Hazyshadeofgrinter

I thank Jim and his board for the time that they have invested in the club with good intentions. However I don't thank him for saving the club. What exactly hs he done to save it other than hold his cap out? If thanks are owed, they are owed to all of the people behind the $4m worth of donations (Jim was probably one of them though!) They are also owed to the enterprising member who helped to secure an 11th hour deal with kaspersky. If we were $4.5m in debt when Jim took over (this includes the $1.5m forecast loss) and we have since recieved $4m in donations, then shouldn't we be only $0.5m in debt now, all other things being equal? Can the club continue to run when the donations dry up? Jim and his board have performed better than I expected them to, but I never had high expectations of them. To say that they have "turned the ship around" as a result of recieving $4m in unsustainable donations is silly. Particularly given that the club made profits and substantially reduced debt between 2004-07 without using up the last-ditch charity "strategy".

"Don't say it show me." You still haven't shown me anything. All you do to back up your unsubstantiated assertions is to make more unsubatantiated assertions. I'lll give you another example of the kind of thing I'm looking for: This was written prior to the forecast 1.5m operating loss of 2008 which left the club with a projected $4.5m debt at the end of that year. It provides some details about the finanical situation of the club from 2004-7 (i.e. the last handful of seasons). source - The Club has recorded four consecutive years of profit, and has reduced debt by over 50% from $5.5m to $2.7m since 2004 - The Club recorded aggregate losses of $8.52 million between 1999-2003 (Average $1.42 million/annum) - The Club has invested profits from recent years into both debt reduction and football department spending (increased by $500k in 2007 and again in 2008) - The Club has increased non-AFL sourced revenue by 35% in last 4 years (Vic club average 29%) - The Club’s annual revenue is approximately $28 million/annum or $538k/week lower than the highest revenue Club (Collingwood). Over time, this seriously compromises the ability of Melbourne to be competitive - The financial result for 2007 ($96K profit) was adversely impacted by player injuries ($400K), reduced match related revenue ($550K) and gaming performance ($500k). The Board considered this result to be unacceptable and took appropriate steps. Obviously the project loss of $1.5m in 2008 was a disappointing development but this does not mean that the club was a basket case from 2004-2008. Also bear in mind that the club acheived these results without appealing for unsustainable donation revenue during this period. I continue to await your explanation of why you (and apparently many others) think that the club has been a basket case over the last few years with bated breath. If it is so obvious that the club was a basket case for the last few sweasons, then this should be easy to prove. Perhaps the real reason you think this way is because you (and others) are not used to having your assertions challenged?

I continue to await your factual explanation of why you think the club was a basket case over the last handful of seasons. Your assertion that this is a widely held opinion does not explain anything. In fact, it makes a proper explantaion even more necessary. Or, in your words, "dont say it show me...or shut up !!"

I'm glad to hear for the 100th time that you wont be replying to my posts anymore. Responding to you is like kicking a puppy and my foot is beginning to get a little tender.

Turn off my oxygen? So much for you high-horse. I hope you're a smoker.

Actually mate, leaving is more your style. But you had to come back, didn't you? Feel free to report my posts to a moderator, I stand by them. Your moral hysteria would suit channel 7 down to the ground.

Absolutely, it is the reliance on donations that should be of greater concern.

Who should I apologise to and who am I looking to recieve favours from? I'm confused about Jim's cancer journey. A few months ago he wanted privacy. Now he is making television appearences about it. From what I can tell, Jim is doing this because he wants to help other cancer sufferers by serving as a kind of role model or something. I admire him for this but sadly, I think the greatest good that will come from all of it will be when Jim finally dies and people realise that no amount of positive thinking and alternative therapies will save you from secondaries in your brain. From channel 7's perspective, this is all just cancer pornography. They are using Jim's death to make advertising dollars. This is one of the reasons that lingering shots of Jim's meditation leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I don't care that my opinions are unpopular and that they may be in poor taste because I don't want to be your friend.

You have re-written history by stating that the club has been a basket case over the last few seasons. This seems similar to when Jim said that the club was hostile to women when all evidence points to the contrary, i.e. you seem to be trying to crap on the club's recent history in order to make the current situation look better. I thought that this was pretty obvious from my post. You seem to want proof that the club was not a basket case over the last handful of seasons. I have already provided this proof by pointing out that the club made profits in '04, '05, '06 and '07. I would not equate this performance with being a "basket case" during the last "handful of seasons". Now perhaps you would do me the same courtesy and explain you comments with similar factual reference?

If you are so confident about our current situation, why do you feel the need to erroneously crap on the club's efforts of the last few seasons? Surely the current administration can stand on it's merits without having to re-write history to make it looks better? (or perhaps you also think that the MFC was "nurturing a culture of exclusivity and ignorance towards women" before Jim came along?)

You'll get no debate from me on this score.

You are welcome, although I'm not sure you really understood what I meant by "trend".

I thought it was clumsy. I would have preffered that they did the stories seperately. I really don't see how Jim's story adds to the story of the man from Yuendumu and vice versa. It seemed pretty contrived.

"Turning the ship" is a metaphor for changing a trend. This is because ships are generally difficult to turn, they have a lot of inertia. Despite your negativity, the trend has been positive since 2004 with the notable exception of the significant loss last year. Furthermore, if we do make a profit this year, it is unclear whether this would be done in a sustainable manner. This makes you "turning the ship" metaphor even less appropriate. I've wasted enough time on you two in the past. You have never been interested in the facts anyway.

Sound about right to me, I know that there was a forecast loss of around $1.5M when the new board took over last year. This was the amount that football operations spending was increased by that year.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. I'm not being cagey. I know for a fact that we made profits every year from '04-'07. Obviously this means that the debt was smaller in '07 than it was in '04. I also seem to recall that the debt reached around $7m at one stage but my memory is imperfect and I haven't bothered to find a reference for this. If you are interested, why don't you do the research yourself?

Obviously the debt was bigger in '04 thatn it was in '07. I think it was around $7m at one stage. I'm sure there are a number of things that don't make sense to you, I am not inclined to explain all of them.

It would be great if we made a profit this year although I'm not sure that it is appropriate to call it "turning the ship" given that small profits were made in '04, '05, '06, and '07. If anything, last year's loss was the anomaly. Of course, if we do make a profit this year then most/much of the credit goes to the supporters. I just hope that we can continue to make profits on a sustainable basis. The debt reduction "strategy" seems to rely quite heavily upon one-off donations at the moment. Hopefully our anticipated on-field improvement will help to counter the "chairty fatigue".

And how would you guys feel if you were AFL players?

What a shocking post. You are either a ) working class yourself and therefore guilty of the same kind of snobbery that you apparently despise (in reverse). b ) middle or upper class yourself and therefore "lack the character" to support the demons properly (your words, not mine). In either case, I guarantee that you have done a lot less for the club than many/all of the people you slag off as being only interested in bragging rights and a free lunch. Your personal criticism of Gardner is particularly unfair. He doesn't care about the club? He lacks a professional work ethic? He should be ashamed of having outside interests? You must be someone pretty special to make these accusations.

I can't deal with it. He should have been paid out this year so that we could have kept Buckley around for a little longer or used another draft pick.

good point

Which player or which pick will make room for him? PSD pick 1? I would prefer Buckley on the list to Bradshaw.

Really? I thought the "where would he go?" byline was enough.