They should tax the rich clubs.

  On 07/12/2012 at 04:19, rpfc said:

They should tax the rich clubs.

If they want to give teams like the Pies seven Friday night games a season then they should pay for those games, plain and simple.

  On 07/12/2012 at 04:19, rpfc said:

They should tax the rich clubs.

havent made up my mind whether youre serious ??? hmm

there has to be the right to self dividend, otherwise you dont strive.

The AFL is actually quite fair about this in the sense that if WE were to be demonstrably entertaining etc then we too would get better draws and reap the benefits. You cant reward medicority, you can only bail it out.

We should be charging the AFL and other clubs to use our ground.

How on earth we dont have any say on our ground is a travesty .

The MCG trust need to give us some power back on this issue .

Then we wold be laughing like the Cats are .

  On 07/12/2012 at 07:25, Biffen said:

We should be charging the AFL and other clubs to use our ground.

How on earth we dont have any say on our ground is a travesty .

The MCG trust need to give us some power back on this issue .

Then we wold be laughing like the Cats are .

I propose a Levy Biffen

Sort of like a GST

The MFC should get 7.63% of all funds paid at the gate on every event held there

Between March 1st and October 31st.

After reading this thread (and could the commentariat please note the heading refers to four consecutive profit announcements and not one), I can only hope and dream that we were like Port Adelaide

  On 07/12/2012 at 14:21, Elwood 3184 said:

After reading this thread (and could the commentariat please note the heading refers to four consecutive profit announcements and not one), I can only hope and dream that we were like Port Adelaide

Hahaha! I think we are doing a little better.

Relax (a little) peeps....

  On 07/12/2012 at 08:16, old dee said:

I propose a Levy Biffen

Sort of like a GST

The MFC should get 7.63% of all funds paid at the gate on every event held there

Between March 1st and October 31st.

What you say is not unthinkable,

The importance of the venue is due in part to us .

The amount should be higher than your proposal .

Id have thought if we massarged the profit by bringing forward revenue and pushing back expenses we would only be setting ourselves up to fail the following year. I dont think anyone has the stomach for that. As an aside, the nay sayers seem to speak of such manipulation with authority and it is perhaps why the previous board had such a spectacular loss in their final year.

What we have seen is four years of conservative profits. There is a pattern and it tells me that the administration are effective at setting a budget and sticking to it...ie managing expenses to match revenue with a determination not to make a loss given our goal to reduce debt.

When the EW disaster happened I can recal CS saying that this was not ideal but we will get through it by managing our expenses and we may not be able to invest in some program's, no doubt to mitigate against a loss. Sounds sensible to me and most likely what has happened...we have managed our spending to our revenue.

I do take the point about hoping we didn't achieve the result by not paying 100% of the cap as I see this as a crucial weapon in managing our list for a tilt at the flag. But we don't know that at this point and we could easily have made saving by dropping other planned program's if required. I suppose that is a good question for the AGM if it has not otherwise come to light.

I think we are more likely to have managed the books by sensible spending than deceitful accounting that will only hurt us down the track but I guess that will reveal itself in time.

2 points - accounting practises can and do allow for manipulation of the results by recognising or deferring etc. It's common and not sinister.

It depends on what you're trying to achieve. In our case, we're trying to demonstrate viability, moving forward and setting up the framework for when we do get some on field success, everything is in place to reap the benefits. Should our objective be something like tax minimisation (just as an example), our results would reflect accordingly.

2nd point - we are on AFL life support and are relying on this and the FHs to stay afloat. We're in a similar (flimsy) boat to the Bulldogs and North. Not sustainable.

To compare with other clubs:

Collingwood's 4 biggest earner's for 2013 are home games v Carlton, Essendon (ANZAC Day), Hawthorn and Geelong

Bummers, tiges, hawks, cats also have bumper home games like this.

Our 4 biggest earning games are Collingwood, Hawthorn, Bullies (Saturday night game) and whatever the best earning interstate home game (ie sod all).

I haven't included the Darwin game as it's a sold game.

The clubs listed above could earn more in those 4 games than we will all year.

Improved on field performance will hopefully lose us a few of our home games against interstate sides, but we've still got to wrench good home games away from the Carltons, Essendons etc.

  On 04/12/2012 at 23:22, old dee said:

Off the field they are a light year ahead and off field they are $7 million ahead

I guess that is the benefit of having 40 years of sustained success versus 40 years of sustained failure.

WE have a very long way to go to just survive let alone win flags.

Winning games is vital from now on the more we win the greater the chance of increased revenue.

Increased revenue equals increased chance of winning games equals increased revenue equals -----

Don't forget, they were broke back in the early 90's. They have turned it around over the last 15 years or so.

