Our financial result

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

40,000 is very achievable. We're at 21,309 now, well ahead of last year, could easily make 25k by Christmas - they're calling it "the Roos factor" in the club. A decent start in the pre-season games and the early rounds and it will be 40k+.

Next year is about gaining some respect....AFL respect....Get that and we get the more lucrative fixture...Members buying merchandise & food is what can improve next year on match day

PJ and Bartlett seem to have the sponsorship situation heading in the right direction.

Getting AHG for 3 years is a bloody beauty!!!

[rpfc 28,410]

The fact you'd take this approach is in keeping with your position over the last few years.

From memory you didn't advocate change to any of the major pillars of the club (coach, CEO or Chairman) until the very end when we were in a far worse position than if we'd changed earlier. The fact that you'd wait until a few thousand MFC supporters were protesting our demise down at AFL house to see we were close to losing the club is in keeping with your past vision. But of course that would be far too late as indeed it was for the Swans and Lions.

I'd contend that it's now not difficult to see what was on the cards and I think there would be many here who would accept things were so much worse than people like you preached. The fact that you are still unable to accept how bad our position was shows that you really haven't got a track record of anticipating outcomes. Thankfully the AFL did and stepped in to save us.

It's also not surprising that you find it hard to anticipate what would have happened if Neeld, Schwab and McLardy had stayed and therefore described my possible outcomes above as "quite the hypothetical".

Well, that's disappointingly personal...

All I was trying to say is that posters bringing up the end of the club do a disservice to their own argument by making out that those that came before would ride the club past ruin, and into oblivion.

That they are as malevolent as many on here think they are.

I was just making a point about emotive language.

I don't really know what else to say, other than I don't think fans that think like me are the reason we are where we are. I would have moved on past Schwab before he got his 3-year extension, I wanted McLardy to move on once the Schwab situation blew up in his face, and only my desire to not have a caretaker for a majority of the season stopped me from joining the chorus for his removal after the Essendon game.

[mjt 640]

Melbourne releases financial result - a $1.7m loss but ...I'm not an accountant but it would seem that for all the bleating and handwringing and despite the poor financial result for YE31/10/13, we are by no means a financial basket case. That's encouraging to know as we move into the future with signs of the football team under repair after what looks potentially like one of our best recruiting period for a long time.

Time for true fans to get behind the club ...

If it wasn't for true fans there wouldn't be a club, it's time for the players to put there head over the ball and win a few games, if that happens the financial situation will take care of itself.

[Redleg 40,912]

If it wasn't for true fans there wouldn't be a club, it's time for the players to put there head over the ball and win a few games, if that happens the financial situation will take care of itself.

Can't argue with that.

I suppose one rider, that the AFL has to then treat us fairly, in respect to fixturing, to enable us to get sponsors, who can be advertised to the largest audiences possible, like friday night games against good sides, shown free to air.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

This idea of Equalisation is a farce! The larger clubs get the best fixtures, therefore more exposure which means they grow at a larger rate long term than clubs like us. It's a long term plan that creates a welfare type dependence on the AFL.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

This idea of Equalisation is a farce! The larger clubs get the best fixtures, therefore more exposure which means they grow at a larger rate long term than clubs like us. It's a long term plan that creates a welfare type dependence on the AFL.

if we have the right people running the club we are still in a position to rise up in terms relevance and fixturing.

I fear for the souls at Etihad more than the MFC long term.

[Guest]

I actually agree with Bob (when I look at things as an outsider).
Most of the smaller clubs receive some form of welfare from the AFL. PJ has admitted that the club will need some form of assistance for probably the next thirty years.
However, Don (to his credit) saw the club was in absolute free fall. I think that due to the work of debt demolition that the club was always going to survive 2013. Had the status quo remained, I'm not so sure.
I have always believed you judge people by their actions, not their words. The previous admin's results showed that they were incapable of fixing the mess that the had created so I'm not sure that what Bob said is as hypothetical as you think.

[dees64 104]

The gap continues to get bigger between the big clubs vs the smaller clubs!

Collingwood posted a 5 mill profit with revenue of 75 mill!

Afl are partially to blame with crappy stadium deals,unfair draws all driven by tv rights ratings that see big clubs play on prime time thus attracting better sponsors,membership etc

Geelong make over 500K each game with 23k crowd...what the smaller clubs need is a similar set up....not continued afl rescue $$

The majority of MFC issues were from poor mgt......But as PJ said the gap is too big regardless

[deanox 9,915]

I actually wish they would stop calling it special assistance etc.

It would be nice if the AFL publicly acknowledged that the fixture is designed to make money which means that some clubs have better exposure and therefore are in s better position to make money. And that "Equalisation" is not about evening up for poor clubs, it's about repaying the small clubs the equivalent money they have lost/not earned through lack of exposure, fixture, etc which is designed to make money for the AFL.

