I don't think anyone is dancing in the streets with the news that we turned a very small profit.

It's akin to keeping afloat in a recession, a very long recession. You keep costs down and try to ride it out. Yes we are miles behind the power clubs, but we have a better outlook than some.

MFC was a train wreck financially not long ago. Now the train just sits at the station waiting to be driven to it's destination and we are all waiting for it to get F)(&%^% moving.

People forget that this is a football club, and our financial success is linked to our ability to play footy well, which we have not done for a long time.

  On 05/12/2012 at 00:07, dandeeman said:

I don't think anyone is dancing in the streets with the news that we turned a very small profit.

It's akin to keeping afloat in a recession, a very long recession. You keep costs down and try to ride it out. Yes we are miles behind the power clubs, but we have a better outlook than some.

MFC was a train wreck financially not long ago. Now the train just sits at the station waiting to be driven to it's destination and we are all waiting for it to get F)(&%^% moving.

People forget that this is a football club, and our financial success is linked to our ability to play footy well, which we have not done for a long time.

Spot on dandeeman

However I think after the year from hell in 2012 I am close to dancing in the streets, I think it is a minor miracle we have broken even.

  On 05/12/2012 at 00:07, dandeeman said:

People forget that this is a football club, and our financial success is linked to our ability to play footy well, which we have not done for a long time.

The thing is, whatever the announcement was going to be, it was always going to be questioned.

  On 04/12/2012 at 21:55, Unleash Hell said:

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

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.

  On 04/12/2012 at 22:46, PJ_12345 said:

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.

You have already shown you dont understand the issues so why make it so glaringly obvious. As for correlations and hyperbole thats your speciality.

The TPP issue of paying the full TPP by frontloading contracts to create space in the future would only serve to stregthen the financial position of the club if that was the case.

It would mean our 'profit' would be higher in 'real terms.'

  On 05/12/2012 at 00:37, rpfc said:

The TPP issue of paying the full TPP by frontloading contracts to create space in the future would only serve to stregthen the financial position of the club if that was the case.

It would mean our 'profit' would be higher in 'real terms.'

That would be correct.

Frankly, I don't care about profits and losses until they become issues - we get into debt.

I am interested in seeing us acquire assets like the way we got the Bentleigh Club and we really should be looking at that in the Casey region.

  On 04/12/2012 at 23:07, dandeeman said:

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.

The number of members we have is a weakness. The generousity of a sub set of those members is fantastic. The fact that we have a profit and not a 10 fold loss on the extent of that generousity.

And who are my bedfellows? I cant understand your bizarre and misguided agenda stamping to anything you dont agree with. I have no involvement with the Club beyond memberships and raffles. I dont have any Board allegances. You must get a kick of your Inspector Clousseau fantasy about agenda. If anything its misguided axe grinders like you that cant process, stomach or understand other points of view.

  On 05/12/2012 at 01:05, Rhino Richards said:

. like you that cant process, stomach or understand other points of view.

That's worth a LOL.

My points of view are my own, I call it as I see it. Sometimes I get it wrong but on the most part my instincts serve me well. Cheers.

  On 05/12/2012 at 00:44, rpfc said:

Frankly, I don't care about profits and losses until they become issues - we get into debt.

I am interested in seeing us acquire assets like the way we got the Bentleigh Club and we really should be looking at that in the Casey region.

Indeed. Building blocks required.

  On 05/12/2012 at 01:15, H_T said:

Indeed. Building blocks required.

Absolutely...baby steps forward is fine by me as long as the club continues to grow.

  On 05/12/2012 at 01:13, dandeeman said:

My points of view are my own, I call it as I see it. Sometimes I get it wrong but on the most part my instincts serve me well. Cheers.

And that is worth a bigger LOL Clousseau.

You have been so far off on your claims on this site about people, its tragic.

  On 05/12/2012 at 00:28, Rhino Richards said:

You have already shown you dont understand the issues so why make it so glaringly obvious. As for correlations and hyperbole thats your speciality.

