What would you pay more money for to help the MFC further stabilize?

[Sir Why You Little 37,042]

5 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Wasn't Doctor Who engaged in some covert attempt to take over 'Ology at one stage when the owner was having health issues? From memory, he was going to put in a rule insisting we refrain from criticism of the club and we only could post positive content.

Or am I getting him mixed up with someone else?

Yes. Good get Colin. I remember we all had to update passwords

the good Doctor has been in the shadows for a long time!!

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

On 05/03/2018 at 4:28 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

The bottom line here is purely this. We are a club that is in a city of 5 million people, we have at this point 40,000 members and we must share the city with 8 other clubs, so revenue is tight 

A hell of a lot of Australians gamble on anything, not me, but i am in the minority. So if we get rid of our machines, the revenue is lost to someone else, the gambling won’t stop. 

Replacing $10-12 Million per year would be nigh impossible, let’s be honest. 

Poker Machines are legal to use.

 Same as online Betting last time i looked. 

Just remember the AFL doesn’t pay tax, but you can be sure the clubs do

Wait the AFL doesn't pay tax? Seriously?

How does that work, are they classified as a religion or something?

[Sir Why You Little 37,042]

4 minutes ago, Choke said:

Wait the AFL doesn't pay tax? Seriously?

How does that work, are they classified as a religion or something?

Seriously. 

They are classed as a “not for profit” organization

and i am deadly serious!!

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Seriously. 

They are classed as a “not for profit” organization

and i am deadly serious!!

I am flabbergasted.

The AFL is as business-like as they come.

So that $400m broadcast deal is just tax-free income?

I think my head just exploded.

[Sir Why You Little 37,042]

3 minutes ago, Choke said:

I am flabbergasted.

The AFL is as business-like as they come.

So that $400m broadcast deal is just tax-free income?

I think my head just exploded.

Yes to all the above. It hasn’t changed since its inception...

most people refuse to believe it, but it is all there if you search it

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes. Good get Colin. I remember we all had to update passwords

the good Doctor has been in the shadows for a long time!!

It's the most fired up performance I have seen from a poster when Rod Grinter Riot Squad drew his line in the sand and swore he would never go on a board run by Doctor Who our his brother. It bought about the new 'Ology which for mine isn't quite the same as the old one. That was a sad outcome.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Guest]

To get on point...

No, I would not.

The MFC has been going cap on hand to supporters and the AFL for too long.

Debt Demolition was a great idea for its time in that it brought a fractured club together (albeit temporarily) and also got rid our debt. However, it seemed that model seemed to be its main way of supporting the club.

As a long term strategy, it reeked of 1980's Carlton when Jack Elliott and Dick Pratt used to get together at Raheen to launch recruiting raids on the WAFL and small Melbourne clubs. However, the world had moved on and we weren't aware that there were only so many times we could go to that well.

As far as I'm concerned, long term 'fundraisers' discourage the club from becoming truly professional.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Colin B. Flaubert
No league I know of called the WALL. Maybe it was in East Berlin?

[Macca 16,972]

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Wasn't Doctor Who engaged in some covert attempt to take over 'Ology at one stage when the owner was having health issues? From memory, he was going to put in a rule insisting we refrain from criticism of the club and we only could post positive content.

Or am I getting him mixed up with someone else?

Yep ... same person with the aid of the 'brother'.  No prizes for figuring out who that is although the brother is a demon (probably?)

The bottom line is that genuine supporters end up having their time wasted in a needless manner ... the subject matter can seem legit but there's a more sinister motive behind it all. 

The theme is always the same though ... not only are the supporters blamed for any negative outcome but those same supporters are made to feel bad about their club and are constantly told that they should be doing more.  

Those targeted are perhaps the disgruntled or disillusioned types ... I guess we've been a bit of an easy target Col.  I've got the troll on ignore and won't read his nonsense - after all,  it's just the same nonsense regurgitated. 

The internet can have its foibles.

