The annual report has been out for a while, but is worthwhile spending some quiet time over this holiday period to make sense of it:

ANNUAL REPORT

While it is easy to make comments about who and what were responsible, the Club incurred a loss of $1.7M and is now carrying $3.1M of debt.

That's not good news in anyones book, but the fortunate side to the debt is that a substantial amount is associated with Gaming machine licenses. And it is being paid down by the income from the same over the next 2 years. And those same machines increased income by $5M from the previous year. Without that the financial results would have been approaching disastrous.

The report does highlight the effects of the appalling on-field performance in 2013. Revenue down by $4.4M from membership, sponsorship, gate receipts and corporate hospitality!. No one wanted to pay money to see a s...t side playing c...p football.

Peter Jacksons hope of turning the red ink of this year into black in 2014 is very achievable, with just a modicum of improvement on-field. We have already seen the membership numbers improvement and hope that translates to an overall increase for the year. Likewise the locking in of old and new sponsors was nothing short of miraculous.

Let's hope the players can deliver something that makes it worthwhile going to the footy in the coming year!

Without the tanking fiasco & sackings in the FD, the club would have lost 400k. Its not such a bad figure considering the year we had. As Jackson has already stated we should be in the black next year.

The good news George is that our net asset position at the end if the year is still in the black by $3m underpinned by property, a good position given the seven years of underperforming football teams after, at one stage being in deficit by $5m.

The lesson is we need good administration but even more than that we have to perform in our core business and start winning games of football.

Glenn Bartlett's biggest challenge IMO is to restore us to complete independence from the AFL if that's at all possible - a task that will probably take no less than 2 to 3 years.

The good news George is that our net asset position at the end if the year is still in the black by $3m underpinned by property, a good position given the seven years of underperforming football teams after, at one stage being in deficit by $5m.

The lesson is we need good administration but even more than that we have to perform in our core business and start winning games of football.

Glenn Bartlett's biggest challenge IMO is to restore us to complete independence from the AFL if that's at all possible - a task that will probably take no less than 2 to 3 years.

To be Independant of the AFL we need a fair draw with home games against the big vic clubs

Otherwise they rightly hand over the money

Feel free to correct me anytime I've only been following MFC for 60 years.

We've got a " laissefare " AFL appointed CEO on a short term contract who didn't want the job and

we've got an as above coach for two or three years who couldn't attract a takeover coach.

Should we have got " John Lennon Rose Coloured Glassses " with our 2014 memberships ?

The good news George is that our net asset position at the end if the year is still in the black by $3m underpinned by property, a good position given the seven years of underperforming football teams after, at one stage being in deficit by $5m.

The lesson is we need good administration but even more than that we have to perform in our core business and start winning games of football.

Glenn Bartlett's biggest challenge IMO is to restore us to complete independence from the AFL if that's at all possible - a task that will probably take no less than 2 to 3 years.

The needed item is winning games if we could win 8 -10 in 2015 and make the eight in 2016 it would make an enormous difference to the financials.

Feel free to correct me anytime I've only been following MFC for 60 years.We've got a " laissefare " AFL appointed CEO on a short term contract who didn't want the job andwe've got an as above coach for two or three years who couldn't attract a takeover coach.Should we have got " John Lennon Rose Coloured Glassses " with our 2014 memberships ?

Fairly disappointing post "puntkick". When you take into account Peter Jackson actually sought to increase his contract until the end of 2014 after only a few months in the job, which has since culminated in the arrival of Paul Roos as well as the locking away of key sponsors. To say that the afl could make a person take a job they didn't want is simply foolhardy, the afl is hardly communist Russia forcing people to take on work against their will. Afl installed or not, they are there selling the Melbourne brand now and so far, doing a mighty job of it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

like

The good news George is that our net asset position at the end if the year is still in the black by $3m underpinned by property, a good position given the seven years of underperforming football teams after, at one stage being in deficit by $5m.

The lesson is we need good administration but even more than that we have to perform in our core business and start winning games of football.

Glenn Bartlett's biggest challenge IMO is to restore us to complete independence from the AFL if that's at all possible - a task that will probably take no less than 2 to 3 years.

The value of the property holdings is not subject to nor is dependent upon under performing football unless we had to fire sell it to cover extraordinary losses in our "core business". The properly deal was initially set up in the Gutnick administration and successfully carried through to the current stage by administrations led by Szondy, Gardner and Stynes/McLardy.

The biggest challenge for Bartlett is to ensure the establishment of appropriate,sustainable and sensible business models including attracting capable competent key executives to manage and further develop them. He will also need to plan the ultimate transition of CEO and coaching roles from Jackson and Roos.

