Fourth consecutive profit for Dees

[Bitter but optimistic 22,218]

I do what I can .

I was attempting to offend the Carringbush bunch but may have achieved some colateral damage in the process.

No offence to those Demons now serving time for fraud or tax evasion.(Please continue to give generously).

It's a slow night on D'land. Can you please be more offensive and get some argie bargie happening or I shall fall asleep?

[Biffen 12,940]

It's a slow night on D'land. Can you please be more offensive and get some argie bargie happening or I shall fall asleep?

Sometime I get so boring BBO ,I even offend myself.

I feel like a fricken tranny hooker at a Families First convention already.

A little help ?

[Bitter but optimistic 22,218]

Sometime I get so boring BBO ,I even offend myself.

I feel like a fricken tranny hooker at a Families First convention already.

A little help ?

In my experience a lot of those family first type f******s are dead set hypocrites, so going to a convention, dressed up as you suggest, might well prove profitable.

[Biffen 12,940]

In my experience a lot of those family first type f******s are dead set hypocrites, so going to a convention, dressed up as you suggest, might well prove profitable.

You've made my day.

and given me a new business idea.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,218]

You've made my day.

and given me a new business idea.

Thanks Biffo - I'm going to bed. And instead of counting sheep, I'll count Biffos all dressed up.

[Slartibartfast 17,189]

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.

No, the player contracts are varied to comply with both accounting standards and TPP requirements.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

, the player contracts are varied to comply with both accounting standards and TPP requirements.

Player contracts run from Nov 1 to Oct 31. The financial statements are Nov 1 - Oct 31. How is the player contract expense varied? How can you come to this conclusion without knowing the figures, which aren't even detailed in the 2011 financial statements as they fall under FD spending? And the 2012 accounts have not been released?? Do you know more than you are letting on?

Are you saying that a top 4 accounting firm is about to release false and misleading statements? I think you need to eleborate your statement

In relation to the FH $700k being applied - how do you know this money is not sitting in a bank account? The viability of the business model should be judged by the ability of the corporation to pay it's debts / currrent assets v current liabiliy and net equity.

Maybe you should just come out and say you are pushing a political agenda rather then discussing the financial result.... And in addtion how do you explain funding the additional 1.6 Million on the FD on top of what we alreay spent in 2011???

I don't really care - I am just going by a quick judgement looking at 2011 accounts and what McLardy has said on the website - I just want this club to be successful - apart from a lot of smoke on this thread there is nothing here that says the current board is doing a bad job

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Are you saying that a top 4 accounting firm is about to release false and misleading statements? I think you need to eleborate your statement

I acknowledge this statement is a bit over the top - but (Fan) you are alluding that the players contracts were 'adjusted' in the financial statements. If this adjustment is not declared in the notes and is not understandable to the consumer and not consistent with industry practice then it is a false and misleading statement.

You must be impling the the contracts were lower in the account than what was paid otherwise you are saying the club is in a better position than is reported on the financial statements....

I am really unsure what you blokes are criticising - should go to bed

[jabberwocky 2,301]

No, the player contracts are varied to comply with both accounting standards and TPP requirements.

Can you explain this statement?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I will start by saying that I interpreted your criticism of the board as you meaning they were incompitent - i apologise if i misrepresnted you

I will not comment if the club has a sustainable business model as I haven't done enough research to form an opinion. For me as long as the board represnts the club in professional and integril manner and is able to fund and support a successful team - i really don't care about any of the politics

Profit for a non profit organisation is a dick measuring competition - it means nothing - all the money should go to the club anyway (I understand the club is run as a business now run in a corporation and not as a non for profit - and I re-iterate I have not seen the financials to give a fully informed view)

But you stated in a post earlier that the club turns over $30 mil (again i apologise if i got it wrong) but $700k from the foundation of hero's is just over 2% of the funds earned......... surely to compensate such a loss of income the club simply wouldn't spend the money......

I do not understand your argument regarding the FH income or profit - the profit simply means we earnt more then we spent (from my interpritation)

I dont' see how the FOH income effects sustainibility (2% of income shouldn't affect our ability to exist just less cash to spend)

Can you please elborate - i apologise if i missed the point

You are not going too well. Where have I criticised the Board? No dont bother. I havent done that at allain as you have inferred.

Your journey to understand what a sustainable business model in clearly in its early days but the initial criteria you have set showed ring alarm bells.

