Fundraising via donations is a legitimate and relevant way to make money. its not a soft option. its not a poor strategy. The fact is this fund-raising exercise has made millions of dollars for the club that can only be seen as a good thing. The MFC tapped into a resource and milked for all it could.

Footscray rattled tins on the streets and roads that in effect helped save their club.

Other clubs have used the same strategy to varying success using the same successful model the MFC used.

Fund raising is a soft option to the extent that it can mask the need to get the business in order as it is not repeatable. It can give a false sense of security. It's soft because building a competitive and sustainablel business model is difficult.

It is legit, I'm not arguing it isn't. But the funds raised must be used efficiently and in our case I don't think they were.

But we can differ, that's fine.

Every AFL club receives a hand out from the AFL, Dees, Pies, Bombers, Lions.. All.

Here is hoping we have an onfield turn around over the next few years that delivers success on and off the field.

This fundraising event was called 'Debt Demolition'. it was always used as strategy to reduce/eliminate debt, therefore very successful at the time.

I don't see the club using this strategy as an ongoing way to keep the clubs bottom line intact. This strategy was so successful the club used the same strategy again, with more success.

Others have pointed out some of the hurdles this club faces. All relevant and hard hitting to the clubs bottom line. The MFC thought outside the square and tapped into the clubs richest supporters. I see the Liberal Party, Labor Party and other political parties doing the same. Are they soft for doing this? I don't think so. Welfare agencies live off donations. They use the same model by tapping into rich companies. Its an economic strategy commonly used.

In my opinion, the club was very creative and a fore runner by using this strategy. As I said, other clubs have used the same model after the success of 'Debt Demolition'

I'm not sure whether you're being argumentative but I think you'll find that Jackson has wiped very significant amounts from unnecessary head office salaries which were established by Schwab in "the worst economic environment since the Great Depression". haha - WHAT MONEY? That money.

But the point is pretty simple. If you think Jackson is not as good as Schwab then you'd argue for Schwab. I contend that Jackson or someone of his ilk would have done a much better job with the resources at his disposal. That would have resulted in either no need for the debt demolition or a much better outcome as a result of the debt demolition.

I think Jackson is far better than Schwab.

But, to sit there and say the debt demolition was "poor management" is rubbish and if I'm not mistaken; isn't the Heroes Foundation still going??

Must be a really "soft option" if PJ is still doing it...

Sure, whilst it was good/clever thinking by the club, the real heroes that basically saved our clubs ar$e were the foundation heroes, who put countless money into the club (many probably still do).

The greatest majority of those 'heroes' no doubt would be between the ages of 40-70. Astounding, considering they would have gone through and experienced all of the greatest dryspell of success of this club and still put up with the unbelievably bad ongoing performance of the MFC (both on and off-field), since 2007.

Fundraising via donations is a legitimate and relevant way to make money. its not a soft option. its not a poor strategy. The fact is this fund-raising exercise has made millions of dollars for the club that can only be seen as a good thing. The MFC tapped into a resource and milked for all it could.

Footscray rattled tins on the streets and roads that in effect helped save their club.

Other clubs have used the same strategy to varying success using the same successful model the MFC used.

It's not a sustainable revenue stream and in the absence of real business models to grow revenue it was doomed to failure.

It's not a sustainable revenue stream and in the absence of real business models to grow revenue it was doomed to failure.

But it was never meant to be a business model. It was what had to be done to get us out of debt and in that respect, it was successful in getting us out of the red and into the black. We might well have gone on and flourished but for our well documented failures suffered on the football field.

Most clubs that are successful on the field end up making money. Clubs that have 186, sack their coaches and have ordinary playing groups rarely do.

This is fantastic, if it is sustainable, to even challenge for a premiership, everything must fall into place and not the least of these is the "back room operations". So hopefully we will see the end to people wishing to donate money being ignored, tax assessment notices left in drawers and sponsors being spurned.

In my opinion it is almost as good as a first round draft pick.

Congratulations to Jackson and the team.

I'd be more concerned about having to wear a face mask for the rest of your life to be able to breathe, I suppose it did change your voice from a whinny little white boy into a cool Afro American.

I take it that you not read the annual report then?

But it was never meant to be a business model. It was what had to be done to get us out of debt and in that respect, it was successful in getting us out of the red and into the black. We might well have gone on and flourished but for our well documented failures suffered on the football field.

Most clubs that are successful on the field end up making money. Clubs that have 186, sack their coaches and have ordinary playing groups rarely do.

I didn't say it was meant to be a business model, I said it was an unsustainable revenue stream and in the ABSENCE of a real business model it was doomed to failure.

Fund raising is a soft option to the extent that it can mask the need to get the business in order as it is not repeatable. It can give a false sense of security. It's soft because building a competitive and sustainablel business model is difficult.

It is legit, I'm not arguing it isn't. But the funds raised must be used efficiently and in our case I don't think they were.

But we can differ, that's fine.

I wouldn't call it a soft option, but it was only a bandaid solution. It did what we needed it to do at the time, raise enough money to eliminate the debt, but while that was going on we needed long term sustainable solutions. We had ideas, those ideas proved to be wrong unfortunately.

PJ should be congratulated for being able to make a profit in his first year despite rising costs, poor (although improving) performances by the team, and poor crowds. How he's pulled it off I have no idea.

I wouldn't call it a soft option, but it was only a bandaid solution. It did what we needed it to do at the time, raise enough money to eliminate the debt, but while that was going on we needed long term sustainable solutions.

