$500K Profit for Dees in 2015

[Alotta 88]

"By last year the club's debt – famously eliminated by the Jim Stynes-Don McLardy-driven foundation heroes campaign – had swelled back to more than $5 million" (C Wilson).

Isn't it time once and for all that we lay to rest the myth that the Stynes/McLardy Board eliminated debt and in so doing "saved the Club"? This myth originated with the Club itself, was readily embraced by supporters and continues to be perpetuated uncritically by the likes of Wilson. For the record:

The debt at the point of Stynes’ ascendancy to the Chair was $4.78 million comprising net asset deficiency of $3.179 million as at 31.10.07 plus forecast operating loss for fy08 of $1.6 million.

In the 5 years 2008-2012 according to the audited financial accounts, the Club booked $6.335 million in revenue attributable to the Debt Demolition campaign and its offshoot the “Foundation Heroes” campaign. Almosthalf this amount was p****d up against the wall when the Club recorded a trading loss of $3.1 million in 2013.

In 2011, without fanfare, the Club brought onto the balance sheet the Bentleigh Club asset at a conservative valuation of $6.691 million. The Bentleigh project had its origins in the late 1990s under then CEO Hassa Mann and incoming Chairman Joseph Gutnick. The Bentleigh project was carefully nursed along by successive administrations and Boards (including Stynes') supported by MFC-friendly Bentleigh Club boards on which sat some MFC Club legends. This courtship of 15 years' duration culminated with a formal merger and the incorporation of the Bentleigh assets onto the MFC books. This - not Debt Demolition much of which was shamefully squandered - "eliminated debt".

The Bentleigh asset is today worth in the vicinity 0f $12-15 million as a property development play. It is the family silver. It represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to "football proof" MFC finances if prudently invested in income bearing investments. The Members must remain vigilant wathching for any sign of future Boards or administrations selling off the family silver in pursuit of the discredited strategy of buying a premiership.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Alotta

[Chris 2,892]

And we get shafted in the fixture because we are few in numbers and generate little TV interest. Unfortunately the AFL is a business, an unsustainable business. The AFL needs an 18 team comp for their TVs rights obligations so we get financially propped up, but our poor on field success and meagre support base means little media coverage. Our 'profit' is not real as long as we cannot sustain ourselves. Hopefully the era of false dawns is over.

I don't see the time slot of the fixture as anywhere near as important as who you play home games against, that is where we truly get shafted and TV ratings or our member numbers have very little if anything to do with that. The simple solution is to split all gate takings 50/50.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

C & B who is the new girl?

The impossibly gorgeous Megan Fox

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

100000% correct. If we had a draw with the commercial benefits of some other clubs we would not need any AFL money. Reckon we are doing well given what we get dished up from the AFL and our putrid on field performance over the last 9 years

No. This club will be doing well when it can consistantly win more than one game in a row.

Until then the AFL will hand us the dregs in terms of TV and Fixture...

[Chris 2,892]

No. This club will be doing well when it can consistantly win more than one game in a row.

Until then the AFL will hand us the dregs in terms of TV and Fixture...

Handing us our fair share of home games against the big clubs is hardly dependent on us winning games, or it shouldn't be, it is simply part of a fair and equitable league. hahahahahahhaa, sorry I forgot we are talking about the AFL so fair and equitable go out the window and join other words such as integrity and transparent.

[ManDee 7,162]

The impossibly gorgeous Megan Fox

This one?

Edited November 12, 2015 by ManDee

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

Maybe this one

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Handing us our fair share of home games against the big clubs is hardly dependent on us winning games, or it shouldn't be, it is simply part of a fair and equitable league. hahahahahahhaa, sorry I forgot we are talking about the AFL so fair and equitable go out the window and join other words such as integrity and transparent.

Ratings are the big clubs Chris.

When the MFC can win consistently and that includes beating the big clubs we are in the the dreg category.

For years this club has made an art form out of asking for help & having a b & c excuses

It is time for this club to stand up, i think PJ fully understands this.

To get a better fixture we must earn it, just like 17 other clubs do

[Guest]

"By last year the club's debt – famously eliminated by the Jim Stynes-Don McLardy-driven foundation heroes campaign – had swelled back to more than $5 million" (C Wilson).

