Rhino Richards

Whats that? Its never existed in the AFL and cant be delivered under the current format

Thanks Vibes. Its clearly a donation by the Owls without financial payment which some posters are wrongly believing is achievable. I am also not across the financial position of the Owls or their funding sources so I cant put there action in clear context beyond what is written in the article.

If the third party business is a nexus to their AFL employment then it is the AFL business to investigate for salary cap issues. If there are business matters that are outside the nexus of the AFL employment but occur between parties involved with one or more clubs and whose activities impact the standing or public perception of the AFL competition then it surely is the business and interest of the AFL notwithstanding what transpires in the legal system.

Its not the Club that is at issue. Its a plausible reason why an NFP or Government agency would "sponsor" a Club that has poor profile etc. The adds put out by the Red Cross and other NFPs for blood donations and other community charitable causes are general widespread media. MFC does not fall in that category. Its a different segment and different impact and does little for the sponsor.

In the current economic environment and devastating damages done in the bushfires how the fv@% could any Government justify any taxpayer money to the MFC no matter how small? Posters need to take off the blinkers and consider an opportunity not just from the perpsective of MFC's own limited good and think about sponsor implications. The Public Sector and the Non profit organisations are not going to throw their valuabvle dollars at another definite non profit entity no matter how left field or out of the box posters want to label it. The Club needs to focus on realistic and feasible options. And this thread has not uncovered any.

We are already insolvent subject to the AFL and MCC interests.......

Gee you would think we would actually be doing the Red Cross a favour from your note.

The Demons get a Government bail out because it cant find a sponsor! Given the financial climate and recent bushfire disaster I am sure the Government will gladly and willingly dip into the pocket. I mean really the Government is already looking at a $50 billion budget deficit what's a few 100,000 more. This thread started off as silly and has got alarmingly more so. To help out...maybe the AFL could sponsor us... They do have lots of money...

Yes. Lets look at more mutually positive ways we can support Red Cross rather than "giving away" our sponsorship.

Another word. - Correct. Redleg is right also.

I think the AFL may even dedicate a round of football during the year as Bushfire/ Natural Disaster Support/relief round where the following might happen: 1. Bushfire fire fighters and volunteers are given free admittance to the ground in Victoria and Sydney and Brisbane (for the Ingham floods ) who are then paraded around the ground at half time to the applause and high fiving of the crowd as they walk around the MCG. (I would like to involve a Melb home game so we get lots of positive publicity and fill up empty seats with volunteers). 2. Allow collectors for Bushfire relief to collect donations. 3. A minute silence and tribute to those who have fallen. From a MFC football club perspective, if they are keen to open Casey up to new supporters and community effort, I would be planning at the appropriate time a number of training clinics and support efforts particularly in Gippsland and especially where schools have been lost and damaged. Given the scale of devastation in some areas, such relief and support efforts should be co ordinated with the appropriate authorities. However it would be a marvellous opportunity for MFC to work with its sponsors to provide the community with whatever assistance it can. Surely it would be a win for the community and would improve and lift the profile of MFC. Given Jim Stynes is involved already with the Reach Foundation we should be well positioned to be able to give support where we can.

No embarrassment here either.

I dont know how much the AFL would offer us to do a home game or two in the ACT. The AFL is keen on expanding in NSW and Qld. Its not just about geographically where you play games. Its about translating interest into TV ratings by which TV rights contracts are priced. There are a number of hurdles that MFC would overcome for the AFL to buy into the third AFL stadium. We would have to financially strong on a sustainable basis to saying No to selling home games.

MFC hated the Junction Oval because it was a underresourced fire hazard facility with limitation. The playing surface was awful and the gym threadbare The management offices and medical will be based at the MCG with little held at Bubbledome (which was a flawed concept from the start). Casey as a training venue is ideal and they would be mad to knock back the opportunity for the Bubble stadium which already has serious limitations even before it has been used.

Because MFC is one of 16 brands licensed by the AFL. And from a marketing and saleability point of view we are a poor brand for some of the reasons Casey Scorp and a few more. No its in the hands of the AFL and possibly the MCC if by the remote chance they want to take us over (they dont).

Play a loss game at MCG then. Havent I already answered this one? Its a rock and hard place. Play at MCG at a loss or Canberra for AFL dollars. BTW, it is relevant who the provider of cash is. We would be hard up to put to go for special assistance if we knock back Canberra.

No. Does not have enough silver/grey in it with a ridiculous design to totally pi$$ dedicated MFC supporters off.

Possibly the silliest post I have read this year on a trite topic. Talk about lack of perspective. Proof??? Opposition supporters who felt community minded may have dipped in here and there but dont stretch the truth too far. Like WB and Saints supporters. Everyone hates the idea of relocation of team but wish it were someone else's club that gets relocated if it has to happen.