I agree. The soft option comment related to the fact that once the money was raised the urgency of having a sustainable business model and strict financial controls eased as there was "money in the bank". Hence the loan to Cameron Schwab which of course was totally inappropriate and I think there was something about an expensive desk although my memory is hazy on that issue.

Unfortunately once the financial crisis was removed we then proceeded to build and extraordinarily top heavy management structure which PJ has removed. Properly spent the debt demolition would have been a magnificent contribution to the club but unfortunately those contributions allowed significant inappropriate spending which would not have happened without it.

Raising money from passionate and generous members and supporters with Jimmy as our figurehead was an easy (or soft) option compared with developing a long term viable business model. All credit and recognition to those that supported the club in those times but some are disillusioned in the way their money was used be it directly or indirectly.

I didn't say it was meant to be a business model, I said it was an unsustainable revenue stream and in the ABSENCE of a real business model it was doomed to failure.

In the absence of a 'real business model', a business will fail. As has already been pointed out, the Debt Demolition project eliminated debt. As massive pass mark on this strategy.

Seriously, how can raising 5 million dollars be seen as poor, soft or bad strategy!!!

In the absence of a 'real business model', a business will fail. As has already been pointed out, the Debt Demolition project eliminated debt. As massive pass mark on this strategy.

Seriously, how can raising 5 million dollars be seen as poor, soft or bad strategy!!!

well first you need to develop an agenda with a large chip on the shoulder

In the absence of a 'real business model', a business will fail. As has already been pointed out, the Debt Demolition project eliminated debt. As massive pass mark on this strategy.

Seriously, how can raising 5 million dollars be seen as poor, soft or bad strategy!!!

I never said it was poor, soft or bad strategy - it was a great initiative. But without the foundations of a stable revenue stream/business model to back it up it was ultimately pointless as we reverted back to where we were in a matter of years.

I never said it was poor, soft or bad strategy - it was a great initiative. But without the foundations of a stable revenue stream/business model to back it up it was ultimately pointless as we reverted back to where we were in a matter of years.

Our pokies venues are bringing in more revenue but without it, we'd probably be in a bit of strife (to be fair, nearly all the clubs extract large revenues from poker machines - especially Carlton & Hawthorn) ... most of our other revenue streams can increase to varying degrees if we were far more successful on the field.

We're actually well set up to do well financially but the seasons where we only win 4 games or less are stifling our growth in more ways than one. 8-10 wins would almost certainly see a higher membership, greater match returns in terms of the gate, increased sponsorship and other corporate revenue, merchandise revenue would have to increase and even the much discussed foundation heroes revenue would provide greater returns.

Many of the past boards have had a hand in all the above - we shouldn't be squabbling about who was the best at it. I'm not pointing the finger at you either Doc. My view is more of an overview.

Our pokies venues are bringing in more revenue but without it, we'd probably be in a bit of strife (to be fair, nearly all the clubs extract large revenues from poker machines - especially Carlton & Hawthorn) ... most of our other revenue streams can increase to varying degrees if we were far more successful on the field.

We're actually well set up to do well financially but the seasons where we only win 4 games or less are stifling our growth in more ways than one. 8-10 wins would almost certainly see a higher membership, greater match returns in terms of the gate, increased sponsorship and other corporate revenue, merchandise revenue would have to increase and even the much discussed foundation heroes revenue would provide greater returns.

Many of the past boards have had a hand in all the above - we shouldn't be squabbling about who was the best at it. I'm not pointing the finger at you either Doc. My view is more of an overview.

We need to exploit more pensioners ,bus them into our pokie venues ,provide free pensioner meals etc so it becomes like their home.

If we can get a massive crowd in on pension day with some incentives ,then we should be able to glean more revenue moving forward.

We need to exploit more pensioners ,bus them into our pokie venues ,provide free pensioner meals etc so it becomes like their home.

If we can get a massive crowd in on pension day with some incentives ,then we should be able to glean more revenue moving forward.

We already have od!!

The point is irrelevant now.

We are all AFL subsidiaries.

The aim is to hobble the large teams onfield and then strip away everything they have off it.

The fixture is what makes cash.

And TV.

The fans are just let into grounds for colour.

One of your finest posts Biff. But you forgot to add pokies in there, the poison that keeps us alive.

One of your finest posts Biff. But you forgot to add pokies in there, the poison that keeps us alive.

In my case there are several poisons Moon.

We need to exploit more pensioners ,bus them into our pokie venues ,provide free pensioner meals etc so it becomes like their home.

If we can get a massive crowd in on pension day with some incentives ,then we should be able to glean more revenue moving forward.

Have you been in the Leighoak lately? ... the oldies are already in there Drove past it the other day and they're offering senior discounts for this and that. It's probably much the same at the Bentleigh club.

I've been to both venues on occasions and both places have a fair bit to offer - especially when we play interstate. Situated in our old zones, I can't see a problem with either establishment. I believe they're both very good investments - without them, we'd be posting significant losses.

I'd pop in to one of the venues on the next pension day and give you a report on the age demographics of the clientele but I believe the next pension day is xmas eve - I'm kinda busy that night but I might send both establishments an email to at least start offering up some "courtesy buses"

In my case there are several poisons Moon.

Narcan may help some of them. Castration the others.

Narcan may help some of them. Castration the others.

Thanks for the tipoff.

i haven't got the balls for it.

We need to exploit more pensioners ,bus them into our pokie venues ,provide free pensioner meals etc so it becomes like their home.

If we can get a massive crowd in on pension day with some incentives ,then we should be able to glean more revenue moving forward.

Maybe you could russle up a few blokes from the Gat Biffo, dispatch them to various train lines around Melbourne and have them hassle the passengers for money.