Isn't it time once and for all that we lay to rest the myth that the Stynes/McLardy Board eliminated debt and in so doing "saved the Club"? This myth originated with the Club itself, was readily embraced by supporters and continues to be perpetuated uncritically by the likes of Wilson. For the record:

The debt at the point of Stynes’ ascendancy to the Chair was $4.78 million comprising net asset deficiency of $3.179 million as at 31.10.07 plus forecast operating loss for fy08 of $1.6 million.

In the 5 years 2008-2012 according to the audited financial accounts, the Club booked $6.335 million in revenue attributable to the Debt Demolition campaign and its offshoot the “Foundation Heroes” campaign. Almosthalf this amount was p****d up against the wall when the Club recorded a trading loss of $3.1 million in 2013.

In 2011, without fanfare, the Club brought onto the balance sheet the Bentleigh Club asset at a conservative valuation of $6.691 million. The Bentleigh project had its origins in the late 1990s under then CEO Hassa Mann and incoming Chairman Joseph Gutnick. The Bentleigh project was carefully nursed along by successive administrations and Boards (including Stynes') supported by MFC-friendly Bentleigh Club boards on which sat some MFC Club legends. This courtship of 15 years' duration culminated with a formal merger and the incorporation of the Bentleigh assets onto the MFC books. This - not Debt Demolition much of which was shamefully squandered - "eliminated debt".

The Bentleigh asset is today worth in the vicinity 0f $12-15 million as a property development play. It is the family silver. It represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to "football proof" MFC finances if prudently invested in income bearing investments. The Members must remain vigilant wathching for any sign of future Boards or administrations selling off the family silver in pursuit of the discredited strategy of buying a premiership.

I think unfortunately with the nature of Jimmy's passing, a lot of the positive is overemphasized and a lot of the negatives are glossed over.

Debt Demolition and Foundation Heroes were great ideas and had a side effect of galvanizing the club for a period there. People who hadn't been seen around the joint for years like Joe Gutnick and Stan Alves were turning up to club functions. Jimmy as well wanted the club to be more like a family and this showed in his interactions with supporters and staff. How much he succeeded in that is another story though I suppose.

The problem was that Jimmy unfortunately bought into the 'boys club' mentality that left us in the state we were in at the start of 2013. He did start to distance himself from Schwab around 186 but he couldn't seem to break from the mindset that we had to hire Melbourne people and not necessarily the best people.

Point in case: the fact that he bought in the Gaz man as football boss. I'm not sure if it went any further but he also mentioned in his biography that it was likely that Greg Healy was going to come on board as well in some capacity after Bailey was sacked. What stuns me now when I read that passage is how casual the process of getting Sugar on board was. No interviews, no accountability, he was just going to come. Granted that Jimmy didn't have a great lot of time to conduct a headhunting operation but this leads me onto my next point.

It also hurts to say that he probably should have resigned a lot earlier than he did. Keep in mind that not only was he the president but he was working as our football conduit to the board after Cell left. This workload, on top of his other business and board appointments, would have been heavy for most of us but it would have been incredibly grueling for a man with terminal cancer. It surely would have effected his ability to do the jobs he was assigned to do and, most tragic of all, would have had a deleterious effect on his physical well-being.

I've been of the opinion for quite some time that Jimmy was a great uniting figure for the club but it probably should have stayed there. He could have been our Don Scott. The towering figure who issued a rallying call to arms that supporters could get behind. Like Scotty though, I'm not sure he was built to be a football club politician. Scott's problems, it should be mentioned, were different to Jimmy. They mostly revolved around his lack of tact and his inability to suffer fools.

One can be respectful of the legacy Jimmy left the club on the playing field and can salute his bravery in battling cancer but one can also point out some of the things that went wrong while he was president as well.

[old dee 23,801]

Spot on above CBF

I have often wondered what would have happened if he had stood down to fight his Cancer when he was first diagnosed.

Sadly the world is full of what if's

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Spot on above CBF

I have often wondered what would have happened if he had stood down to fight his Cancer when he was first diagnosed.