I am not sure what "complete independence" from the AFL means considering they provide a substantial contribution to revenue through the normal allocations of TV rights money. I think is important that Bartlett continues to build bridges with the AFL executive to ensure the AFL can be confident that MFC can competently and successfully manage its own affairs.

Fairly disappointing post "puntkick". When you take into account Peter Jackson actually sought to increase his contract until the end of 2014 after only a few months in the job, which has since culminated in the arrival of Paul Roos as well as the locking away of key sponsors. To say that the afl could make a person take a job they didn't want is simply foolhardy, the afl is hardly communist Russia forcing people to take on work against their will. Afl installed or not, they are there selling the Melbourne brand now and so far, doing a mighty job of it.

If PJ finishes up

at the end of next season that would be a massive setback for the club, we don't need a part time CEO or coach, the sooner Roos finds his replacement the better.

We don't have a part time CEO or coach. We have a full time coach and a full time CEO, both of whom are contracted and both of whom are doing a fully committed job thus far.

If PJ finishes up

at the end of next season that would be a massive setback for the club, we don't need a part time CEO or coach, the sooner Roos finds his replacement the better.

If PJ does finish up sooner rather than later, given his record with us so far, do you think he will leave us in the lurch or will depart professionally with a suitable replacement ready to take over?

Ditto for Roos. He has stated that if he doesn't achieve ultimate success with us he is quite happy to leave it for the next coach. Given that he hasn't rushed his replacement and put in an unsuitable candidate, this indicates that he is willing to will wait to have the right person in charge before he leaves. The succession plan was his idea and a factor in him taking the job

To think either of these men would simply wander off with a moments notice seems far fetched

Neither will walk off at a moments notice, but neither is in it for the long term. Previously the mantra has been short term pain for long term gain. As long as these appointments aren't short term gain, long term pain I'm happy for both to depart in their own time.

I am not sure what "complete independence" from the AFL means considering they provide a substantial contribution to revenue through the normal allocations of TV rights money. I think is important that Bartlett continues to build bridges with the AFL executive to ensure the AFL can be confident that MFC can competently and successfully manage its own affairs.

The AFL is bound to provide an equitable distribution of funds to its constituent clubs but do you think clubs like Collingwood and West Coast aren't independent of the AFL? Does Eddie ever kowtow to Vlad?

The AFL is bound to provide an equitable distribution of funds to its constituent clubs but do you think clubs like Collingwood and West Coast aren't independent of the AFL? Does Eddie ever kowtow to Vlad?

Have a look at the balance sheets of those clubs and see what portion of their income is from the AFL. I haven't looked in a couple of years, but I expect you'll find every club is completely dependent on the AFL and that the notion of "independence from the AFL" is nothing but a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

zacharey

Have a look at the balance sheets of those clubs and see what portion of their income is from the AFL. I haven't looked in a couple of years, but I expect you'll find every club is completely dependent on the AFL and that the notion of "independence from the AFL" is nothing but a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

It's true that the clubs get a fair proportion of funding from the AFL but as Apocalypse points out those monies are mandatory contributions which the AFL Commission as overseer of the game including the media rights packages. What makes clubs "independent" is their capacity to fend for themselves separately from that income stream.

Hawthorn is a good example. In the mid 90s, the club was broke despite its recent string of premiership success. A few poor seasons had the club on its knees and almost merging with Melbourne. Some smart decisions (starting with the decision not to merge) saw the club take up permanent residence at the MCG for games, Waverley as a training base, the lucrative Tasmania option for matches against poor drawing clubs and many other initiatives. These mean that the Hawks don't have to go to the AFL with cap in hand every few seasons for assistance and that's how one properly gauges the independence or otherwise of a club. This is largely underpinned by competence on and off the field but there's no substitute for on field success to help things along.

It's true that the clubs get a fair proportion of funding from the AFL but as Apocalypse points out those monies are mandatory contributions which the AFL Commission as overseer of the game including the media rights packages. What makes clubs "independent" is their capacity to fend for themselves separately from that income stream.

Hawthorn is a good example. In the mid 90s, the club was broke despite its recent string of premiership success. A few poor seasons had the club on its knees and almost merging with Melbourne. Some smart decisions (starting with the decision not to merge) saw the club take up permanent residence at the MCG for games, Waverley as a training base, the lucrative Tasmania option for matches against poor drawing clubs and many other initiatives. These mean that the Hawks don't have to go to the AFL with cap in hand every few seasons for assistance and that's how one properly gauges the independence or otherwise of a club. This is largely underpinned by competence on and off the field but there's no substitute for on field success to help things along.

