Financial Issues MFC

[radar 1,865]

Players get too much. 
We’ve learned the nurses, doctors, frontline service workers are true heroes in our community. 
Players can still play, get a day job or study for one. 
Don’t deserve $200k doing something they’d be doing anyway. 
 

[Macca 17,034]

24 minutes ago, BenF said:

Yeah but what do we get in return?

Good point Ben

If you don't ask,  you don't get.

So we keep asking in all sorts of areas.  Hopefully,  in the end,  you get what you need.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Macca

[faultydet 7,619]

17 hours ago, drysdale demon said:

You have no idea regarding the impact poker machines have had to tens of thousands families. They should of never been introduced.

Actually, you have zero idea of what i know.

I left my first wife because she had a pokie addiction which sent me broke.

 

These things are LEGAL, and an AFL club having them will not change the public benefit or harm one iota. There are a set amount of licences that are sold, and anyone who thinks it makes a difference who holds the licence is beyond reasoning with.

 

ANY move to divest from an AFL club is nothing more than virtue signalling, and I could not g.a.f about being the most virtuous club on death row. I just want the club to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

[Demonstone 22,820]

19 minutes ago, faultydet said:

These things are LEGAL

So are cigarettes, faulty.  How would you feel about sponsorship by a tobacco company?  ?

[drysdale demon 4,837]

12 hours ago, praha said:

How much pain does alcohol cause? shall we ditch Furphy as well? 

"Poker machines account for over 80% of problem gamblers"

But how many gamblers have a "problem"?

Maybe you should spend a bit of time trying to find out about the poker machine gambling problem and come back to me.

[drysdale demon 4,837]

43 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Actually, you have zero idea of what i know.

I left my first wife because she had a pokie addiction which sent me broke.

 

These things are LEGAL, and an AFL club having them will not change the public benefit or harm one iota. There are a set amount of licences that are sold, and anyone who thinks it makes a difference who holds the licence is beyond reasoning with.

 

ANY move to divest from an AFL club is nothing more than virtue signalling, and I could not g.a.f about being the most virtuous club on death row. I just want the club to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

Well you learnt first hand of the effect they have on people. If you still think they are okay after that then there is a problem getting thru to some people.

We all want the club to survive, there are plenty of other ways to make money.

It won't be long before no clubs have them.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,967]

2 hours ago, demonstone said:

So are cigarettes, faulty.  How would you feel about sponsorship by a tobacco company?  ?

Tobacco advertising is banned though.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Ethan Tremblay

[Ethan Tremblay 30,967]

I’d be happy for the NRA to sponsor us if it brought in millions of dollars. Better than being poor and folding. 

[george_on_the_outer 7,703]

Let's get this back on track...

The club had a poker machine venue at Leighoak, that has been sold.  The club retains the Bentleigh club machines until 2022 ( I think).  In the current circumstances, neither is producing any revenue for us or the new owners. At least the club has the proceeds from the sale of Leighoak "in the bank".

All clubs have the same problem. In the interview Pert and Bartlett talk about the loss of 6-10 $M .  In the Age today, St.Kilda ( who have poker machines) are expecting an increase in their debt by $8M to about  $20M, as a similar example. 

Pert and Bartlett emphasise this is because of the loss of gate receipts, sponsorship, AFL distributions and membership.  What can be done about it?  not much!.  In the short term perhaps...membership.  13K members from last year haven't re-signed.  That is why they are asking those people to come on board again, even if it is only an armchair type membership. 

But membership is only a minor matter and revenue raiser, the other losses are more concerning.  Even if all 13K signed up it would only add $1-2M to the bottom line.  A sponsor can put in that much alone.  AFL distributions contribute 10 times as much.  Gate receipts will be non-existent for everyone this year.

  The sponsors are in their own financial downturn.  Hertz has already filed for Chapter 11 in the USA.  With a non-existent tourism market in this country, something similar can be expected here, and these types of companies have got better things to do with their money now and in the near future, than advertising through football clubs. Sponsorship will be the on-going concern as it is dependant upon the well-being of the economy, and we should all remember what happened around our sponsorships post GFC.

It cost about $1M per month to run an AFL club.  The club has already "trimmed its cloth" and like most AFL clubs will be in "AFL assistance" during this period.  Probably 12-14 of the 18 clubs will be in the same boat.  This only means we can borrow from the AFL, but only if the club complies with certain guidelines.  If you borrow from the bank, they would be expecting something similar. At least the AFL has an interest in the club surviving and it will be interesting to know if the AFL are charging interest....

 

[Demonstone 22,820]

18 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Waste of money for the tobacco company, they wouldn’t be allowed to put their logo or name anywhere, it would be advertising, which is banned. 

Good point, ET.   How about we open a chain of tobacconists then?  It's legal, it won't change the public harm and, if we don't do it, others will make a fortune from doing so.  Of course, I may just be smoke signalling here.  ?

[Mel Bourne 4,534]

On 5/29/2020 at 9:48 PM, Unleash Hell said:

 

An asset that produces income regardless of its morality is more valuable than cash to pay debt.