Sadly the world is full of what if's

Would have taken him a lot quicker if he had stepped down

Jimma wasn't the problem. His mates were

[Fork 'em 6,984]

a few good years up and about (which we seem a good chance of achieving with our current on and off field personnel) and we might see the sleeping giant start to wake up

Sleeping giant ?

[What 18,810]

How can you expect cluds to make a real profit when Gillon Mclachlan, Mike Fitzpatrick and the rest of the cronies at AFL House are giving themselves mega bonuses for running a league that any monkey could run?

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

How can you expect cluds to make a real profit when Gillon Mclachlan, Mike Fitzpatrick and the rest of the cronies at AFL House are giving themselves mega bonuses for running a league that any monkey could run?

Not any monkey. A monkey in an expensive suit.

[Chris 2,892]

Ratings are the big clubs Chris.

When the MFC can win consistently and that includes beating the big clubs we are in the the dreg category.

For years this club has made an art form out of asking for help & having a b & c excuses

It is time for this club to stand up, i think PJ fully understands this.

To get a better fixture we must earn it, just like 17 other clubs do

I am not talking about ratings or even time slots though, simply that we get shafted due to having home games against the little clubs and interstate teams far more than the big clubs do. That should not be reliant on winning or TV or any other external factor, it should be a simple part of the fixture than they are shared around to share the gate taking more evenly. As it stands the big clubs make money of us when we play them but we are not afforded the opportunity to do the same from them in return. That is not equal or fair.

If the AFL were serious about equalisation and getting teams off the teat then this would be the first thing to change, either share them around or split the gate 50/50. That gives every club the same chance to make money adn would increase our profits dramatically.

[Middymalt 244]

Not the basket case anymore!!

Not the basket case anymore!!

I gave $2500

To debt demolition never ever again.

[Fork 'em 6,984]

That's not the attitude we want Middy.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

I am not talking about ratings or even time slots though, simply that we get shafted due to having home games against the little clubs and interstate teams far more than the big clubs do. That should not be reliant on winning or TV or any other external factor, it should be a simple part of the fixture than they are shared around to share the gate taking more evenly. As it stands the big clubs make money of us when we play them but we are not afforded the opportunity to do the same from them in return. That is not equal or fair.

If the AFL were serious about equalisation and getting teams off the teat then this would be the first thing to change, either share them around or split the gate 50/50. That gives every club the same chance to make money adn would increase our profits dramatically.

The fixture is not fair. I know what you mean but those days are gone

We have to get ourselves on the other side of the ledger. We don't make the AFL money at this point. If we start winning i think we will

[Guest]

Would have taken him a lot quicker if he had stepped down

Jimma wasn't the problem. His mates were

This is a sensitive issue to discuss but one that I believe that the football media and Melbourne supporter base needs to have. Alotta is right in the statement that she(?) made earlier and there needs to be more discussion about what really happened. While a lot of it is old hat, it never really was spoken about calmly or logically.

What happened at the end of Jimmy's life with the presidency of the club will in no way tarnish the legacy he left at the club as a player and club legend.

We all know the story. Young Irish lad comes halfway across the world to play a game he had never even seen prior to arriving. He gets dropped from the club (loaned to Prahran) but comes back to play senior finals football. Runs over the mark which is the catalyst for him to become the player that eventually won the 1991 Brownlow medal. He then proceeds to break the all time consecutive games played record (whilst playing through injuries that a lot of others wouldn't for better or worse). The most inspiring thing perhaps of all is his establishment of the Reach foundation which no doubt has helped numerous kids back on track when a lot of them could have fallen through the cracks of our modern society.

When Jim was diagnosed with cancer, we all marveled at his ability to fight on for as long as he did (he was given 9 months to live and extended that to 2 years). His dignity and his refusal to complain about his situation were remarkable.

That can never be taken away. (I view Garry Lyon in a similar vein when thinking about his contribution to the fabric of the MFC).

That being said...

I remember at the time directly after Jim's passing when Demonland turned into yet another circular firing squad that many people were talking about the failures of 'the Schwab/McLardy regime'. I thought at the time it wasn't appropriate to correct people on this assertion as feelings were raw but I thought that to say it was Don's and CS's fault without looking at the fact that Jim was president for 4 years and Don for 1 and a half years was grossly unfair to both Don and (hold onto your seats) Schwab. That being said Jimmy did have a MUCH bigger battle on his hands which would lead me to my next point.