The must have ingredient.

The must have ingredient.

Well said. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is what's achieved on the field. Everything that happens off the field is there to support success by the team. Business models are great but we are a football club that must only measure its performance by how many games we win, how many finals we play in and how many premierships we win. We get that right and all the rest should fall into place. We won't have to rely on the old boy network to attract talented executives if we're winning. Good people want to be involved with (and/or stay with) winning teams.

Even if we make money but still don't achieve success on the field, we fail.

Roll on season 2014, 2015, 2016 because I am desperate to see us winning.

Well said. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is what's achieved on the field.

So if we succeed on field it doesn't matter if we go broke?

So if we succeed on field it doesn't matter if we go broke?

Bob, I think what he's saying is that ultimately we must achieve success on the field or we will fail as a club; making money will only get us so far, if we don't get on-field success the money will soon dry up.

We were debt free after the DD, but since then the failure on field has caused the debt to raise it's ugly head again.

So if we succeed on field it doesn't matter if we go broke?

No Bob. In fact, that's even more simplistic than I'm suggesting.....surprisingly. Essentially, what I'm saying is that success tends to breed even more success...in business or in sport.....until complacency sets in. Winners attract winners. Why, in the past,have we had trouble attracting the best players, coaches and administrators, do you think?

Now, apart from all that, we are a sporting club playing competitive sport at a high level. Surely, the reason for doing so is to win 'stuff'. If that's not what drives everything we do, we should give it up. I am sick of seeing us continue to fail in competition and, frankly, I'd be happier for the club to break even as long as it brought us success. At the moment, the return on investment for decades of membership is in the negative bus, as far as I'm concerned, just one premiership would wipe the slate clean.

Bob, I think what he's saying is that ultimately we must achieve success on the field or we will fail as a club; making money will only get us so far, if we don't get on-field success the money will soon dry up.

We were debt free after the DD, but since then the failure on field has caused the debt to raise it's ugly head again.

No Bob. In fact, that's even more simplistic than I'm suggesting.....surprisingly. Essentially, what I'm saying is that success tends to breed even more success...in business or in sport.....until complacency sets in. Winners attract winners. Why, in the past,have we had trouble attracting the best players, coaches and administrators, do you think?

Now, apart from all that, we are a sporting club playing competitive sport at a high level. Surely, the reason for doing so is to win 'stuff'. If that's not what drives everything we do, we should give it up. I am sick of seeing us continue to fail in competition and, frankly, I'd be happier for the club to break even as long as it brought us success. At the moment, the return on investment for decades of membership is in the negative bus, as far as I'm concerned, just one premiership would wipe the slate clean.

Fair enough. I just don't subscribe to the theory that success breeds success. St.Kilda, NM, PA and Dogs are all examples of how quickly you can go from chocolates to boiled lollies.

Successive mediocre CEO's and Boards have cruelled our Club but I think for the first time in decades we have a good mix although I know little of Bartlett the fact I've heard so little from him since he assumed the Chairmanship is a very good thing. It's ironic that the people we have running the club now were in effect put in there by the AFL and not the members who have consistently demonstrated an inability to elect good Boards.

Fair enough. I just don't subscribe to the theory that success breeds success. St.Kilda, NM, PA and Dogs are all examples of how quickly you can go from chocolates to boiled lollies.

Successive mediocre CEO's and Boards have cruelled our Club but I think for the first time in decades we have a good mix although I know little of Bartlett the fact I've heard so little from him since he assumed the Chairmanship is a very good thing. It's ironic that the people we have running the club now were in effect put in there by the AFL and not the members who have consistently demonstrated an inability to elect good Boards.

I agree with this Bob but I have been a member for more years than I care to remember......I have no interest in politics, either in government or footy clubs, therefore I don't vote in the footy club elections as I don't know the applicants or their policies.....I have to trust that other members do and will elect the right ones

I just love the footy and the games and the club, whatever the results......

Fair enough. I just don't subscribe to the theory that success breeds success. St.Kilda, NM, PA and Dogs are all examples of how quickly you can go from chocolates to boiled lollies.

Successive mediocre CEO's and Boards have cruelled our Club but I think for the first time in decades we have a good mix although I know little of Bartlett the fact I've heard so little from him since he assumed the Chairmanship is a very good thing. It's ironic that the people we have running the club now were in effect put in there by the AFL and not the members who have consistently demonstrated an inability to elect good Boards.

There's also an element of having not much to choose from as well though, to be fair. The last time I remember any significant election was when the Gardner board was formed. Since then it's all been board members being re-elected unopposed, or in the case of the Stynes board, a coup.