24 minutes ago, faultydet said:

The morals police are out again.

ffs, have your EVER heard of personal responsibility?

Tell me what difference it will make to a gambling addict, if we remove our machines? The only thing that it would impact positively is your "feelings"

you can either stand in front of the train or plan how you are going to move. As the man said... "The times they are a changing"

1 hour ago, machine11 said:

Nothing wrong with pokies, just the regulation of pokies. A good venue operator should be able to spot high risk customers and remove them from the venue. 

like a pub would know an alcoholic by the way they drink at the pub ?. There is a big problem with the pokies in our society.

it reminds me of all the ads - come play pokies !! come play pokies !! its great !! look how much fun it is !! get excited !! (then the disclaimer) oh by the way don't do it too much ok.

 

When PJ took over we had serious issues with uniting the club from the top down. It felt fractured between the corporate side and the footy side, and while Jimmy did an amazing job of rallying people to the cause it didn't solve the long term issues that the club simply wasn't professional enough.

I think this above all else is what PJ has managed to achieve (helped by Roos dealing with the footy side), we now look and act like a professional sporting organisation. We have clear direction on and off the field, and I really do feel we are on the right path. Sporting clubs are an interesting beast though, if the on field side isn't successful it's very hard to succeed off field without very solid foundations.

The truest test of how far we've come is when our on field takes a dip and we don't have as many fans attending (hopefully this will be a long way off!). One of out major goals must be getting profitable without having to sell home games. I'm pragmatic enough to know that we still need them financially, but at what point do we let that cost us a potential place in the 8, or a top 4 spot? 

Well done to all involved!

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Just putting it out there but the continued reliance upon pokies could have an adverse impact upon memberships in the future.

It troubles me as I am sure it troubles others. I would like to see a long term strategy (5-10 years) for their removal.

They may be legal but that does not mean that I have to support their insidious impact upon vulnerable members of the community.

In reality this is only moving with community opinion. Twenty years ago concepts of ethical investment were laughed at and now they are mainstream.

Can people make their own decisions or must all be spoon fed. 

Someone who puts money into Poker Machines is responsible for their actions. 

I choose to walk on by... but many don’t.

I prefer that the MFC can make some money out of happless idiots rather than James Packer and Crown

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Just putting it out there but the continued reliance upon pokies could have an adverse impact upon memberships in the future.

It troubles me as I am sure it troubles others. I would like to see a long term strategy (5-10 years) for their removal.

They may be legal but that does not mean that I have to support their insidious impact upon vulnerable members of the community.

In reality this is only moving with community opinion. Twenty years ago concepts of ethical investment were laughed at and now they are mainstream.

I am also just putting it out there, think many at the AFL agree with you but in clubland things are a tad more tricky. But in recent years the MFC have a good record of not getting on the AFL bad side regarding petty issues hopefully that gives us some "brownie points" so to speak regarding this debate. 

We have just released a very pleasing set of accounts, we have a politics free leadership team that genuinely care about some of our supporters. Personally, I'm not fused but given some time you will get your wishes. 

Hawthorne have more pokies the us, the have 30000 more members and they don't look like getting rid of them, why should we be the  moral ones when the supposed family Club destroy way more families than we do, 

2 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

I am also just putting it out there, think many at the AFL agree with you but in clubland things are a tad more tricky. But in recent years the MFC have a good record of not getting on the AFL bad side regarding petty issues hopefully that gives us some "brownie points" so to speak regarding this debate. 

We have just released a very pleasing set of accounts, we have a politics free leadership team that genuinely care about some of our supporters. Personally, I'm not fused but given some time you will get your wishes. 

The AFL is not the Peoples Moral Police.

If pokies are legal, they ought to keep their damn noses out of the clubs business. It's bad enough they send the poorer clubs all over the land, in the crap timeslots, then make a song and dance over equalisation funds. To then tell a poor club such as ours to ditch our best revenue stream outside membership/major sponsors, would be feel good politics and nothing more.