Yeah we struggle, and if all clubs were treated equal I wouldn't mind being called a basketcase. But while we are sacrificed so that the AFL , an industry can maximise profits, then we deserve to be remunerated for our losses.

[Guest]

The biggest issue in regards to whether we needed to be bailed out or not boils down to Peter Jackson.
PJ says he is employed by the MFC even though he often speaks about consulting with the AFL but if it were a case of us merely getting funds and nothing more then we could just write 2013 off as a year where luck/circumstances weren't on our side and we move on with the same existing board and admin.

My time line of how things happened seemed to go this way:
1) We lose to Essendon in round 2 by 148 points. Andrew Demetriou comes on radio saying that 'we are happy to answer any requests for help made from any club'.

2) Despite Don McLardy sending a letter out saying there would be no radical changes at the club turns around and sacks Cameron Schwab.

3) We find out nearly 1-2 weeks later that Peter Jackson is our new CEO for a period of six months. This is ultimately extended to 2 years. Furthermore, it is revealed that Jackson was recommended to the club by the AFL.

4) Under PJ's watch, we get Paul Roos, the biggest fish this club has landed since Jeff White in 1997. I believe Grand New Flag has mentioned that despite the supposed shock of the announcement that Roos was 50/50 to come to the club, this was also in the pipeline for quite some time.
The AFL aren't just giving us support. They are saving us from ourselves.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

The biggest issue in regards to whether we needed to be bailed out or not boils down to Peter Jackson.

PJ says he is employed by the MFC even though he often speaks about consulting with the AFL but if it were a case of us merely getting funds and nothing more then we could just write 2013 off as a year where luck/circumstances weren't on our side and we move on with the same existing board and admin.

My time line of how things happened seemed to go this way:

1) We lose to Essendon in round 2 by 148 points. Andrew Demetriou comes on radio saying that 'we are happy to answer any requests for help made from any club'.

2) Despite Don McLardy sending a letter out saying there would be no radical changes at the club turns around and sacks Cameron Schwab.

3) We find out nearly 1-2 weeks later that Peter Jackson is our new CEO for a period of six months. This is ultimately extended to 2 years. Furthermore, it is revealed that Jackson was recommended to the club by the AFL.

4) Under PJ's watch, we get Paul Roos, the biggest fish this club has landed since Jeff White in 1997. I believe Grand New Flag has mentioned that despite the supposed shock of the announcement that Roos was 50/50 to come to the club, this was also in the pipeline for quite some time.

The AFL aren't just giving us support. They are saving us from ourselves.

Pretty much agree with this.

That Round 2 game was the AFL's "line in the sand moment" regarding the MFC.

They know that they can make money from a strong MFC & will do so, but until the club can show fight on the field it is not economically viable to give us an A grade fixture. If this was not the case there is no way we would still be getting the QB Fixture.

Whether we can challenge the Big 4 in drawing power in the future remains to be seen, but we can certainly be a strong club if the place is run correctly.

That i am 100% certain.

[Lordweaver 235]

AFL is our sugar daddy, relax

[Rogue 585]

40,000 is very achievable. We're at 21,309 now, well ahead of last year, could easily make 25k by Christmas - they're calling it "the Roos factor" in the club. A decent start in the pre-season games and the early rounds and it will be 40k+.

It's very achievable to have something like 20% more members than we've ever had?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The biggest issue in regards to whether we needed to be bailed out or not boils down to Peter Jackson.

PJ says he is employed by the MFC even though he often speaks about consulting with the AFL but if it were a case of us merely getting funds and nothing more then we could just write 2013 off as a year where luck/circumstances weren't on our side and we move on with the same existing board and admin.

My time line of how things happened seemed to go this way:

1) We lose to Essendon in round 2 by 148 points. Andrew Demetriou comes on radio saying that 'we are happy to answer any requests for help made from any club'.

2) Despite Don McLardy sending a letter out saying there would be no radical changes at the club turns around and sacks Cameron Schwab.

3) We find out nearly 1-2 weeks later that Peter Jackson is our new CEO for a period of six months. This is ultimately extended to 2 years. Furthermore, it is revealed that Jackson was recommended to the club by the AFL.

4) Under PJ's watch, we get Paul Roos, the biggest fish this club has landed since Jeff White in 1997. I believe Grand New Flag has mentioned that despite the supposed shock of the announcement that Roos was 50/50 to come to the club, this was also in the pipeline for quite some time.

The AFL aren't just giving us support. They are saving us from ourselves.

Its not an issue. The AFL were alarmed at the incompetent circus being played out on and off the ground and took action.