Profit for a non profit organisation is a dick measuring competition - it means nothing - all the money should go to the club anyway (I understand the club is run as a business now run in a corporation and not as a non for profit - and I re-iterate I have not seen the financials to give a fully informed view)

But you stated in a post earlier that the club turns over $30 mil (again i apologise if i got it wrong) but $700k from the foundation of hero's is just over 2% of the funds earned......... surely to compensate such a loss of income the club simply wouldn't spend the money......

I do not understand your argument regarding the FH income or profit - the profit simply means we earnt more then we spent (from my interpritation)

I dont' see how the FOH income effects sustainibility (2% of income shouldn't affect our ability to exist just less cash to spend)

Can you please elborate - i apologise if i missed the point

Your understanding of the importance profit is very poor and you need to lift your sights above your waistline. And to correct your misguided view, MFC isnt a "not for profit" organisation. It just struggles to make profits without members generously digging deep above and beyond the call of duty. Its a vital cog in a sustainable business model.

I note today Collingwood made $7.8million on turnover of $70 million and are going to increase their FD spending which is already high by approx. $1.5million.

Come on FH members put in further!!! Do you think MFC can match that spend on FD resources in the coming year?

Go read the article and think what Collingwood can achieve with their finances that MFC cant by living hand to mouth in an impossible battle to compete against other sides.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If you have a membership that cares enough and has the resources to support the club surely that is a strength and not a weakness. Is it not part of the board's job to extract the dollars from it's membership and corporate supporters? It's a credit to the board and those who support the club.

Its a weakness. We have a small number of members relative to other Clubs. We seem to rely more heavily than other club on the extraordinary (that is above the normal) donations from a section of the membership.

You should look at the broader role of the Board rather than pinch hit on process to suit your false dawn.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Player contracts run from Nov 1 to Oct 31. The financial statements are Nov 1 - Oct 31. How is the player contract expense varied? How can you come to this conclusion without knowing the figures, which aren't even detailed in the 2011 financial statements as they fall under FD spending? And the 2012 accounts have not been released?? Do you know more than you are letting on?

Are you saying that a top 4 accounting firm is about to release false and misleading statements? I think you need to eleborate your statement

In relation to the FH $700k being applied - how do you know this money is not sitting in a bank account? The viability of the business model should be judged by the ability of the corporation to pay it's debts / currrent assets v current liabiliy and net equity.

Maybe you should just come out and say you are pushing a political agenda rather then discussing the financial result.... And in addtion how do you explain funding the additional 1.6 Million on the FD on top of what we alreay spent in 2011???

I don't really care - I am just going by a quick judgement looking at 2011 accounts and what McLardy has said on the website - I just want this club to be successful - apart from a lot of smoke on this thread there is nothing here that says the current board is doing a bad job

You are not going too well. Where have I criticised the Board? No dont bother. I havent done that at allain as you have inferred.

Your journey to understand what a sustainable business model in clearly in its early days but the initial criteria you have set showed ring alarm bells.

Your understanding of the importance profit is very poor and you need to lift your sights above your waistline. And to correct your misguided view, MFC isnt a "not for profit" organisation. It just struggles to make profits without members generously digging deep above and beyond the call of duty. Its a vital cog in a sustainable business model.

I note today Collingwood made $7.8million on turnover of $70 million and are going to increase their FD spending which is already high by approx. $1.5million.

Come on FH members put in further!!! Do you think MFC can match that spend on FD resources in the coming year?

Go read the article and think what Collingwood can achieve with their finances that MFC cant by living hand to mouth in an impossible battle to compete against other sides.

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

Both of you are wrong when it comes to your interpretation:

• Supportive members who donate a lot should not be looked at as a weakness and I don't think anyone views the generosity of supporters as a long term solution for keeping our heads above water
• This is not an impossible battle. The AFL is moving into a two tier industry but the AFL is motioning to help reduce this and with better performance from the players we will be on the right side of the fence
• Dont start comparisons of clubs, particularly clubs who aren't comparable, without acknowledging differences in assets, liabilities, ect.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

You are not going too well. Where have I criticised the Board? No dont bother. I havent done that at allain as you have inferred.

Your journey to understand what a sustainable business model in clearly in its early days but the initial criteria you have set showed ring alarm bells.

Your understanding of the importance profit is very poor and you need to lift your sights above your waistline. And to correct your misguided view, MFC isnt a "not for profit" organisation. It just struggles to make profits without members generously digging deep above and beyond the call of duty. Its a vital cog in a sustainable business model.

