The finances have always been under strain. This year just brings home a few truth.

And it's a cop out on Schwab. He is responsible for what happens in the footy club. The buck stops with him. How the Board could have extended his contract for 3 years last November when we were in the midst of serious AFL investigation just beggars belief. Even worse to sack him 4 months under suspicious reasons.

This Board has been an outright failure on and off the field for 5 years. It's been a circus.

Absolutely amazing how he was appointed in the first place but the extension, I think I've used that beggars belief line before because it does.

I don't know how anyone can still defend what he has done to this club and that also beggars belief.

Edited May 12, 201312 yr by rjay

Gonna be a lot more than $1.5mill if we pay out Neeld, Craig and a bunch of assistants. Try $3mill.

Gonna be a lot more than $1.5mill if we pay out Neeld, Craig and a bunch of assistants. Try $3mill.

This is where the AFL come in, but yeah you're right there.

Be interesting where Craig stands in this, he is the ideal candidate for the re jigged FD as manager. I would think Mahoney is gone, Craig's position of whatever is gone...will it be a caretaker coach or is there someone out there primed for the job???

This is where the AFL come in, but yeah you're right there.

Be interesting where Craig stands in this, he is the ideal candidate for the re jigged FD as manager. I would think Mahoney is gone, Craig's position of whatever is gone...will it be a caretaker coach or is there someone out there primed for the job???

I wonder if Michael Nunan is available?

You misunderstand me if you think I discredit generous members. Nothing could be further from the truth. I recognised repeatedly that generosity. In fact I think they're the group who have been punished most by the Board's and CEO's incompetence over a number of years. This Board did well to galvanise the supporter group to give $5m to them but it all went south after that at the rate of knots.

My issue with the "profit" of $80k was its high dependence of the FH donations of $700k. It's generous but not sustainable particularly when you are a cellar dweller. And the financial strength that many posters lauded is fragile and not robust. With Schwab now gone finally a lot more truths will come out. How could the Board have been so hopeless sidetracked by such a CEO? Even more disturbing why they ever gave him a personal loan?

I am not disputing your view on supporters/donators.

RE the loan its not uncommon. I don't have an issue with that, other clubs also have done similar things.

Edited May 12, 201312 yr by PJ_12345

The finances have always been under strain. This year just brings home a few truth.

And it's a cop out on Schwab. He is responsible for what happens in the footy club. The buck stops with him. How the Board could have extended his contract for 3 years last November when we were in the midst of serious AFL investigation just beggars belief. Even worse to sack him 4 months under suspicious reasons.

This Board has been an outright failure on and off the field for 5 years. It's been a circus.

Yep, couldn't agree more. At least he's gone now. But that extension was a joke. We need a new board. We may need someone like Kennett. We need pros now.

I am not disputing your view on supporters/donators.

RE the loan its not uncommon. I don't have an issue with that, other clubs also have done similar things.

The loan was the first red flag of a major problem to me.

I am not disputing your view on supporters/donators.

RE the loan its not uncommon. I don't have an issue with that, other clubs also have done similar things.

Can you name another club that had done similar to MFC in the last 10 years? Betcha can't.

Its a corporate governance no no to make loans to the CEO. Particularly a poor performing CEO.

The worst thing, IMO, to come out today was that there were still SEVERAL reporting lines directly from the FD to the CEO.

Clearly Schwab still couldn't keep his nose out of football department affairs.

Absolutely damning.

The worst thing, IMO, to come out today was that there were still SEVERAL reporting lines directly from the FD to the CEO.

Clearly Schwab still couldn't keep his nose out of football department affairs.

Absolutely damning.

I think it's much worse than that, I think he put in people with limited experience that he was more able to control. Hence the multiple reporting lines.

The CEO needs to oversee the whole business and the core business is football but the right people need to be in control with one person reporting back. The football manager.

Agree and misread your post.

I am not sure what you meant by profits can be what you want them to be.

Simply that every year we budget our cash inflows and cash outflows and make decisions based on that. We can always lower our expenses to turn a profit - to a degree. In itself the profit isn't the main issue here its our business plan and ability to increase our budget every year whilst not going into the red. I agree that the donation side of things is not sustainable nor should it be. That well is understandably drying up.

I have a feeling our 'Ridiculous Expenses to AFL HQ' expense will be significantly down next year.

Simply that every year we budget our cash inflows and cash outflows and make decisions based on that. We can always lower our expenses to turn a profit - to a degree. In itself the profit isn't the main issue here its our business plan and ability to increase our budget every year whilst not going into the red. I agree that the donation side of things is not sustainable nor should it be. That well is understandably drying up.

We can't lower expenses to create a profit.

We struggle to keep up with the other clubs in the AFL. The issue is the cost of AFL competing rises each year. We are more reliant ( make that heavy reliant) on donations to fashion a meagre profit. The emperor has well an truly lost its clothes!

Can you name another club that had done similar to MFC in the last 10 years? Betcha can't.

Its a corporate governance no no to make loans to the CEO. Particularly a poor performing CEO.

Don't have time to go through every club's financial reports but I'm am 100% sure there are other clubs and similar instances, probably not such a high amount, but its not uncommon - particularly with businesses and directors

I don't have an issue with it, it was paid. I don't encourage it, but Stynes approved it, it was paid... Again I wouldn't encourage it but its not uncommon in business.

An no its not a corporate governance no no. Provided there are the right structures in place and its not on something silly like a handshake

help ... we are in hell. No A grade players and no money.

We can't lower expenses to create a profit.

We struggle to keep up with the other clubs in the AFL. The issue is the cost of AFL competing rises each year. We are more reliant ( make that heavy reliant) on donations to fashion a meagre profit. The emperor has well an truly lost its clothes!