The AFL foresaw at least 12 months that the rot from the top would crucify this Club. And 2013 proved that in spades. Perennial bottom dwelling side, losing members and sponsors which would have continued had the circus and the main performers been allowed to continue.

And your last sentence was accurate.

However with Jackson and now Roos on board we now have proven competent people to turn the ship around.

For the first time in years there are real signs of turnaround and we all need to get on board.

Thanks AFL.

Pretty much agree with this.

That Round 2 game was the AFL's "line in the sand moment" regarding the MFC.

They know that they can make money from a strong MFC & will do so, but until the club can show fight on the field it is not economically viable to give us an A grade fixture. If this was not the case there is no way we would still be getting the QB Fixture.

Whether we can challenge the Big 4 in drawing power in the future remains to be seen, but we can certainly be a strong club if the place is run correctly.

That i am 100% certain.

You believe what you want to believe.

The line in the sand was drawn around 12 months ago. Round 2 only proved on field what was already known.

Its not clear at all whether the AFL believe that they can make money from a strong MFC. The issue for the AFL was they did not want a perpetual losing side with no sponsors, shrinking member/supporter numbers and players who were any good wanting to get the hell out of there at the first instance.

The biggest concern was they had things not changed then the Club would have been in free fall spiral downwards.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It's very achievable to have something like 20% more members than we've ever had?

Agree. It would be good to have some notable improvement that harness the belief that MFC are improving to make that number sustainable.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

You believe what you want to believe.

i will. For the reasons i have stated.

As a founding member of the AFL we can be a strong club as long as the right people are driving the place.

[Guest]

Its not an issue. The AFL were alarmed at the incompetent circus being played out on and off the ground and took action.

The AFL foresaw at least 12 months that the rot from the top would crucify this Club. And 2013 proved that in spades. Perennial bottom dwelling side, losing members and sponsors which would have continued had the circus and the main performers been allowed to continue.

And your last sentence was accurate.

However with Jackson and now Roos on board we now have proven competent people to turn the ship around.

For the first time in years there are real signs of turnaround and we all need to get on board.

I agree with you that most people don't see the fact that the AFL bailed us out monetarily and basically put an administrator in charge of us even though we weren't technically bankrupt as a point of contention. I was more replying to what Deanox was saying when he said he resented that were being called a basketcase and that it was the mean old AFL's fault that we are where we are. Sure, the draw doesn't help but if you look at the more than 3 years of utter incomptence, then that begins to wear a little thin.

[Whispering_Jack 30,073]

You believe what you want to believe.

True ... and it applies to much of the club's recent history.

Let's hope that whoever writes the club's history carries out full and proper research into the events of the time.

[Slartibartfast 17,268]

Well, that's disappointingly personal...

I was just making a point about emotive language.

Not "disappointingly" personal. I admire the consistency of your approach. I just can't accept the position you hold that the club wasn't in dire trouble and that a possible outcome could have been relocation or extinction, both the same result for me.

I don't know why you're so defensive. I've obviously held the position that Neeld, Schwab and McLardy weren't good enough but I've never been rude about them as people. All were well intentioned but all led us to be non financial and non competitive.

True ... and it applies to much of the club's recent history.

Here are some facts Jack. The first is that around the end of 2011 we were coming off two 8.5 win seasons. We were almost or were debt free. From 2007 to 2011 the Stynes/McLardy/Schwab/Bailey team managed that improvement . They also eliminated about $5 million in debt. A mighty effort.

At the end of 2013 we were coming off a two win season and recorded a loss of $1.7 million loss and required AFL assistance both financially and administratively. We were embarrassingly uncompetitive on field and in debt off it. The McLardy/Schwab/Neeld team managed that decline.

You don't need to "believe" that because it's fact. You can attempt to source the cause back to the Daniher/Gardner days of 2003 to 2007 but you've not presented any facts that supports it and I think many here would find it difficult to link Gardner and Daniher to the decline from 2011 to 2013.

My belief is the decline started with the loss at Geelong, the completely botched response to that game, the involvement of Garry Lyon at the approval of McLardy and Schwab and the subsequent appointment of Neeld. That 8 week period set us up for the performance that was to follow and it happened because we failed to follow due diligence and proper process.That belief is open to reasonable debate but the decline from 2011 to 2013 cannot reasonably be laid at the feet of anyone but those in charge during the period.

And I don't need to do the "full and proper research" because I was there and observed it first hand.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I agree with you that most people don't see the fact that the AFL bailed us out monetarily and basically put an administrator in charge of us even though we weren't technically bankrupt as a point of contention. I was more replying to what Deanox was saying when he said he resented that were being called a basketcase and that it was the mean old AFL's fault that we are where we are. Sure, the draw doesn't help but if you look at the more than 3 years of utter incompetence, then that begins to wear a little thin.

