Not overly surprised, but doesn’t make it an any easier to hear. Laying the foundations to soon come out cap in hand asking for cash from fans I’d say.

8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Of course we have a cash flow problem. Everything has stopped. 
this is not the year to perform badly though. Next year will be brutal in terms of cash, everyone will be needing it. 
we need to look good this year. We have to become a good investment or the Club will die

 

We simply need to perform on field year in year out, which means playing finals every year and being in the conversation re premiers every season. Do this and our membership base will grow significantly, sponsorship will increase and we will gain State and local government support for new facilities in the MCG precinct.

On the positive our list is young, balanced and extremely talented and I think ready to take the necessary steps to challenge for a premiership. While inconsistent in 2018 we won two finals against two of the powerhouse teams of the decade and the club did not muck around in making changes for 2020 only 10 rounds into the season.

To all of our supporters, if you can afford a membership then I'd implore you to buy one as the ability of the club to fund it's footy program at an elite level is probably now the most important thing to our success for the next decade and beyond.

6 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Never a better time to be thankful we got rid of the pokies.  Patting ourselves on the back whilst we profit from addicts during a recession is hardly what a football should be.

We’ll find the money elsewhere.

Well Said.

Funding aside my overall feeling having watched the podcast episode was that we have two capable and calm people in charge to help navigate our way through the financial issues without jeopardising the core values that now drive everything we are about. 

Really highlights how important on field success is going to be over the next 5-6 years. some of that pain can be mitigated by extra revenue from deep finals pushes, especially this season if crowds do return for the latter part of the season. 

I feel like this puts Goodwin under the pump, if he's got a full list to pick from there really isn't much excuse for the team not to go pretty well

9 hours ago, rjay said:

It's a good question...

Without wanting to get to far into this discussion it wouldn't have been coming from pokies if we had them either.

It's all closed up.

...but will be interested to see what happened with the sale of the asset.

That money will be eaten up quickly with no revenues coming in...unless it is producing some revenue elsewhere.

I only briefly watched the video but there was no mention of what the board are doing outside of AFL activities.

Its a very valid question what did they do with the sale of the pokies.

Income producing assets are not always easy to replace and if they didnt rrplace the pokies then the board has left the MFC exposed financially.

Now it is more complicated than one asset. But it's still a vaild question.

The MFC sold the pokies licence under PJs watch for morality reasons. What did they do with the money?

Have they left the MFC exposed? What is their financial plan apart from expecting AFL handouts?

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-there-are-doubts-over-an-18-team-afl-competition-20200529-p54xoi.html

"But given that two powerful club presidents emerging from the inner sanctum are prepared to publicly entertain the prospect, it underlines the mutterings across the competition that are becoming louder.

There are two lines of thought, with one targeting the expansion clubs that created the ninth game and still cost the competition close to $70 million a year. The second focuses upon Victoria and the increasingly vulnerable North Melbourne, the debt-ridden Saints and even Melbourne.

Once the AFL settles on a new radically reduced football department budget figure for every club beyond this emergency phase - and a soft cap albeit with new tough conditions is expected to prevail - the expectation is that the wealthier clubs will see their league distribution heavily reduced in a new financial structure.

Clubs like West Coast, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood will not be thrilled at the prospect of effectively being taxed and by extension watching their organisations reduced to support the survival of unsuccessful clubs."

1 hour ago, Unleash Hell said:

I only briefly watched the video but there was no mention of what the board are doing outside of AFL activities.

Its a very valid question what did they do with the sale of the pokies.

Income producing assets are not always easy to replace and if they didnt rrplace the pokies then the board has left the MFC exposed financially.

Now it is more complicated than one asset. But it's still a vaild question.

The MFC sold the pokies licence under PJs watch for morality reasons. What did they do with the money?

Have they left the MFC exposed? What is their financial plan apart from expecting AFL handouts?

Contact them to find out then.

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-there-are-doubts-over-an-18-team-afl-competition-20200529-p54xoi.html

"But given that two powerful club presidents emerging from the inner sanctum are prepared to publicly entertain the prospect, it underlines the mutterings across the competition that are becoming louder.

