Rhino Richards

A good typical Adeliade pitch. There is no excuses for this start. Its on the players shoulders. Hope Watson and Hussey can turn things around.

The gaps are hard to understand.

It shouldn't be..... 2 MFC greats in Chadwick and La Fontaine Brett Lovett was very good in 1980s/90s. Graeme Watson was a fine all round sportsman that represented Australia in cricket. Had his nose smashed by a Tony Grieg bouncer in the days before helmets. 1912 Wally Naismith 1913 Hedley Tomkins (No. 11, 1912) 1914 Frank Lugton (No. 32, 1913) 1915 Alex Fraser (No. 40, 1914) 1919 Con Kenney 1920 – 1928 Albert Chadwick 1929 – 1931 William MacDonald 1932 Joe Kinnear (No. 15, 1933; No. 2, 1934; No. 36, 1935; No. 6, 1936 – 1937) 1933 Geoff McInnes (No. 10, 1932) 1934 – 1942 Allan La Fontaine 1943 Denis Cordner (No. 1, 1948 – 1956) 1943 Frank Deayton (No. 27, 1942) 1944 Tom Bush (No. 5, 1942) 1945 Allan La Fontaine (see 1934 – 1942) 1946 – 1947 Frank Kennedy (No. 39, 1944; No. 37, 1945) 1948 Greg Lourey (No. 28, 1950) 1949 Jim Dorgan 1950 – 1956 Geoff McGivern 1958 Graeme Wilkinson 1961 – 1963 Ray Dawson 1964 – 1965 Graeme Watson 1966 Jeff Chapman 1967 John Comben 1968 – 1970 Kelvin Clarke 1971 – 1975 Denis Clark 1976 – 1979 Shane Grambeau 1980 – 1983 Michael Seddon 1986 Frank Rugolo (No. 43, 1983 – 1984; No. 34, 1985) 1987 – 1997 Brett Lovett (No. 50, 1986) 2002 Michael Clark 2005-2008 Chris Johnson

With all his botox, Paul Hogan looked like Australia's answer to Joan Rivers. And couldnt we have fitted Lara Bingle saying "Where the hell are you?" Notwithstanding the result, Australia seems poorly advised to have ever made an attempt for the World Cup. For the money spent ($45 million) there should be an investigation into we got to Zurich still realising we were a chance. We clearly werent. With honestly or otherwise the Qatari bid of USD 50 billion and the "promise" to transfer the infrstructure to developing countries is impressive indeed. If only Australia had more oil! Anyway back to the AFL.

Agree. Until I saw the list I hadn't either. Definitely not a Father/Son pick. A great name...Owen Zinko Agree it isnt. But you ask for the No 1 list. Careful there was a Test Cricketer in there. 1912 William Allan (No. 9, 1913; No. 19, 1914) 1913 Douglas Chapman 1914 Des McDonald/Carlyle Kenley (No. 22, 1913) 1915 Johnny Hassett (No. 34, 1913) 1919 – 1923 William Allan (see 1912 above) 1924 – 1931 Stan Wittman 1932 Leo Nolan 1933 Noel Barnett 1934 Col Niven (No. 10, 1933; No. 2, 1935) 1935 – 1940 Gordon Jones 1941 Stan ‘Pop’ Heal 1942 Keith ‘Bluey’ Truscott (No. 5, 1937 – 1940) 1943 Keith Shadbolt/Don Hooper (No. 18, 1932 – 1935) 1944 Ron Kimberley (No. 21, 1939 – 1941)/Jack Compton 1946 – 1947 Ern Rowarth (No. 33, 1945) 1948 James Mitchell (No. 37, 1946 – 1947) 1948 – 1956 Denis Cordner (No. 17, 1943) 1957 – 1959 Dick Fenton-Smith 1961 Bruce Leslie 1963 Garry Byers (No. 50, 1962) 1964 – 1967 Robert Foster 1968 – 1972 Max Walker (No. 46, 1967) 1974 – 1981 Garry Baker 1984 – 1985 Steven Smith (No. 35, 1974 – 1983) 1988 – 1991 Steven O’Dwyer (No. 32, 1987) 1993 – 1994 Adrian Campbell 1995 – 1997 Sean Charles (No. 44, 1992 – 1993; No. 18, 1994) 1998 – 1999 Jamie Shanahan 2003 – 2005 Chris Heffernan 2005- 2009 Simon Buckley

Suffered brain fades under pressure and a fear of putting his body on the line.