I feel almost vulgar making comment on the health situation of someone I never met personally. I cannot refute WYL's statement outright that the MFC presidency ended up extending Jimmy's life. If that is true, that at least provides a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.

I can however state that Jimmy himself apologized at Dean Bailey's final presser for not being able to be on top of all the issues surrounding the club. From memory as well, I believe Sam Stynes actually implored Garry Lyon to step in as the issues surrounding the club were too much for a seriously ill man like Jim to take on (though I'm happy to be corrected). Looking at that presser, you could tell that having to handle all that s*** was the last thing Jimmy needed.

I also believe it would take an incredibly courageous (some might say tactless) man to ask Jimmy to consider resigning but I don't believe that Jimmy's absences from the club (as warranted as they were) were advantageous. In some ways, his battle was inspiring and gave some character to a club that has been said to lack any (some said it was exploitative to have him front and centre but I believe Jimmy was a willing participant). In hindsight, and it is easy to say this in hindsight, the club really did need leadership from the top at what was a crucial time for our club. In some ways, his absence has absolved him from being a willing participant in the tanking saga and for that we can all be thankful. But what might have happened had an effective president been there while Cuddles and Schwab were running interference during the 2009 season? What input could have a healthy and talented football manager provided when there was clearly a divide between the playing and administrative side of the club?

There are a lot of ifs there. It was clear though that the clowns had been let loose in the fun house and that the board's reason for being no longer existed: that being oversight of the business and football side of things. I appreciate that a board is made up of many people (in fact Stynes was of the opinion that both Bailey and Schwab needed to go but was overruled by his board it would appear) but strong and constant leadership would definitely have improved the odds of the situation not degenerating into what it did. For that reason, I believe Jimmy should have resigned a lot earlier than he did. No one would have held it against him.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

This is a sensitive issue to discuss but one that I believe that the football media and Melbourne supporter base needs to have. Alotta is right in the statement that she(?) made earlier and there needs to be more discussion about what really happened. While a lot of it is old hat, it never really was spoken about calmly or logically.

What happened at the end of Jimmy's life with the presidency of the club will in no way tarnish the legacy he left at the club as a player and club legend.

We all know the story. Young Irish lad comes halfway across the world to play a game he had never even seen prior to arriving. He gets dropped from the club (loaned to Prahran) but comes back to play senior finals football. Runs over the mark which is the catalyst for him to become the player that eventually won the 1991 Brownlow medal. He then proceeds to break the all time consecutive games played record (whilst playing through injuries that a lot of others wouldn't for better or worse). The most inspiring thing perhaps of all is his establishment of the Reach foundation which no doubt has helped numerous kids back on track when a lot of them could have fallen through the cracks of our modern society.

When Jim was diagnosed with cancer, we all marveled at his ability to fight on for as long as he did (he was given 9 months to live and extended that to 2 years). His dignity and his refusal to complain about his situation were remarkable.

That can never be taken away. (I view Garry Lyon in a similar vein when thinking about his contribution to the fabric of the MFC).

That being said...

I remember at the time directly after Jim's passing when Demonland turned into yet another circular firing squad that many people were talking about the failures of 'the Schwab/McLardy regime'. I thought at the time it wasn't appropriate to correct people on this assertion as feelings were raw but I thought that to say it was Don's and CS's fault without looking at the fact that Jim was president for 4 years and Don for 1 and a half years was grossly unfair to both Don and (hold onto your seats) Schwab. That being said Jimmy did have a MUCH bigger battle on his hands which would lead me to my next point.

I feel almost vulgar making comment on the health situation of someone I never met personally. I cannot refute WYL's statement outright that the MFC presidency ended up extending Jimmy's life. If that is true, that at least provides a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.

I can however state that Jimmy himself apologized at Dean Bailey's final presser for not being able to be on top of all the issues surrounding the club. From memory as well, I believe Sam Stynes actually implored Garry Lyon to step in as the issues surrounding the club were too much for a seriously ill man like Jim to take on (though I'm happy to be corrected). Looking at that presser, you could tell that having to handle all that s*** was the last thing Jimmy needed.

