MFC given 2 million

[tandino]

Melbourne has always puzzled me.

Have been a basketcase at least since the merger that wasn't, they are quite prepared to sit back and accept their lot in life, for better or worse.

The AFL was dead set with marrying Melbourne with someone, but since Don Scott ripped that jumper to pieces they are almost the forgotten child. It was North Melbourne, and not Melbourne, who were all but pushed to the Gold Coast, and North Melbourne seemed to be in a better position off field, even before the Brayshaw-led fightback. Working out of portables at Junction Oval, it's almost Fitzroyesque, yet they refuse to even consider a move away from the MCG. Maybe the Dome could have offered them a better deal if they were the first to sign up, like Essendon. Maybe the City of Kingston might offer them a bit of cash to move lock, stock and barrel to Moorabbin Oval and play home games there. Or Casey and Casey Fields, or Bayside and Elsternwick Park, or Yarra and Victoria Park, or Hume and some empty farmland out near Tullamarine. It could make all the fiscal sense in the world, but would they do it, or are they stuck in their ways, to their detrement?

There are only two clubs which can justify recieving welfare above and beyond the CBF, and they are Sydney and Brisbane. For North, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Port Adelaide, they should more or less be able to stand on their own feet. It does not make sense for the AFL to be propping up clubs in cities of little strategic value when there are, essentially, three regions fighting over two franchises.

To their credit, both North and the Bulldogs are headed in the right direction, and Port is a SANFL license and as such are backed by a powerful, profitable organisation with a decent stadium.

 

[Trav 20]

Melbourne has always puzzled me.

they refuse to even consider a move away from the MCG. Maybe the Dome could have offered them a better deal if they were the first to sign up, like Essendon. Maybe the City of Kingston might offer them a bit of cash to move lock, stock and barrel to Moorabbin Oval and play home games there. Or Casey and Casey Fields, or Bayside and Elsternwick Park, or Yarra and Victoria Park, or Hume and some empty farmland out near Tullamarine. It could make all the fiscal sense in the world, but would they do it, or are they stuck in their ways, to their detrement?

There are only two clubs which can justify recieving welfare above and beyond the CBF, and they are Sydney and Brisbane.

Are you a complete dimwit ?

Why would we be better off financially by moving our home games away from the G ? The Telstra Dome clubs are presently squealing over their own stadium deals. We are Melbourne and we'll continue playing at the ground that we made great, the MCG.

Our summer training base is now Casey Fields and by 2010 we'll be sharing the new facilities across the road from the G.

Last year (2007) 10 clubs received money under the annual special distribution fund, of which we were one. Footscray and North received substantially more than us. Port Adelaide also received a handout.

I suspect many things in life "puzzle you".

 

[krisholio14]

Melbourne has always puzzled me.

Have been a basketcase at least since the merger that wasn't, they are quite prepared to sit back and accept their lot in life, for better or worse.

The AFL was dead set with marrying Melbourne with someone, but since Don Scott ripped that jumper to pieces they are almost the forgotten child. It was North Melbourne, and not Melbourne, who were all but pushed to the Gold Coast, and North Melbourne seemed to be in a better position off field, even before the Brayshaw-led fightback. Working out of portables at Junction Oval, it's almost Fitzroyesque, yet they refuse to even consider a move away from the MCG. Maybe the Dome could have offered them a better deal if they were the first to sign up, like Essendon. Maybe the City of Kingston might offer them a bit of cash to move lock, stock and barrel to Moorabbin Oval and play home games there. Or Casey and Casey Fields, or Bayside and Elsternwick Park, or Yarra and Victoria Park, or Hume and some empty farmland out near Tullamarine. It could make all the fiscal sense in the world, but would they do it, or are they stuck in their ways, to their detrement?

There are only two clubs which can justify recieving welfare above and beyond the CBF, and they are Sydney and Brisbane. For North, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Port Adelaide, they should more or less be able to stand on their own feet. It does not make sense for the AFL to be propping up clubs in cities of little strategic value when there are, essentially, three regions fighting over two franchises.

To their credit, both North and the Bulldogs are headed in the right direction, and Port is a SANFL license and as such are backed by a powerful, profitable organisation with a decent stadium.

Melbourne get extra leeway for three reasons. One, the AFL also hate the MCC, as we've seen this week. Two, their name. Three, they are the oldest ongoing concern in the comp.

Melbourne have never been like the other teams in the league and have always had their own unique set of circumstances to deal with. Alas, that is painfully evident now.

Essendon is the only Victorian club that hasn't had its entire existence hang in the balance at some point in the last 20 years. Melbourne have been close to belly up at least 3 times.

