Slartibartfast

That is actually a very depressing fact.

Don't read the site in season then. It works like this at Demonland - all is good in the off season and all is bad during the season. If you question things in the off season you're a traitor with an agenda and if you defend things during the season you're a cheerleader. Silly really, isn't it.

Thanks

No, I'm saying that within the thread it should be stated and I think I was the first to do so. Different people will have different levels of understanding. WYL the comment certainly wasn't aimed at you. Given your demonstrated insight into clubs issues it's totally unnecessary and if it had only been for your eye's it would never have been said.

No problem, as you can see I'm used to being typecast and I take no offence. It's nice to know I'm being read. The reason I posted the way I did is because I think many see the word "profit" and relax. The reality is that if you make a profit but can't pay core expenses (and one of mine is 100% of TPP) then it gives a very false impression of where the club is at. I notice in the Age today that Peter Gordon said of Footscray's $136,000 loss "The Bulldogs is basically a break even result this year ...but did increase football spending by $1.2 million dollars". I'm wondering if many here saw our profit and mentally said "we're safe, we're ahead of the Bulldogs" when in reality we are the same. I can't recall anyone having anything but positive responses to the wonderful job this Board has done regarding our debt or the role of the FH's. But we are not out of the woods and it's important we understand that. And whilst I think your use of the word "fraudulent" is inflammatory any accountant knows that a result so close to break even is relatively easy to achieve and I suspect we did it for some good reasons. But as has been rightly pointed out that is just an opinion; but I think forums are for opinions. And if we weren't able to pay 100% of TPP in order to achieve a profit and chose a profit over a small loss at the expense of paying the full TPP I'd be bitterly disappointed. It's a shame this sensible discussion has been derailed by senseless accusations of "political agendas" but perhaps this will get it back on track. Unfortunately I just got sick and tired of keyboard jockey's having a go at me and decided it was time to make a stand. Cheers Fan

Thanks for letting me know Ben, I was wondering. I can't express how upset I am or how much I valued your support and friendship over the years. Does this mean we won't talk anymore?

Does that mean Ben is nobody?

Yes and you'll enjoy the company.

At least this gave me a good laugh. Thanks

Sorry bud, I said that your view was more damaging than mine. I never said you could hurt the club. Try and keep your feet out of potholes. But we're getting to the nub of it - it's a discussion forum for people with differing views and really they aren't worth a rats clacker. Keep up the good work Robbie.

Can't you handle a different view? Is the club so poor in your eyes that it's under threat from me? LOL. Do you have such little faith in Schwab and McLardy that you think a few negative posts will undo this administration? Your view of the club is much more damaging than mine because you obviously think it's a weak as [censored] and the mere fact that you think you need to protect it from views offered shows the contempt you hold it. But I'd suggest will survive my whithering comments Robbie, it will survive someone saying that we are not out of the woods yet despite a break even result. And rather than attack the people with the opposing opinions you'd do better to counter their arguments. Would my opinions be more valid if I posted positive comments in every thread. That really is laughable. Having said all that hold your faith Robbie and your enthusiasm for the Club. You're a terrific supporter as the vast majority are here, keep up the good work!

Robbie your bleating is becoming rather tiresome. You seem to think that the current administration is beyond critique and that all blame lies with the past administration and that's your right. But stop thinking you're better than the rest because if you can look past your misguided prejudice you'll see the comments about our accounts are quite valid. Why do you think we've made as many recruiting errors as we have? Because we can't compete with the recruiting departments of other clubs. Why do you think we have been mismanaged in the past. Because we haven't had the funds to employ top administrators. If you think that our current position isn't in some way related to our lack of funds you're kidding yourself. The comments that I have made have nothing to do with Gardner or Stynes or McLardy, they have everything to do with a realistic analysis of our financial position. You rate yourself as a supporter and I rate you too because you've put your hand deep in your pocket. So have others here but they don't go around telling everyone. You've got no idea what I have done for the club in the past nor what I'm doing now. But despite this you want me to cease my support because I dare to question. Our club will be stronger if it's questioned but you're obviously [censored] yourself that some anonymous poster on Demonland can have a detrimental effect. How pathetic would the club be if that were the case. Are you really worried what I can do or what RR can do. I reckon that McLardy and Schwab are big boys and can stand being questioned.and I reckon that we will better if we understand our position and don't have people painting unrealistic and false rosy financial pictures when in fact things ain't that rosy. Nobody here has been anything but positive about the wonderful job this Board has done reducing the debt and the role of the Foundation Hero's. But it's simply folly to think that because we manage to scrape together a break even situation with a still underfunded FD we are out of the woods. I'd suggest you welcome anyone who supports the club and have a little more confidence in those that are running it than to think they can't cope with sensible debate. Your pathetic waffle is so insulting to them it's actually mind boggling.