15 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Have to see the financials to verify it, but as I recall the majority of our debt was from purchasing the Poker machine licenses, which are being paid off from the poker machines themselves.  I think it was anticipated that would be achieved within 2 years.

So we will be in a better position than North, once that happens, as we will have an unencumbered revenue source, and they still will not.

 

Majority of debt was the poker machine licences and also the separate debt the Bentleigh Club had. I can't remember how much that was but I seem to remember it was around $3mill. 

The final pokey licence fees were paid out this year so I could be wrong but think they are now debt free and pure revenue makers. 

The Bentleigh Club valuation of$8.7mill has never been adjusted since the 2011 purchase. So the balance sheet is a lot stronger than it looks as it must be worth considerably more by now. The Club can't sell it until 15/8/2022 unless certain conditions are met (don't know what they are but I think it might be finding an alternative Bowling club they agree to) or the BC members approve the sale. 

Couple of interesting figures. The increase in Gate Receipts was  $774,927. The increase in membership, reserved seating & general fundraising was worth $479,843. Given that includes fundraising the increased revenue from increased memberships would be less than I was expecting.

Social and Gaming revenue was $11,641,049 . Don't know how much the social revenue was but I assume the vast majority of that is from the Pokeys and now it appears we will get all of that revenue with no associated debt to pay off. I don't know if there are annual fees for them. 

 

17 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Have to see the financials to verify it, but as I recall the majority of our debt was from purchasing the Poker machine licenses, which are being paid off from the poker machines themselves.  I think it was anticipated that would be achieved within 2 years.

So we will be in a better position than North, once that happens, as we will have an unencumbered revenue source, and they still will not.

 

And we own a prime piece of real estate in Bentleigh.

Collingwood and Richmond have announced their results so i did a little comparison:

 

Given Collingwood's off field staff dramas and changes it would be fair to say it is not well managed.  Nonetheless, a loss on revenue of over $77 million is a mind bogglingly poor result...Everything money can buy and they have an average list and an uphill battle on and off the field.  They made a similar loss last year...maybe they have some creative accounting happening

They are of similar size to Richmond yet so far behind them, in every aspect on and off the field.

We don't have the might and the clout of those clubs but we sure are well run.

Edited August 28, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

18 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Collingwood and Richmond have announced their results so i did a little comparison:

Given Collingwood's off field staff dramas and changes it would be fair to say it is not well managed.  Nonetheless, a loss on revenue of over $77 million is a mind bogglingly poor result...Everything money can buy and they have an average list and an uphill battle on and off the field.  They made a similar loss last year...maybe they have some creative accounting happening

They are of similar size to Richmond yet so far behind them, in every aspect on and off the field.

We don't have the might and the clout of those clubs but we sure are well run.

Hard to compare apples to apples in the AFL.

Pies made an operating profit of $1.65M before writing down the Glasshouse and renovations at the Holden Centre.

Turnover is king in AFL in the sense that a non profit has little interest in generating large reporting profits. Even turnover is skewed in the sense that turnover which includes pokies delivers a lot lower return on revenue albeit a guaranteed revenue.

Would love the numbers people to pull apart club finances like some pull apart playing lists etc. As a student of balance sheets the fun is always in the notes to the accounts.

Then of course there are assets like Collingwood have in the form of the Glasshouse that are great football centres but don't produce much revenue as compared to say the Bentleigh Club owned by the MFC.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-11-24/black-and-white-in-the-red-as-pies-lose-27m

Edited November 24, 20177 yr by Diamond_Jim

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Hard to compare apples to apples in the AFL.

Pies made an operating profit of $1.65M before writing down the Glasshouse and renovations at the Holden Centre.

Would love the numbers people to pull apart club finances like some pull apart

While it is hard to compare in detail at the macro level indicative comparisons work ok.