I also believe it would take an incredibly courageous (some might say tactless) man to ask Jimmy to consider resigning but I don't believe that Jimmy's absences from the club (as warranted as they were) were advantageous. In some ways, his battle was inspiring and gave some character to a club that has been said to lack any (some said it was exploitative to have him front and centre but I believe Jimmy was a willing participant). In hindsight, and it is easy to say this in hindsight, the club really did need leadership from the top at what was a crucial time for our club. In some ways, his absence has absolved him from being a willing participant in the tanking saga and for that we can all be thankful. But what might have happened had an effective president been there while Cuddles and Schwab were running interference during the 2009 season? What input could have a healthy and talented football manager provided when there was clearly a divide between the playing and administrative side of the club?

There are a lot of ifs there. It was clear though that the clowns had been let loose in the fun house and that the board's reason for being no longer existed: that being oversight of the business and football side of things. I appreciate that a board is made up of many people (in fact Stynes was of the opinion that both Bailey and Schwab needed to go but was overruled by his board it would appear) but strong and constant leadership would definitely have improved the odds of the situation not degenerating into what it did. For that reason, I believe Jimmy should have resigned a lot earlier than he did. No one would have held it against him.

nice words Colin

But i see the reverse

I have NEVER understood how & why the club did not became more united and inspired to improve in every way whilst Jimma did everything to stay alive.

The reality was obviously that the club ripped itself apart until PJ was summoned

It was all camoflagued from the members until days before 186. We know the rest...

I do not blame Jimma one bit. The guy was inspiring

People he knew let him and the club down apallingly i believe.

[Guest]

nice words Colin

But i see the reverse

I have NEVER understood how & why the club did not became more united and inspired to improve in every way whilst Jimma did everything to stay alive.

The reality was obviously that the club ripped itself apart until PJ was summoned

It was all camoflagued from the members until days before 186. We know the rest...

I do not blame Jimma one bit. The guy was inspiring

People he knew let him and the club down apallingly i believe.

If Jimma was still a presence at the club without all of the accompanying responsibilities that came with being president then I would agree.

Unfortunately, the jobs he was tasked with carrying out came with responsibilities that were key in the running of the football club.

I would agree that those around him largely did let him down. It wasn't until the mess hit the fan on 186 that even an attempt was made to give him the chop out that he deserved.

On the whole, yes Jimmy's story was and remains inspiring. An overview of his entire life shows that he was a shining example of humanity. But as I intimated in my initial post, we should not over-accentuate the positives and ignore some of the very real shortcomings of the time when he was president (i.e. the return of Hollywood Boulevarde, the points I have made before about Jim's illness effecting his presidency).

[george_on_the_outer 7,611]

Another year of "being in the black" is only a positive.

I will reserve judgement about how this was achieved until the actual financials are produced, but based on last year it would appear to be genuine. Unlike some other clubs, whose financial reports must be the basis of a comedy sketch at the annual accountants dinner.

However, our situation is still dire in terms of income. If we make more money on a single day against Collingwood on QB or Alice springs or Darwin, than we do for the rest of the season, then there is something seriously wrong about the fixture that allows this to happen.

Equalisation as touted by the AFL is inadequate. Give us $500K in cash or give us a home game against Richmond, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood etc. Which would you prefer as a supporter? But no...these type of clubs get to play each other twice, and when we play them it is usually as an away side. It just kills us financially.

And it goes on year after year after year on the basis that we don't win enough games.

In 2016, Essendon get Hawthorn, Richmond, Carlton and Geelong as home games. Cartlon get Essendon, Geelong and Collingwood. We get Richmond and Collingwood.

Remind me where these teams finished last year?

Each of these " lack of games" would cost us $500k in revenue. Don't give us "handouts" just give us the same opportunities as given to others.

Having said all that, it is a truly creditable effort to make a profit after such an ordinary season. Cartlton lose $2M after getting 5 or 6 Friday night games, and home games against Geelong, Essendon and Collingwood.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

If Jimma was still a presence at the club without all of the accompanying responsibilities that came with being president then I would agree.

Unfortunately, the jobs he was tasked with carrying out came with responsibilities that were key in the running of the football club.

