1858

I see the semantics but that is about it. wrt to business models though, which I think this debate has centred on, there isn't much of an analogy here IMO. You made a sound decision as a sole proprieter to leave a particular market, in fact wind up a business, with (from what you suggest) minimal loss in realising your original capital. MFC has certainly made some important strategic decisions with the MCC (MCG deals) and expanding in Casey and debt demolition was crucial towards us being a going concern but it hasn't really (from a business model pov) emulated your sole proprietor example IMO. I think to a large degree our full business model remains to be seen from a public pov, ie how we'll go about expanding our asset base (both monetary and physical).

What exactly has MFC done in the last 3 years which mimics a sole proprieter closing down their business or "upgrading the vehicle"? Not looking to contend your pov WYL just not sure what you actually mean.

Yep, this is probably the closest the club has to a perpetual donation stream. It has been engineered constructively around club operations rather than just a continual begging of money though which it sounds like Richmond may be accused of down the track. I thought this had the same online payment scheme as DD though and wasn't this once an option when renewing membership? Either way I think the donation form is cumbersome - there should be a real time option via verisign or whatever it is for one off payments and perhaps could be advertised a little more on the website. I like the range of memberhsip add ons now although the 'My Melbourne Football Club Account Manager' is pretty ordinary IMO.

Yeah, saw that. Will be an interesting draft.

That 'Cam Schwab' bloke seems like a good poster. So we're making the best of a less than desirable situation. One that meets practicality (white), purpose (incorporation of MCC link and no cartoon) and no doubt asthetics if our current direction is anything to go by. On top of that the club has indicated it's preference/rationale for wearing a clash strip as little as possible (if at all). Can't complain with that IMO. I agree that the Essendon situation is in need of clarification by the AFL.

Great news that young Jack has committed to the Dees early on and has (as the club puts it) a clear path now. Just a little hazy on what exactly it was that he signed (contract/MOU) and curious about any exclusion clauses. In any case it's a positive announcement and with news like this it would be easy to understand why up and coming players would see MFC as a great club to be a part of.

If that was his specific point then fair enough Nasher. FWIW I think such a generic post would have left those posters he was addressing none the wiser but anyway it's all good.

Of course, good vs bad debt. Only 3 years ago we weren't growing our asset base were we? We were struggling to come to terms with football operations and the interest was making a bad situation worse. We had bad debt to the tune of about 5 mill.

Our debt was increasing, do you think our cash flow was adequate to cover our repayments? Debt covenenants exist for a reason, sure they would have loved taking us to the cleaners while the AFL was propping us up but take out the assistance from the AFL and sooner or later they would have marked us as a bad investment. They also like secure investments that don't need to be wound up. CBA are trying to get a lot of risky loan holders off their books atm.

Nigh impossible which is why I hope we consolidate brieftly before branching out but obviously the club knows what it's doing. At least it will be good debt rather than bad debt (unless the investments themselves turn bad - but hopefully that is a "Collingwood thing" ). 35k+ members (and growing) this coming season would do wonders for our stability so we can start thinking about long term investments. Some members may misunderstand but I think the media aren't that silly. They know that building an asset base is crucial for modern AFL clubs and I dare say they would view this as progress for us - although there is nothing to stop them from speculating on the type of investments we make I suppose.

Not sure the bank/s would have agreed with that when we no doubt were pushing our debt covenants to the limit and needed the AFL to bail us out to stop them from taking action. Obviously cash flow is the life blood of day to day operations, without a strong cash flow you become insolvent but debt nearly made us extinct and the interest on our debt would have affected our cash reserves in any case.

It is simply scary how strong Collingwood have become financially. They have a revaluation decrement of 4.35 mill on non-current assets and still manage a net profit of 1 mill. They also have significant cash reserves/flow from increased revenue to smash 8mill of debt within one period (or at least that is the way it reads, perhaps part of that 8mill includes previous payments - either way it's insane). 2.2 mill simply from increased membership revenue.

Some good points there GOLF, I agree on Newton, 1 way or the other his rookie spot should be freed up. I guess for me the sticking point is how likely is the club to delist rookies after 1 year, as you say part of listing them is to keep an eye on them but development is also a factor as well. If they are more likely to hold on to them for another year in principle then I'd take a conservative approach with the ifs and buts (not that I necessarily think your cases don't make sense). Thanks to 'Alpha33' we know our picks in a compromised rookie draft are 14, 31, 48, 63, 76, 84. Ok so we don't use 84 and save a spot for a trainee as you pointed out. We are still going with picks up to 76. I realise we are venturing into the unknown a bit and the dynamic is not entirely the same as the national draft but still we are talking more than smokies here at 63 and 76. Say at the end of the year we (conservatively) estimate 2 spots freed up. Newton goes and possibly a rookie is elevated. It leaves us with 2 rookie picks in next year's (uncompromised) rookie draft if the club is committed to the remaining rookies from a developmental perspective. Again, if the club will happily let some of them go at the end of 1 yr it is a moot point. Which pick do you think we'll use for McNamara given that we'll want to prioritise early picks for player roles ie insurance ruck?

