sickto

I too think the price tag was too much. Less than 5% of all members attended this function (when you take out the 300+ freebie for the heroes). It might have had a "club feel" on the night but it's such a pity that the "club" excluded so many of it's people by pricing it out of their league. We don't get another chance to repeat the 150th and the club has excluded so many members from the party. And before anyone comes back and reminds me of the walk - you can't equate the two functions unless you want to talk about the march for the have nots while the night was for the haves. And they wonder why so many members are not committed to the club and feel disenfranchised - go figure!

Be very wary of having too many past players involved with the administration of the club. Remember, as a group, they supported the merger, and later Gabriel with Paul Gardner on the board. The past players have not had a great track record when it comes to decisions as to what is 'best' for the club. While it's good to have them back and involved it may not be good for the club to have them making decisions re the long term future of the club.

Maybe Age hypocrisy but the question needs to be asked of our board - who signed his one year contract extension in November last year and how much will we be paying him out for early termination? OK so that's two questions, but we're a cash strapped club whose financial problem has been exacerbated by payouts to staff members and we have another one only 2 months into the contract. Has the board been financially irresponsible signing him up to a contract in November when there was already evidence of issues relating to his mamangement? Or have they been as managerially incompetent as Harris supposedly was, by not addressing the issues earlier before contract negotiations which have resulted in another payout to a staff member? A situation like this does not arise in 2 months. There would have been issues 2 months ago but they chose to renew his contract and ultimately cost the club a payout.

Are you kidding? No wonder you lot settle for mediocrity. At least North Melbourne are stiving for financial independence. they may not achieve it but they are striving for it and stating that publicly. What is our president saying? Na we'll never be finaincially independant so instead of striving for high goals we'll just sit back and take the hand out. Woe is us, we don't have a ground with reserve seating (mind you the MCC pay handsomely for every MCC member that goes through the gate on home match days) and we don't get off our butts to market ourselves productively so we deserve to be given money. Pathetic. And no we won't be able to compete while we have that narrow and defist attitude leading our club. I'd like to see some pride bought back into the club and for us to hold our heads high and not our hands out

2007 You can't always get what you want - Rolling Stones 2008 Respect - Aretha Franklin Achy Breaky Heart - Billy Ray Cyrus

Enter the spin doctors to make us all feel better. It was called the competitive balance fund by the AFL as they realise clubs like ours can not be competitive without it and we went begging to them for money to cover our inability to raise enough revenue to keep the club competitive. We had incompetent financial management at the end of 2003 and nothing has changed - only the spin has evolved.

Got to ask who are these marketing boffins within the club making these decisions and driving this change? What marketing qualifications do they have to make the decisions of the future direction of the club's image? Are we madly trying to brand the club to appeal to the Chinese at the expense of the local supporters? Do we really believe the Chinese are going to be the saviours of the club and prop us up financially? IMO the new logo is as boring and conservative as the football club. No excitement, flair or pazzaz to attract new members/supporters. Currently the club's branding is is boring, bland and conservative (top end of town) and this does nothing to change that. We're doing nothing to appeal to the future generations of Demons. Children need more than a bland bumper sticker to entice them to follow the club so that we have a supporter base in 20 years time.

Choko I think history will view it a little differently. Yes we will have a new home - but at what cost? Presently we pay concessional rates of rent to the MCC for our facilities. When we move into our new home we will have to pay full rent for the facilities which means we wil have to make sure we have the increased annual revenue to afford the high rent on the office space and of course the money up front to help pay for the facilities. As far as increasing membership from the Team Melbourne marketing strategy the figures from the other codes will be limited. Most of the supporters of Netball, Soccer and Rugby living in Melbourne will already have an AFL team they support and will therefore, not change to become an MFC member. Some of our members may become more involved in the Storm or the Victory but very unlikely that will be recriprocated. The Chinese initiative is also interesting. Yes there are many Chinese students living in Melbourne that does not mean they will become interested enough in football to become a part of the MFC. Part of the culture is to only invest in things that will bring a return. They will spend money on education as they see a return on their investment. Membership of a football club is not seen in the same way. The parents of these students are spending thousands of dollars to send their children here to be educated, do you think they'll gladly give them more money to join a football club that isn't even soccer? They may purchase a bit of merchanise but that's not repeat, committed business. Yes we have stability at board level but that's because we have not had an election for over 3 years. We have board appointments not democracy. And we have financial instability still even though we have had political stability. What does this say about the people running the club? So far we have a lot of future could be's and limited present certainties except financial problems.

Yes it is good to priase but please don't just gloss over the board's less than great record in other areas. When looking at performance you can't ignore the abnormally high staff turnover in the adminsistration area. In any business this would be ringing alarm bells regarding a level of incompetence in either the management of the staff once employed or the recruitment process. And from what I hear another staff member quit this week. Another glaring issue is the financial position of the club. It appears that we will either be in the negative or just in the positive at the end of this year - and that includes over 2 mil from the AFL. So in reality we have gone backwards to the tune of approximately $2 mil. IF the report on Sunday is true we have also asked the AFL for an advance on our projected earning for 2008 to help prop us up this year so we can meet some of our commitments. All the financial issues illustrate a reliance on on field performance to support the club financially. What is going to happen to us in the next couple of years while the new coach is rebuiding? Noone is predicting ultimate success in the next coupleof years so does that mean another couple of years of financial probelms? Until steps are taken to ensure the financial strength of the club independant of the on field situation we will continue to struggle with good years and bad years. One step forward and two steps backwards. This does not promote stability for the club. This board has had political stability for years and yet they have not managed the club efficiently to provide it with financial stability - which should have been a priority. The club is seen as a basket case within the AFL. We only survive because of handouts from the AFL. Gardner and many others were on the board when Zsondy lost 2 mil. There was an uproar of members but ultimately they were toothless as they voted back the same incompetents to continue running the club in the name of stability. Well it's happening again and I guarantee some membrs will be angry and worried but the conservative majority will reward the incompetence and the club will continue to struggle into financial oblivion.

Give him a break, he's solely responsible for our financial position and at the moment he must feel like he's captain of the sinking Titanic with how the team is imploding around him. Jarka please - solely responsible? What about the other board members? All are accountable for the financial situation of the MFC. And that doesn't look too good when you take out the hand out from the AFL. As I've said before smoke and mirrors

Don't let the Gardner smoke and mirrors show blind you to the fact that he was on the board under Szondy when they lost 2 mil. We are better off financially now since Szondy but that's only because the AFL are propping us up each year by giving us hand outs. A couple of weeks ago Gardner came out in the press to say we would make a million dollar profit this year which was the million from the AFL. A week or so later he changed that to maybe $700,000 or less profit. Will this figure change weekly for the rest of the season? So many say we can't afford to get rid of Daniher but can we afford to keep him if gate receipts and other financials for the club fall away the longer the season goes on?