just to hard for you?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Why is that annoying? Surely moderators are as entitled to an opinion, an affiliation or even a bias as anyone else? If it's completely impartial, opinion free moderators you're after, the position will be permanently vacant.

When was the last time Rhino Richards posted on here when it wasn't in response to someone else's post and it was of a positive nature?

He lives for the attack and seems to delight in trying to ridicule others; is that also the role of a moderator?

[Hannibal 5,814]

Why is that annoying? Surely moderators are as entitled to an opinion, an affiliation or even a bias as anyone else? If it's completely impartial, opinion free moderators you're after, the position will be permanently vacant.

I suppose it's silly to hold people to my standards.

I don't mean to sound pompous, but I hate it when people can't remove their bias.

[ChewyOnyaBoot 1]

CFO's and CEO's are paid to manage the club's books. They are not paid to manipulate them.

The CEO would be given a list of KPI's by the board. We don't know the KPI's but they would include such things as profit/loss, FD spend, Salary Cap mgmt, Membership etc.

When Don McLardy discussed the Annual Report he made a point of praising the CEO's performance

This would indicate the Board believed that the CEO had substantially met his KPI's (to the Board's satisfaction)

I would think most reasonable observer's would conclude that the club got at least a pass mark on this year's Annual Report in a difficult year and environment.

The comments about where we are with relation to the big clubs are common knowledge and add nothing new. It's seems reasonable to state that we are fiscally moving in the right direction (cautiously).

It seems (to me) unreasonable to be excessively negative regarding these results

We all know where we want to be in the future and this is the fourth small step in that direction

This is basically good-news, not earth-shattering, so enjoy small mercies.

[Nasher 33,617]

I suppose it's silly to hold people to my standards.

I don't mean to sound pompous, but I hate it when people can't remove their bias.

So do I. There are a lot of people guilty of it in this thread. It's why I've involved myself in it when I'd normally just observe.

I'm just trying to see the link between that and moderating the forum; you explicity mentioned moderators bias, so I assumed there must be a reason.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

You're the one that's bleating not me, you can't help yourself, every time something good comes out of the club jump on it and look for the negative.

Can't you handle a different view? Is the club so poor in your eyes that it's under threat from me? LOL. Do you have such little faith in Schwab and McLardy that you think a few negative posts will undo this administration?

Your view of the club is much more damaging than mine because you obviously think it's a weak as [censored] and the mere fact that you think you need to protect it from views offered shows the contempt you hold it. But I'd suggest will survive my whithering comments Robbie, it will survive someone saying that we are not out of the woods yet despite a break even result.

And rather than attack the people with the opposing opinions you'd do better to counter their arguments. Would my opinions be more valid if I posted positive comments in every thread. That really is laughable.

Having said all that hold your faith Robbie and your enthusiasm for the Club.

You're a terrific supporter as the vast majority are here, keep up the good work!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Can't you handle a different view? Is the club so poor in your eyes that it's under threat from me? LOL. Do you have such little faith in Schwab and McLardy that you think a few negative posts will undo this administration?

Your view of the club is much more damaging than mine because you obviously think it's a weak as [censored] and the mere fact that you think you need to protect it from views offered shows the contempt you hold it. But I'd suggest will survive my whithering comments Robbie, it will survive someone saying that we are not out of the woods yet despite a break even result.

And rather than attack the people with the opposing opinions you'd do better to counter their arguments. Would my opinions be more valid if I posted positive comments in every thread. That really is laughable.

Having said all that hold your faith Robbie and your enthusiasm for the Club.

You're a terrific supporter as the vast majority are here, keep up the good work.

What a load of [censored], are you serious?

On one hand you tell me that your view can't hurt the club now you tell me that my view can; which one is it?

As for the rest of your post, have you been taking lessons in "disingenuous"?

I did ask you a question before, do you care to answer it, or don't you have one?

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

What a load of [censored], are you serious?

On one hand you tell me that your view can't hurt the club now you tell me that my view can; which one is it?

As for the rest of your post, have you been taking lessons in "disingenuous"?

I did ask you a question before, do you care to answer it, or don't you have one?

Sorry bud, I said that your view was more damaging than mine. I never said you could hurt the club. Try and keep your feet out of potholes.

But we're getting to the nub of it - it's a discussion forum for people with differing views and really they aren't worth a rats clacker.

Keep up the good work Robbie.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

I suppose it's silly to hold people to my standards.

I don't mean to sound pompous, but I hate it when people can't remove their bias.

At least this gave me a good laugh.

Thanks

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Sorry bud, I said that your view was more damaging than mine. I never said you could hurt the club. Try and keep your feet out of potholes.

But we're getting to the nub of it - it's a discussion forum for people with differing views and really they aren't worth a rats clacker.

Keep up the good work Robbie.

So if that's the case, who are my views damaging to? If this is only an internet forum then what harm and what damage do they do?

Try again.

btw What did the full accounts of the club reveal that you'd like to share; or haven't you seen them yet?

[Hannibal 5,814]

At least this gave me a good laugh.