The AFL moved on us as a consequence of the dire direction they saw us going.

I would hate to think what MFC would be like if the farcical status quo of 12 months ago was maintained.

Thank God there has been a big turnaround in the calibre of the leadership and management of the Club.

[rpfc 28,410]

Not "disappointingly" personal. I admire the consistency of your approach. I just can't accept the position you hold that the club wasn't in dire trouble and that a possible outcome could have been relocation or extinction, both the same result for me.

I don't know why you're so defensive. I've obviously held the position that Neeld, Schwab and McLardy weren't good enough but I've never been rude about them as people. All were well intentioned but all led us to be non financial and non competitive.

I think it was personal - those that 'preached' about those at the club have a 'past vision' that almost brought about the end of the club.

How is that not personal?

The AFL stepped in months AFTER I and many other of the preachers thought Schwab should not have got his 2012 extension, the AFL stepped in AFTER I and many others of the preachers made it clear McLardy should move on, and when the AFL stepped in I, and many of my preacher cabal friends on here, welcomed the arrival of Head Office into our affairs.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

My belief is the decline started with the loss at Geelong, the completely botched response to that game, the involvement of Garry Lyon at the approval of McLardy and Schwab and the subsequent appointment of Neeld. That 8 week period set us up for the performance that was to follow and it happened because we failed to follow due diligence and proper process.That belief is open to reasonable debate but the decline from 2011 to 2013 cannot reasonably be laid at the feet of anyone but those in charge during the period.

And I don't need to do the "full and proper research" because I was there and observed it first hand.

We all felt the shift. And Geelong was the final straw, but the moment i realized we were in deep trouble was earlier in 2011 playing Meth Coast over there. I had never seen such a meek performance as that before.

That was when i tweaked that the entire strategy was off the rails.

This website went into complete meltdown that night for good reason.

[Whispering_Jack 30,073]

Here are some facts Jack. The first is that around the end of 2011 we were coming off two 8.5 win seasons. We were almost or were debt free. From 2007 to 2011 the Stynes/McLardy/Schwab/Bailey team managed that improvement . They also eliminated about $5 million in debt. A mighty effort.

At the end of 2013 we were coming off a two win season and recorded a loss of $1.7 million loss and required AFL assistance both financially and administratively. We were embarrassingly uncompetitive on field and in debt off it. The McLardy/Schwab/Neeld team managed that decline.

You don't need to "believe" that because it's fact. You can attempt to source the cause back to the Daniher/Gardner days of 2003 to 2007 but you've not presented any facts that supports it and I think many here would find it difficult to link Gardner and Daniher to the decline from 2011 to 2013.

My belief is the decline started with the loss at Geelong, the completely botched response to that game, the involvement of Garry Lyon at the approval of McLardy and Schwab and the subsequent appointment of Neeld. That 8 week period set us up for the performance that was to follow and it happened because we failed to follow due diligence and proper process.That belief is open to reasonable debate but the decline from 2011 to 2013 cannot reasonably be laid at the feet of anyone but those in charge during the period.

And I don't need to do the "full and proper research" because I was there and observed it first hand.

Thanks for again proving that it's a matter of belief and peoples' various interpretations of what we observed first hand.

If you believe that the decline began with 186 then I can't convince you otherwise. However, you must have failed to observe the disturbing signs earlier in 2011 that led up to that fateful day; the flogging the team received in a single quarter v Hawthorn, the insipid display at Subiaco v West Coast, the disastrous "bruise-free" performance against Carlton and the straw that broke the camel's back on 1 July, 2011 v the Bulldogs that convinced many that we were going backwards under Bailey. After that, the Geelong game was an inevitability. Pity you didn't see it coming.

It's admirable that you acknowledge the contribution of Stynes/McLardy in demolishing the debt left behind by their predecessors. After all, we were much closer to death before Stynes came in than we were earlier this year. Thanks to Stynes/McLardy and of course the many who contributed to the cause, our balance sheet is in the black despite the $1.7m loss and we aren't the basket case some might paint us as being.

It's on the field where we were a "basket case" but the seeds for that were sown long ago. Our sheer mediocrity on the ground combined with a shocking fixture is what precipitated our financial crisis earlier this year.

Years of bungling on the football side was what caused the McLardy/Schwab admin to pay the price but you're kidding yourself if you can't see that the situation came about through a sustained period of incompetent coaching, list management and recruiting over a period of time that included not only their tenure but started long before they took the reins. They failed to get things right and paid the price but it's folly to imagine it started with 186.

From my perspective, the neglect and incompetence began many years ago and only time will tell whether we're in better hands now. However, I'm reasonably confident at this point that we are.