On 06/12/2012 at 07:04, Fifty-5 said:

Bolt agrees wholeheartedly.

Right on cue.

FD spending increased by $1.674 million this year. Even if FH is included in that operating profit figure we are improving in the areas that matter. FH means we can stretch the FD budget out a little more though whilst maintaining profits.

  On 05/12/2012 at 10:31, Ben-Hur said:

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.

We all have bias. It comes from our age, our environment, our education, our sexuality, our being a melbourne supporter etc. etc. You are kidding yourself if you think you provide views, opinions without bias. Bias reflects who we are.

  On 06/12/2012 at 07:30, Bitter but optimistic said:

We all have bias. It comes from our age, our environment, our education, our sexuality, our being a melbourne supporter etc. etc. You are kidding yourself if you think you provide views, opinions without bias. Bias reflects who we are.

Does that mean Ben is nobody?

  On 06/12/2012 at 07:35, Fan said:

Does that mean Ben is nobody?

It means that BH or anyone, for that matter, who thinks they are truly without bias is deluding themselves.

  On 06/12/2012 at 07:30, Bitter but optimistic said:

We all have bias. It comes from our age, our environment, our education, our sexuality, our being a melbourne supporter etc. etc. You are kidding yourself if you think you provide views, opinions without bias. Bias reflects who we are.

I agree, but I try to minimise it, which is why I said "least".

  On 06/12/2012 at 07:35, Fan said:

Does that mean Ben is nobody?

One couldn't say the same for you. As Peter Landy would say, "the ubiquitous Deefan".

My particular favourites have been you on Demonology arguing with Rono on one thread using 3 aliases, i.e. Deefan, Baghdad Bob and Hal. Naturally, you agreed with each other (yourself) to bolster an argument. I thought it disgraceful, but such is your want.

I don't mind aliases, and I've had plenty, but I'd never stoop to using multiples at once against the same opponent on the same thread.

As I've already said, you lost me years ago.

  On 05/12/2012 at 10:31, Ben-Hur said:

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.

  On 06/12/2012 at 08:05, Ben-Hur said:

I agree, but I try to minimise it, which is why I said "least".

There seems to be some conflict here. You say you try to "minimize it"yet you "hate it" when people can't remove such bias

  On 04/12/2012 at 23:51, Fan said:

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.

First up - I went a little overboard with my response to you earlier Fan - haha stating the obvious - I have no problem with a difference of opinion and I was tired so please excuse me

Back on topic......

I understand what the TTP includes - i also understand the P&Ls can be manipulated.

The point I poorly tired to make was I don't understand why your are implying the club is being fradulent towards the members when what you mention in your arguments are standard business practicE (I know you've mentioned it but i don't understand why you think it's a bad thing or unnacceptable in Footy) For example - Look at the media focus on football club 'Profits'. I would say it is negligent by the board to painting the club in a negative light in our current state - most punters don't understand the in's and out's of a Profit and Loss - but they understand a profit or loss.

Have you ever tried to get finance from the bank??? You don't tell them the worst case scenario you show what is acheivable

We are in a business of winning flags no argument there - and as I've stated earlier the MFC is no where the big clubs on or off field at the moment - so you'd expect the majority of our 'Revenue' to be invested back in to the Club and Football Department - So in this case just in the business of competing you wouldn't expect too many 'Profits' when we are continuely fighting for income.to fight with the best. I find the profit argument very dull and pointless because as you mentioned earlier Profits can be manipulated.

Look at Currnet assets against liabilities if you want a quick guide on availability of cash...

I am not saying I am happy with our current situation financially - and I know we as a club are a long way off being financially stable or safe. But to date there is no indicaton the club stuggling and we are funding a stronger football department, player development and educatoin - and as club we seem to be pulling together - that can't be all bad can it???

Just as a side note - as the MFC is a bottom feeder in the footy world - what is an acceptable performance in your opinion??

Anyway apologies again thank you for the sensible reply

You can be reasonably objective if you use evidence to draw reasonable conclusions.

The differences can exist on the interpretation of the evidence and the definition of reasonable.

Some reasonable conclusions on this thread have been reached according to what I deem reasonable based on the available evidence.

This thread has morphed into personalities measuring appendages.