Oh dear, how sad when a simple post aimed at helping people understand how things work is interpreted as being part of a "political agenda". Club TPP's are moving targets effected by players receiving match payments, achieving benchmark games, AA selection and B&F results. Injury payments are also included in the TPP with an allowance received. It's a very complex calculation. It's not until the end of a season that clubs know what their TPP payments are and know the amount remaining within their TPP. All clubs with the cash will then renegotiate player contracts to make sure they pay the full TPP within the year which in effect brings forward expenditure from the following year into the current year. The contract adjustments are agreed with the player and player agent and then the variation is lodged with the AFL. There is a cut off date for variations. The recording of these expenses is correct in an accounting sense and complies with TPP rules. There is a significant advantage for clubs that can do this as they free up TPP room in the future which can then be used to retain existing players or attract new players. The sting in the tail is that the payments are treated as an expense in the current year and reduce profit. If a club finds itself in a position of wanting to show a profit rather than a loss it can adjust this TPP payment accordingly to show the result it wants as it's at the clubs discretion. IMO we are in the business of winning Flags so paying 100% of the TPP is one of the core expenses of the club and "non negotiable". But in todays environment there seems to be a heightened focus on the simple end number being "profit". We've seen the lunacy of the Labour Government bring forward billions of dollars of expenditure in one year so they can budget a profit in the next. It's accounting trickery and designed to window dress the real situation. It's not unique to the MFC but is common throughout business. It's why the devil is always in the detail and my point is that we don't have the detail. Our profit of $70,000 is really a break even situation for a business of our size. It can be manipulated by the TPP issue above, not buying new footballs for training until 1st November instead of mid October, delaying the purchase of stationary or asking a sponsor to bring forward a sponsorship payment by a month or so. I'm not suggesting we did any of these things and in my view it doesn't really matter if we did because what the result shows is we are on the margin. We are about break even and we spend millions less on our football department than the wealthy clubs. Whilst many seem happy that we've done as well as we have I think it's just further evidence of the almost impossible task we have of being ultimately successful and still leaves us in a position of vulnerability. This is not a crack at the Board but a statement of fact.

No, the player contracts are varied to comply with both accounting standards and TPP requirements.

Not if we achieved it by not prepaying whatever remaining salary cap we had available. We undoubtedly had a shocking year for attendances and I suspect given our draw for next year we'll have another in 2013. I don't know how you can make the comment about sponsorships because AFAIK those figures aren't available. Look, I'm not knocking it but all I'm saying is we don't know what it means. But if expenses and incomes were recognized normally I'd bet a fair bit we actually made a loss. The question is "how much".

I wonder if we thought of taking him in the PSD and then trading him next year to the highest bidder. His salary would have been the cost of upgrading the PSD pick to a (say) first rounder. It's obscene that the Premiers can afford him and fit him in their structure and GWS can't.

Well in the spirit of all things MFC must be good a profit is certainly better than a loss. But for those with any accounting nous the reality is a $77,000 profit in an organization that turns over in excess of $30 million is nothing short of a manipulated result. Expenses can be put off and income brought forward to achieve these sort of results and they are in most cases just window dressing. The reality is we are spending everything that is coming in and we are far from financially secure. Much more important to me is the sustainability of this result. Is it reasonable to rely on $700,000 per annum from the Foundation Hero's? What are the "one off" expenses and incomes? I don't know the answer. If the expenses of the footy department didn't include spending 100% of the salary cap then we have failed miserably. Does anyone know if we did? In the last few years we have eradicated our $5 million debt which would have saved in the order of $500,000 pa, we've received additional funding from the AFL and we've received significant contributions from the FH. We've spent the lot in order to try and compete with the bigger clubs but still spend millions less than the rich on the FD. Who can say what this result really means other than we are doing little more than surviving. That may comfort some on here but not me. If the AFL want a team in Hobart all they have to do is pull back our distributions and watch us fold. We are a club living on the edge.

