12 hours ago, faultydet said:

I dont think so. At least I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

Imagine if the comp actually does get its remaining 150 odd games in with finals, meaning a large proportion of revenue is paid via T.V rights.  The comp could bounce back quickly, but with an overhauled structure featuring reduced lists/salary cap, and smaller footy department budgets. The crowds will be massive after such a break, so hope for us to be drawn to play home games against some big clubs at the G regardless of how it impacts our chance of winning.

Also look for some sort of AFL future fund to be established in case this type of thing ever happens again.

They have one.  It has $120m but it is nowhere near enough to survive this crisis.

11 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I find it reprehensible that players led by Dangerfield and mouthpiece Nick Riewoldt are digging their heals in on pay cuts.  Their seemingly reasonable offer (reasonable to them) to take a 50% cut till end of May actually equates to just 8% per annum! 

Meanwhile, those they rely on the most to earn any income at all: coaches, football, fitness, medical staff and even admin staff have lost their jobs or work cut back.

Realistically, players (about 400 of them) earning less than the average of about $350,000 is already taking a massive pay cut because their contracts would have a large 'matches played' component.  It is Dangerfield, Riewoldt and the like that have the big guaranteed contracts.  Where is their care for their younger, less experienced colleagues?

I would have a bit sympathy if the 'leaders' said any player with a contract less than (eg) $100,000 was protected from any reduction.  Note: this player would have already lost income by loss of 'match payments'.  This would cover Rookies, first and second year draftees. Then a sliding scale % increase with size of contract so the bigger the contract the bigger the hair cut in $ terms.

Right now, Dangerfield and Riewoldt look like greedy and stubborn plicks!! 

The theory is that everyone should feel the pain equally but of course this will never be the case. Alan Joyce from Qantas can give up his salary but he is already a very wealthy man. 

My experience is that many people with a lot of money are very careful with their spending. They also are on the ones who have a wide range of investments such as property. They are more likely to borrow and borrow large sums. Yet they want to protect their assets and only sell or dispose at a time of their choosing. Money makes money.   They have more to gain but also more to lose. 

13 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

But where rjay is wrong is in believing saving a football club is down the list for so many of us. This club has been the one constant in mine and many others lives. 

 

19 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

 

I am with you both on this and would like to see something organised sooner rather than later.

My point is that the timing is not right at the moment.

In relation to saving the club... family, close friends come first...the club is down the list and I think many would be of that opinion.

Let things shake out a bit before making any moves on a save the club fund.

It just wouldn't be a good move in the current environment.

 

26 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I find it reprehensible that players led by Dangerfield and mouthpiece Nick Riewoldt are digging their heals in on pay cuts.  Their seemingly reasonable offer (reasonable to them) to take a 50% cut till end of May actually equates to just 8% per annum! 

Meanwhile, those they rely on the most to earn any income at all: coaches, football, fitness, medical staff and even admin staff have lost their jobs or work cut back.

Realistically, players (about 400 of them) earning less than the average of about $350,000 is already taking a massive pay cut because their contracts would have a large 'matches played' component.  It is Dangerfield, Riewoldt and the like that have the big guaranteed contracts.  Where is their care for their younger, less experienced colleagues?

I would have a bit sympathy if the 'leaders' said any player with a contract less than (eg) $100,000 was protected from any reduction.  Note: this player would have already lost income by loss of 'match payments'.  This would cover Rookies, first and second year draftees. Then a sliding scale % increase with size of contract so the bigger the contract the bigger the hair cut in $ terms.

Right now, Dangerfield and Riewoldt look like greedy and stubborn plicks!! 

They are certainly losing the PR battle...

They are using the younger and more vulnerable players on the list as a shield.

If the AFL (Gil, Hocking and co) come out and take big cuts then the players at the top will have to follow.

...and the AFL guys are working hard, whereas the players are off.

...by the way, how much do players get paid for a Fox appearance.

Another benefit for the high profile few.

Are we going back to state leagues, the players will be amature and have to work a day job. They will play because they love the game and not because of how much they get paid.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, hemingway said:

The theory is that everyone should feel the pain equally but of course this will never be the case. Alan Joyce from Qantas can give up his salary but he is already a very wealthy man. 

My experience is that many people with a lot of money are very careful with their spending. They also are on the ones who have a wide range of investments such as property. They are more likely to borrow and borrow large sums. Yet they want to protect their assets and only sell or dispose at a time of their choosing. Money makes money.   They have more to gain but also more to lose. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no leftie!  

Players often claim the AFL is a 'family'.  In reality players are a fraternity within that 'family'.  Its time they 'walk the talk' and take care of that family, especially the more vulnerable within it as well as their own blood families. 

If I was a player under the average pay and have already lost match payments I would be fast losing respect for the so called leaders.  Dangerfield etal are letting their teflon coated egos get the better of them.

Edited March 25, 20205 yr by Lucifer's Hero

43 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Judd mark 2.

12 minutes ago, MyFavouriteMartian said:

Judd mark 2.

rebecca or chris or both?

15 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

rebecca or chris or both?

