Rhino Richards

Its not so much the numbers of members (thats good) but the $$$$ they bring through the type of membership they buy. Remember 4 MCC/MFC members at $40 is the same dollars as almost a full paying member. The other issue is how else in footy gear, raffles and other Club things do the members contribute. I would suggest that is low for a number of reasons. One of the major ones lack of facilities. I heard from a CFO that the real leverage of profitability for a Club is sponsorship. That is not to decry membership but the marginal profit is higher. The difference with rugby league and its Clubs is it is silently financed and funded from News Corp. Take that away and that sport dies. The AFL has the TV rights which is much much more lucrative than the NRL rights.

Ronald Dale Barassi. Born: 27/2/1936. Melbourne - 1953-1964, 204 games, 295 goals, 6 Premierships. Playing Premierships: Melbourne - 1955, 56, 57, 59, 60, 64. Playing Achievements: Melbourne - Captain 1960-64; Best and Fairest 1961, 64; All Australian 1956, 58, 61. Inducted into AFL Hall of Fame as an official Legend in 1996. Nah. You are right. A treacherous bastard if ever there was one. Did nothing for the Club. How could you think of capitalising on your achievements. He is probably in it with that worm Stan Alves! Brian Dixon??? And you think Ron is about Ron. Sheesh. Dixon's antics in Hamer's cabinet are legendary. No wonder Gutnick would not have him in his side. But you are right. Ron Barassi dont you go touching our $$$$ now. :angry: .....

Agree. Could not think of nicer club to suffer from hubris after one win!

So why the hell is coming back to MFC then? If he want the $$$$ he could go to any of his other ex-clubs like Carlton where the cardbox king is now worth more than 50 poker machines in a social club. I wonder why John Northey had such a good crop of juniors to work with?

You can only do that once otherwise the message goes stale if you do it repeatedly and it becomes a cry wolf issue. You are right we might get a spike in membership but is it sustainable in the next year? And memberships alone will not save us. And if you are going to say it do not do it 2 months before the membership cut off date. Timing is all. But like I said it is not the long term solution. Its expends alot of emotion without addressing the problem. Another thought we have been precarious since the merger. Its in all the press how badly we are going what more incentive do people need to buy memberships?

Bub, Good point on diversification. The need to achieve a multitude of income streams beyond membership is critical. Growing member numbers are good but that alone wont save your bacon. North Melb bump in member numbers does not change a thing for the long term sustainability. They are still on a knife's edge like we are.

At that time the Board actually believed that was the issue. The fact that we did not maintain the profit and that issue of the initial seeds of the profit fall should have been identified and quantified by Harris. Another reason I am glad he is gone. After an initial good start attendances fell away and the impact of the cost of Harris's redundancies did not come forward until closer to year end. I dont think that was deliberate deception. Anyone knows it stupid move to do and Gardner is not stupid to lie about that. Regardless our financial position has been precarious. Harris should have realise that the poor showing in the early games were going to cut deep.

Both issues have been discussed on this site and Ology for years now. The financial statements are on the public record. Its more like a shroud of ignorance. We dont have a choice. The shortcomings of this list regardless of the game plan are obvious and have been present for 2 to 3 years now and outweigh whatever strengths there are. Geelong did rebuild and commenced when Bomber started and there was a big clean out. And you know what he copped it to for a long time even as late as 2006.

Correct on both accounts H.

Firstly, if you are agreeing with me then I withdraw my position completely. Seriously, I think the rebuild was going to happen anyway given where our list is. Given that many of our senior list are in their twilight and barely competitive only highlights it. I think if we are going to be successful then we must win a flag (Hopefully soon) as part of that succcess. 44 years is a growing monkey on the club's back. Given the financial disparity between many Vic clubs and interstate clubs the ability for Victorian clubs to win a flag is becoming more and more remote. We need to work hard against the odds. We have made the finals for the past 3 years up to 2006 and we have made the finals more often than many other Vic sides for a long period but it has not made any dent on membership or sponsorship. I just dont think you can effectively band aid your list continually and expect to be successful. And if Bailey was to take a middle of the road approach then he is contributor to a culture which is spongy enough. Most of the posters that are backing Bailey to make the side competitive and successful longer term and realise as a legacy of the past administration he has a questionable hand of cards to do that with and he will rightly make changes to get us there. The changes to the list are a consequence of this.