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

He also changed his team of support to GWS on BigFooty

[Sir Why You Little 37,042]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He also changed his team of support to GWS on BigFooty

What a strange person...

[daisycutter 29,616]

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What a strange person...

not to mention creepy

[old dee 23,792]

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What a strange person...

The understatement of the week.

[Diamond_Jim 12,590]

1 hour ago, Choke said:

I am flabbergasted.

The AFL is as business-like as they come.

So that $400m broadcast deal is just tax-free income?

I think my head just exploded.

If you're interested, this is the test in layman's term from the ATO site and just to blow your mind the definition of a charity relies substantially upon a law passed in Elizabethan times (that's Queen Liz the First back in the 1600's) :

Your sporting organisation will be exempt from income tax, and can self-assess its exemption, if it is not a charity and meets all of the following requirements:

• it is a not-for-profit society, association or club
• it is established for the purpose of encouragement of either of the following    
  • a game or sport
  • animal racing
   
• it meets one of the three following tests  
  • physical presence in Australia test
  • DGR test
  • prescribed by law test
   
• it complies with all the substantive requirements in its governing rules. This means that your organisation must operate only in a manner consistent with its rules of core importance to its operation, including those related to its object and purpose and those relating to its NFP status.
• it applies its income and assets solely for the purpose for which it is established.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Diamond_Jim

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,782]

I'm not that troubled that the AFL does not pay tax. The position at the moment is that the AFL still gets money from Federal and State Governments to help with various programs, but primarily to help with infrastructure. If the AFL paid tax, it would just end up getting more money from the Governments. At the moment, I trust the AFL to spend the money it doesn't give to the Government as tax more wisely than the various Governments. 

[Macca 16,972]

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If you're interested, this is the test in layman's term from the ATO site and just to blow your mind the definition of a charity relies substantially upon a law passed in Elizabethan times (that's Queen Liz the First back in the 1600's) :

Your sporting organisation will be exempt from income tax, and can self-assess its exemption, if it is not a charity and meets all of the following requirements:

• it is a not-for-profit society, association or club
• it is established for the purpose of encouragement of either of the following    
  • a game or sport
  • animal racing
   
• it meets one of the three following tests  
  • physical presence in Australia test
  • DGR test
  • prescribed by law test
   
• it complies with all the substantive requirements in its governing rules. This means that your organisation must operate only in a manner consistent with its rules of core importance to its operation, including those related to its object and purpose and those relating to its NFP status.
• it applies its income and assets solely for the purpose for which it is established.

And if the AFL were concerned about losing their tax-exempt status they wouldn't have entered into agreements with the various betting agencies.  Following the money means having a diligent checks & balance approach. 

Any talk of the pokies going is pure unadulterated nonsense ... why would the AFL give a leg-up to their Rugby League counterparts.  All those Leagues clubs in NSW won't be going anywhere (nor the partnerships)

 

[Guest]

@Macca

Like.... Wow.

I spend a fair bit of time on this board but on my list of priorities, it ranks below family, work and friends.

What kind of weirdo spends his time plotting takeovers of football boards out of some bizarre sense of sadism? 

It shouldn't surprise me. We live in a world where internet trolls are a legitimate political constituency.

[DaveyDee 421]

On 03/03/2018 at 11:14 PM, DaveyDee said:

The pledge per win is a well used idea - I would be interested to know how much it raises per round. Going back to the supporters time after time for me is not the answer - we need to find ways of getting non-MFC supporters to contribute. 

Just to clear up a few clearly wrong statements above. Please read my quote. 

I would prefer to look for alternatives- other than the supporters. 

MFC have a fantastic core of resilient loyal supporters among the best in the league - again sorry some people don’t read the thread they take comments out of context. 

The AFL are pushing clubs to be more “business like “ - Educational Institutions have obvious links to the business world. I enjoy our MFC business functions - they are a potential gold mine and have many innovative ideas to raise more revenues as a possible alternative to poker machines - which I personally dont care if they stay or go. I’m happy to live with whatever descision the AFL makes. 