I note today Collingwood made $7.8million on turnover of $70 million and are going to increase their FD spending which is already high by approx. $1.5million.

Come on FH members put in further!!! Do you think MFC can match that spend on FD resources in the coming year?

Go read the article and think what Collingwood can achieve with their finances that MFC cant by living hand to mouth in an impossible battle to compete against other sides.

Why just compare the MFC to Collingwood why not compare our benchmarks to North or the Dogs? Why not look at the perfomance based soely on the comparatives from prior years? Afterall we are just judging the MFC's performance, which can't be done until the financials are released.

Are we talking about the MFC's ability to run a business (the Bentleigh club) or are we talking about the ability of the club to generate finances?? Based on you knowing we made a $77k profit how can you make a judgement if we have a sustainable business model? Because if you think the purpose of this club is anything seperate from financing the FD i'd say you are nieve.

No the club is not a not for profit anymore - but the purpose of the club is to play football. .

At no stage did I say I expect the FH to continue to put in money to fund anything - You are the one making these statements. What i don't understand is why you keep criicising the board's ability to generate revenue when needed???? It sounds like you have an agenda....

Are you saying 2% of spending can not be cut to counter the loss of this income??

So if you are not ciricising the board what is the purpose of yourself posting on this thread??? Are you just pointing out your own generous donation or are you pointing out the obvious that the club can't rely on the FH income each year - which i would have though most us punters would understand

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

Both of you are wrong when it comes to your interpretation:

• Supportive members who donate a lot should not be looked at as a weakness and I don't think anyone views the generosity of supporters as a long term solution for keeping our heads above water
• This is not an impossible battle. The AFL is moving into a two tier industry but the AFL is motioning to help reduce this and with better performance from the players we will be on the right side of the fence
• Dont start comparisons of clubs, particularly clubs who aren't comparable, without acknowledging differences in assets, liabilities, ect.

Do not disagree with any of this

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

Both of you are wrong when it comes to your interpretation:

• Supportive members who donate a lot should not be looked at as a weakness and I don't think anyone views the generosity of supporters as a long term solution for keeping our heads above water
• This is not an impossible battle. The AFL is moving into a two tier industry but the AFL is motioning to help reduce this and with better performance from the players we will be on the right side of the fence
• Dont start comparisons of clubs, particularly clubs who aren't comparable, without acknowledging differences in assets, liabilities, ect.

No you are wrong.

Supportive members are not seen as the weakness its the over reliance on their generousity to generate your sanity.

A comparison of clubs is indeed valid. For FFS we compete against them on the field year in year out. And our lack of financial resources inhibits our ability to compete. Got it simple.

[Biffen 12,940]

No you are wrong.

Supportive members are not seen as the weakness its the over reliance on their generousity to generate your sanity.

A comparison of clubs is indeed valid. For FFS we compete against them on the field year in year out. And our lack of financial resources inhibits our ability to compete. Got it simple.

Got any suggestions for the board or you just like pouring [censored] all over others to make yourself feel tough ?

Any profit after last year is a bonus.

If you know your onions make some positive suggestions .

[Guest José Mourinho]

Ok, so if, as Fan says, the accounts are easily doctored to show a favourable result, it stands to reason that exactly that would be done each and every year to achieve the best possible "superficial" result.

It also stands to reason that every other club would do the same, so those relative results should not be dismissed out of hand.

[rpfc 28,253]

Ok, so if, as Fan says, the accounts are easily doctored to show a favourable result, it stands to reason that exactly that would be done each and every year to achieve the best possible "superficial" result.

It also stands to reason that every other club would do the same, so those relative results should not be dismissed out of hand.

Yeah, as I posted before the latest mod measuring contest, all boards will look to capture the financial data in the best possible light.

Bring it up at the AGM or move on.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Yeah, as I posted before the latest mod measuring contest, all boards will look to capture the financial data in the best possible light.

Bring it up at the AGM or move on.

That's correct.

And they'd do it every year too.

I highly doubt they'd shift part of a poor result to the next year, making the following year's result potentially even worse.

It would achieve nothing.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

No you are wrong.

Supportive members are not seen as the weakness its the over reliance on their generousity to generate your sanity.

A comparison of clubs is indeed valid. For FFS we compete against them on the field year in year out. And our lack of financial resources inhibits our ability to compete. Got it simple.