Thanks

It may have given you a laugh, but it's also the reason you lost me years ago. I know you have your cheerleaders here and always will, but I find you petty beyond belief.

You're little more than a game player.

[hoopla 418]

So under the AASB 1004, unless there was an express condition then the donation gets recognised when it is received. So date of receipt is a critical event and there wasnt an argument for its deferral at all. I mentioned taxable income because there is a potential tax impact in 2012 on income deferred to 2013. Boards dont like to diminish their after tax position. And while you are correct that taxable income and accounting income have some different concepts of recognition, it depends on the item and the nature of receipt. Where you are talking about cash items they frequently cross over.

Well it would appear that a number of other posters who are possibly capable of independent thought have bought into your own flight of fantasy with the same lack of actual information that you have. Some of the groupthink on this site is like a Stepford wives convention. Superficial and reinforcement of the inability to countenance different views from a mind numbing orthodoxy

On the results, it was always going to be tough for MFC. The club needs to build and diversify sustainable incomes and its a difficult job. There is no low lying fruit. Some of the challenges are legacy ones, some of the challenges were events beyond there control, some of their challenges were the way they have handled things. The key challenge is corporate sponsorship which is difficult in the current market but crucial to building a profitable operation. The celebration of the slim profit is a strawman when it is derived from the members gratuity and the costs benchmark for the AFL football business rising.

We will need more than draft and salary caps to give us the financial firepower to achieve premiership success. And the AFL's equalisation policies....now there's a laugh.

AASB 1004 is controversial - and under review - because it runs contrary to the spirit of matching which underpins accounting as a whole

Many profitable organisations fall over because they mismanage their cash flows - and many profitable organisations defer ( or avoid) tax because the concepts are different.

Clearly you are at odds with the Foundation Heroes. IF they didn't believe we could muster sufficient financial firepower to win a premiership they wouldn't have put in $700k.

Bottom line is we have to start winning games and i believe the club can grow reasnoably quickly.

But we have to start performing on the grass.

Coach Neeld is aware of this.

Surely that's the point. For several years now our financial performance has been better than our on-field performance. Despite the drag of consistent on-field losses, we've broken even. Win some games - draw some crowds - give sponsors finals exposure - and the funds will start to flow.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

...because usually when a company with a turnover the size of ours registers a profit the size we have, it usually is because the books have been manipulated. I've seen first hand the level of manipulation that goes on in companies with big turnovers to ensure a particular threshold is crossed when it's borderline. It isn't even accusing the board of anything sinister; this is common practice. It happens all the time. I'd expect the board to do it. It is simply pointing out that the profit doesn't tell the entire story, and it doesn't.

This view is borne out of business experience, not out of an unreasonable bias for mine.

edit:

Of course it doesn't tell the whole story, but it tells a story. If it has been "managed" then the results are close enough to a profit to allow it to occur within a reasonable accounting framework.

Dismissing the announcement as false just because it doesn't align with one's expectations is more fraudulent than adjusting a couple of figures. I am not referring to you Nasher.

As a couple of posters have alluded to, we are spending a lot more on our FD than we have in previous years. Also as others have alluded to front loading contracts may compensate for the fact that we are not paying 100% of the cap.

HT posted it as a good news story, which it is. Not a great news story or even a complete one, nevertheless a good one.

I move on.

Edited December 6, 2012 by dandeeman

[timD 994]

I suppose it's silly to hold people to my standards.

I don't mean to sound pompous, but I hate it when people can't remove their bias.

I presume this post is an example of irony.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I presume this post is an example of irony.

Explain.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

TO be honest this thread has gone crazy.

We posted a modest, but consecutive profit under considerable circumstances, which is amazing considering other clubs (*cough* Brisbane, Geelong, Western Bulldogs *cough*).

Be happy with this.

If you have some preference with either the Gardner or Stynes Board take it somewhere else. But know this - both boards do this work mostly pro bono and to help the MFC - neither would risk cooking the books.

This is the best statement I can make being bipartisan.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Collingwood, together with WCE and another 3 clubs are the benchmarks for on and off field performance. And as we compete against those Clubs on the field so they are justifiable and relevant comparisons with them.

And I will leave to your own mysterious funk about what the club is. But clearly your dreamlike model is somewhere around D grade VAFA where all they do is play football. And BTW, the word is naïve and not nieve. Its French so its hard one. Irony is far easier to spell

And your persistent inference that I am criticising the Board when I am not is either a case that you cannot follow and understand a fairly simple point of view or you have an agenda. Hmmm. And from your questions to me it suggest an awful and unnecessary combination of both.

At the moment MFC is pushing hard on members above and beyond normal membership dues to fund football operations to compete against the more successful clubs. We are fighting a difficult and losing battle. I note Collingwood will spend an additional $1.5 million next year on the FD alone. Its not that easy to simply cut 2% off the FD budget without compromising the service delivery of that area and falling further behind many clubs.

From the tone of the posts and the responses to date, I dont think what I have said is either obvious or understood to many posters including yourself without spouting their own political agendas.