Correct. And for all you precious types regarding who is eligible for the coveted and highly regarded No7, here is the past 50 years of No7 wearers: 1963 1964 Owen Zinko 1966 1975 Graham Osborne (No. 24, 1976 1977) 1976 Ray Smith (No. 43, 1975) 1977 1979 Barry Denny 1980 1981 Phil Pinnell 1982 1990 Brian Wilson 1991 Rod Owen 1992 1999 Darren Kowal 2000 - 2002 Stephen Powell 2003 Gary Moorcroft 2004 - 2010 Brad Miller (No. 37, 2002 2003) Aside for Brian Wilson and Stephen Powell, the No 7 jumper has not done alot. And you cant tell me that Darren Kowal and Gary Moorcroft were deserving the No 7 jumper more than Bennell. We are really sweating the small stuff here kiddies. And BTW I wont hear of a bad word against Owen Zinko either!

Ah a voice of good sense and reason. Talk about much ado about nothing. If you go by some posters here, Simon Buckley at No 1 must have been a gun.

Agree. I have deleted my response to the Geelong absurdity. Not a clue.

Why raise Geelong as an example and then say our model can never be same as there? Financially I have shown you that clearing the debt saves us $660k. Your fantasy of the debt accumulating up to $10million illustrate how little you know about finance and how unaware you are of the true situation at the Club. You try to cover it by generalisations and irrelevancies that only reinforce the initial impression. And we have been closer at the other times to going out of existence outside 2008 and we werent close. Another fantasy. But it was clear things had to change. The debt demolition was necessary because it was the only way to clear the debt. But we have taken only baby steps. And we are still not in a position to sustain a financial shock. We continue to live hand to mouth.

I'll ignore your abusive tone. So we agree there was no way the debt would have spiralled to $10m. So the eradication of the debt was important for a number of things. However as you also agree at the time of the debt demolition it represented $660k of cashflow out of a total annual revenue of $29 million. Not to be sneezed out but not big bickies in the total turnover. And despite your hyperbole and drama, MFC still dont have a sustainable business model that generates regular profits. There have been lots of smaller initiatives that the current administration have completed from the previous administration (eg Casey Alliance) to the reparation of the MCC relationship (Stynes/Schwabs efforts). Nice to haves but not big ticket.So things have not changed dramatically. You just fantasise that they have. c/ or being exposed for talking absolute rubbish.

Wrong wrong wrong. The debt wont multiply because neither the bank would extend it nor would the AFL allow it. If MFC had not acted the other parties would have. And I know for a fact the AFL would not have waited for the banks. You understand so little its scary. Clearly a self reflection there WYL. And for once I agree and you've proven that statement in spades. Did you do any better in English?

I am not worried and you dont understand. The interest payments were starting to spiral because we drew down on the debt as a consequnece of poor operating conditions that ultimately lead to Steve Harris being given the axe in 2007. But it was never going to get to $10 million as you have naively claimed.

No you are wrong. The business stops if it cant meet its bills. Banks wont allow an entity to continue to mount accumulating debt if they show no capacity to be able to finance the interest charges and ultimately repay the debt. In addition, its also illegal for a company to trade while insolvent. And how is the MFC directors going to continue to operate with a debt spiralling to 10 million as you claim? This is why I said the AFL wouldn't allow it. They were also looking closely at MFC with the cost blowouts under Steve Harris. So you have proven you have no understanding about the mechanics of debt and the issues surrounding it.

I am not too sure why people are claiming the game was a great contest: 1. 22 wickets fell for over 1500 runs. Only 2 wickets in the past 3 days. The result was inevitable. Brisbane is arguably the best track in Australia but the curator has let us down here. Its a dud. We now move to batting decks of Adelaide and Perth. Not good. 2. There are questions about both attacks but I would rather England's than Australia. Commentators bemoaned that Collingwood was not Test Class on day 3 as a bowler becasue he had no penetration. Well Australia had 4 Collingwoods bowling on the last two days. 3. England made an emphatic statement over the last 2 days. A number of Australian bowlers viewd as being keys to the series are likely to be out of the team by the 3rd Test. 4. Australia will struggle to win a Test and the Ashes will stay in old Blighty.