Our operating profit was $2.7m so the Pies $1.65m isn't great given their membership and asset base.  

I thought about 'pullling apart' the financials but decided it would do my head in - mainly because each club has different levels of detail and different categories.  Some give very little away.  Decided there were better things to do...

It would be great if the AFL introduced a standard format for Annual Reports, then it would be easy to do meaningful comparisons

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Collingwood and Richmond have announced their results so i did a little comparison:

Given Collingwood's off field staff dramas and changes it would be fair to say it is not well managed.  Nonetheless, a loss on revenue of over $77 million is a mind bogglingly poor result...Everything money can buy and they have an average list and an uphill battle on and off the field.  They made a similar loss last year...maybe they have some creative accounting happening

They are of similar size to Richmond yet so far behind them, in every aspect on and off the field.

We don't have the might and the clout of those clubs but we sure are well run.

Its been quite along time since Collingwood where the yard stick of the competition. Sure their memberships are strong but I'm suspicious - Collingwood supporters are living proof Tasmanian's can swim. 

22 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Can people make their own decisions or must all be spoon fed. 

Someone who puts money into Poker Machines is responsible for their actions. 

I choose to walk on by... but many don’t.

I prefer that the MFC can make some money out of happless idiots rather than James Packer and Crown

Exactly, if people are going to pump their money into a computer designed to take it better it goes to us than someone else.

10 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Exactly, if people are going to pump their money into a computer designed to take it better it goes to us than someone else.

That does not sound like gambling to me - that sounds like a scam/misleading form of entertainment designed as a government revenue raiser. But that may be a hard concept for you to understand

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Exactly, if people are going to pump their money into a computer designed to take it better it goes to us than someone else.

Also lets be clear this is a Victorian issue, yet we live in a National Competition community, we can walk in their community and understand their issues. The AFL has spoken, some you will win some you will lose. Watch you dont become MFC yesterday, constantly whinging and whinning on fixturing, clash juerseys, poker machines what will it be next week? 

MFC gets on with the business of community building, building our brand, building our football department, building our memberships, building our revenue streams, building our crowds 

ALL aimed at building our way to a premiership - as soon as possible. 

3 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

That does not sound like gambling to me - that sounds like a scam/misleading form of entertainment designed as a government revenue raiser. But that may be a hard concept for you to understand

No different to Greyhound or Horse Racing. 

But that is a concept i don’t expect you to remotely understand Dr. W

13 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

No different to Greyhound or Horse Racing. 

hahaha - if you cant see what the difference between Poker Machines vs Greyhound & horse Racing ( &  other forms of Sports Betting ) - why does this not surprise me. I can see why now you also struggle with nearly every other important issue we discuss. But you are not alone. 

Personally, I dont mind what way this debate goes but I appreciate to some people poker machines are a community killer. So on that basis this is one debate I'm prepared to concede. Im sure given time the AFL will work with clubs to keep the impact to a minimum. 

The MFC have many reasons to thank the AFL over recent years, actions always speak louder than words. 

15 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

hahaha - if you cant see what the difference between Poker Machines vs Greyhound & horse Racing ( &  other forms of Sports Betting ) - why does this not surprise me. I can see why now you also struggle with nearly every other important issue we discuss. But you are not alone. 

Personally, I dont mind what way this debate goes but I appreciate to some people poker machines are a community killer. So on that basis this is one debate I'm prepared to concede. Im sure given time the AFL will work with clubs to keep the impact to a minimum. 

The MFC have many reasons to thank the AFL over recent years, actions always speak louder than words. 

What is the difference?

” I gamble with this money that i will make more..”

that is the bottom line. 

The vehicle of this exchange is immaterial...

19 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Its been quite along time since Collingwood where the yard stick of the competition. Sure their memberships are strong but I'm suspicious - Collingwood supporters are living proof Tasmanian's can swim. 

I think it’s proof that soon the only thing between Jack Elliott and Eddie McGuire is a slightly more personable public persona.