I would agree that those around him largely did let him down. It wasn't until the mess hit the fan on 186 that even an attempt was made to give him the chop out that he deserved.

On the whole, yes Jimmy's story was and remains inspiring. An overview of his entire life shows that he was a shining example of humanity. But as I intimated in my initial post, we should not over-accentuate the positives and ignore some of the very real shortcomings of the time when he was president (i.e. the return of Hollywood Boulevarde, the points I have made before about Jim's illness effecting his presidency).

The short fall was installing his mate as The CEO who was completely out if his league for whatever reasons

Jimma should not have been expected to work flat out as his health deteriorated but his seat was always there.

Who does more work for the club

Bartlett or PJ...?

[Guest]

The short fall was installing his mate as The CEO who was completely out if his league for whatever reasons

Jimma should not have been expected to work flat out as his health deteriorated but his seat was always there.

Who does more work for the club

Bartlett or PJ...?

Good question.

It does come down to the role that the board fulfills and the role that admin. fulfills.

Ultimately the board's role is oversight (though in Jim's case he was also the football manager). Quite clearly, our administration (CEO) had gone rogue in 2010-2011 and it is at that point the board DID need to intervene. Quite clearly the intervention, when it came in the form of CS's sacking pre 186, came about when things had basically become irretrievable. This was shown by the fact that 186 occurred that very afternoon.

It's hard to say as perhaps Don was trying to help out but the very real fact was that at the time, Jimmy was president. It wasn't until that moment that most of us realized that he shouldn't have been taking on the workload that he had and moves were put in place to ease the burden on him (and eventually hand the presidency over to Don).

The facts are, and you do make a valid point here, that Glen Bartlett doesn't do as much work as PJ. That being said, his job is not to run the club on a day to day basis. His job is to provide oversight in regards to the running of the club. He and the board are the 'gatekeepers' so to speak. If PJ all of a sudden bought a toupee that gave him a mighty coiffure homme hairstyle, started wearing smart guy glasses, got himself a sleeve tattoo and started a weblog called '[censored] off Friday' where he spent all of his time outlining how brilliant the direction the club is heading is, it would be up to GB to pull the pin. I would be confident nonetheless that having a healthy Glenn Bartlett there to make that decision would be much more preferable than an unhealthy GB who could only be at the club sporadically and one who has larger battles to consider that keep him away from the coal face of the club.

The second issue is that with a lot of the key posts at the club being held by ex players and especially Hollywood Boulevarde types, something that Jimmy was big on, it was always going to be difficult to cull non performing parties without a lot of hurt feelings. It was a big reason why Chris Connolly was ultimately moved sideways as Garry Lyon was never going to sack one of his best mates outright. That is sadly something that Jimmy is responsible for.

We will never know for the time being how GB would react if he were in the same position Jimma was due to the very fact that the administrative side of the football club doesn't cause him any grief.

Jimmy's heart was in the right place I think but I believe the decision for him to stay on as president in hindsight wasn't the right one when one considers what was going on at the club at the time.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Earl Hood 6,086]

Everyone's on welfare. We all get a distribution from the AFL. Stop this nonsense.

If you have an uneven fixture, stadium deals, TV games etc then its perfectly fair for a redistribution of AFL funds to ensure a more even comp.

We all put on the show, As it is its still way too uneven.

Fair enough Junior. I suppose I had my doubts about where we stood in the scheme of things when the presidents of the top clubs took off to the USA a few years ago to study equalisation with one token small club president from the Dogs as I remember. Then they came back from their junket and decided very little change was needed because yes we are all equal. Then I think of that 12 month sham of an investigation into our tanking from 2009 and the leaking of allegations to Caroline Wilson every second week; you know the secret meeting in the vault, that turned out to be a regular weekly coaches meeting in an atco hut. Instead of dragging the AFL to court to call their bluff, we had to bend over and take it because we were on AFL welfare. And Gil the Dill's explanation on our $500K fine for not tanking is a masterpiece in corporate speak. This fiasco made us a laughing stock but yes we all on the AFL distribution list, so we are all treated the same. Do you really think Collingwood or Hawthorn would have copped that Shyte even though they also did their share of tanking?