Ah, ye olde classic "stick my head in the sand and everything will go away/I don't know what to rebut because I've been burnt worse than a primary school Chinese burn so I'll type some silly contradicting sentence" tactic.

Keep it up champ, you'll get there one day...

Actually on second thought maybe not...

  On 05/12/2012 at 03:10, Rhino Richards said:

And that is worth a bigger LOL Clousseau.

You have been so far off on your claims on this site about people, its tragic.

Bumbling Clousseau himself would have been able to deduce the agenda of the person you are referring to, so transparent was his agenda so the reference is entirely accurate. Possibly he embodies the paltry investigative skill that I posesss, but in this instance it was all that was required

As for the people, rather "person" you refer to a number of people here who are capable of independent thought formed the same opinion with no help from me whatsoever.

Back on topic, what exactly did you expect in terms of financial figures in the circumstances and how could it have been improved?

  On 04/12/2012 at 08:22, Rhino Richards said:

Do you want to quote the accounting standard? If the donations are received in 2012 with no strings attached for their repayment and are banked within the Club then they should be recognised as received. What it is used for particularly if used for the largest operating expense in the Club should be irrelevant. I know how the Tax office would deem it.

Under accrual accounting principles the date of receipt is not the critical event. However under controversial standard AASB 1004, the $700k will have to be taken up as 2012 revenue as long as the donations were not subject to the express condition that they be retained for use in 2013. If the donations were unconditional then I agree that they will be part of this year's comprehensive income ( and probably profit)

By the way, don't confuse taxable income with accounting profit - there are two very different concepts which rarely ,if ever ,coincide.

  On 04/12/2012 at 09:20, dandeeman said:

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.

Absolutely. Given the struggles of last season - its a big plus

  On 04/12/2012 at 23:51, Fan said:

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 onthe 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.

For a myriad of reasons dating back to the late 60s and 70s through into the 80s , we are a relatively small club with a relatively small supporter base - that is a fact . However we are much stronger than we have been - and we have done well this year in the circumstances

We cannot realistically hope to be as financially strong as Collingwood - but we can realistically hope to be strong enough financially toenjoy the ultimate success of a premiership as long as the draft and salary caps remain and the AFL's equalisation policies continue to improve - provided we stick together and think positively!!

So maybe this discussion has descended into identifying whether the poster is part of the "axe-grinders" or "back-slappers" and then ignoring what they actually write in favour of just taking petty pot shots?

That's fabulous. We are so much better than collingwood supporters.

I'm wondering if any posters have ever run or helped run a business with a 30 million dollar turnover - what would they think of the figures to date? I never have (and doubt I will) so opinions from a group that have would improve the commentary on this issue.

BTW, if Fan and Rhino are the only ones who have (and I have no idea if they have btw) is makes a lot of the statements so far kinda funny.

Congrats on the profit, MFC. Whether its a small or large one. Profits a profit.

Plenty of hard work still to be done.

  On 05/12/2012 at 03:46, hoopla said:

Under accrual accounting principles the date of receipt is not the critical event. However under controversial standard AASB 1004, the $700k will have to be taken up as 2012 revenue as long as the donations were not subject to the express condition that they be retained for use in 2013. If the donations were unconditional then I agree that they will be part of this year's comprehensive income ( and probably profit)

By the way, don't confuse taxable income with accounting profit - there are two very different concepts which rarely ,if ever ,coincide.

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.

  On 05/12/2012 at 03:39, dandeeman said:

Bumbling Clousseau himself would have been able to deduce the agenda of the person you are referring to, so transparent was his agenda so the reference is entirely accurate. Possibly he embodies the paltry investigative skill that I posesss, but in this instance it was all that was required

As for the people, rather "person" you refer to a number of people here who are capable of independent thought formed the same opinion with no help from me whatsoever.