The AFL are shaking the tree here in Victoria despite what they are telling us, and they know if they shake it long and hard enough, that a Vic club will fall out, just like it did with South, and then Fitzroy.

They almost got Footscray, they almost got North, and now it's Melbourne's turn under the pump. If they do not find a way to respond over the next 12 months they are in strife. The efforts that have been put in so far only scratch the surface of what is required, so they've got their work cut out for them.

 

[Rob]

Melbourne has always puzzled me.

Have been a basketcase at least since the merger that wasn't, they are quite prepared to sit back and accept their lot in life, for better or worse.

The AFL was dead set with marrying Melbourne with someone, but since Don Scott ripped that jumper to pieces they are almost the forgotten child. It was North Melbourne, and not Melbourne, who were all but pushed to the Gold Coast, and North Melbourne seemed to be in a better position off field, even before the Brayshaw-led fightback. Working out of portables at Junction Oval, it's almost Fitzroyesque, yet they refuse to even consider a move away from the MCG. Maybe the Dome could have offered them a better deal if they were the first to sign up, like Essendon. Maybe the City of Kingston might offer them a bit of cash to move lock, stock and barrel to Moorabbin Oval and play home games there. Or Casey and Casey Fields, or Bayside and Elsternwick Park, or Yarra and Victoria Park, or Hume and some empty farmland out near Tullamarine. It could make all the fiscal sense in the world, but would they do it, or are they stuck in their ways, to their detrement?

There are only two clubs which can justify recieving welfare above and beyond the CBF, and they are Sydney and Brisbane. For North, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Port Adelaide, they should more or less be able to stand on their own feet. It does not make sense for the AFL to be propping up clubs in cities of little strategic value when there are, essentially, three regions fighting over two franchises.

To their credit, both North and the Bulldogs are headed in the right direction, and Port is a SANFL license and as such are backed by a powerful, profitable organisation with a decent stadium.

I think you're paying too much respect to the Bulldogs financial situation. They received the more from the CBF than any other club this year ($1.6 million), and despite that, and that they sell 2 games a year, they only made a profit of around $600k (which admittedly was down about $300k due to a sponsor going arse up). They are at least as reliant on AFL handouts than any other club, if not more so. They have no major sponsor at the moment, and no shorts sponsor (which was partly due to bad luck). In what way are they headed in the right direction? They are in as precarious a position as any other club IMO, and have probably been let off the hook for some reason.

Melbourne have copped bad publicity over their handouts because they expected it to go from $1m this year to $250k next year. Turns out they can't afford that. The Bulldogs, AFAIK, will continue with $1.6m next year and no articles are being written about it. They play a good brand of footy as opposed to Melbourne, maybe that's the reason for the lack of media scrutiny compared to Melbourne.

 

[worthy]

The Demons should either merge with another club, relocate (im sure Tasmania would love them) or fold.

The hell we would, keep your rubbish.

 

[swashbuckle]

i dissagree. shipping a club off as soon as it has some financial troubles is not the way to go about it. When north had this same trouble a few years back they got through it. mind you they didn't have this absolutely shocking schedule ahead of them. give us some time and we'll pull through

 

[Eagle87]

i dissagree. shipping a club off as soon as it has some financial troubles is not the way to go about it. When north had this same trouble a few years back they got through it. mind you they didn't have this absolutely shocking schedule ahead of them. give us some time and we'll pull through

Sorry, have North actually "got through it" yet?

I would have thought North still have a fair bit of work to do - as I understand it they made a profit this year that was slightly less than their handout. In other words, with record membership, a massive action campaign and lots of goodwill they still couldnt make ends meet without extra assistance. This seems sustainable to you and a model to be followed?

 

[00Stinger]

The Demons should either merge with another club, relocate (im sure Tasmania would love them) or fold.

mate your a Sydney supporter so i would be quiet if I was you. the AFL kept your club afloat for years with your massive crowds of 10,000 and 15,000. Oh yeah and lets not get started on the extra amount in your salary cap. or this years final in sydney that was a sell out of what 18,000-19,000 in a 80,000 capacity stadium.

 

[Eagle87]

mate your a Sydney supporter so i would be quiet if I was you. the AFL kept your club afloat for years with your massive crowds of 10,000 and 15,000. Oh yeah and lets not get started on the extra amount in your salary cap. or this years final in sydney that was a sell out of what 18,000-19,000 in a 80,000 capacity stadium.