Time to close.

  On 06/12/2012 at 08:29, Bitter but optimistic said:

There seems to be some conflict here. You say you try to "minimize it"yet you "hate it" when people can't remove such bias

Everyone has some bias - I get that. I suspect that's already come through from my comments. There are degrees of everything.

  On 06/12/2012 at 08:11, Ben-Hur said:

As I've already said, you lost me years ago.

Thanks for letting me know Ben, I was wondering.

I can't express how upset I am or how much I valued your support and friendship over the years.

Does this mean we won't talk anymore?

  On 06/12/2012 at 08:49, Unleash Hell said:

First up - I went a little overboard with my response to you earlier Fan - haha stating the obvious - I have no problem with a difference of opinion and I was tired so please excuse me

Anyway apologies again thank you for the sensible reply

No problem, as you can see I'm used to being typecast and I take no offence. It's nice to know I'm being read.

The reason I posted the way I did is because I think many see the word "profit" and relax. The reality is that if you make a profit but can't pay core expenses (and one of mine is 100% of TPP) then it gives a very false impression of where the club is at. I notice in the Age today that Peter Gordon said of Footscray's $136,000 loss "The Bulldogs is basically a break even result this year ...but did increase football spending by $1.2 million dollars".

I'm wondering if many here saw our profit and mentally said "we're safe, we're ahead of the Bulldogs" when in reality we are the same.

I can't recall anyone having anything but positive responses to the wonderful job this Board has done regarding our debt or the role of the FH's. But we are not out of the woods and it's important we understand that.

And whilst I think your use of the word "fraudulent" is inflammatory any accountant knows that a result so close to break even is relatively easy to achieve and I suspect we did it for some good reasons. But as has been rightly pointed out that is just an opinion; but I think forums are for opinions. And if we weren't able to pay 100% of TPP in order to achieve a profit and chose a profit over a small loss at the expense of paying the full TPP I'd be bitterly disappointed.

It's a shame this sensible discussion has been derailed by senseless accusations of "political agendas" but perhaps this will get it back on track. Unfortunately I just got sick and tired of keyboard jockey's having a go at me and decided it was time to make a stand.

Cheers

Fan

But we all know the club is close to the edge, you make it sound like people on this forum do not have a clue.

  On 06/12/2012 at 11:28, why you little said:

But we all know the club is close to the edge, you make it sound like people on this forum do not have a clue.

No, I'm saying that within the thread it should be stated and I think I was the first to do so. Different people will have different levels of understanding.

WYL the comment certainly wasn't aimed at you. Given your demonstrated insight into clubs issues it's totally unnecessary and if it had only been for your eye's it would never have been said.

  why you little said:

But we all know the club is close to the edge, you make it sound like people on this forum do not have a clue.

That is precisely the issue, it's not as if the posters on here see a minuscule profit and think we're out of the woods; no one thinks that it's just that most would have assumed we'd make a loss and it was a pleasant surprise. Getting lectured about how poor the club doesn't help anyone and is just inflammatory , but some like to play school teacher, it makes them feel important.

  On 06/12/2012 at 11:33, Fan said:

No, I'm saying that within the thread it should be stated and I think I was the first to do so. Different people will have different levels of understanding.

WYL the comment certainly wasn't aimed at you. Given your demonstrated insight into clubs issues it's totally unnecessary and if it had only been for your eye's it would never have been said.

I wasn't talking about just me.

The club had a worse than shocking year and we still came out Just in front.

Jimmy died and we played VFL Standard footy.

Crowds were fairly ordinary and we still made $70,000+-

I expected to lose badly this year financially and it didn't happen so yes.

We can all applaud & relax a little before gearing up for next year.

I think everybody on here knows the climb is long.

But we have stopped the freefall which 5 years ago we were in financially.

If FH has done that, great. People power at work.

We start winning we get bigger better sponsors.

  On 06/12/2012 at 06:53, Ben-Hur said:

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.

We all are 'Ben'.

  On 06/12/2012 at 11:24, Fan said:

No problem, as you can see I'm used to being typecast and I take no offence. It's nice to know I'm being read.