Its got nothig to do with Canberra....its the AFL. Given the GFC, there is no easy handouts coming from Canberra to play AFL football. So what is the option to playing a loss game at Docklands? And BTW, its not about basing a team there its about increasing general interest in AFL that translates into TV ratings. And if its Casey, how would you convince the AFL its a better bet for them than increasing exposure outside the state?

If we were offered significant money for interstate games we should seriously consider it in our financial state. Whether it is 200K,300K or 400K? The issue is if we cant draw enough at the MCG, our alleged home, then, the AFL will be further wondering what we stand for and who we represent. If it werent for the fact the AFL have contracted to provide 16 teams in 8 games of H&A in the TV rights we would be greater uncertainty. Its not a matter of the AFL being very annoyed. They have already formed a negative view of the Club which has resulted in poor fixturing. 15,000 people at Casey would return you a very small profit if at all. The underlying problem if it is 15,000 then again the AFL concerns are vindicated. Beyond your beliefs, the potential for Casey is uncertain and the pay off a long term issue if at all. I would rather sacrifice a Docklands home game than sacrifice a home game at the MCG. We will look like prize hypocrites citing our likes with the MCC/MCG on one hand and turn our back on it to play games. There is no certainty of either outcome through Casey. I am all for using Casey as a professional traning base but as a future playing venue, the AFL know the Casey deal is slim on the upside and greatly uncertain in the longer term. I am not sure the AFL would get that excited about another AFL venue in Melbourne if it is only housing 15,000 and that number is uncertain given the fickleness of MFC supporters.

The solutions to our numerous LT issues were never going to be solved by selling games. My comment about GFC (the global variety) was to emphasise that Hawks so called model is based on a Tassie grant for a couple of years which is not sustainable beyond its current term. It has nothing to do with the long term. It was short term fix to plug holes in the deficit we have were our expenses on our meagre admin and football operations is greater than the revenue. Now if we did not get the money from the Brisbane game our loss would only have been bigger and our position more seriously untenable than it is now (if that is possible). The issue about having AFL games at Casey is as follows: 1. MFC must be sure as they can be that it will bring enough net revenue for the AFL to approve such a plan. 2. The AFL would have to approve having games at venues in Melbourne other than MCG and Docklands. 3. If the AFL are keen to maintain a couple of representative games in Canberra to push the AFL code in general and were prepared to offer say $300,000 to MFC to play there, MFC would have to come up with a good case why the AFL should prefer Casey at the expense of pushing its expansion of interest in AFL outside Victoria. ATM, the AFL is guaranteeing MFC debt and also picking up the shortfall annually on our operations. If the AFL are going to give us "game sell" money then they are going to seek some return out of it. The challenge will be for MFC to sell Casey as some unexplored pot of gold for the AFL to develop. And given the AFL's stated objectives, selling Casey as that to the AFL will be harder than attracting a sponsor.

You have got it all wrong. Canberra games are all about getting guaranteed money for a game which we would actually lose on if we played in Melbourne. Its got no growth potential for MFC. There is no matter of us moving or relocating to Canberra. North have proven you cant hold an AFL team there. It allows the AFL to keep up an appearance. We need to capture revenue now to cover our expenses now. How do you plug the operating losses we run each year. We run a football administration group half the size of the WCE!!!! We have had second rate facilities at Junction oval. The Hawthorn model only works for the ridiculous money provided by the Tassie GOvernment. What are the Hawks going to do when the contract expires? The economy is in deep recession and Tassie will feel it worse than most. So what are the options for us to get revenue? Nearly everyone who [censored] about selling games has no other option to bridge the funding gap we have. I hate selling games but I know why we have to do regrettably do it. By all means MFC should investigate a Casey AFL game as an option. He may be a revenue positive prospect. But its not necessarily a lay down pot of gold. And any flow onto to signficant additional MFC support in the region is a generation away. Sorry I got sidetracked by a vision of MCC members at the games with their thermos of coffee and the red and blue tweed scarves on!!!

Hawthorn are only in Tasmania for the lucre. Period. NMFC did a last gasp tin rattle ad got 40,000 human and otherwise type members but still struggled to get 20,000 to a home game. They did a wonderful PR stunt which once the dust settles they are only in marginally better position with no clear future. Footy fans dont really care unless its there own club. I dont see any Melb based supporters of other clubs running vigils for Fitzroy or South Melbourne. This Forum was very much into the issue and I would be surprised if MFC fans werent unless they were playing ostrich.

If its in regard to relocation, if it were either NM or MFC no. Over time the AFL via the media have soften the expectations of football followers that 10 teams is not viable and that there will be expansion interstate which may involve Vic Club relocation. There would only be commotion if tier one clubs were moved (eg Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Geelong and possibly Richmond). I think St Kilda, WB, NM and MFC need to watch their backs carefully in the future.

How about a financially stable well resourced club that can compete with the major clubs on and off the field? And some better fixtured games at the MCG??? There is more in it for the MFC and its members and supporters than the MCC and its members. Only 25% of MCC members claim to support MFC. The other 75% would be lookwarm about bringing MFC into the fold if it involve special financial compensation/ funding.