HaHa, does it matter,  would it help.?

come see come sars.

22 hours ago, hemingway said:

A positive message from this guy.

Will we hear anything from MFC President or CEO ?

Or have they been cut already ?

Other clubs identified as potential casualties have come out to reassure members:

North Will Survive

Suns:  We Are Not folding!

St Kilda's Return to Moorabbin could save the Club  (Scroll down page to get to Saints story)

Good to see they are on the 'front foot' and communicated with members and fans. 

Meanwhile, we wait.

Edited March 25, 20205 yr by Lucifer's Hero

19 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

Forgive me if this has been mentioned or even began, but is there a Go Fund Me or some organised fund raising effort under way somewhere to ensure our club stays solvent?  I'm a pensioner but willing to contribute $500 for starters. If a quarter of our members did the same that is $5 million.  I want my club to survive! 

Contact the club. The idea itself is sound. Its just an issue of timing. Its something that could work, along with other fund raising ideas. It would be good if our fans could rally during these tough times - regardless of how tough we may be doing it ourselves.

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Another bunch of morons....

The players are losing the PR battle re money and this only tells us they think they are above everyone else.

Strip the contracts...

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

In case he hasn't realised, the economy has gone to s....

Where are these private owners coming from?

Good footballer but pea brain...

Just why we need the billionaires to get richer by owning clubs.

 

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm no leftie!  

Players often claim the AFL is a 'family'.  In reality players are a fraternity within that 'family'.  Its time they 'walk the talk' and take care of that family, especially the more vulnerable within it as well as their own blood families. 

If I was a player under the average pay and have already lost match payments I would be fast losing respect for the so called leaders.  Dangerfield etal are letting their teflon coated egos get the better of them.

Have any of the other players on big coin distanced themselves (pardon the pun) from Dangerfield's comments?

Further to that we'd have at least 6 players on very good money.  Have any of them spoken about taking big cuts?

Dangerfield could just be the A-end of the problem.  Albeit a spokesperson for others.

4 hours ago, rjay said:

 

My point is that the timing is not right at the moment.

In relation to saving the club... family, close friends come first...the club is down the list and I think many would be of that opinion.

Let things shake out a bit before making any moves on a save the club fund.

It just wouldn't be a good move in the current environment.

 

 

1 hour ago, KingDingAling said:

Contact the club. The idea itself is sound. Its just an issue of timing. Its something that could work, along with other fund raising ideas. It would be good if our fans could rally during these tough times - regardless of how tough we may be doing it ourselves.

 

The important thing is all of us appreciate that ours and every AFL club is going to be affected financially like they never have before. Would I talk about a need to raise funds for my football club on a general coronavirus forum?  No.....but this is Demonland -  MFC supporters who love the club, surely it is the appropriate place.  Of course we shouldn't be top of the list, my point is we are not even on a list!  We are ALL affected, directly and indirectly by this horrible virus.  Who, how and when we help in our way is purely our choice and no judgement should be made either way.  But currently there is no organised option for those of us that would like to help the club now, hence my suggestion of a GoFundMe page.

The good news is that something is happening.  I have had a couple of discussions with the club today and members will be getting an email in the next few days outlining a Debt Demolition style campaign similar to the one that Jim Stynes implemented more than 10 years ago. As was the case back then, donations will be tax deductible. This was always the preferred option for me with every cent raised going to the club with no time lag. Whilst on the phone I also bought a ticket in the Demon Draw which has a $30k first prize.  At $200 it ain't cheap, but there aren't thousands of tickets sold and I see it as a donation anyway.

 

 

5 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

I knew that would be Dangerfield before I even clicked it.

What an unbearable [censored].

41 minutes ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

I knew that would be Dangerfield before I even clicked it.

What an unbearable [censored].

Agree

So typical of a rich sportsman to be wringing every dollar he can out of a place that is on its knees while virtue signalling to the public about other issues.

A difficult issue to get my head around, as my first instinct is the players should be stood down just like every other employee on the same conditions. The touted 50% "offer" is only while stood down, not for the entire season.  However, people on big money also have large mortgages and bills. Nobody wants to lose their house, and fair enough.

Killing the golden goose? Probably. 

Selfish. Definitely

Justified. Maybe.

Meh, just explain tot hem that they can take a 'proper' pay cut now out of respect for the thousands of people in the AFL 'family' who have just become income-free, or the AFL can just sort the problem by reaffirming the '25% of all AFL income' line the players were so keen to have, and strangling the salary cap and permitting renegotiation of contracts.

They are entirely within their rights to, for the same reasons that QANTAS had the right to immediately stand down 80% of their employees.

 

Oh, and a side note - not many people are aware but a similar clause exists in tenancy policy.  So any tenants out there (if they are aware of their rights) who has been stood down due to coronavirus does in fact have the right to break their lease without penalty.  But they don't know because thye don't have the legal team of QANTAS helping them!

3 hours ago, JakovichScissorKick said:

I knew that would be Dangerfield before I even clicked it.

Probably because it has a photo of him and his name in the headline...