I think you probably grasp the importance of a side in Sydney in a National competition for TV rights value and for National sponsorship value. I think you might also find that Sydney in 1996, 2005 & 2006 where a part of the highest rating (nationally) Grand Finals of all time.

They are a massively important and valuable team.

Melbourne are 1 of 9 teams in a saturated market.

There is a difference, you do grasp that?

 

[demonfan9]

There is a difference, you do grasp that?

No doubt that Sydney is a strategically important club. But that doesn't mean that they are an off-field powerhouse, or a role model club. Like sivart said, they have required heaps of help by the AFL over the past 20 years. Despite this, and despite their on-field success, they still struggle for crowds and membership - in fact, Brisbane was the only club who had less members than them in 2008. And if you can find me another club that can only manage 18,000 to a final (regardless of the weather), then I'll be shocked.

 

[Trav 20]

And if you can find me another club that can only manage 18,000 to a final (regardless of the weather), then I'll be shocked.

Port would give them a run for their money.

 

[Eagle87]

No doubt that Sydney is a strategically important club. But that doesn't mean that they are an off-field powerhouse, or a role model club. Like sivart said, they have required heaps of help by the AFL over the past 20 years. Despite this, and despite their on-field success, they still struggle for crowds and membership - in fact, Brisbane was the only club who had less members than them in 2008. And if you can find me another club that can only manage 18,000 to a final (regardless of the weather), then I'll be shocked.

They arent an off field powerhouse. But given the bolded bit that becomes somewhat irrelevant. They are necessary and if you determined what their presence adds to the value of TV rights, they would be more than paying their way.

The attendance at the final this year was a joke - they are a team past their best, no longer a finals threat and Sydney likes winners - that said, the game also involved North who have buggar all supporters and who managed one of the worst finals crowds in living memory in 2005 (?) v Port - about 25,000 at the Dome (so weather was irrelevant)...

Using Sydney as a means of pulling down a poster making some valid points is ultimately pointless. Melbourne (the city) has too many teams - some will go inevitably - Sydney doesnt have that problem.

 

[A Living God]

Sorry, have North actually "got through it" yet?

I would have thought North still have a fair bit of work to do - as I understand it they made a profit this year that was slightly less than their handout. In other words, with record membership, a massive action campaign and lots of goodwill they still couldnt make ends meet without extra assistance. This seems sustainable to you and a model to be followed?

They made $1 mil profit this year but they don't get the $1.2m for the 3 gold coast games next year. They made an average $80,000 for each of their 8 Melbourne home games. North will need 34,000 member for next year just to break even after $1.4m ASD distrubtion.

They have $6.7m in current assets less the $5 mil for the Arden st redevolopment is $1.7m compared to $5.2m of current liabilites.

 

[stickman11]

I think you probably grasp the importance of a side in Sydney in a National competition for TV rights value and for National sponsorship value. I think you might also find that Sydney in 1996, 2005 & 2006 where a part of the highest rating (nationally) Grand Finals of all time.

They are a massively important and valuable team.

Melbourne are 1 of 9 teams in a saturated market.

There is a difference, you do grasp that?

Sydney can't even draw a decent crowd to a final. Not sure what our lowest crowd was, probably the game your lot tried to tank but even that still beat Sydney's effort. So what do you really prefer, televised AFL football or live AFL football. Lets face it, all the money and talk is on television, yet real supporters go and watch it live. All your point recognises is that Sydney are bandwagoners and not true football diehards. That is really what we should be building our game on.

 

[Trav 20]

Using Sydney as a means of pulling down a poster making some valid points is ultimately pointless. Melbourne (the city) has too many teams - some will go inevitably - Sydney doesnt have that problem.

We could argue this all year, but there is nothing "inevitable" about it. People have been saying that it's 'inevitable' for the last 10 years. In fact I love the overuse of the word 'inevitable'.

Victoria can, and I believe will, sustain 10 clubs. Naturally, you're welcome to disagree. It's inevitable.

 

[Eagle87]

Sydney can't even draw a decent crowd to a final. Not sure what our lowest crowd was, probably the game your lot tried to tank but even that still beat Sydney's effort. So what do you really prefer, televised AFL football or live AFL football. Lets face it, all the money and talk is on television, yet real supporters go and watch it live. All your point recognises is that Sydney are bandwagoners and not true football diehards. That is really what we should be building our game on.

The VAST majority of people in WA (even in Perth) cant see football live because every Eagles & Dockers seat is sold out before the season starts - this is why they have more money than most other teams.

So plenty of TRUE FOOTBALL DIEHARDS in WA never get to go. Regardless, the real money in football comes through TV rights. Sydney are bandwaggoners and football needs TV viewers unless you want to go back to a sport played on suburban grounds played by part-timers?

