Rflowerwing

Go and list all 22 games and then I'll back you.

Doubting Thomas.

Try this on for size - home games:

Round 1 vs. North at G (Sun 1pm);

R5 vs. Crows at G (Sun 4.40pm);

R6 vs. Geelong at G (Sun 2pm);

R8 vs. Dogs at G (Sat 2pm);

R11 vs. Pies at G (Mon 2pm);

R14 vs. Eagles at G (Sat 2pm);

R15 vs. Port at G (Sun 2pm);

R17 vs. Swans at Manuka (Sun 1pm);

R18 vs. Tigers at G (Sun 1pm);

R20 vs. Freo at G (Sun 1pm);

R22 vs. Saints at G (Sun 2pm);

Caroline Wilson reckons we're getting one friday night home game and less Sunday games. Where did you get that info from?

Not prepared to say but I'll stake my information and my credibility against hers any day. Prepared to back me?

No Friday night home game.

8 Sunday home games.

12 Foxtel/10 free to air.

Home games to incl. Crows, PA, Freo and WCE.

Great offering as we search for new major sponsor.

Great for budget revenue from gate, hospitality and merchandise.

Then the bludgers in the Kremlin say that we are a basket case.

They're all secret members of the Flying Hellfish <_<

Time on your hands after being suspended from school yesterday?

Question: what do Stynes, Schwab, Leoncelli, Lyon, Schwarz, Connolly, K O'Donnell, the Healy brothers and B Lovett have in common?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

Anyone care to hazard a guess at the answer (and it's a little trickier than "they all played for Melbourne except Schwab")?

Hmmm.....I feel a mate coming on.

Question: what do Stynes, Schwab, Leoncelli, Lyon, Schwarz, Connolly, K O'Donnell, the Healy brothers and B Lovett have in common?

BTW - you might find that Thompson is not the pin up boy at Adelaide that some of you might think. Something about not being able to kick poo off a stick!!!

How stupid are Richmond just when they look like they are getting back on track they recruit Melbourne people.

Stupid as!!

Just like those dumb bunnies at Hawthorn and those Melbourne duds Clarkson, Viney, Fagan and Evans.

Our true success story of 2008!

I spoke to a couple of the Hawthorn brains trust at the end of the H&A season. They said that Col's performance on Buddy was the best of any defender's all year.

The next Darren Glass (if he stays in defence).

The actual trip to China cost about $100,000.

Part of the reason the China program overall has cost so little is because it has been, to date, done in a pathetic half-arsed manner. There were more announcements about it and publicity efforts back home than there was actual, diligent effort at covering all of the bases (stakeholders, promotional options, networks, etc..)

But there's still a bit of life in it, and it could still be a big positive if done right, and targeted to the right areas of China.

How much of the stated $100k was MFC funds and how much externally sourced/contributed?

I doubt they have even got to thinking about it as yet-I think the AFL put a stop to it after their first big Audit

What big audit?

The AFL finance people have met monthly with the MFC finance people for the last 4 years. This was a condition of MFC's access to the CBF. The AFL has at all times been aware of the state of the Club's finances.

China cost us next to nothing - almost all the China activities were externally funded. The AFL agrees that China is part of the game's expansion strategy and will take the lead in this initiative, maintaining MFC's prominent involvement. Given that we have the smallest supporter base in the league and no major sponsor, and given that China cost us nothing and involved no risk, I say good on Gardner and Harris for thinking outside the square.

but deanox, do u think if some stupid journo like the last couple of years made an article showing which clubs made a yearly profit and which clubs didnt, technically you would have to say melbourne made a 1 mil profit

Before you count the "debt demolition" funds raised as revenue in the current period (year to 31 October 2008) you would need to know:

1. How much of the c. $3 million is "clean" and how much has been pledged in return for benefits. So for example, if someone donated $100k in return for a table at 11 home games next year which costs the Club, say, $42k to fulfil then the impact on the Club's P&L (ie "profit") is $58k, not $100k.

2. How much of the $3 million has been either received or is recoverable as a legally enforceable debt? If the money is simply promised and not received before 31 October then it cannot be booked as income.

the good wasnt good enough

Agree.