Ed is great at pumping things up and he can sell tickets. Sadly, like Big Jack, his presidency has now become about his continuous grip on power. Sure, Pert is gone but Fig should have followed. 

36 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

The MFC have many reasons to thank the AFL over recent years, actions always speak louder than words. 

And what are these many reasons apart from what is in your imagination?

Put up some real facts or shut up. 

Apart from one 1.4 million dollar grant in 2013 (which is quite minuscule in the whole scheme of things) I can't see any other real evidence of any other extraordinary help. 

It's all there in the annual reports unless you believe that PJ has laden our annual reports with mistruth's. 

8 profitable years in the last 9 years - there's some real facts for you. 

Where are the handouts?  It's easy for a troll like you to throw out your lies but you can't back it up.  You again zero in on those who might share your unsubstantiated accusations. 

And you'll avoid the questions I've put to you ... it's easy to run and hide on the internet.  I'm surprised you're still here. 

 

 

Edited November 25, 20177 yr by Macca

It's also worth noting that our increased membership has been an ongoing journey since who knows when ... well before PJ arrived on the scene.  Same goes for any of our sponsorship deals.

The poker machine revenue and our 2 social venues started out when Joseph Gutnick was our president.

The drive into the NT was in place before PJ arrived and the Foundation Heroes money-spinner was a Jimmy Stynes initiative

All that what was happening in the background whilst the team itself was non-competitive (for the most part)

The above is not meant to be in any way a criticism of PJ ... he's been terrific for our club in terms of creating real stability and also,  he's making a real push for the club to benefit financially from having home fixtures against the other big clubs apart from Collingwood (ANZAC eve, Geelong home game round 1 next year etc etc)

I wouldn't be replacing PJ in a hurry but we should judge PJ against the best (not against the mediocre)  The same way we should judge the FD,  coaching and our list of players against the best.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 20177 yr by Macca

7 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

That does not sound like gambling to me - that sounds like a scam/misleading form of entertainment designed as a government revenue raiser. But that may be a hard concept for you to understand

It's not a hard concept or me to understand at all. That's why I don't put my money into pokie machines. Doesn't change the fact that it's still legalised gambling, same as any other gambling. But you know that already.

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What is the difference?

” I gamble with this money that i will make more..”

that is the bottom line. 

The vehicle of this exchange is immaterial...

Suggest you need to go and get the information for yourself - I had too so I dont see why I should do the work for you. 

6 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I think it’s proof that soon the only thing between Jack Elliott and Eddie McGuire is a slightly more personable public persona.

Ed is great at pumping things up and he can sell tickets. Sadly, like Big Jack, his presidency has now become about his continuous grip on power. Sure, Pert is gone but Fig should have followed. 

Nice call - I sometimes wonder if you could say, I think it’s proof that soon the only thing between Cameron Schwab and Peter Jackson is a slightly more personable public persona - except one was a politician and one is a professional football person.

Now I've been fortunate, I worked with both and although I firmly in the Jackson camp ( Im a football person) I can see the good in other people and I accept in some debates I will win and some I will lose. But at the end of the day both do what they think is best for the MFC - so that is good enough for me. 

You probably wont believe this but I think Eddy & Jack always did what they thought was best for their footy clubs & I respected that and would not be out of the question I could agree with both or disagree with both, but if I thought it was bad for the MFC I would work with my "mates" to get a compromise where we reached a win-win scenario. 

I dont mind walking a mile in a man's moccasin's to understand why they think like they do.  

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's not a hard concept or me to understand at all. That's why I don't put my money into pokie machines. Doesn't change the fact that it's still legalised gambling, same as any other gambling. But you know that already.

Yeah I did. What you dont get it that Poker Machines revenues are what we are talking about - not sports betting revenues. But thats right you dont understand the difference so we are probably talking round in circles if you refuse to educate yourself.