I can guarantee you RR i have no political allegiance to anyone - All I want to see is a successful club an i dun give a *$#@ bout spellin

I don’t understand the continual criticism on the board who I think as an outsider have done a great job in such a horrid year. I’ll admit I’ve gone about our conversation the wrong way RR i have made assumptions.

Most of us know MFC is fighting for survival and the club relies heavily on membership revenue and donations from loyal supporters continually to compete and exist. YES as business model the MFC doesn't have a strong financial foundation to rely upon and is nowhere near levels of a Collingwood’s or WCE’s. I think blind Freddie can see the MFC is not in a position to compete financially with the top VIC or interstate clubs, there is no argument there.

Hence why I am happy we have the means to be able to fund what we do now with minimal resources – surely that’s worth applauding?

From posts I’ve had time to read you’ve talked about sustainability which I agree is a massive issue for our club and a lot of the other minnow clubs in VIC especially (you can throw in BL and Pooort if you like)

Is the MFC a sustainable business model??? That is not an easy one line answer, as you point out I have missed many factors but I was trying to keep the discussion simple as there are too many variables, which include membership, sponsorship, AFL funding, MCC funding, gate takings etc etc etc

You are correct in your statement that the FH income of $700k does mean we made a “Profit’ for 2012. But without seeing the financial statements and not discussing EVRY variable how can you conclude we would have not made a profit without this $700k – that has been my question to you RR which I have poorly tried to get across

I just found reading this thread that a lot of statements were made without a lot of FACT to back them up? Have I offered a lot of fact... no, but I try to base my opinion on the mediaindusty opinion and board statement as I don't have the time to research everything– I am not saying I am 100% correct

Finally for me the boards role is to maximise income so we can compete and survive – In my opinion (without being fully informed) the club is doing ok.

And lastly - 80 -90% of all income earned (guessed off the top of my head from 2011 - and I will get the figures when they come out) is spent/invested back in to the FD or other Football related costs – How is the MFC not set up to fund football???

I will catch up with the rest of the thread later - have enjoyed the discussion so far

Edited December 6, 2012 by Unleash Hell

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Can't you handle a different view? !

This made me laugh! There us nothing different about this point of view. You keep on singing from the one hymn book and it's tiring listen to the same songs

[PJ_12345 1,098]

At the moment MFC is pushing hard on members above and beyond normal membership dues to fund football operations to compete against the more successful clubs. We are fighting a difficult and losing battle.

Yes the MFC is relying heavily on the donations and generosity of supporters - but isn't this what supporters do for their club?

Somehow I get the impression that your the type of person who wouldn't ask for help under any circumstances.

Richmond at the start of June this year raised over $5 million from their Fighting Tiger Fund, which I understand is now at $6 million, and will continue to 2013.

Donations are not a new form of supporting an AFL club. It is practiced by several clubs other than us.

We are fighting a difficult battle but we are not by any measure losing.

This is the crux of all your arguments on this thread - its almost like you want us to lose.

You can continue with this out look, whereas my self and my peers, will continue to support the club both through donations and on forums like this.

To paraphrase MN, your either with us or not - might I suggest if you choose the latter Collingwood? You seem to like them.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Geez....I'd hate to see this site if we posted a loss.....

[timD 994]

Explain.

You once made a breathtakingly insightless crack about 'cognitive bias' to me. What you failed to understand was that it was my posting that was relatively free of it. You say here that you hate it when people cannot remove bias: on the topic of the board this is a hurdle you fall at and continue to fall at.

I think you cannot remove your bias.

You sound pompous and argue from that position/with that manner almost without fail.

Your denial of wanting to sound pompous pre-empts sounding pompous.

I thought 'irony' was a pretty reasonable description.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You once made a breathtakingly insightless crack about 'cognitive bias' to me. What you failed to understand was that it was my posting that was relatively free of it. You say here that you hate it when people cannot remove bias: on the topic of the board this is a hurdle you fall at and continue to fall at.

I think you cannot remove your bias.

You sound pompous and argue from that position/with that manner almost without fail.

Your denial of wanting to sound pompous pre-empts sounding pompous.

I thought 'irony' was a pretty reasonable description.

Examples.

I'm the least bias person I know and believe I've demonstrated that here over 10 years. I've never played favourites, unlike many of you. Most posters won't publicly disagree with one of their "'friends". If they see something they don't like, or agree with they'll usually not comment, but they're super keen to jump on a thread where they share the same sentiments. I've never been that way. I argue the issue and have no concerns as to the identity of the poster.

As I said, give me examples of my bias.

I'm not anti the previous Board. I just recognise that there are areas of the club they couldn't solve. And I'm not pro the current Board. I met Stynes a few times and never particularly liked him, but I recognise the unity he brought to the club, as well as some of the other major inroads they've made with regards to debt, the MCC arrangement, sponsorship, and FD spend.

Examples of bias thanks.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Ben-Hur

[old55 23,687]

I'm the least bias person I know and believe I've demonstrated that here over 10 years.

Bolt agrees wholeheartedly.