A very Difficult Question when i am not part of the Meetings and Business Deals to answer. All i do know is the club has a debt that seems to grow everytime i look at it. Over paid Ageing players Yze should have been delisted after 2007 along with Nietz (or at least should have annointed and had a transition period with a new Captain). Basically the whole club needs to be more accountable top to bottom. Our Deal with the MCC has always been terrible since the Eighties. This is the First Big Job i hope Jimma addresses.

Well you're the one who stated with such authority that Gardner made some very bad decisions.

I agree that management of our aging list was not optimal. Do you really want the siuts in the Boardroom deciding whether to not to give Robbo another 2 years or 3? I don't - that's what the Board employs the Footy experts in the Footy Dept to do and then hold them accountable for their performance. Gardner, not Stynes, overhauled the Footy Dept in response to performance issues - appointments included Connolly, Bailey, Prendergast, Wellman, Mahoney, O'Donnell and Mark Williams. From memory 14 new players were introduced to the Club post-2007 with more changes this year. Big tick for Gardner from me on this one.

Debt? You couldn't have taken much notice while Gardner was Chairman because it came down in each of his 4 years in the Chair.

Accountable? Blah, blah, blah.

MCC? This problem has been around since 1981 and Gardner was not the fiirst to be defeated by it. Jim is giving it the priority it deserves and the very existence of our Club swings on the outcome of his efforts.

No mention of MOP home, Casey, membership (36%) and revenue (37%) growth over 4 years, stable Board with 3 female Directors, finals footy in 3 of 4 seasons etc. At least mention the good with the bad.

I have nothing against the Board run by Gardiner & his team, I am sure they worked Long & Hard, but the Results are they made some very bad decisions that have left the club hanging by a thread. God help us if Jim Stynes had not come along.

I am sure Gardner and his Board made some very bad decisions just as Jim's Board will on their watch.

What would you consider to be the 5 worst "very bad decisions" that you think Gardner made?

All true Rflowering, but what I find annoying is that with every new board, we hear the same thing about debts in the closet. Didn't the auditors raise some concerns last year about how and when we were accounting for some expenses?

The only query as was explained to me related to the timing of the bringing to account of the part-payment of Travis Johnstone's season 2008 salary by the MFC which was part of the Travis trade for the Grimes draft pick.

The auditors were of the opinion that this payment should be included in the 2007 accounts. The Board - having taken further advice and having examined what other Clubs who had structured similar deals in the past have done in their annual accounts - believed that this payment should properly be disclosed in the 2008 accounts. Therefore, its impact is included in the $1.6 million forecast loss I referred to. There is nothing "in the closet".

In any event, in a $28 million turnover a one off item of this size is immaterial in an accounting sense.

Other than that, and the "going concern" qualification that has appeared in the MFC accounts (and in the accounts of a number of other Clubs with negative net assets) since 2001, there is nothing unusual in the accounts. The integrity of the Club's accounts is pristine as Jim Stynes acknowledged.

Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists.

What I find annoying is that whenever there is a change in the Boardroom, all those who have served the Club as Directors in the past are characterised as enemies of the state. You will notice that Jim Stynes and his new Board (three of whom were members of the Gardner Board) have not felt the necessity to do this and they are in a position to know.

So who is Finally going to show us the "True Picture" of how stuffed our Finances are. I want to know the Truth and as a paid up member for 2009 think i deserve such info. C'mon MFC show some balls. We can turn it around like the Hawks but first we need Honesty.

Gardiner & co it seems really buggered things up didn't they....they are all so quiet.

Don't you love revisionist history.

If you are going to enter a discussion of the Club's finances then at least get your facts right.

Fact 1: In each of the four completed years of Gardner's Chairmanship, the Club made a profit, significantly reducing debt in the process. For the six consecutive years before Gardner's election the Club made a loss, accumulating over $5 million in debt in the process.