The reason I posted the way I did is because I think many see the word "profit" and relax. The reality is that if you make a profit but can't pay core expenses (and one of mine is 100% of TPP) then it gives a very false impression of where the club is at. I notice in the Age today that Peter Gordon said of Footscray's $136,000 loss "The Bulldogs is basically a break even result this year ...but did increase football spending by $1.2 million dollars".

I'm wondering if many here saw our profit and mentally said "we're safe, we're ahead of the Bulldogs" when in reality we are the same.

I can't recall anyone having anything but positive responses to the wonderful job this Board has done regarding our debt or the role of the FH's. But we are not out of the woods and it's important we understand that.

And whilst I think your use of the word "fraudulent" is inflammatory any accountant knows that a result so close to break even is relatively easy to achieve and I suspect we did it for some good reasons. But as has been rightly pointed out that is just an opinion; but I think forums are for opinions. And if we weren't able to pay 100% of TPP in order to achieve a profit and chose a profit over a small loss at the expense of paying the full TPP I'd be bitterly disappointed.

It's a shame this sensible discussion has been derailed by senseless accusations of "political agendas" but perhaps this will get it back on track. Unfortunately I just got sick and tired of keyboard jockey's having a go at me and decided it was time to make a stand.

Cheers

Fan

Fan I think your doing a bit of a Caro here and trying to speak for the general population - no one is relaxing at the sight of this profit, I dont think anyone who has supported or works for the MFC has relaxed for a very long time.

Your posts re cooking books is right in the sense that sure books can be cooked through the methods you have listed. But your foundation is theory. Like it is possible that the world would come to an end on the 21/12/2012.

But again I highly doubt any books have been cooked. The work from any board member, past and present, is mostly pro bono. If they wouldn't risk fraudulent activities in their other work then why risk it here?

Again you continue to diminish the profit down to a breakeven

If your argument was "hey guys, lets not get ahead of ourselves. This profit is small, but we have a lot to work on", like everyone else has said, I would have agreed with you.

Even if you adopted an RR approach and highlighted the two teir problem with AFL I would have agreed with you.

Instead you have said that books could have been cooked, this is a breakeven and constantly trying to find a negative aspect of a very positive outcome.

They say that people look like the animals they own... so all I'm going to ask is do you have a cat that looks like this?

  On 06/12/2012 at 11:08, Fan said:

Thanks for letting me know Ben, I was wondering.

I can't express how upset I am or how much I valued your support and friendship over the years.

Does this mean we won't talk anymore?

Who knows ?

I suspect that a premiership in a few years would patch up many a relationship.

I'm not sure I get the counter argument here.

We produce a profit by legally/morally moving things around to present our performance in the best possible light. In turn the result presents our club as well run business in a horror year.

We will always need to attract new revenue streams (sponsorship, grants, relationships etc) to continue to grow (and hopefully keep up).

If we did the opposite, and presented the results in their worst possible light (probably meaning a significant loss), how would that help attract new revenue streams? Surely people want to attach their brand to successful AND well run clubs. Don't they?

I will go down the simplistic route and NOT look at the profit in isolation.

I look at a $70K in relation to a year where

1/ our football was atrocious

2/ we had to replace major sponsors

3/ were never off the front pages for various reasons and none were particularly positive

Being in business I fully understand that you are only as good as your last profit result. The strides we have taken under this current administration in my mind has been significant and I see no reason that given what they have accomplished in adversity will not continue - we could not get any worse onfield and made profit so even a hint of improve will help the cause.

Cudo's and applause to those who made this result possible.

  On 07/12/2012 at 00:35, Left Field said:

I'm not sure I get the counter argument here.

We produce a profit by legally/morally moving things around to present our performance in the best possible light. In turn the result presents our club as well run business in a horror year.

We will always need to attract new revenue streams (sponsorship, grants, relationships etc) to continue to grow (and hopefully keep up).

If we did the opposite, and presented the results in their worst possible light (probably meaning a significant loss), how would that help attract new revenue streams? Surely people want to attach their brand to successful AND well run clubs. Don't they?

Probably the most sensible post on the whole matter.

The negative side seems to have gone quiet.

All Presidents are meeting very soon to discuss more and better ways to generate revenue streams rather than just taxing the rich clubs.

Good idea i believe.