Cheap Seats

Umpiring has been terrible - so many very very soft and techincal free kicks which ruin the play just let the boys play

Findings make no sense but I will be more disappointed if other clubs aren't punished Tiger - TW has admitted to not trying to win games Carlton - enough said Pies - Secured Daisy and Pendles the list goes on and we won't hear anything about it.......... That really gripes me

Thanks for the reports BB I'd just like to add that skill level this time of year is nothing to get too excited over - if it's round 3 and players are continully missing targets I'll start to worry then.

First up - I went a little overboard with my response to you earlier Fan - haha stating the obvious - I have no problem with a difference of opinion and I was tired so please excuse me Back on topic...... I understand what the TTP includes - i also understand the P&Ls can be manipulated. The point I poorly tired to make was I don't understand why your are implying the club is being fradulent towards the members when what you mention in your arguments are standard business practicE (I know you've mentioned it but i don't understand why you think it's a bad thing or unnacceptable in Footy) For example - Look at the media focus on football club 'Profits'. I would say it is negligent by the board to painting the club in a negative light in our current state - most punters don't understand the in's and out's of a Profit and Loss - but they understand a profit or loss. Have you ever tried to get finance from the bank??? You don't tell them the worst case scenario you show what is acheivable We are in a business of winning flags no argument there - and as I've stated earlier the MFC is no where the big clubs on or off field at the moment - so you'd expect the majority of our 'Revenue' to be invested back in to the Club and Football Department - So in this case just in the business of competing you wouldn't expect too many 'Profits' when we are continuely fighting for income.to fight with the best. I find the profit argument very dull and pointless because as you mentioned earlier Profits can be manipulated. Look at Currnet assets against liabilities if you want a quick guide on availability of cash... I am not saying I am happy with our current situation financially - and I know we as a club are a long way off being financially stable or safe. But to date there is no indicaton the club stuggling and we are funding a stronger football department, player development and educatoin - and as club we seem to be pulling together - that can't be all bad can it??? Just as a side note - as the MFC is a bottom feeder in the footy world - what is an acceptable performance in your opinion?? Anyway apologies again thank you for the sensible reply

I can guarantee you RR i have no political allegiance to anyone - All I want to see is a successful club an i dun give a *$#@ bout spellin I don’t understand the continual criticism on the board who I think as an outsider have done a great job in such a horrid year. I’ll admit I’ve gone about our conversation the wrong way RR i have made assumptions. Most of us know MFC is fighting for survival and the club relies heavily on membership revenue and donations from loyal supporters continually to compete and exist. YES as business model the MFC doesn't have a strong financial foundation to rely upon and is nowhere near levels of a Collingwood’s or WCE’s. I think blind Freddie can see the MFC is not in a position to compete financially with the top VIC or interstate clubs, there is no argument there. Hence why I am happy we have the means to be able to fund what we do now with minimal resources – surely that’s worth applauding? From posts I’ve had time to read you’ve talked about sustainability which I agree is a massive issue for our club and a lot of the other minnow clubs in VIC especially (you can throw in BL and Pooort if you like) Is the MFC a sustainable business model??? That is not an easy one line answer, as you point out I have missed many factors but I was trying to keep the discussion simple as there are too many variables, which include membership, sponsorship, AFL funding, MCC funding, gate takings etc etc etc You are correct in your statement that the FH income of $700k does mean we made a “Profit’ for 2012. But without seeing the financial statements and not discussing EVRY variable how can you conclude we would have not made a profit without this $700k – that has been my question to you RR which I have poorly tried to get across I just found reading this thread that a lot of statements were made without a lot of FACT to back them up? Have I offered a lot of fact... no, but I try to base my opinion on the mediaindusty opinion and board statement as I don't have the time to research everything– I am not saying I am 100% correct Finally for me the boards role is to maximise income so we can compete and survive – In my opinion (without being fully informed) the club is doing ok. And lastly - 80 -90% of all income earned (guessed off the top of my head from 2011 - and I will get the figures when they come out) is spent/invested back in to the FD or other Football related costs – How is the MFC not set up to fund football??? I will catch up with the rest of the thread later - have enjoyed the discussion so far