So are you now saying that MFC were not paying the interest and that it was being accumulated in the actual debt balance? If so, you are greatly mistaken. No financial institution would allow an entity like MFC with poor cash flow to accumulate debt by capitalising the interest. Secondly, the AFL would not have allowed this to go unchecked. It was an important step to repay the debt but dont overcook it. And you are definitely cooking the facts Now the debt has been repaid, its not the issue going forward. You must have had a bad personal experience with debt, you dont understand how it works and you are taking it consistently out of context. If MFC has zero money in the bank for 5 to 10 years then they are barely break even. If thats the case then we cant grow the Club. Over that same period of time the costs of running a football will increase. While we struggle for break even, the richer Club are both investing in the best people/resources/facilities while diversifying their business that further improves their brand and their cashflow. The gap between the rich and poor clubs will widen despite the salary cap and the draft. So your comments made earlier and listed below are a fallacy: why you little, on 26 November 2010 - 09:34 PM, said: Big is not always better, but to compete with these Giants & Beat them we still need the same resources within our club why you little, on 28 November 2010 - 11:09 AM, said: Using assets wisely can be more beneficial than a large Cash flow in many situations. So after naively suggest we could compete with the Giants and that there are many situations where using assets wisely can be more beneficial than a large cashflow, you have now morphed into a fight for survival. And that indeed is what it is for MFC. And no matter how you glorify the current administration, the big challenge for them is to develop a sustainable model that allows us to survive and compete. In your recent posts and your record store example it is definitely better to be bigger otherwise its a matter of clinging for survival.

Since my answers are so predictable, why ask that question? Would my answer either way go to some strange vindication of whatever is your floating argument?

No Your points were made below and you have not substantiated. How does Melbourne commit to the same resources as a Giant and still turning a profit on a small cash flow without double counting why you little, on 26 November 2010 - 09:34 PM, said: Big is not always better, but to compete with these Giants & Beat them we still need the same resources within our club why you little, on 28 November 2010 - 11:09 AM, said: Using assets wisely can be more beneficial than a large Cash flow in many situations. You moved the goal posts again. While I stand to be corrected, the MFC debt at its peak was $5.5 million. Interest on unsecured debt over the years prior to the Debt demolition would have been around approx. 12%. So there's about $660,000 of cashflow (not taking our cashflow and more). And while the reduction of the debt has been an important step for MFC it has only resulted in the interest saved by absorbed by the business in order to partially compete with other Clubs. We are still well short of competing with the resources of the bigger players. And the prudent management you pride in a small club is the prudent management that can very much exist in a bigger club who can afford the best talent on and off the field, provide them with resources to achieve their objectives and provide that talent with greater scope for development in a diversified business with a range of cashflow sources.

Its still irrelevant in regard to your earlier comments. And semantics to the point of stretching reality does not hide that you have no substance to support your earlier comments. All the above is really fluff. The fact of the matter is that an AFL Club is not analogous to a small business and particularly not to the one you had. Its a nice story and well done but it is not relevant. Your industry changed in the space of 2 years and small operators could not compete against bigger players. The change in the AFL over a generation (30 years) is different and irrelevant to the points you asserted earlier. Your comments were made about the here and now. And they have been run like businesses for the past 15 to 20 years (in many cases poorly). Its just that the money in the game has changed and the whole issue of the Giants and the not so Giants. The music industry is not an analogy for AFL at all. BTW, the last time I look Jim Stynes was Chairman at MFC. Andrew Demetriou was AFL Chairman. Benny Gale was Richmond CEO. Gary Pert was Collingwood CEO. Ex footballers are still very much alive in all areas of football administration off the ground. Nice try but you keep digging a bigger hole for yourself.

The music industry therefore is an inappropriate example of the claims you made about MFC. The AFL is the market here and it has not changed. The introduction of the record company is a sideshow you introduced and have sought to perpetuate to draw attention away from making incorrect and unsubstantiated claims about AFL business.

While I agree with your comments. This is not relevant to the substantiation of your statements before which I quoted. You are trying to divert attention from addressing this by: 1. Reinforcing how sensible you were to get out the record business when you did. This may be so be its irrelevant to the claims you made about competing with Giants in the AFL. 2. Your comments above while true are also not relevant to addressing your claims before.

Its still the same business that got gratuitous funding from generous supporters. The alignment with the MCC provides about $500,000 year plus some distribution benefits of membership flyers. However its small beer in the scheme of things. MFC has not closed down or changed anything substantial. Its still a cash strapped club that struggles to turn a profit and is at financial risk of being able to compete in the future with the AFL Giants unless it builds a sustainable and profitable business.

By your own admission they have no relevance to claims you have made and I have quoted just before. I am not sure how you are trying to weave the issues of technology and obselescence into your claims in regard AFL. So you still have not provide a viable example that applies to your claims in respect of between Collingwoods cashflow (the Giant) and MFC cashflow(the not so Giant). Nothing new.

Oops. We must get that sarcasm meter fixed. As usual you have gone off the track, missed the point and actually skewered yourself in the process. That's quite an achievement. Indeed. Again moving the goalposts....WYL You have made these claims Your record store example flies in the face of those claims: 1. You could not compete with the Giants because you did not have the resources. 2. Having a small cashflow and a good profit margin cannot prosper in the LT. I will admit that you are showing better prudent management of your record store than you do pitching a point of view.

No just lack a capable 4th innings bowler since Warne retired to commentary botox...I mean box. B)