Dees Post Operating Loss for 2019

[Demonland 72,232]

 

[Mickey 4,685]

1.5m loss. The move out of gaming cost 900,000k. 

Still managed to pay down debt. At least that's a positive.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Gotta start winning games. The only answer

[Foopy on the telly 529]

I know we sucked this year, but... how the hell did we post a profit in 2014 when we sucked that year as well?

[praha 11,240]

2 minutes ago, nacnud said:

I know we sucked this year, but... how the hell did we post a profit in 2014 when we sucked that year as well?

Gambling.

We stepped out this year, benefited from the feel good PR, and banked on being at least half decent to pull in the funds. Instead we were terrible, played away on Queens Birthday and Anzac Eve, and pulled on 30k to each of the corresponding Pies and Tigers matches later in the year, when the same matches 12 months earlier that late in the season would have been 80k+ and a 500k windfall.

[old dee 23,801]

So how are we covering the loss of the Darwin revenue?

The up side of 2020 is both the Tigers pre Anzac Day and Pies QB games are both home games for us, neither were this year.

[Rab D Nesbitt 8,399]

With both of our home marquee games next year coming in the first half of the season it's imperative that we are very much a live finals prospect when they are played in order to maximise our earning capacity. 

[Bitter but optimistic 22,242]

This gambling business confounds me. Like it or not, it is  legal and a matter of personal choice

 I don’t understand the pressure on sporting clubs to take some sort of high moral ground and opt out of it

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

7 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

This gambling business confounds me. Like it or not, it is  legal and a matter of personal choice

 I don’t understand the pressure on sporting clubs to take some sort of high moral ground and opt out of it

The writing is on the wall for pokies if you pay attention to the industry.

Sporting clubs are widely exiting, there's cultural shifts in the hospitality industry; and in the last 18 months or so both Coles and Woolworths have divested themselves from that part of their businesses (albeit in differing ways).

It's not a matter of what is 'legal', it's a matter of what is ethically sustainable in a socially conscious consumer environment.

 

[george_on_the_outer 7,611]

I don't like the line being spun about the loss being covered by existing cash reserves. 

Those reserves are from the sale of the Leighoak.  So we lost $900k profit from Leighoak, and are covering a $1.6M loss, from that sale money. Yet we still have a $2M debt ( although that is not as much a problem with current interest rates). 

Yes we had a rubbish year for revenue as a result of the draw and our on-field performance, but those sort of things can happen again ( we hope not).  But we have sold down a major revenue source, and the Darwin game as well in the hope that things will get better. 

Bentleigh club provided $4.5M of revenue this year, yet gate receipts were only $6.2M.  This revenue disappears in 2022 if I remember.  How is that going to be covered? 

It appears we have negotiated a better deal from the MCC, but as SWYL says we have to start winning games, to make that work.

Selling assets like Leighoak and Bentleigh club should result in the purchase of new assets,( like a home base) not for recurrent expenditure. 

Where is the AFL support for exiting gaming?   Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn and St.Kilda aren't.:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/five-afl-clubs-awarded-new-20-year-licenses-to-operate-pokies-20181029-p50cl8.html

Hawthorn are building a $100M facility in Dingley.  Richmond are planning a $60M upgrade to Punt Road. 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by george_on_the_outer

[whatwhat say what 22,783]

18 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Where is the AFL support for exiting gaming?   Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn and St.Kilda aren't.:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/five-afl-clubs-awarded-new-20-year-licenses-to-operate-pokies-20181029-p50cl8.html

Hawthorn are building a $100M facility in Dingley.  Richmond are planning a $60M upgrade to Punt Road. 

 

the rich get richer; the poor get the picture

Edited December 16, 2019 by whatwhatsaywhat

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

So some Clubs are still going to be operating Pokies for another 20 years?

But we got out and sold the Real Estate? With a big slab of that sale now used to cover the years shortfall and some on here are telling me that a New Social Club built is the most important thing on the clubs agenda...such brilliant thinking. 
 

Winning Games is the only way. Generate Public interest, they come to watch the games with a wallet of plastic, others watch TV’s at home or in Hotels. $$$’s flow as advertising spots increase in value, kids buy Merchandise and wear it. 
All from winning games regularly. 
 

As the song says

“Nobody loves you when you are down and out...”

tbh I thought 2019 would be much worse than what it is, but we must claw back that Leighoak money next year

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

Selling off the pokies was idiotic considering our financial history.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,242]

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

The writing is on the wall for pokies if you pay attention to the industry.

Sporting clubs are widely exiting, there's cultural shifts in the hospitality industry; and in the last 18 months or so both Coles and Woolworths have divested themselves from that part of their businesses (albeit in differing ways).

It's not a matter of what is 'legal', it's a matter of what is ethically sustainable in a socially conscious consumer environment.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement I bolded Nev. Surely you're not suggesting that pokies are going to fade away?

I have a punt on the footy every now and then. I rarely punt on the horses and I reckon pokies are just a dressed up way of flushing your hard earned down the dunny. And even though I am a minor participant,  I certainly understand the personal and social damage that gambling can cause.

However,  there is also a terrible cost involved in smoking, drinking and even misuse of prescription drugs. Do these products cause more or less heartache (pun not intended) than gambling?

I don't know? 

However, I do know that Woolies and Coles still [censored] the first two and chemists the third.

So what's the answer? [censored] if I know.

However, I again state my perplexity as to why the MFC opts out of legal revenue raising ( and let's be honest, said revenue is just going to to some less "socially conscious" organisation) when a lot of other bastards (including our opposition and the AFL itself)  are  getting a slice of it.