Do not disagree with any of this

Why just compare the MFC to Collingwood why not compare our benchmarks to North or the Dogs? Why not look at the perfomance based soely on the comparatives from prior years? Afterall we are just judging the MFC's performance, which can't be done until the financials are released. Are we talking about the MFC's ability to run a business (the Bentleigh club) or are we talking about the ability of the club to generate finances?? Based on you knowing we made a $77k profit how can you make a judgement if we have a sustainable business model? Because if you think the purpose of this club is anything seperate from financing the FD i'd say you are nieve. No the club is not a not for profit anymore - but the purpose of the club is to play football. . At no stage did I say I expect the FH to continue to put in money to fund anything - You are the one making these statements. What i don't understand is why you keep criicising the board's ability to generate revenue when needed???? It sounds like you have an agenda.... Are you saying 2% of spending can not be cut to counter the loss of this income?? So if you are not ciricising the board what is the purpose of yourself posting on this thread??? Are you just pointing out your own generous donation or are you pointing out the obvious that the club can't rely on the FH income each year - which i would have though most us punters would understand

I acknowledge this statement is a bit over the top - but (Fan) you are alluding that the players contracts were 'adjusted' in the financial statements. If this adjustment is not declared in the notes and is not understandable to the consumer and not consistent with industry practice then it is a false and misleading statement. You must be impling the the contracts were lower in the account than what was paid otherwise you are saying the club is in a better position than is reported on the financial statements.... I am really unsure what you blokes are criticising - should go to bed

Player contracts run from Nov 1 to Oct 31. The financial statements are Nov 1 - Oct 31. How is the player contract expense varied? How can you come to this conclusion without knowing the figures, which aren't even detailed in the 2011 financial statements as they fall under FD spending? And the 2012 accounts have not been released?? Do you know more than you are letting on? Are you saying that a top 4 accounting firm is about to release false and misleading statements? I think you need to eleborate your statement In relation to the FH $700k being applied - how do you know this money is not sitting in a bank account? The viability of the business model should be judged by the ability of the corporation to pay it's debts / currrent assets v current liabiliy and net equity. Maybe you should just come out and say you are pushing a political agenda rather then discussing the financial result.... And in addtion how do you explain funding the additional 1.6 Million on the FD on top of what we alreay spent in 2011??? I don't really care - I am just going by a quick judgement looking at 2011 accounts and what McLardy has said on the website - I just want this club to be successful - apart from a lot of smoke on this thread there is nothing here that says the current board is doing a bad job

I will start by saying that I interpreted your criticism of the board as you meaning they were incompitent - i apologise if i misrepresnted you I will not comment if the club has a sustainable business model as I haven't done enough research to form an opinion. For me as long as the board represnts the club in professional and integril manner and is able to fund and support a successful team - i really don't care about any of the politics Profit for a non profit organisation is a dick measuring competition - it means nothing - all the money should go to the club anyway (I understand the club is run as a business now run in a corporation and not as a non for profit - and I re-iterate I have not seen the financials to give a fully informed view) But you stated in a post earlier that the club turns over $30 mil (again i apologise if i got it wrong) but $700k from the foundation of hero's is just over 2% of the funds earned......... surely to compensate such a loss of income the club simply wouldn't spend the money...... I do not understand your argument regarding the FH income or profit - the profit simply means we earnt more then we spent (from my interpritation) I dont' see how the FOH income effects sustainibility (2% of income shouldn't affect our ability to exist just less cash to spend) Can you please elborate - i apologise if i missed the point

RR - I single this post out as i find it the most interesting..... Do you care to eleborate on the 'smoke and mirrors' you refer in this post??? I ask as for me as the amount of 'Profit' is irrelavent - I have not seen the financial statements for this year so I simply see as the 'Proift' as the club collected more money then it spent. (i do not consider it cash flow as i do not know the accounting policies applied by the club) What I care about is the ability for the club to fund the footy department and operations and feild a competitive team. Apart from our poor form on the field for the better part of the past 5 years can you point out where this board has been incompitent?? I would have thought generating income - no matter how it is acheived would be an important function of any board Cheers

Cheers for the reports fellas Am enjoying we are focusing on tackling and other fundementals. Getting the little things right makes a big difference IMO

PS - pretty [censored] weak by the AFL Hopefully it bodes well for the Dees and this bullshite 'tanking investigatoin'

Sounds like you are on the money Redleg - fire those numbers away!