The MCG is the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The management of the ground was deemed by Act of State Parliament to MCC as the trustee of the MCG. Football was created as a winter pursuit for cricketers. Cricket pre dates football there. For 120 years MFC was a part of the MCC until MFC chose to cut the ties with MCC in the 1980s. MFC is a licensed entity of the AFL. MFC does not have any rights over any ground nor is it in a position to deliver without the AFL. In answer to your question....No.

How sustainable is it when they get 23k to a home game when they are a well performed side and were a monty to win. Its a smoke screen that is challenged by the facts. They have about 10,000 new "members". Will they be there next year? Anyone noticed the drop off in WB's numbers after their ra-ra campaign the previous year. And the WB are near the top of the ladder. Look beyond the current and look at long term sustainability. MFC, NMFC and WBFC are all still in the gun. WB possibly slightly in front due to the demographic and region it covers. If we move to 18 clubs it wont be long term sustainable to have 10 of the Clubs in Melbourne. Its a struggle with 16 clubs.

I am not the one making hyperbolic and hysterical attacks on players and officials reflecting a disregard of any notion of factual basis or reason. Its your choice how you present yourself on this site and you will be rightly judged by others. So far its big on the vitriol and low on the substance.

And you think North are out of the real trouble? I think Brayshaw has created a false sense of reality and snubbed the opportunity to actively negotiate an inevitable outcome.

Meaning you dont have a clue about it. Right. Great sentiments dm.

I would prefer we played in Melbourne. I am asking what are the alternatives that are available to MFC within the time frame to cover the $1m.

It was highlighted and discussed above. Do you care to consider what the alternatives are? BTW, we have been a financial mess for a period longer than Gardiner's presidency. When he did come on board we were also an off field mess with a fractious fighting disunited board as well.

How do you measure that we are not supporter focussed? How do you know about the relationship of the President and the Board?

That would have indicated a plateauing given that it would have been four years running we crashed out in early Sept. I think after 3 years, ND explored how he could maximise his shot a flag in 2007 his final chance. He knew his existing game plan would not get us the next step. I think he realised as many senior players did that by Rd 3 with mounting injuries and confusion about game styles that he was shot. I think you give a balanced view of Daniher. If we played well in 2008 he would have been damned for 2007 and not getting the best of the team. We are awful this year and its his legacy. And some of the last statement is definitely applicable re list management and development of leadership.

We are different disposition to Collingwood. Collingwood have the membership clout, large supporter base, the sponsorship and the brand that brings them the revenue to create funds to acquire other assets. We dont have those and from our legacy base there are not easy solutions. Hence exploring China options etc. Which of the Board do you think is not business minded?

Gardiner treads a difficult and fine line promoting the Club and rebuffing the media hysteria about the Club. Surely as he and other Board Members sign off on the Audited Annual Accounts they know and accept the state of affairs. The challenge is to identify and implement meaningful and commercial ventures to turn it around. And there is no low lying fruit to get quick wins on the Board. The other problem if you are going to play the last chance crisis card you can only play it once and you need to play it correctly. You keep doing and the message goes stale very quickly. Its does not change the macro issues but creates a whole of misinformation and media hoopla that hides the real problem. North have done this and got 30,000 members but get 23,000 to a home game when they are a successful club and expected to win. North have a real fear that none of the membership growth is sustainable nor reliable next year. That's approx. 10,000 members who are in doubt for next year. Nothing has been solved by North. They have just ignored a voluntarily offered financial proposition which they may have had an opporutunity to have further negotiate to their benefit. In future it will be a series of outcomes with less flexibility and on the agenda and terms of the AFL.

We are short $1million. How do we make that up? Isn't it one of the options? Doesn't highlight to all the unpalatable alternatives that confronts MFC? Nobody likes to do that but we might not have much room to move.

No he could not. The game is changing that fast in the past three years. Daniher realised it but did not have the cattle nor the necessary training time to turn players used to playing a different style that was becoming more and more redundant against the better teams. After the clean out last year how many players on the list that are best 22 have had 10 years playing a different game. The 23 and below generation have a chance to adapt to the new game plan or perish.

Barassi seems to speak on football like he has done for over 40 years with foresight that seems clearly beyond some people. He is correct about the future about North. And despite snipes about whether his heart beats true he has been public in the media and present at many Club functions demonstrating that. Its amazing a Club legend like Barassi cops the unnecessary flak he does.

What more do you need to know about a dire financial position that is not transparent? Who is not accepting that position? I am all for a new Board if there are better candidates out there. Are there any for a non fee paying ceremonial role in a business that is and has been a basket case without easy solutions for some time?