Hi Go Dees

Edited March 9, 2018 by DaveyDee

[Macca 16,972]

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

@Macca

Like.... Wow.

I spend a fair bit of time on this board but on my list of priorities, it ranks below family, work and friends.

What kind of weirdo spends his time plotting takeovers of football boards out of some bizarre sense of sadism? 

It shouldn't surprise me. We live in a world where internet trolls are a legitimate political constituency.

Many are wanting their 15 minutes of fame Col ... and the internet and social media allows those who crave that attention an easier passage.  In a way I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.  

Most of it is quite harmless of course but what happened over at 'ology was a very real thing. 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Macca

[The Chazz 4,077]

21 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Hahaha I was all over the Tigers deal a long long time ago and many other initiatives. As I said our relationship with Chisholm I have no problems with I have no problems with working with Australian Leading Educational Institutions - I do on a daily basis. 

However, I was hoping for innovative ideas  - but such is life copying others clubs and you repeating it is all fine from me. 

You continually prove many things to me but I will refraining from throwing insults - I’m actually glad I can put you back on ignore. 

Proof or GTFO.

And as for your last sentence, thank Christ for that.

Edited March 9, 2018 by The Chazz

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

Until religious organisations start paying tax I have no issue with the AFL not paying any. 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If you're interested, this is the test in layman's term from the ATO site and just to blow your mind the definition of a charity relies substantially upon a law passed in Elizabethan times (that's Queen Liz the First back in the 1600's) :

Your sporting organisation will be exempt from income tax, and can self-assess its exemption, if it is not a charity and meets all of the following requirements:

• it is a not-for-profit society, association or club
• it is established for the purpose of encouragement of either of the following    
  • a game or sport
  • animal racing
   
• it meets one of the three following tests  
  • physical presence in Australia test
  • DGR test
  • prescribed by law test
   
• it complies with all the substantive requirements in its governing rules. This means that your organisation must operate only in a manner consistent with its rules of core importance to its operation, including those related to its object and purpose and those relating to its NFP status.
• it applies its income and assets solely for the purpose for which it is established.

 

lol.

Seems like anyone could just create a non-profit sporting organisation and simply pay themselves a massive salary to run it.

Surely not Gil though. He probably works for the love of the game.

Thanks for the post, very informative.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Until religious organisations start paying tax I have no issue with the AFL not paying any. 

Both should pay, IMHO.

[daisycutter 29,616]

24 minutes ago, Choke said:

Both should pay, IMHO.

correct - both are religions

at least they should pay tax on all their non-philanthropic activities

and be forced to justify it

[DaveyDee 421]

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not that troubled that the AFL does not pay tax. The position at the moment is that the AFL still gets money from Federal and State Governments to help with various programs, but primarily to help with infrastructure. If the AFL paid tax, it would just end up getting more money from the Governments. At the moment, I trust the AFL to spend the money it doesn't give to the Government as tax more wisely than the various Governments. 

Also its possible if the AFL paid more in tax - there would be a very high possibility of admission fees going up - then some people would complain the AFL admission prices are getting out of the reach of a normal family. 

Please note some people complain we have to play games in Darwin - the same people complain they hate poker machines. Personally, I can live with both or neither. 

Welcome the AFL's push to make clubs more "business like" and seek alternative sources of income - hence the thread. I support the MFC thru their business functions where 80-90% of the audience are NOT MFC supporters. 

Think its clear the club is trying to create a positive innovative culture - again I support that - but I'm sure some will find a reason to complain about something they always do. I'm happy with the MFC, I'm happy with the AFL the game is in very good shape.  

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

10 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Just to clear up a few clearly wrong statements above. Please read my quote. 

I would prefer to look for alternatives- other than the supporters. 

 

 

That's funny, considering the thread is titled "What would YOU pay more money for..." (emphasis added)