Could we go backwards? Absolutely not. Last year the Club took a ruthless approach to changing the philosophy that had been in place for 4 or 5 years. The 100% youth policy has been replace by a desire to recruit mature players to support young bodies, players perceived to have poor attitudes and limited physical abilities have been replaced and we have recruited 2 top 5 players. IMO list management has been exceptional in terms of achieving the goals the FD desired. Watts, Strauss, Blease, McKenzie, Trengove, Tapscott and Howe are all players who will start to mature significantly and become competitive AFL players. We were taken back to ground zero last year, we couldn't perform worse. Nothing but significant improvement in 2013 would be acceptable.

Fixed.

I'd have been pretty excited too if I'd dodged the GWS bullet.

Thanks for all the interest everyone but I'll bow out now. My intention was to suggest that Caro is a good journalist doing her job but the discussion is now based around other issues which I've no interest in discussing on this forum. It was in part my fault for letting it go there but in the "heat of discussion" and the suggestions and comments that were made about me I felt the need to respond. FWIW I think it's terrific that the general feeling is one of unity with the Club and there are some on here who are pivotal to that. I hope that in the heat of battle next year if things get difficult you will all show the same unity. Remember, BH says not to kick the club when it's down, I hope we support our players the same way. It's been a hoot!

You've just worked this out?

I enjoyed your "Due Diligence" thread but it seems that you're accusation of "smacking the club in the mouth" doesn't fit well with it. Maybe you're playing with a feather duster and I'm using a sledge hammer. I can understand your view but I disagree. If we are "getting things to rights" now and are being investigated it's actually a perfect time to do what we need to do. I don't want to go through all this and then face more disruption later. If there needs to be change now is the perfect time - we can get it all over and done with and start afresh. This affair has tainted us whether we like it or not and that taint won't go unless there are changes in senior personnel.

HI Mark, we've met at one stage and I've always enjoyed your input. 1. I was not involved in the "vault" meeting. The photo on the back page of the Age was from the MFC Boardroom at the MCC. The vault was at the Junction Oval. 2. I did not "big note" myself about any role I played at the MFC nor have I referred to it in my posts (to the best of my recollection). Hannabal brought it up and I'd prefer he hadn't but each to their own. 3. Wilson is not the instigator of the witch hunt. IMO the information she is getting will be, to some extent, from the AFL either sanctioned or not. The AFL is on the witch hunt and she is reporting it and making it look what it is. Her obsession with it is starting to work well in our favour although I believe many here overestimate her influence and some have completely misjudged mine. 4. If Wilson wasn't reporting it someone else would be. She's taking the moral high ground but in my view she's entitled to her opinion as we all are. She clearly has it in for a few members of the MFC establishment and my best guess is there is a reason for that although I don't know what it is. Her opinions are no worse than Dwayne Russell but he seems to go unmentioned. This is an opinion business, once this issue was raised it wasn't going to go away. Good to hear you're enjoying the footy again. Remember, players, officials and employees are not the MFC. They represent it for a while but the Club is much greater than that. My interest has never been lost regardless of the silly things some of our club have done.

Wilson is excellent reading today. Amongst other things I learned: 1. Adam Paulo is to be investigated. 2. Dean Bailey is to be interviewed again. 3. The AFL is widening the inquiry to include the behaviour of coaches on the bench in 2009 (not that I thought there were any coaches on the bench in this period) 4. Joel Hocking and some medical staff are being interviewed, presumably Andrew Daff. 5. Connolly is claiming the comments were a joke, he's a funny man. That tells me that the AFL is struggling. There is no comment from Wilson of an editorial nature in the article. The article is a very positive one for MFC. It's highlighting to the footy public the ridiculous lenghts the AFL is going to and making it look like a stupid witch hunt. Fancy asking a doctor to comment on "strategic moves". Wilson is making the AFL look very silly and I thank her for it. It fits well with one of her recent efforts where she talked about the methodology of the interviewers. That paints the MFC as the victim of an oppressive AFL and far from hurting us it's helping us. In addition she has exposed the conflict of interest Vlad is facing in the Adelaide fiasco, and anything that discredits Vlad is good for us, and she is also on the trail of the 3rd party agreements handed out to players which was abused by Carlton and Visy and is still being abused because the new rules are stupid beyond belief. If she raises these issues and stops rich clubs abusing the rules regarding 3rd party payments that will benefit us greatly. I've enjoyed her articles today.