There are two lines of thought, with one targeting the expansion clubs that created the ninth game and still cost the competition close to $70 million a year. The second focuses upon Victoria and the increasingly vulnerable North Melbourne, the debt-ridden Saints and even Melbourne.

Once the AFL settles on a new radically reduced football department budget figure for every club beyond this emergency phase - and a soft cap albeit with new tough conditions is expected to prevail - the expectation is that the wealthier clubs will see their league distribution heavily reduced in a new financial structure.

Clubs like West Coast, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood will not be thrilled at the prospect of effectively being taxed and by extension watching their organisations reduced to support the survival of unsuccessful clubs."

well that is one way to express it, albeit a very negative way

far more constructive to say "assisting via their organisation's support in the survival of the AFL competition." 

The biggest thing to come out of that 30 minute podcast with Pert and Bartlett is that we need the unsigned members to sign up. We need those who are supporters to become members. However, I feel the club has actually done stuff all to encourage and plead with the supporters to sign up. Neither spoke about strategic measures to ensure that happens. What are they offering members to sign up? There are a lot of token gestures that would encourage someone to sign up. Start coming up with one. A signed poster. A personal phone call from a player. They appear to think that doing a podcast and telling a small audience that we need the support is enough.

 

Do they want volunteers to man the phones and call members. I’d do it for nothing. I’ve done it before. I’m sure there are people here who have volunteered before. What revised membership packages are you thinking about? A lot of talk, but what are we actually doing to get the members contributing. I don’t think the old 1 page email works anymore. Get on social media and start a campaign. Tell the supporters what the worst case scenarios are if we don’t get people signed up. Don’t sit back and wait on the members to do the work for you. 

 

I am sorry if I sound negative, but for too long this club has sat back and expected things to happen. I want a more proactive approach. It’s been months now and we haven’t heard a plea or a call to arms. Are we too proud to do stuff like that? I proposed a GoFundMe idea months ago and everyone thought it was the wrong timing. When is the right timing? For how long do we allow finances to get away from us before we put the hand out? Let’s make it happen NOW!

i couldnt get the video could someone give me a quick run of what debt and the amount 

thanks

mark

17 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

The biggest thing to come out of that 30 minute podcast with Pert and Bartlett is that we need the unsigned members to sign up. We need those who are supporters to become members. However, I feel the club has actually done stuff all to encourage and plead with the supporters to sign up. Neither spoke about strategic measures to ensure that happens. What are they offering members to sign up? There are a lot of token gestures that would encourage someone to sign up. Start coming up with one. A signed poster. A personal phone call from a player. They appear to think that doing a podcast and telling a small audience that we need the support is enough.

 

Do they want volunteers to man the phones and call members. I’d do it for nothing. I’ve done it before. I’m sure there are people here who have volunteered before. What revised membership packages are you thinking about? A lot of talk, but what are we actually doing to get the members contributing. I don’t think the old 1 page email works anymore. Get on social media and start a campaign. Tell the supporters what the worst case scenarios are if we don’t get people signed up. Don’t sit back and wait on the members to do the work for you. 

 

I am sorry if I sound negative, but for too long this club has sat back and expected things to happen. I want a more proactive approach. It’s been months now and we haven’t heard a plea or a call to arms. Are we too proud to do stuff like that? I proposed a GoFundMe idea months ago and everyone thought it was the wrong timing. When is the right timing? For how long do we allow finances to get away from us before we put the hand out? Let’s make it happen NOW!

Winning games will get the $$$’s rolling

It’s all a bit hollow till then. 
2019 took a lot of trust away..

18 minutes ago, markc said:

i couldnt get the video could someone give me a quick run of what debt and the amount 

thanks

mark

$6 to $10 Million revenue hole this year.

More revenue shortfall in future years

Sounds ugly.

I think MFC have been quite proactive in coming out first with their financial situation, and i also think that one of the first guides i would be looking for, when the money ball starts rolling would be concrete demonstrations from the top down, leading by frugal example .

I also think that the relationship between MFC and MCC could be tightened, and there has never been a more consequential reason to start laying groundwork for our continuous existence even if it means hardball to some other Tenants. We have nothing to lose. 
Don't forget that the AFL's biggest contract would now have been promulgated. So i assume they are happy.