Not sure if you were intending to summarise the  decline of society during late-stage capitalism in one sentence, but well done. 

[Mel Bourne 4,534]

19 hours ago, praha said:

who gives a [censored]? you could say this about quite literally any vice.

 

Yes, you could. But those other vices you mention weren’t bringing revenue into the club. 
 

What’s your point?

[whatwhat say what 22,948]

43 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Let's get this back on track...

The club had a poker machine venue at Leighoak, that has been sold.  The club retains the Bentleigh club machines until 2022 ( I think).  In the current circumstances, neither is producing any revenue for us or the new owners. At least the club has the proceeds from the sale of Leighoak "in the bank".

All clubs have the same problem. In the interview Pert and Bartlett talk about the loss of 6-10 $M .  In the Age today, St.Kilda ( who have poker machines) are expecting an increase in their debt by $8M to about  $20M, as a similar example. 

Pert and Bartlett emphasise this is because of the loss of gate receipts, sponsorship, AFL distributions and membership.  What can be done about it?  not much!.  In the short term perhaps...membership.  13K members from last year haven't re-signed.  That is why they are asking those people to come on board again, even if it is only an armchair type membership. 

But membership is only a minor matter and revenue raiser, the other losses are more concerning.  Even if all 13K signed up it would only add $1-2M to the bottom line.  A sponsor can put in that much alone.  AFL distributions contribute 10 times as much.  Gate receipts will be non-existent for everyone this year.

  The sponsors are in their own financial downturn.  Hertz has already filed for Chapter 11 in the USA.  With a non-existent tourism market in this country, something similar can be expected here, and these types of companies have got better things to do with their money now and in the near future, than advertising through football clubs. Sponsorship will be the on-going concern as it is dependant upon the well-being of the economy, and we should all remember what happened around our sponsorships post GFC.

It cost about $1M per month to run an AFL club.  The club has already "trimmed its cloth" and like most AFL clubs will be in "AFL assistance" during this period.  Probably 12-14 of the 18 clubs will be in the same boat.  This only means we can borrow from the AFL, but only if the club complies with certain guidelines.  If you borrow from the bank, they would be expecting something similar. At least the AFL has an interest in the club surviving and it will be interesting to know if the AFL are charging interest....

 

excellent, and sobering, post

from my understand the afl WILL be imposing interest on their loans, but NOT for the season as is stands

i struggle to see how 18 clubs will exist for the longterm - the reckoning that covid-19 has had with how fragile the football industry is is a reflection of us being a domestic-only proposition, i guess, but also that we were over subscribed and how tight the margins actually were

[daisycutter 29,738]

10 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Not sure if you were intending to summarise the  decline of society during late-stage capitalism in one sentence, but well done. 

decline of capitalism or decline of public morality...........take your pick

[faultydet 7,619]

2 hours ago, demonstone said:

So are cigarettes, faulty.  How would you feel about sponsorship by a tobacco company?  ?

I'd ban cigarettes AND poker machines mate. I cant stand either of them.

 

But......

Our club getting rid of them will not make a jot of difference to the amount of machines the public can access. Therefore it's nothing but virtue signalling. We could have had a steady income stream but chose not to. Makes no sense to me.

[drysdale demon 4,837]

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

decline of capitalism or decline of public morality...........take your pick

There is no doubt public morality is on the decline.

[faultydet 7,619]

2 hours ago, drysdale demon said:

Well you learnt first hand of the effect they have on people. If you still think they are okay after that then there is a problem getting thru to some people.

We all want the club to survive, there are plenty of other ways to make money.

It won't be long before no clubs have them.

I dont think they are ok drysdale. I hate the things, but my feelings mean bugger all.

They are legal, and us selling them makes zero difference to the numbers which are simply taken up by someone else.

If you still think us getting rid of them makes a difference then there is a problem getting thru to some people.

[faultydet 7,619]

23 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Not sure if you were intending to summarise the  decline of society during late-stage capitalism in one sentence, but well done. 

"late stage capitalism"

 

lol

[Mel Bourne 4,534]

20 minutes ago, faultydet said:

I'd ban cigarettes AND poker machines mate. I cant stand either of them.

 

But......

Our club getting rid of them will not make a jot of difference to the amount of machines the public can access. Therefore it's nothing but virtue signalling. We could have had a steady income stream but chose not to. Makes no sense to me.

Since when did taking a genuinely moral stance on a serious public health issue get reduced to this term “virtue signalling”?

If everybody adopted the attitude of “Well it won’t make a difference if I take a stand on this, everyone else will still do it”, we’d probably still be living in a feudalist society  

Virtue-signalling, if we must examine this Tucker Carlson/Andrew Bolt-esque term, is generally reserved for people who talk big and do little.