Fact 2: At the time of Gardner's standing down the Club was on track for an operating loss in the current year of $1.6 million. This is very disappointing and unsustainable. Gardner and his Board are ultimately accountable for this result. Any improvement (eg fund raising) or deterioration (eg cost of sacking of key executives) in this position in the balance of this financial year is attributable to decisions made by the Stynes board.

Fact 3: There was no coverup. On 10 July Jim Stynes said this: “Obviously when you come into it you’re not totally sure what’s there but I’ve been really pleased with what I’ve seen,” Stynes said. “I haven’t been shocked, or there hasn’t been any skeletons hidden in closets".

St Kilda Football Club has abandoned its plans to relocate their training base to Frankston Oval and will develop Belvedere Oval in Seaford as its new training facility. In today's Herald Sun this is reported as follows:

St Kilda will effectively have a blank canvas with which to work at Belvedere Park, with more than $11 million to be pumped in to the site.

An oval built to MCG configurations, an indoor sports stadium, a pool and gym will be included in the development, which will be funded by the State Government, local council, the AFL and the Saints. The club hopes the new facilities, most of which will be open to the public, will be operational by the start of the 2010 season.

The Herald Sun has learnt that after months of negotiations, Frankston City Council on Monday night decided to approve the Belvedere Park option. St Kilda announced in May last year it would be leaving Moorabbin, its home of 43 years, after lengthy discussions with Kingston Council broke down irreparably....

...It is understood Frankston Council has committed about $3.8 million to the Belvedere Park project.

It is understood that of the total project cost ($11 million) the State Government will contribute $3.45 million and the Saints $800k in addition to the Council's contribution of $3.8 million.

Contrast this with the Casey project: Council's $1.25 million + State Government $350k + MFC $500k = $2.1 million.

I wonder how the "Community obligations" entered into by the Saints in return for Council's financial support for their project compare with the obligations of the MFC for less than one-third the money?

Are we being dudded here? Have Connolly and the Board sold us short?

G'day all, sorry if this is in the wrong place but I just found this forum and wanted to say hi. I am a MASSIVE Melbourne Demons fan.

Unfortunately I am also from Tasmania so I never get to see them live........ umm yeah so...........<arkward silence> Hello

Related to Redandbluethruandthru are you?

Lovely piece Jack.

Melbourne Grammar did.

No they didn't.

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't get rid of him, but how much do you actually pay for a Rookie?

I thought it was more around the $50,000 region, and more once they started playing.

Would be interested if anyone knows

In 2009, $33,200 plus allowances.

If you really want to impress your friends see here:

http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFLPA_..._2011_FINAL.pdf

Avoided that other question nicely

As if!!!

That's the second time you've mentioned details which most of us in the public are not aware of (the other being the phone calls to Fox), where are you getting your info?

All of that is besides the point. When those board members, Stynes and Watts interviewed those candidates they were looking for a candidate who best displayed the qualities that Gardner & Co had decided on. There's no reason why this time that Dillon is not a more appropriate choice now that they are focused on a different type of person.

You are exactly right. Good work.

I don't think that's correct. Jimmy was apart of the interview process but was not involved in any of the decision making, as far as i'm aware. So what Gardiner's board & Jimmy's board consider a good candidate may vary greatly

What actually happened was this - Slade's drew up a long list which was reduced to 5. These 5 were interviewed by a group comprising 3 Board members plus Stynes and an outside independent expert (Jim Watts). At this stage Jim Stynes preferred candidate McNamee over candidate Fox despite his protests later that his views were ignored.

The list of 5 was reduced to 3, including Fox and McNamee. There was a second interview conducted by a panel of Directors. Jim Watts and Jim Stynes took no part in this or subsequent deliberations. The interview panel and Slade reported back to the Board who unanimously (contrary to Caroline Wilson's assertions to the contrary) chose McNamee. He accepted the job the next day.

Well isn't this turning into a gripping contest...

I think the only one remaining is Terry Dillon (assuming Waldron's out), so you'd think he's got the job if he wants it. But then again, we might find out tomorrow that Schwab is reconsidering...

Dillon was not good enough to make the final cut which reduced the field to 3 when McNamee was appointed. Jim was part of the group that eliminated him and reduced the field to 3.