Back on topic, what exactly did you expect in terms of financial figures in the circumstances and how could it have been improved?

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.

  On 05/12/2012 at 03:46, hoopla said:

We cannot realistically hope to be as financially strong as Collingwood - but we can realistically hope to be strong enough financially toenjoy the ultimate success of a premiership as long as the draft and salary caps remain and the AFL's equalisation policies continue to improve - provided we stick together and think positively!!

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.

As clubs don't issue dividends nor pay tax, due to being registered as "not-for-profit organisations"; profits from football clubs are in reality a meaningless accounting figure. I would rather look at a cash flow statement or a statement of financial position in comparison to previous years to see how the football club is improving financially. Ultimately the aim for all football clubs, off the field, is to increase spending in the football department to the point that is financially acceptable. The reported $1.674 million increment in spending whilst breaking even, indicates the Front Office have prepared an accurate budget that has determined future revenue streams accurately allowing maximum spending in the football department. Which is the positive I would take from the media release until further statements are released.

Some of the [censored] I've read on here astounds me, it's like there are a few that are willing us to fail. We're not doing as well as Collingwood; no [censored] wonder why? Maybe it's because they play finals every year and we don't, maybe it's because they've recruited great players and we've recruited crap, reckon that may have something to do with it? We are starting off behind the 8 ball and the reason for this is the way the club has been mismanaged over the years, those that still rabbit on about the previous boards should be ashamed of themselves and are talking out of wounded pride not some sense of wellbeing for the club.

The club is now on a sound footing, despite the bleating of the few and we are in a better position than we've been for years, sure we've made some mistakes but that's the nature of business. Baby steps, we need to go along consolidating and when the on field performance improves we will generate more revenue through additional members and sponsors, simple really.

Bit of faith instead of the continual knocking wouldn't hurt.

Rhino, do you ever post anything positive about the club? If you ever have I guess i missed it.

I've been a poster on Demonland for over 10 years and I think what annoys some is that a few of the moderators were very sympathetic to the previous Board - and I mean "very" -, but don't afford the current Board the same generosity. I like people that "call it as they see it", but that doesn't happen on here.

As stated, some posters were very sympathetic to the monumental task facing a previous Board that included a $5mil debt, no ties with the MCC, and no FH. The current Board has done what the previous Board was incapable of, but gets terse responses by a few round here. And it's none too subtle.

  On 05/12/2012 at 07:20, RobbieF said:

maybe it's because they've recruited great players and we've recruited crap, the club has been mismanaged over the years,

The club is now on a sound footing,

Bit of faith instead of the continual knocking wouldn't hurt.

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.

  On 05/12/2012 at 07:49, Ben-Hur said:

I've been a poster on Demonland for over 10 years and I think what annoys some is that a few of the moderators were very sympathetic to the previous Board - and I mean "very" -, but don't afford the current Board the same generosity. I like people that "call it as they see it", but that doesn't happen on here.

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.

  On 05/12/2012 at 07:20, RobbieF said:

Some of the [censored] I've read on here astounds me, it's like there are a few that are willing us to fail. We're not doing as well as Collingwood; no [censored] wonder why? Maybe it's because they play finals every year and we don't, maybe it's because they've recruited great players and we've recruited crap, reckon that may have something to do with it? We are starting off behind the 8 ball and the reason for this is the way the club has been mismanaged over the years, those that still rabbit on about the previous boards should be ashamed of themselves and are talking out of wounded pride not some sense of wellbeing for the club.

The club is now on a sound footing, despite the bleating of the few and we are in a better position than we've been for years, sure we've made some mistakes but that's the nature of business. Baby steps, we need to go along consolidating and when the on field performance improves we will generate more revenue through additional members and sponsors, simple really.

Bit of faith instead of the continual knocking wouldn't hurt.

Rhino, do you ever post anything positive about the club? If you ever have I guess i missed it.

Amen to that RobbieF

To make a profit in what may be our worst year in half a century is a great effort.