Sacrificing a significant amount of revenue because you’ve decided to take a moral stance, should never be reduced to such a pithy buzz-term. And all the people here saying the club has shown some kind of libtard weakness by taking such a stand make me sick  

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Mel Bourne

[Mel Bourne 4,534]

6 minutes ago, faultydet said:

"late stage capitalism"

 

lol

Powerful comment. 

[Little Goffy 14,639]

With regard to the pokies debate that has flared up -

I don't think it takes an anthropologist to point out that the greater the proportion of people and social institutions reject a behaviour and openly state it shouldn't be normal and acceptable, the greater the pressure on those who still do it.

So every person, business and football club which says no, matters, and brings us one step closer to containing the problem.

Same principle for drugs, domestic violence, underpaying staff, spitting on people, political lying, and so on.  Social change isn't achieved by the F'ing Avengers. It is a +1   +1   +1   +1   +1  effort that is maddeningly slow.

I'm glad the Melbourne Football Club is now on the positive side of that balance, rather than embracing a status as a toxic parasite.

As for the finances, really, it isn't going to be a key factor.  Not least because a huge portion of football club funding, both recurrent and special items, is drawn from reputation.  Add together the small gains in membership, the small gains in sponsor appeal, the small gains in attendances and viewers, and the little extra boost to our grant applications when we launch development proposals. 

The club's reputation is its key asset.

Everyone is still setting their benchmark to Richmond - how much funding did they secure for redevelopments and for marketing programs, by bundling those developments and programs in with community-benefit?  It was a massive amount and a major part in turning the club around

F' the pokies.  Reputation is worth more.

[markc 975]

22 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Collingwood sold off its pokies in 2018 for $12M ... repaid its then debts of $1.6M and invested the balance in what it calls the CFC Future fund. For the 2019 FY it had an operating profit of $6M resulting in a net profit after interest etc of $4M.

North has little long term debt ($650k) but had current liabilities of several million over and above receivables. Mind you this is at end October 2019 so you really need to know their annual cashflows.

It has non current assets (long term leaseholds) values at cost of around $20M (North will almost certainly have a cashflow problem)

The rest are all here if you want to look

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4982

some very interesting reading there 

we are not in that bad of shape when you look at  some of the other clubs Liabilities 

sure not just a number and you need to look at assets 

some borrowing is needed to increase assets as long as we can pay to off 

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

14 minutes ago, markc said:

some very interesting reading there 

we are not in that bad of shape when you look at  some of the other clubs Liabilities 

sure not just a number and you need to look at assets 

some borrowing is needed to increase assets as long as we can pay to off 

Very true.... take North... it's major asset is leasehold improvements on its ground at Arden Street. At its simplest that is a zero or low value asset from a resale or borrowing viewpoint. It does have some value to North as it saves them renting admin and gym space etc.

Collingwood has hard income producing investments through its future fund.

Hawks have bricks and mortar entertainment venues with poker machine licences.

MFC has solid assets in the form of $8M in cash and the Bentleigh club at a 2011 valuation of $8.7M (presumably worth around $11-12M now). If we can minimise our 2019-2020 loss and come out strongly in following years we could go okay. The temptation is to do a North and invest in training facilities which would deplete our asset base. (Difficult decisions which frankly the Board needs to share with members because once this load of cash goes its hard to see where the next lot comes from.)

[rjay 25,091]

5 hours ago, faultydet said:

ANY move to divest from an AFL club is nothing more than virtue signalling, and I could not g.a.f about being the most virtuous club on death row. I just want the club to survive.

I know the good news story of divesting the club of poker machines is what was being sold.

The moral imperative.

...but PJ is/was a very pragmatic businessman.

I think the decision would have had a solid business case backing it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,130]

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

With regard to the pokies debate that has flared up -

I don't think it takes an anthropologist to point out that the greater the proportion of people and social institutions reject a behaviour and openly state it shouldn't be normal and acceptable, the greater the pressure on those who still do it.

So every person, business and football club which says no, matters, and brings us one step closer to containing the problem.

Same principle for drugs, domestic violence, underpaying staff, spitting on people, political lying, and so on.  Social change isn't achieved by the F'ing Avengers. It is a +1   +1   +1   +1   +1  effort that is maddeningly slow.

I'm glad the Melbourne Football Club is now on the positive side of that balance, rather than embracing a status as a toxic parasite.

As for the finances, really, it isn't going to be a key factor.  Not least because a huge portion of football club funding, both recurrent and special items, is drawn from reputation.  Add together the small gains in membership, the small gains in sponsor appeal, the small gains in attendances and viewers, and the little extra boost to our grant applications when we launch development proposals. 

The club's reputation is its key asset.

Everyone is still setting their benchmark to Richmond - how much funding did they secure for redevelopments and for marketing programs, by bundling those developments and programs in with community-benefit?  It was a massive amount and a major part in turning the club around

F' the pokies.  Reputation is worth more.

After all this Coronavirus madness settles down the reputation of the MFC will mean Bugger all. It will be solely measured on how strong we are and can be going forward. 
if we continue to be average at best onfield, we will struggle to survive. 
2020 is important. We have to perform well