1 hour ago, drdrake said:

No we can't, for some reason our on field continues to fail us, no matter what we do off field the on field is and has been a massive issue for the majority of the last 50+ years.  We are a long way off from being a good on field side and until that happens we will be considered as a small club that is becoming a Burden to the AFL.

I agree with Kennett, the product is so poor at the moment, we have a deluded talent pool, terrible pathway programs.  AFL 10 sides Div 1 with 10 sides in Div 2 add in a Tassie and NT side, promotion/relegation bottom 2/top 2 each year.

The two biggest clubs in the AFL are West Coast and Adelaide, with out those 2 clubs coming into the VFL/AFL there would be a lot of traditional VFL clubs that would not be running around today.  Today both these clubs would be the strongest financial clubs in the AFL. 

You miss my point. 
If we get the right people in to run the Club, we can get bigger. The opportunity is there. Other Clubs don’t have that opportunity, no matter what they do

 BUT the MFC has to get it together before we are trusted. I know exactly what the last 50 years have represented. 
Melbourne will be the biggest city in Australia within 5 years, we can be big again with the right attitude on and off field

On 6/13/2020 at 10:49 AM, Diamond_Jim said:

Channel 7are not travelling that well. Someone in the AFL is I hope working out what they might do if the company fell over. Sure a replacement of sorts would come along but at what price.

The present crisis has demonstrated that every sport including the mega comps live from year to year via TV rights money. Perhaps its time to look at the salary levels and start saving for the rainy day. Even a 10% cut that was then invested in a future fund would over twenty years secure these sports. It's not rocket science.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/13/seven-wests-afl-deal-cant-pull-it-out-of-financial-mess-insiders-say

A future fund was once the appearance of superannuation. While released for employeesat the finish of their employment it provided investment funds for development. The  unscrupulous use of these funds led to the loss of confidence in the funds. As industry funds began to outperform private funds there has been an ideological hatred for them from the liberal party. Costello of course developed his own future fund but still there is apparent opposition to employees/workers having control of them.

The latest attack of allowing individuals to deplete their future funds to survive a current economic crisis merely highlights to short term cultural thinking that dominates our society.

Sorry,

1 hour ago, dpositive said:

A future fund was once the appearance of superannuation. While released for employeesat the finish of their employment it provided investment funds for development. The  unscrupulous use of these funds led to the loss of confidence in the funds. As industry funds began to outperform private funds there has been an ideological hatred for them from the liberal party. Costello of course developed his own future fund but still there is apparent opposition to employees/workers having control of them.

The latest attack of allowing individuals to deplete their future funds to survive a current economic crisis merely highlights to short term cultural thinking that dominates our society.

Sorry,

Call it what you will. It's merely the term Collingwood has used for its investment portfolio. Nothing to do with employee super.

Think the massive endowment funds run by US colleges

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You miss my point. 
If we get the right people in to run the Club, we can get bigger. The opportunity is there. Other Clubs don’t have that opportunity, no matter what they do

 BUT the MFC has to get it together before we are trusted. I know exactly what the last 50 years have represented. 
Melbourne will be the biggest city in Australia within 5 years, we can be big again with the right attitude on and off field

I do get the point, we have had 50 years to get the culture right at our club, we need to change from accepting this losing culture that is ingrained at our club.

 

Yes potentially we can be a big club, but that is all we have talked about on this site since it was started the potential of our club and teams.  At some stage potential needs to be realised or it becomes irrelevant.

1 minute ago, drdrake said:

I do get the point, we have had 50 years to get the culture right at our club, we need to change from accepting this losing culture that is ingrained at our club.

 

Yes potentially we can be a big club, but that is all we have talked about on this site since it was started the potential of our club and teams.  At some stage potential needs to be realised or it becomes irrelevant.

do you honestly believe that?

our supporter base is small, and ageing, and devoid of sustained success

i think we're forever destined to be mid-lower tier size

51 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

do you honestly believe that?

our supporter base is small, and ageing, and devoid of sustained success

i think we're forever destined to be mid-lower tier size

not mid-lower tier size, wwsw. i prefer boutique, sophisticated and talented (well, with a few exceptions that is)

Edited June 14, 20204 yr by daisycutter

We don't have to be "big". We just have to be financially sustainable and independent.

2 hours ago, dpositive said:

Sorry,

I feel the same way sometimes l don’t usually give political views on this website  but sometimes I cannot help myself.

go Dees.  Even a one point win in the GF this year would do. Doesn’t need to be 10 goals.

1 hour ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

do you honestly believe that?

our supporter base is small, and ageing, and devoid of sustained success

i think we're forever destined to be mid-lower tier size

I do look at our match day attendance when we were up and about in 2018, the finals we had the majority of the crowd in 2 finals, from memory close to 90k attendance in both finals.  2000 the mcg was pumping and the even years that followed, winning seasons brought in big crowds.  Crowds get you better fixture  which gets you free to air TV coverage which gets more sponsors.  

Then I don't because I just can't see how we are going to change the losing culture that has got a stranglehold on our club.

Edited June 14, 20204 yr by drdrake

 

16 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We don't have to be "big". We just have to be financially sustainable and independent.

I agree with this.