So roughly half of our senior list is 190cm or taller. With Viney on board we should be putting together some pretty effective defensive zones down the track especially as the new recruits have the mobility and speed.

Irrespective of whether they are 1yr or 2yr contracts I still think you have made an interesting point Forge. We may try to strike a balance here. You'd think that unless a rookie was absolutely terrible they would probably be given another year simply for development anyway so it means we may needlessly end up comitting to too many unlikely prospects if we go too deep. Possibly at the expence of 1 or more promising rookies the following year. We have 6 spots, I don't know if there is a minimum requirement but perhaps we may fill about 4 of those spots as a guess.

21.2.3 Contract of Service (a) Where a Club includes a Player on its Rookie List, it shall:- (i) in the case of an International Player, enter into a Contract of Service for a minimum of 2 AFL Football Seasons; or (ii) in the case any other Player, enter into a Contract of Service for a minimum of 1 AFL Football Season.

Cheers for the clarification.

This is from Tugga, a mod on the Richmond board on BF: "The AFL wants all top 10 draftees there for TV purposes seeing as Fox are making a big deal of the top 10. Conca has been flown up to the Gold Coast today at the late request of one club so it can only mean one thing. Welcome to Punt Rd Reece Conca." Make of it what you will.

You'd be hard pressed to find any significant sporting institutions around the world (named the 'Giants') without some connotation extending from US franchises IMO although I wouldn't go so far to say they don't exist. Out of the USA, the Tokyo Giants come to mind as a prominent brand and of course they are a baseball team which supports your arguement. Interestingly their colours (similar to San Francisco) are Orange, Black and White which it sounds GWS may be employing. Personally I have no problem with GWS going with 'Giants' but it could potentially be more of an extension from Americanised sporting brands than need be if they simply copy the colours as well.

I agree but that is probably part of the AFL strategy of converting the NRL masses of the west. GWS is a gimmick so why fight it, the AFL is looking at a superficial market anyway which over time will ideally become more in tune with an Aussie Rules psyche. People who are voting for different names, designs etc are probably not the people the AFL are worried about. I actually don't mind the colour scheme, if they do it right it will look good on tv - ie against Carlton, Freo (Passionfruit cup) and any other darker uniforms. Also the reverse colour scheme may look ok. The main design is unimaginative and the 'G' resembles a 'C' but it is at least unique. Either way it just reinforces how damned good our guernsey is. B)

Genuinely one of my all time favourite footballing moments (now memory). Condolences to the Wonaeamirri family and the Tiwi community.

Was asked about a tall forward or HBF @ pick12 and didn't really give too much away (as expected). He added that there are different types of midfielders that clubs need and that despite previous drafting (of mids) he didn't rule that option out either. So no specific indication of what we are/aren't after.

That was the initiative I was trying to think of. Great idea too, player development fund and a facility development fund.

I agree with rpfc about going to the well once too often especially when we are no longer in debt. The eradication of our debt through DD was a very specific and passionate movement by many stakeholders/supporters to get the club back on its feet. The club currently has many initiatives for increasing revenue (outside of internal investments I have nfi about). DemonHeartland, increased demand for GF guarantee, better merchandise, $200 raffles, bigger functions, more membership additions (ie $25 sms) - it all adds up. Also I believe general donations are a yearly option despite not having a profile such like DD - IIRC you can donate to specific areas such as facilities or the FD. Not exactly sure where rpfc is coming from wrt profit though, it is still very important. The amount of profit we make in one period can majorly effect the amount of investment in the next. It isn't just investment in the club and the FD either it is our asset base. CS highlighted how MFC is down the bottom wrt our asset base and that now we don't have the debt monkey on our back we need to take the next step - our asset base (along with growing our supporter base) is crucial to our long term stability. Profit is an important part of this so I hope the club does make inroads with increasing revenue. Whilst profit is good, profiteering is not and I think the club knows the right balance, they won't dig into the supporters purely as an open cheque (which perhaps is what rpfc was getting at when talking about profit).

Not just this club. 1 yr at a time is a prudent policy for 30+ players wrt contracting. Regarding Bruce the question is was it purely the 1 yr policy itself that he was up in arms about or the unlikelihood of being recontracted for season 2012 - there's a difference and it is this very difference which exemplifies why such a policy should exist so the club's hands are not tied. To argue against the policy doesn't make sense to me. McDonald played to the age of 34 I don't see what the issue is.