The reality is football is a large business - a unique one no doubt but a business nonetheless and all teams ultimately need to add some sort of value to the business and to pay their way.

No appealing to romantic notions of "true diehards" or "history" or whatever else will change that.

 

[Eagle87]

We could argue this all year, but there is nothing "inevitable" about it. People have been saying that it's 'inevitable' for the last 10 years. In fact I love the overuse of the word 'inevitable'.

Victoria can, and I believe will, sustain 10 clubs. Naturally, you're welcome to disagree. It's inevitable.

How can Victoria sustain 10 clubs without ongoing handouts for the battling clubs?

Ultimately, in a national context, what is the advantage to keeping, say 2 of those teams, if they cant pay their way, are continually struggling and add no real value to the comp?

I am not locked in to a view assuming your view is based on some sort of sound premis....

 

[Wolfmother2]

How can Victoria sustain 10 clubs without ongoing handouts for the battling clubs?

Ultimately, in a national context, what is the advantage to keeping, say 2 of those teams, if they cant pay their way, are continually struggling and add no real value to the comp?

I am not locked in to a view assuming your view is based on some sort of sound premis....

As you stated the money is in the tv rights.... losing 2 teams means 7 matchs a week rather than eight so the tv rights deal goes down because they get less product

 

[Eagle87]

As you stated the money is in the tv rights.... losing 2 teams means 7 matchs a week rather than eight so the tv rights deal goes down because they get less product

Thats one view....

The majority of the value doesnt actually rest in televising North & Dees games on Fox.... but believe whatever you need to.

On your logic, we should have, say, 48 teams and really maximise revenue?

 

[Trav 20]

How can Victoria sustain 10 clubs without ongoing handouts for the battling clubs?

Ultimately, in a national context, what is the advantage to keeping, say 2 of those teams, if they cant pay their way, are continually struggling and add no real value to the comp?

I am not locked in to a view assuming your view is based on some sort of sound premis....

Firstly, the AFL are on record as saying that they believe 10 clubs can survive in Victoria. That said, they also recognise that there are inequities in the fixture, tv opportunities and stadium deals. For these reasons they distribute money that you refer to as "handouts" through the Annual Special Distribution Fund. Ten clubs received money under this system last year. Telstra Dome tenants also received extra financial support from the AFL.

The MFC are in the process of building a sustainable business model that hopefully renders it as a viable and financially secure sporting club, but there will always be varying degrees of financial assistance from the AFL, as there should be, due to the lack of parity in scheduling. The ASDF will continue at least until there are fairer stadium deals.

This from an article that appeared less than 2 months ago: "AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has declared his support for 10 clubs in Victoria and reminded all 16 clubs that the Victorian teams have been subsidising the competition for years.

On the eve of the first all-Victorian grand final since 2000, Demetriou has pointed out that the most recent $750 million broadcast rights deal was underpinned by the massive interest in the game generated from Victoria.

Demetriou, who has pledged to attract a fairer deal for all the MCG and Telstra Dome home teams, also reminded the wealthier and non-Victorian clubs that the annual AFL special assistance fund of $6 million ploughed into poorer Melbourne teams was a small price to pay."

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...ere-to-stay-afl/2008/09/25/1222217431839.html

So, my feathered fiend, will 10 Victorian clubs survive in the AFL ? I think so, but obviously I can't be certain, but your premise that it's "inevitable" that some clubs in Victoria will go is a premise without substance. It's merely a loosely formed opinion. And one with which I disagree.

 

[Eagle87]

Firstly, the AFL are on record as saying that they believe 10 clubs can survive in Victoria. That said, they also recognise that there are inequities in the fixture, tv opportunities and stadium deals. For these reasons they distribute money that you refer to as "handouts" through the Annual Special Distribution Fund. Ten clubs received money under this system last year. Telstra Dome tenants also received extra financial support from the AFL.

The MFC are in the process of building a sustainable business model that hopefully renders it as a viable and financially secure sporting club, but there will always be varying degrees of financial assistance from the AFL, as there should be, due to the lack of parity in scheduling. The ASDF will continue at least until there are fairer stadium deals.

This from an article that appeared less than 2 months ago: "AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has declared his support for 10 clubs in Victoria and reminded all 16 clubs that the Victorian teams have been subsidising the competition for years.

On the eve of the first all-Victorian grand final since 2000, Demetriou has pointed out that the most recent $750 million broadcast rights deal was underpinned by the massive interest in the game generated from Victoria.