We just need to put space between us and the Saints, Kangaroos and Bulldogs. I think we have got a fair bit right off field. Divesting assets (Leighoak and Bentleigh gaming) and investing into football is 100% the right move, but if we can't deliver our 4 year strategic plan (albeit a COVID-19 modified version) we only have ourselves to blame. 

https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2020/02/17/c3ff8ef1-5953-4576-adca-d6e5ead3d156/MFC_Strategic-Plan_Web.pdf 

Can anyone put their finger on what it really means to be a sporting section of the MCC? Besides acknowledgments in both organisations reports it is not obvious. Is it just ceremonial or is there a genuine opportunity to financially merge? This would be the obvious way to put space between us and the other smaller clubs. 

So, for example if we were to be relegated and Casey won the VFL would they get promoted in our place ? ??‍♂️

47 minutes ago, Gouga said:

I think we have got a fair bit right off field. Divesting assets (Leighoak and Bentleigh gaming) and investing into football is 100% the right move. 

How so? We've shown time and time again that we can't make money from football operations.

We need reliable sources of income that are not dependant on on-field success. It is that exact reason that Collingwood and Hawthorn are the two biggest clubs in town.

Get those things right and then you have a constant stream of money to put back into the football program.

43 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

So, for example if we were to be relegated and Casey won the VFL would they get promoted in our place ? ??‍♂️

That would be interesting, I think unfortunately the Casey alignment will end at years end.  Not sure what it is going to look like but hearing either AFL reserves, then the current Non AFL clubs forming that third tier competition.

If you do what Kennett wants I reckon as posted above two AFL divisions 10 teams in each add in a NT and Tasmanian team to increase to 20 sides.  I actually don't mind this.

Edited June 15, 20204 yr by drdrake

39 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

So, for example if we were to be relegated and Casey won the VFL would they get promoted in our place ? ??‍♂️

Ha, well it would be relegation without promotion - so not relegation but expulsion from the AFL.

45 minutes ago, poita said:

We need reliable sources of income that are not dependant on on-field success. It is that exact reason that Collingwood and Hawthorn are the two biggest clubs in town.

Problem is most of Hawthorn's (aka the "family club") revenue comes from operating gaming in the City of Melton shire where pokies losses are historically at their highest.

Edited June 15, 20204 yr by Gouga

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Ha, well it would be relegation without promotion - so not relegation but expulsion from the AFL.

We'd be back to a 12 team competition very quickly on that basis Dr G. 

1 hour ago, drdrake said:

That would be interesting, I think unfortunately the Casey alignment will end at years end.  Not sure what it is going to look like but hearing either AFL reserves, then the current Non AFL clubs forming that third tier competition.

If you do what Kennett wants I reckon as posted above two AFL divisions 10 teams in each add in a NT and Tasmanian team to increase to 20 sides.  I actually don't mind this.

I don't mind it either Dr D. It would be interesting to see how his Hawks would then turn a profit without their four games a year down in Tassie though. A case of being careful what you wish for? 

3 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I don't mind it either Dr D. It would be interesting to see how his Hawks would then turn a profit without their four games a year down in Tassie though. A case of being careful what you wish for? 

Under Kennett's scenario of banning unfinancial clubs the loss of Tasmania revenue would not matter to the hawks as they would be a getting a greater share of the remaining pie.

Take out the bottom two performers and there is an immediate 6%increase in revenue PLUS the loss which is presently subsidised in the departing club. You could argue it's probably a 10% minimum increase in revenues to the remaining clubs.

59 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Under Kennett's scenario of banning unfinancial clubs the loss of Tasmania revenue would not matter to the hawks as they would be a getting a greater share of the remaining pie.

Take out the bottom two performers and there is an immediate 6%increase in revenue PLUS the loss which is presently subsidised in the departing club. You could argue it's probably a 10% minimum increase in revenues to the remaining clubs.

Hi DJ. That might work if only two clubs conveniently don't make the cut. If however six clubs can't meet the set KPI's then the media revenues would drop significantly, particularly if one or more were from an interstate market, Port Adelaide being an example. 

On 6/12/2020 at 9:49 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

Clubs that don’t improve cannot keep living on borrowed money...

That is the bottom line

That's what the libs say about the ABC, close it down

2 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

That's what the libs say about the ABC, close it down

Sky News is your favourite Program Angry ? 

Why am i not suprised. I saw your comment about “The Knee”

Keep walking ?‍♀️ 

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Sky News is your favourite Program Angry ? 

Why am i not suprised. I saw your comment about “The Knee”

Keep walking ?‍♀️  go

No your so funny,  if the world worked the way your new best friend and you think, then there would be no ABC, public housing, a welfare system, Medicare, or a pension until you turn 90.

2 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

No your so funny,  if the world worked the way your new best friend and you think, then there would be no ABC, public housing, a welfare system, Medicare, or a pension until you turn 90.

What rubbish are you talking about?

This is the alternative to the ABC

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/fox-news-caught-doctoring-photographs-to-make-protesters-look-violent

Edited June 15, 20204 yr by Sir Why You Little

1 hour ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Hi DJ. That might work if only two clubs conveniently don't make the cut. If however six clubs can't meet the set KPI's then the media revenues would drop significantly, particularly if one or more were from an interstate market, Port Adelaide being an example. 

you could take four clubs out and the media would still be very happy.

Three from Melbourne and GCS for example.

You just allocate Port and Freo an isolation/newcomer subsidy or similar. Enough to get them over the line but not GCS.

So easy to get the desired results if the AFL sets the rules.