  On 07/12/2012 at 22:35, How?Jeremy Howe! said:

Don't forget, they were broke back in the early 90's. They have turned it around over the last 15 years or so.

15 years is probably our time frame to be powerful again.

the vital element IMO is to start winning games

We need progress not the wandering in the wilderness that the last 6 years as produced

The full Annual Financial Statements are now available through a link on the website. Perhaps other posters have known this for days - but Ihave only just picked it up.

From my point of view it is a good transparent set of accounts containing full disclosures of all of the various classes of income - allowing those who wish to consider profit net of the Foundation Heroes contributions for instance,to make their own assessments. For C Wilson's benefit , the loan to Cameron Schwab is noted - all $7500 of it !! The significance of the Bentleigh Club acquisition certainly stands out in the comparitive information.All our ongoing commitments to players, to Bemtleigh Club Creditors and to the Vic Comm for Gambling Reg are also well set out.

In stark contrast to the situation 3-5 years ago, the directors are entitled to maintain that the club can meet itsdebts as and when they fall due without having to cite AFL guarantees. Nonetheless they clearly - and correctly - point out that the clubs ongoing operation - and its future revenue streams are dependent on AFL support. As we are under competitive pressures to continue to increase our football dept spending - and as we have a small and ageing membership base ( which makes it difficult for us to attract sponsors esp in these tough economic times) we are notin a strong financial position. But I would suggest there is now a clear gap between our financial health and the financial ill-health of half a dozen other clubs.

One other thing I noticed was that there was no Contingency note in relation to the tanking investigations. Why would there be you ask ? Some ( like Wilson) might want to argue that the possibility of a $1m fine is relevant to a proper assessment of the financial health of the MFC - and that the club should have acknowledged this even if only to put it to bed. It is not uncommon for organisations subject to major litigation for instance to include contingency notes disclosing that the company is subject to major litigation - but the directors and their legal advisors believe that the litigation will not be successful and that no liability will arise. I would have expected the Boardto have discussed that possibility - though ( on what we know at present)I would have taken the silent option as well.

By any objective criteria, the club has done well off the field.For this to continue we just have to starting performing on the field almost immediately - which is just one of the reasons why I believe that the balance of our trading and recruiting strategy between maturity and youthful potential has been just right.

We just need this tanking fiasco out of the way - not just from a direct financial perspective ( re fines) - but from an on field perspective ( re draft access) as well ........................ (which will ultimately affect our finances...............etc etc

Agree with the clarity of the accounts. I also agree with the need to get our on field issues rectified as soon as possible.

A major part of the going concern improvement at MFC has been the generousity of members (which the current admin mobilised but the member dug deep..real deep) and the Bentleigh Club asset (which was initiated by Gutnick and carried onto succesful closure by three further admins of Szondy, Gardiner and current Board).

I disagree that by any objective criteria the club has done well off the field. 2012 had been annus horribilus (which is saying something over the past 3 to 4 year). The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. Many of those issues were beyond the Club's control (Jurrah, Mifsud and the passing of Stynes). However some of them (eg Energy Watch) was definitely an accountable issue for the Schwab. Not withstanding having a new coach, there were a constant barrage of off field issues which prevented the club from settling at all for the footy season.

And then there is the tanking issue. It is still to be seen whether the Club will be found guilty of any wrong doing (I doubt it). However some of the Club's handling of the maximising draft strategies could have been done better. Regardless of the outcome of the tanking the name, brand and standing of the MFC has taken a pounding. Longer term I hope the past 4 to 5 years dont undermine any further the value of an MFC sponsorship. I am not sure what objective measure could find a positive outcome off the field this year but the criteria would be extremely selective and narrow.

But why would a Board make any contingent provision for a liability in the accounts for an AFL investigation when their stated position is that they have done nothing wrong? Firstly its the subject of an AFL investigation to which they are not party to all the facts and not litigation. Secondly, if a company were to have litigation they would be fools to capture an amount in the accounts if they were fighting the issue. It would be tantamount to admitting liability or guilt. There is no need to make any reference to the AFL investigation.

And FWIW, the sooner the Club get Schwab to repay the $7500 loan the better. The Board, if they knew about it at the time the loan was made, had a corporate governance brainfade. I cant believe Jelland and other corporate background directors would have allowed the loan in the first place. Its a small amount but its not a good look.

  On 10/12/2012 at 11:31, Rhino Richards said:

Agree with the clarity of the accounts. I also agree with the need to get our on field issues rectified as soon as possible.