Demetriou, who has pledged to attract a fairer deal for all the MCG and Telstra Dome home teams, also reminded the wealthier and non-Victorian clubs that the annual AFL special assistance fund of $6 million ploughed into poorer Melbourne teams was a small price to pay."

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...ere-to-stay-afl/2008/09/25/1222217431839.html

So, my feathered fiend, will 10 Victorian clubs survive in the AFL ? I think so, but obviously I can't be certain, but your premise that it's "inevitable" that some clubs in Victoria will go is a premise without substance. It's merely a loosely formed opinion. And one with which I disagree.

Fair enough.

Of course, as CEO of the AFL, Demetriou is somewhat constrained in what he can say. His comments where aimed at a local audience and the one regarding Vic clubs and subsidies was simply disingenous and feeds views outside Victoria that the comp is at times too Vic centric in its thinking.

I have no doubt that the strength of Victorian interest is a major factor in underpinning TV rights value, the question of course is whether the loss of 1 or 2 minor teams in that massively pro-AFL market would actually undermine that strength of interest in any way that diminished TV rights value....

The stadium deals argument is always amusing. Grown men, acting as club administrators entered into legally binding agreements that dont serve their clubs interests very well - thats called bad management. Every day business sign contracts and both parties to the deal try and get the best possible outcome for their business - there is usually a winner and a loser.

But lets not get sidetracked by stadium deals ....

I note that Melbourne are NOW trying to put together a plan to ensure they have a sustainable business model, as are North and the Bulldogs and so on - can I ask why no such plan has been considered/implemented until now? Did they just realise that they were struggling? Or perhaps, have they rolled out the "new regime", "new direction" argument to patch over years and years of failure to identify a sustainable plan which is perhaps about to be replicated again?

My opinion is not loosely formed, its based on an objective view of the facts, performance and reality of professional sports. It isnt formed after a detailed study but I suspect it has an element of substance to it. Yours appears based on an "off the cuff" comment from AD together with hope that a new regime can solve something that has been unsolvable up until now, right at the time we enter into the worst economic circumstances of the modern era....

I like Melbourne, I hope you guys are successful, its just that the dry pragmatist part of me reckons you are pushing it up hill ....

 

[tandino]

The Telstra Dome clubs are presently squealing over their own stadium deals

Not Essendon, our members were the first ones to jump on board and we were effectively able to write our own cheque. And not all that revenue is dependent on crowd figures.

We are Melbourne and we'll continue playing at the ground that we made great, the MCG.

And it is that mentality which is hurting Melbourne. Have an unwillingness to change and adapt to a changing national competition, or take opportunities that may arise.

You may or may not have made the MCG great, but the MCC is killing you. How many MCC members are full Melbourne members?

 

[Trav 20]

My opinion is not loosely formed, its based on an objective view of the facts, performance and reality of professional sports. It isnt formed after a detailed study but I suspect it has an element of substance to it. Yours appears based on an "off the cuff" comment from AD together with hope that a new regime can solve something that has been unsolvable up until now, right at the time we enter into the worst economic circumstances of the modern era....

QUOTE]

Why is it an "off the cuff" comment ? "Demetriou's stand took place at Monday's meeting of the 16 club presidents" It's an AFL position.

And to answer your question, previous Melbourne Boards weren't capable of implementing a sustainable business plan. They weren't good enough. If Stynes Board isn't good enough we're in massive trouble. There's no shying away from that and most Melbourne supporters don't.

You're welcome to your opinion, but it's certainly not "inevitable" which is what made me initially respond to your 'off the cuff' remarks.

And the stadium deal is a major issue for clubs in Victoria. What put them in this position isn't overly relevant as we move forward. It's hardly a side issue that "sidetracks" any debate.

 

[Trav 20]

Not Essendon, our members were the first ones to jump on board and we were effectively able to write our own cheque. And not all that revenue is dependent on crowd figures.



And it is that mentality which is hurting Melbourne. Have an unwillingness to change and adapt to a changing national competition, or take opportunities that may arise.

You may or may not have made the MCG great, but the MCC is killing you. How many MCC members are full Melbourne members?

Thanks for your interest, but our heads aren't buried in the sand. There's no doubt that we need a far better relationship with the MCC. Inroads are supposedly being made.

 

[Rob]

Sydney can't even draw a decent crowd to a final.

WTF? Their finals crowds in the last 10 years have been excellent bar one, including crowds of over 70,000 and 60,000.

Doesn't help that there aren't 50,000 seats available virtually for nothing, like there are at MCG finals in the first couple of weeks.