PS: I couldn't give a stuff if Jurrah plays for Port Yeh it's a shame he left, yep he had issues and [censored] didn't work out - footy lists change and a bloke (hopefully) who wants to play winning footy at the Dees gets a chance..... Thanks for the service LJ all the best (except against the Dees)

Do you have any understanding of contracts?? Have you ever heard of Free Agency or the National/Pre season draft?? How many AFL player contracts have you seen/reviewed?? Have you ever heard of the concept of restriction of trade?? How about producing some facts to your statements before slagging people off.... I would love to hear you expain how an AFL contract is different to an employment contract. And yes i do understand the restrictions the AFL places on player movement. A little more facts from you and a lot less slagging would be a nice change from you Stuie And before you go on about how i know nothing maybe we'll use a real life scenerio and you can explain to me the ramificatoins of St Kilda terminating Winmar's contract 1 year early

How long did you want to wait for morts and Cook to become the' backbone'??? I personally like a soild spine over just a solid back bone!

Enjoyed that - maybe it makes up apart of his ASA haha You;d assume he'd be contracted for 2013!! Cheers Deestroy

Love the passion SS12 - and I haven't read much of this thread until today... anyway I higlight the bold part as this has divded our club for the better part of the last 18 months. I don't have an solid 'inside' contacts/sources but from what I can gather the senior list had issues about the management/administration of the club which led to '186' - now right there that is a MASSIVE issue 1/ at waht stage do players have a say in how the club is run 2/ the fact that the player made a stand (186) says right there instantly says that someting has to change immeaditely 3/ once that stand was made - players and administrators careers should have been terminated (in my opinion) - how is that allowed to happen??? It was a bloody disgrace and it still boils my blood to this day. If that kind of mutitanty happened in the Army the players would have been executed as traitors (which i jokingly support in this occasion) OK so no matter what side of the fence you sit (pro players or pro current administration) I don't think anyone can deny there were problems within the organistation and CHANGES had to happen Rumors (as i've stated i don't know exactly what happened) - the senior playing group had issues with CC & CS (I personally have no idea what these issues were) but these 2 groups could no longer co-exists So as the president of a divided clune what do you do??? 1/ playing lists can't be immediatly turned over 2/ footy admin is not easily exchangable (just look at Norf strggling for a CEO) and for whatever reason the admin side kept their jobs (except Bailey who was the scape goat) - my opinion Bailey was a top bloke and a decent coach - but IMO his game style was never going to be conistantly successful against the good clubs. Look at this years GF and any GF in the last 10 years - contested footy wins Grannys and the Dees under Bailey were not that team. The teams we smashed (ADEL & SYD don't always play at the G and were vunerable) had off days - how do you explain how we ere so easily smashed by VIC teams under Bailey??? So decisions were made and Neeld was brought in... Neeld didn't win over the senior group for 2011... Who goes then??? The players who initiated 186 or the new coach??? Stupid questoin really - especially when these players have already embaressed themselves and the club. I don't know if i have answered the question or have just ranted but I have never seen a Demon p'ship (I am 30) and I fear i will probably never see one. I'lll support Neeld for 2 reasons - He had identified weakness in the club and sought to solve the problems - He is willing to take action - a divided club will never win games There are no passangers in the Neeld gameplan and I support that - it's gong to take time to develop an actual decent list.... YOu have every right to your opinion SS12 and I respect you more for signing up again when you don't agree with the club's moves (respect to you) Winning footy talks - if Neeld can't deliver he will go as well

Not sure if that says more about Bate or dilutes the MFC B&F results....

Cheer up mate - sounds like you need a good curry and a frew brewski's Should start a pessimistics only thread

Thanks BH I know it's very early in the pre season but i am interested in your thoughts on my following observations JV - what is you opinion of his fitness base - do you think he is ready to step straight in to the 22? D-Rod - i was at training for a short while friday (i don't make many if any) - I liked his work and thought he really adds some intensity and skill. It looked like he trained with the backs, where do you see D Rod fitting in for 2013? Cheers

Thanks NSC - can't knock some good news I am pretty excitied to see the kid play - thats if the scorps survive long enough for him to play haha

Good luck Bater Always showed plenty of potential - never delivered consistancy - hope you find a new home , thanks for the service

The VFL is an ok standard at least we are not full of QAFL players... Will that make Neeld twice as good of a coach if we start winning games???