You can lower expenses, it is that in most cases it is undesirable. Not withstanding the fact we've potentially wasted a [censored] load of money of late. But nevertheless I agree we'll feel the pinch to remain competitive in the coming years.

I have a feeling Jackson is going to uncover some disturbing findings re the paycheques of some of these underachievers at the club too - ancillary types and FD support.

We're so bad atm you could probably wipe a few mill from our budget and we couldn't be any worse anyway.

Don't have time to go through every club's financial reports but I'm am 100% sure there are other clubs and similar instances, probably not such a high amount, but its not uncommon - particularly with businesses and directors

I don't have an issue with it, it was paid. I don't encourage it, but Stynes approved it, it was paid... Again I wouldn't encourage it but its not uncommon in business.

An no its not a corporate governance no no. Provided there are the right structures in place and its not on something silly like a handshake

Sorry it is an absolute black mark from a corporate governance perspective. And it's most uncommon (does not exist) in public companies and organisations. It's interesting you repeatedly cite that it's common but can't provide one example. You should not make comments out of your depth on these issues

I do agree that Stynes approved it. I would take a bet that the Board found out only when told about the loan by the auditors when they were doing the related parties note in the accounts. It's inconceivable that suits like Jalland and Grimshaw would have allowed it.

You can lower expenses, it is that in most cases it is undesirable. Not withstanding the fact we've potentially wasted a [censored] load of money of late. But nevertheless I agree we'll feel the pinch to remain competitive in the coming years.I have a feeling Jackson is going to uncover some disturbing findings re the paycheques of some of these underachievers at the club too - ancillary types and FD support.We're so bad atm you could probably wipe a few mill from our budget and we couldn't be any worse anyway.

In theory yes. But we haven't done so because the competitive stakes in the AFL will slaughter you if you did.

Having said that, I totally agree that we have squandered a hell of a lot of money in the wrong areas.

Jacksons outcomes should be very disturbing but I hope it will clear the decks.

I would consider the running of a business that was forced to pay its employees overs compared to others down the road an extremely hard thing to comprehend

The AFL being the dictator and rule maker has made it harder for the less revenue raising clubs to meet those expectations that are far easier for some clubs that have larger revenue prospects

It is not the way i or any other business owner would operate a head office and its branch structure

IMO this is the largest single problem that all 18 teams need to address in today's climate that is fixable by changing the rules that have a common sense parameter attached to it

I know its a sporting club but sound business practices should still apply for those competent boards

I am not confident that our current board is competent and i will be watching with interest if that is also the findings of our interim CEO Peter Jackson

Sorry it is an absolute black mark from a corporate governance perspective. And it's most uncommon (does not exist) in public companies and organisations. It's interesting you repeatedly cite that it's common but can't provide one example. You should not make comments out of your depth on these issues

I do agree that Stynes approved it. I would take a bet that the Board found out only when told about the loan by the auditors when they were doing the related parties note in the accounts. It's inconceivable that suits like Jalland and Grimshaw would have allowed it.

Again, as I said originally said, its not uncommon.

It isn't a black mark, the loan was paid quickly (loan term was 2 years), obvious were structures in place (it was secured and interest was paid) it's done and move on.

You say the board should be accountable for this years debt, when I raise up then that they should also be accountable for the debt demolition you go on and talk about donations, but still don't give them credit for raising that money - as if it will just walk in off the street. And then go on about profit and sustainability

You say that employee loans are blasphemous and a governance perspective a no no. When I raise up it is common place, and that it is non-existent in public companies (which is true)... yet so conveniently neglect private companies which is where it most commonly takes place...

You consistently sidetrack, dodge and change most of my comments.

Starting to get annoying

Let me lay it out for you:

You give the board credit for this years forecasted loss - shouldn't you give them credit for wiping out the $5 million debt?

Are employee loans common place in business?

Again, as I said originally said, its not uncommon.

It isn't a black mark, the loan was paid quickly (loan term was 2 years), obvious were structures in place (it was secured and interest was paid) it's done and move on.

You say the board should be accountable for this years debt, when I raise up then that they should also be accountable for the debt demolition you go on and talk about donations, but still don't give them credit for raising that money - as if it will just walk in off the street. And then go on about profit and sustainability

You say that employee loans are blasphemous and a governance perspective a no no. When I raise up it is common place, and that it is non-existent in public companies (which is true)... yet so conveniently neglect private companies which is where it most commonly takes place...

You consistently sidetrack, dodge and change most of my comments.

Starting to get annoying

Let me lay it out for you:

You give the board credit for this years forecasted loss - shouldn't you give them credit for wiping out the $5 million debt?

Are employee loans common place in business?

Sorry PJ, you said it was common not the other way.nice dodge sidetrack and change there.

Whether the loan was paid back in whatever timeframe, it should never have been made. It's a conflict of interest of his role, obligations and accountabilities and possible liabilities to a club. It's unbelievable in a cash strapped organisation we can makes mates loans. It's even more bizarre when providing personal finance is not part of our business.

And it's irrelevant what private companies do because the shareholders in the company are often the Board directors/ executives within the organisation. MFC is public organisation with member stakeholders and is not a privately operation. And as usual you can't give example of loans to a CEO of private companies (and llike Schwab) who is not an equity owner in that company you don't know....once again.

I have already given the Board the recognition for galvanising the supporters to reduce the debt.

And we have been talking about loans to a CEO and not just employees. Nice sidetrack, dodge and change. But I will explain the conditions to you.

If the loans are made to an employee by a public company that is in the business of providing finance on an arms length basis and on the same terms and conditions that would apply to the general public then there is no issue. But this is not the same situation as what applied to Schwab. You should try and think it through properly rather than repeatedly pedalling arguments or "facts" that have no have no evidence.

Edited May 13, 201312 yr by Rhino Richards