Your comparison of Collingwood and Melbourne is a hyperbole. It is not an accurate comparison as you are comparing the most profitable team against one of the least profitable team.

Sure we opperate in the same industry but there are stark contrasts in assets, liabilities, expenditure, turnover, profit and every other accounting figure and ratio under the sun and differences at membership levels and on field performance - all of which you have conveniently failed to mention.

If "our lack of financial resources inhibits our ability to compete" then why has Collingwood only beaten us by an average of 30 points over the past 4 games? They made 101 times our profit, dont you think this margin should be bigger?

For example, Geelong made only 4 times more profit than us (tiny compared to Collingwood), but they beat us once by 186 points.

Our on poor field performance isnt down to our finances, its down to our players.

Stop tying to draw correlations between the two, stop using hyperboles, and stop trying to compare turnover and profit.

Got it? Simple.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

You should look at the broader role of the Board rather than pinch hit on process to suit your false dawn.

I have no idea what you are on about re false dawns and pinch hitting.

As for a generous memberships, perceiving that as a weakness is more in line with what you are a accusing me of...I think. As is the negative assessment of turning a profit in difficult circumstances.

So you and your bedfellows don't misunderstand me, I hold no loyalties to any board, players or coaches only the MFC. Objectivity is the name of the game.

I really wonder if some people too tied up in the politics of the club will really be able to enjoy the success when and if it finally comes or if they will be too arrogant to admit their mistakes and bad calls. Would be very sad to finally pop the cork only to taste bitterness from the glass.

[PaulRB 6,342]

Bit tragic that Collingwood increased their (already huge) FD spend by 1.7 mill AND posted a profit of over 7 mill.

We've still got a way to go.

At least we're heading in the right direction.

[old dee 23,777]

Bit tragic that Collingwood increased their (already huge) FD spend by 1.7 mill AND posted a profit of over 7 mill.

We've still got a way to go.

At least we're heading in the right direction.

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 -----

[Slartibartfast 17,189]

Maybe you should just come out and say you are pushing a political agenda rather then discussing the financial result.... And in addtion how do you explain funding the additional 1.6 Million on the FD on top of what we alreay spent in 2011???

Oh dear, how sad when a simple post aimed at helping people understand how things work is interpreted as being part of a "political agenda".

Club TPP's are moving targets effected by players receiving match payments, achieving benchmark games, AA selection and B&F results. Injury payments are also included in the TPP with an allowance received. It's a very complex calculation. It's not until the end of a season that clubs know what their TPP payments are and know the amount remaining within their TPP.

All clubs with the cash will then renegotiate player contracts to make sure they pay the full TPP within the year which in effect brings forward expenditure from the following year into the current year. The contract adjustments are agreed with the player and player agent and then the variation is lodged with the AFL. There is a cut off date for variations. The recording of these expenses is correct in an accounting sense and complies with TPP rules.

There is a significant advantage for clubs that can do this as they free up TPP room in the future which can then be used to retain existing players or attract new players.

The sting in the tail is that the payments are treated as an expense in the current year and reduce profit. If a club finds itself in a position of wanting to show a profit rather than a loss it can adjust this TPP payment accordingly to show the result it wants as it's at the clubs discretion.

IMO we are in the business of winning Flags so paying 100% of the TPP is one of the core expenses of the club and "non negotiable". But in todays environment there seems to be a heightened focus on the simple end number being "profit". We've seen the lunacy of the Labour Government bring forward billions of dollars of expenditure in one year so they can budget a profit in the next. It's accounting trickery and designed to window dress the real situation. It's not unique to the MFC but is common throughout business. It's why the devil is always in the detail and my point is that we don't have the detail.

Our profit of $70,000 is really a break even situation for a business of our size. It can be manipulated by the TPP issue above, not buying new footballs for training until 1st November instead of mid October, delaying the purchase of stationary or asking a sponsor to bring forward a sponsorship payment by a month or so.

I'm not suggesting we did any of these things and in my view it doesn't really matter if we did because what the result shows is we are on the margin. We are about break even and we spend millions less on our football department than the wealthy clubs.

Whilst many seem happy that we've done as well as we have I think it's just further evidence of the almost impossible task we have of being ultimately successful and still leaves us in a position of vulnerability. This is not a crack at the Board but a statement of fact.

[H_T 3,043]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/coldwater.png/'>