 

[whatwhat say what 22,783]

7 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Surely you're not suggesting that pokies are going to fade away?

they're not...but the afl commission, led by anti-pokies strongman richard goyder, is STRONGLY against them and will eventually make it that all clubs divest themselves of poker machine licenses

[McQueen 17,865]

Cigarette sponsorship gone.

Pokies being eliminated.   
 

Alcohol next?
AFL main sponsor Carlton Draught for how much longer can the elite sports PC brigade withstand that?

Maybe they should look for Durex condoms for a major sponsor? It’s in theory recession proof, popular and a widely practiced. 
We already know the AFL [censored] us so why not?
 

[Demon17 5,188]

Just now, Bitter but optimistic said:

This gambling business confounds me. Like it or not, it is  legal and a matter of personal choice

 I don’t understand the pressure on sporting clubs to take some sort of high moral ground and opt out of it

 

It's not a personal choice for gambling addicts who make up most revenue. Its a physiologogical addiction hard to beat.

More of them will now move to the hawks venues.

 You know - the Family club  

Talk about hypocrites

[Monocology 1,109]

I miss PJ.

[faultydet 7,613]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Selling off the pokies was idiotic considering our financial history.

but "feelings" and "morals"

[Lucifers Hero 39,967]

12 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

The writing is on the wall for pokies if you pay attention to the industry.

Sporting clubs are widely exiting, there's cultural shifts in the hospitality industry; and in the last 18 months or so both Coles and Woolworths have divested themselves from that part of their businesses (albeit in differing ways).

It's not a matter of what is 'legal', it's a matter of what is ethically sustainable in a socially conscious consumer environment.

Each club can choose.  Ess recently renewed their pokie agreement with local councils for the next few decades.  Hawthorn are firmly committed to them.  Pokies are a significant part of them being financially strong clubs.  Look at their mega investments in their 'Taj Mahal' like facilities at Tullamarine and soon to be Dingley sites, while we wallow at the aptly name 'paddock'!

mfc and the likes of North can claim the moral high ground but strong clubs get stronger! 

iirc in the press conf that announced our exit from pokies, Jackson  didn't seem to keen.  I concluded the exit was board driven.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Lucifer's Hero

[Lucifers Hero 39,967]

The downside of using 'Cash Reserves' to cover the Loss is that they are mainly the proceeds (and interest earned) of the Leighoak sale and iirc that money was earnmarked to help finance our new training/club facilities; facilities that depressingly seem further and further into the future!  If ever!!

We can expect greater losses when we exit pokies at the Bentleigh Club next year.  I can't see where the pokie replacement revenue is coming from.  Memberships/game attendance alone won't do it and we don't have a good track record of mega or long-term sponsors.

We aren't a financially stable club let alone a financially strong one.  And I struggle to see how we overcome it. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

8 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement I bolded Nev. Surely you're not suggesting that pokies are going to fade away?

I have a punt on the footy every now and then. I rarely punt on the horses and I reckon pokies are just a dressed up way of flushing your hard earned down the dunny. And even though I am a minor participant,  I certainly understand the personal and social damage that gambling can cause.

However,  there is also a terrible cost involved in smoking, drinking and even misuse of prescription drugs. Do these products cause more or less heartache (pun not intended) than gambling?

I don't know? 

However, I do know that Woolies and Coles still [censored] the first two and chemists the third.

So what's the answer? [censored] if I know.

However, I again state my perplexity as to why the MFC opts out of legal revenue raising ( and let's be honest, said revenue is just going to to some less "socially conscious" organisation) when a lot of other bastards (including our opposition and the AFL itself)  are  getting a slice of it.

Yep, some good points mate. I personally don't really have a stand either way on pokies, it's a grey area of the balance between free will and socio-economic targeting IMO.

I don't think pokies are fading away as such, I just think we're seeing the very beginning of businesses predicting how their pokies involvement may effect their perception in the future. It may take decades, but the 'writings on the wall' comment was more about how when you see big business moving away from something that makes them money then for me it's a sign that they are forecasting.

 

[rjay 24,991]

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The downside of using 'Cash Reserves' to cover the Loss is that they are mainly the proceeds (and interest earned) of the Leighoak sale and iirc that money was earnmarked to help finance our new training/club facilities; facilities that depressingly seem further and further into the future!  If ever!!

We can expect greater losses when we exit pokies at the Bentleigh Club next year.  I can't see where the pokie replacement revenue is coming from.  Memberships/game attendance alone won't do it and we don't have a good track record of mega or long-term sponsors.

We aren't a financially stable club let alone a financially strong one.  And I struggle to see how we overcome it. 

The only thing I can possibly think is that there will be better opportunities with sponsorship & community funding if pokies are gone.

I guess we wait & see but so far we don't appear to be beneficiaries & our altruistic move has been just that.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

31 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Each club can choose.  Ess recently renewed their pokie agreement with local councils for the next few decades.  Hawthorn are firmly committed to them.  There are reasons why they are financially strong clubs and pokies are a significant part.

mfc and the likes of North can claim the moral high ground but strong clubs get stronger! 

iirc in the press conf that announced our exit from pokies, Jackson  didn't seem to keen.  I concluded the exit was board driven.

Yep, I've made no statements about clubs being told what to do (although there has been very strong statements made by senior AFL leadership), and sure pokies are making some clubs money, but that's not the crux of what I was saying. There's no argument that that they make money.

It's not just North and the Dees that have moved out of pokies either, plenty of strong clubs have also.

Jackson was a founding director of the Responsible Gaming Foundation, so I'm not sure I agree with your statement that wasn't keen on this decision.

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

The only thing I can possibly think is that there will be better opportunities with sponsorship & community funding if pokies are gone.

I guess we wait & see but so far we don't appear to be beneficiaries & our altruistic move has been just that.

There's a very strong push back growing in the City Of Casey, which is one of the worst areas for pokie addiction.