A major part of the going concern improvement at MFC has been the generousity of members (which the current admin mobilised but the member dug deep..real deep) and the Bentleigh Club asset (which was initiated by Gutnick and carried onto succesful closure by three further admins of Szondy, Gardiner and current Board).

I disagree that by any objective criteria the club has done well off the field. 2012 had been annus horribilus (which is saying something over the past 3 to 4 year). The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. .......... I am not sure what objective measure could find a positive outcome off the field this year but the criteria would be extremely selective and narrow.

But why would a Board make any contingent provision for a liability in the accounts for an AFL investigation when their stated position is that they have done nothing wrong? Firstly its the subject of an AFL investigation to which they are not party to all the facts and not litigation. Secondly, if a company were to have litigation they would be fools to capture an amount in the accounts if they were fighting the issue. It would be tantamount to admitting liability or guilt. There is no need to make any reference to the AFL investigation.

And FWIW, the sooner the Club get Schwab to repay the $7500 loan the better. The Board, if they knew about it at the time the loan was made, had a corporate governance brainfade. I cant believe Jelland and other corporate background directors would have allowed the loan in the first place. Its a small amount but its not a good look.

I should clarify. The club has had to deal with a number of debilitating off field issues.Given our on field struggles - and despite external events beyond our control - I believe that by any objective measure the club's finances have held up extremely well.

Under accounting standards there is no such thing as a "contingency provision". I am talking about a "contingency note" !.Disclosure of the fact that the investigation is taking place is far from tantamount to an admission of guilt. There is an argument which says that full disclosure of the "state of play' including a categorical statement of innocence would have constituted a stronger denial of liability than silence does. As I have said I am more than comfortable that they have taken "the silence" option.

Again the fact that the Schwab loan has been fully disclosed is a positive. I notice Schwab is a Foundation Hero. I'd agree with you that he probably should have knocked the $7500 on the head before making any donations.Its open to Wilson to bag him for that if she wants to!

  Rhino Richards said:

Agree with the clarity of the accounts. I also agree with the need to get our on field issues rectified as soon as possible.

A major part of the going concern improvement at MFC has been the generousity of members (which the current admin mobilised but the member dug deep..real deep) and the Bentleigh Club asset (which was initiated by Gutnick and carried onto succesful closure by three further admins of Szondy, Gardiner and current Board).

I disagree that by any objective criteria the club has done well off the field. 2012 had been annus horribilus (which is saying something over the past 3 to 4 year). The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. Many of those issues were beyond the Club's control (Jurrah, Mifsud and the passing of Stynes). However some of them (eg Energy Watch) was definitely an accountable issue for the Schwab. Not withstanding having a new coach, there were a constant barrage of off field issues which prevented the club from settling at all for the footy season.

And then there is the tanking issue. It is still to be seen whether the Club will be found guilty of any wrong doing (I doubt it). However some of the Club's handling of the maximising draft strategies could have been done better. Regardless of the outcome of the tanking the name, brand and standing of the MFC has taken a pounding. Longer term I hope the past 4 to 5 years dont undermine any further the value of an MFC sponsorship. I am not sure what objective measure could find a positive outcome off the field this year but the criteria would be extremely selective and narrow.

But why would a Board make any contingent provision for a liability in the accounts for an AFL investigation when their stated position is that they have done nothing wrong? Firstly its the subject of an AFL investigation to which they are not party to all the facts and not litigation. Secondly, if a company were to have litigation they would be fools to capture an amount in the accounts if they were fighting the issue. It would be tantamount to admitting liability or guilt. There is no need to make any reference to the AFL investigation.

And FWIW, the sooner the Club get Schwab to repay the $7500 loan the better. The Board, if they knew about it at the time the loan was made, had a corporate governance brainfade. I cant believe Jelland and other corporate background directors would have allowed the loan in the first place. Its a small amount but its not a good look.

Someone should buy you a new drum, you must be sick of beating that one by now.

  On 10/12/2012 at 12:18, RobbieF said:

Someone should buy you a new drum, you must be sick of beating that one by now.

What is it you're so scared of? I'd hate to be in the trenches with you.

  On 10/12/2012 at 12:26, Fan said:

What is it you're so scared of? I'd hate to be in the trenches with you.

What an extraordinary comment; you come out with the comment that the club have fudged the books but when challenged to provide proof you run away and refuse to answer.

I defend the club against baseless allegations made by you and RR and you accuse me of being a coward.

From RR.....

The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. Many of those issues were beyond the Club's control (Jurrah, Mifsud and the passing of Stynes).

What major derailment can you see in the FD department, it seems to be completely on track to me but RR seems to think there was.

The club seems to be travelling well off the field and hopefully will improve on field this year, but I reckon you and RR are just waiting and probably hoping they will fail, just to prove your point.