Pokies are the past and a pokies asset is not an asset at all unless your in the laundry business or come from a state that is under their control.

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-there-are-doubts-over-an-18-team-afl-competition-20200529-p54xoi.html

"But given that two powerful club presidents emerging from the inner sanctum are prepared to publicly entertain the prospect, it underlines the mutterings across the competition that are becoming louder.

There are two lines of thought, with one targeting the expansion clubs that created the ninth game and still cost the competition close to $70 million a year. The second focuses upon Victoria and the increasingly vulnerable North Melbourne, the debt-ridden Saints and even Melbourne.

Once the AFL settles on a new radically reduced football department budget figure for every club beyond this emergency phase - and a soft cap albeit with new tough conditions is expected to prevail - the expectation is that the wealthier clubs will see their league distribution heavily reduced in a new financial structure.

Clubs like West Coast, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood will not be thrilled at the prospect of effectively being taxed and by extension watching their organisations reduced to support the survival of unsuccessful clubs."

The bigger clubs are advantaged money-wise.

 More blockbusters,  more free-to-air prime-time games and therefore greater exposure for their sponsors. 

And that happens every single season.  All the clubs aren't on an equal footing to begin with with the compromised draw. 

Reverse all that for the next 25 years and we're all squared off.

58 minutes ago, ding said:

$6 to $10 Million revenue hole this year.

More revenue shortfall in future years

Sounds ugly.

ouch 

The AFL have borrowed $600Million to help out the clubs ... some clubs will get more than others according to their financial position (IMO)

The previously advantaged clubs (see post #42) can't really complain either ... unless they're prepared to reverse that adavantage for the next couple of decades. 

1 hour ago, Macca said:

The bigger clubs are advantaged money-wise.

 More blockbusters,  more free-to-air prime-time games and therefore greater exposure for their sponsors. 

And that happens every single season.  All the clubs aren't on an equal footing to begin with with the compromised draw. 

Reverse all that for the next 25 years and we're all squared off.

I agree but unfortunately it doesn't matter. We've allowed things to go on like this for 2-3 decades and now in a time of crisis the other clubs who benefit from that will not be seeing things from an altruistic point of view.

Now is the time to take on debt with the low cost of borrowing? 

34 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree but unfortunately it doesn't matter. We've allowed things to go on like this for 2-3 decades and now in a time of crisis the other clubs who benefit from that will not be seeing things from an altruistic point of view.

So we let them know ... and be loud about it too Gonzo.  That's what I do.

Every chance I get!

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

So we let them know ... and be loud about it too Gonzo.  That's what I do.

Every chance I get!

the AFL are just hooked on the compromise draw. This year was the perfect opportunity to have a random draw subject only to hub requirements but no...if anything it is even more compromised.

As mentioned the power clubs will soon tire of not being able to spend their money as they wish.

If the Dogs have joined the dark side we had best watch out as there are now only three weaklings waiting to be picked off by the metaphorical lions

2 hours ago, Macca said:

The bigger clubs are advantaged money-wise.

 More blockbusters,  more free-to-air prime-time games and therefore greater exposure for their sponsors. 

And that happens every single season.  All the clubs aren't on an equal footing to begin with with the compromised draw. 

Reverse all that for the next 25 years and we're all squared off.

Was going to say the same thing, f k the big clubs they are gifted sweetheart deals on “blockbusters” (Tigs v Blues to start the season) and don’t have to travel to holes like Geelong or Tassie. They want those they have to pony up the cash for the clubs that miss out of the big games and have more travel.

Record low interest rates.

 

Time to borrow some money and buy a swag of poker machines. Was a moronic virtue signal to get rid of them in the first place.

But it made some "feelings", so there's that I guess.

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well that is one way to express it, albeit a very negative way

far more constructive to say "assisting via their organisation's support in the survival of the AFL competition." 

The big clubs need to be careful that if they want to hold on to all of the revenue their club receive through their role in the AFL competition, the AFL may shift from its revenue maximising model where the bigger clubs receive more prime time games, and instead focus on all clubs receiving equal exposure. This way the smaller clubs would require less 'assistance'.

The debt doesn’t mean all that much to me without knowing the debt of all other clubs.