You have something to say, say it, but don't just hide behind innuendo and how about you provide evidence.

Also the FH's numbers are increasing not reducing, so if anything it will get stronger, sorry to burst you bubble there as well.

  On 10/12/2012 at 12:12, hoopla said:

I should clarify. The club has had to deal with a number of debilitating off field issues.Given our on field struggles - and despite external events beyond our control - I believe that by any objective measure the club's finances have held up extremely well.

Under accounting standards there is no such thing as a "contingency provision". I am talking about a "contingency note" !.Disclosure of the fact that the investigation is taking place is far from tantamount to an admission of guilt. There is an argument which says that full disclosure of the "state of play' including a categorical statement of innocence would have constituted a stronger denial of liability than silence does. As I have said I am more than comfortable that they have taken "the silence" option.

Again the fact that the Schwab loan has been fully disclosed is a positive. I notice Schwab is a Foundation Hero. I'd agree with you that he probably should have knocked the $7500 on the head before making any donations.Its open to Wilson to bag him for that if she wants to!

There is no need to make a disclosure about the AFL investigation as the directors dont believe there is any wrongdoing and it has no impact on the financial statements. Furthermore the AFL investigation is being held behind closed doors. What possible informed or knoweldgeable disclosure with reference to the financial statements could or should be made by the directors. They dont know the status or disposition anymore than the media. And its inappropriate to make a categorical statement of innocence when it has no bearing to the financial statements. And how can you deny liability (contingent or otherwise) when at the date the accounts would have been signed does not exist? Its not a matter of an option.

Idont think the disclosure of the loan is a notable positive given it was disclosed last year and the loan has not been repaid. I just hope its disclosure was initiated by the Directors and not the auditors. Its most bizarre that we make a loan to a CEO who is also a FH donor. I cant see why the loan was made in the first place.

  On 10/12/2012 at 12:18, RobbieF said:

Someone should buy you a new drum, you must be sick of beating that one by now.

Nah. I'll just use yours.

  On 10/12/2012 at 21:37, Rhino Richards said:

Nah. I'll just use yours.

I don't think you would know how...

  On 10/12/2012 at 20:29, RobbieF said:

I defend the club against baseless allegations made by you and RR and you accuse me of being a coward.

Oh you weally are a hewo. LOL

What specific allegations have I made Wobbie?

All I did was express an opinion and as has been already pointed out, you cant cope with that.

And a coward is not what you are at all.

  On 10/12/2012 at 20:29, RobbieF said:

From RR.....

The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. Many of those issues were beyond the Club's control (Jurrah, Mifsud and the passing of Stynes).

What major derailment can you see in the FD department, it seems to be completely on track to me but RR seems to think there was.

The club seems to be travelling well off the field and hopefully will improve on field this year, but I reckon you and RR are just waiting and probably hoping they will fail, just to prove your point.

You also cannot follow another persons point of view. I once again gave an opinion that I thought that the events of the pre season 2012 (Jurrah, Mifsud and the death of Stynes) which were beyond the control of the Club destabilised any meaningful preparation for the 2012 season. The outrageous slur against Neeld's good name during the Mifsud debacle would have been personally and prfoessionally difficult for Neeld. It was an opinion of recognition of the difficulties a new Coach went through. Here is what I actually wrote....

  On 10/12/2012 at 11:31, Rhino Richards said:

2012 had been annus horribilus (which is saying something over the past 3 to 4 year). The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. Many of those issues were beyond the Club's control (Jurrah, Mifsud and the passing of Stynes). However some of them (eg Energy Watch) was definitely an accountable issue for the Schwab. Not withstanding having a new coach, there were a constant barrage of off field issues which prevented the club from settling at all for the footy season.

Not only can you not stomach another point of view but your unable to show the basic skills or good grace to understand it.

I have noted many times the your generousity as one of the FH members. Its a pity such good acts are overshadowed by your demonstration of some habitually basic deficiencies.

Now can I borrow your drum?

Hoopla, did the full financial statement show that we paid 100% of the cap?

I don't know how many times certain posters can say the same thing and act like they are saying it for the first time and are 'finally bringing the truth'...

And it maybe quixotic to think that 'we will be saved by the Foundation Heroes' (as if anyone thinks that) but people will keep giving to the Dees as other supporters give to their clubs till the end of days.

  On 10/12/2012 at 21:49, s-t-i-n-g-a said:

Hoopla, did the full financial statement show that we paid 100% of the cap?

No Stinga ..........not that I picked up.

There is no requirement for them to provide that detail. They would probably argue that it is commercially sensitive information which ( to my knowledge) no club discloses in its financial statements