Jump to content
Melbourne Football

City in the headlines

millm103

By millm103,
in Melbourne City

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Murfy1
Murfy1

So, apparently this happened:     https://twitter.com/trna17/status/504536953388154880

Ando
Ando

Shit banter. Stupid banter. Not needed banter. Mate, we've copped banter from the Vuck since day one. Geoff Lord was well known for agitating against us. Fuck them, it's good to see Scotty give it ba

cadete
cadete

Posted Images

Dylan

Dylan

Posted
Posted

Since when were we struggling? We were one of three clubs to break even this year and at the forum sidwell said that it costs 9.5 mil to run the club a year. So how is 3.5 a take over offer?

The world game should just stick to what it always does, write puff pieces about the Sydney clubs

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Semper Cor

Semper Cor

Posted
Posted (edited)

If this report is true, and according to Scott Munn's tweet it is, the fact that an offer has been made disturbs me. 

 

Strong communication needs to come from Heart HQ on what its' intentions are, because for the club and its' fans, I don't think we need an off-season of takeover bids and speculation.  Especially, when we should be focussing our energy on re-developing the squad, and putting into place a system, where we don't have a season like the previous one.

Edited by Semper Cor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cadete

cadete

Posted
Posted (edited)

Internal warfare b/w yarraside and hellas fans if this merge occurs? :P

Lol was funny last season when we had a pre season friendly against them and there were fisty cuffs with them.

 

You would think David Gallop would block this anyway.

Hellas is South Melbourne

 

When did we play South Melbourne in a Preseason Match last season that included "fisty cuffs"?

Edited by cadete
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
biancorosso7

biancorosso7

Posted
Posted (edited)

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/melbourneheart/news-display/Melbourne-Heart-FC-Statement/66386

 

 

 

 

Edited by biancorosso7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingofhearts

kingofhearts

Posted
Posted

 

Internal warfare b/w yarraside and hellas fans if this merge occurs? :P

Lol was funny last season when we had a pre season friendly against them and there were fisty cuffs with them.

 

You would think David Gallop would block this anyway.

Hellas is South Melbourne

 

When did we play South Melbourne in a Preseason Match last season that included "fisty cuffs"?

Ah apologies was Melbourne Knights. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jw1739

jw1739

Posted
Posted

Interesting how people have rubbished the 'breaking even' objective, but that we have knocked back a total of four offers from investors wanting to take a share in, or take over, MHFC. So suddenly our sustainability objective becomes attractive to outsiders.

 

Good to know that Sidwell & Co. have no intention of relinquishing control. We're here to stay.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red or Dead

Red or Dead

Posted
Posted

""We've been approached this year a couple of times, from the Middle East and a Eurpopean consortium."

 

I wonder where the European consortium was from? Italy maybe!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HEARTinator

HEARTinator

Posted
Posted (edited)

JA and Foxe OS on a scouting mission. And here I thought JA went over to learn how to coach and he's really there chasing crumpet. Edited by HEARTinator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Semper Cor

Semper Cor

Posted
Posted (edited)

Credit where credit is due, Scott Munn came out within a few hours and made a strong positive statement that the current Heart board have no intention of merging or relinquishing control.  This, to me at least, shows a sense of stability and belief in the club and its’ business model at the top level, which is good because I can't recall many successful sporting clubs with instability at board or C-level management.

 

With respect to consortium bids from the ME and Europe, it’s interesting to note that Heart are attracting interest from around the globe.  As mentioned in the article, this is more so due to their business model rather than on field performances, which is a bit surprising because I would’ve thought it to be the other way around.  This just demonstrates that being successful off the pitch may be just as important as on the pitch, in relation to attracting further investments.

 

The challenge of course is finding the right balance between a successful business model and a football team that can win matches/trophies and play attractive football.  It looks like we have one, now let’s focus on getting the other.

Edited by Semper Cor
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cadete

cadete

Posted
Posted

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/news/1149912/More-Glory-time-for-McGarry

 

Although it is about McGarry, Edwards gets a mention in there. 

Good to see him getting another opportunity somewhere else. 

TBH its hard for me to care and form an attachment to a guy only saw play twice for the NYL team and who looked to timid to win the ball against other Youth Teams. Then there is fact that if he was any good he still would have left us at the season's end.

 

I wish we could have just signed a player like what his father was like in his prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Melburnian

Melburnian

Posted
Posted

Interesting how people have rubbished the 'breaking even' objective, but that we have knocked back a total of four offers from investors wanting to take a share in, or take over, MHFC. So suddenly our sustainability objective becomes attractive to outsiders.

Good to know that Sidwell & Co. have no intention of relinquishing control. We're here to stay.

It wouldn't be because it's cheap and thinking that these owners have failed?

Also do you think new owners would continue on with the philosophy of buying young and selling to generate income and sacrifice success?

Sorry but I'm not convinced investors are flocking because of the way the club is run! It's a cheaper license and one that looks obtainable due to failure!

Whilst I definitely don't support South Melbourne taking over, I'm not against new ownership who believe they can obtain excellence and make this club a success. I know there are some big names looking at the possibility of obtaining ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
belaguttman

belaguttman

Posted
Posted

The problem is that the combination of prioritising profitability (financial stability) over on-field performance coupled with a season that offered so little on the field has created an impression that the current franchise holders either have no understanding of football or limited interest in on-field success. The sharks start circling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Melburnian

Melburnian

Posted
Posted

The problem is that the combination of prioritising profitability (financial stability) over on-field performance coupled with a season that offered so little on the field has created an impression that the current franchise holders either have no understanding of football or limited interest in on-field success. The sharks start circling.

I am intrigued by this notion of sustainable club. Now is the current board members ideals actually sustainable? Will the way the club is run, mean people will attend games and join up as members? Will we have sponsors spilling over to throw money our way? Will lack of silverware or want of winning indent us into the Melbourne market that doesn't suffer fools?

We broke even (even made a small profit) the club will cry from the rooftops.

This would not have been achieved without selling our assets. This is not sustainable nor is it attractive to market for new fans/members/sponsors.

If the club breaks even by having large gate receipts, membership base, sponsorship dollars and on field success, then applaud.

The talk of sustainability and breaking even in this respect is null and void in my opinion.

As I have stated, South Melbourne can piss off. But I welcome new investors who have better ideals and business plans in place than our current owners.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jw1739

jw1739

Posted
Posted

Interesting how people have rubbished the 'breaking even' objective, but that we have knocked back a total of four offers from investors wanting to take a share in, or take over, MHFC. So suddenly our sustainability objective becomes attractive to outsiders.

Good to know that Sidwell & Co. have no intention of relinquishing control. We're here to stay.

It wouldn't be because it's cheap and thinking that these owners have failed?

Also do you think new owners would continue on with the philosophy of buying young and selling to generate income and sacrifice success?

Sorry but I'm not convinced investors are flocking because of the way the club is run! It's a cheaper license and one that looks obtainable due to failure!

Whilst I definitely don't support South Melbourne taking over, I'm not against new ownership who believe they can obtain excellence and make this club a success. I know there are some big names looking at the possibility of obtaining ownership.

First of all I don't think anyone can come in and just 'buy a licence' to operate a team in the A-League. AFAIK the licences are approved by and issued by FFA and can be revoked if FFA so desires.

 

Secondly, IMO you are quite wrong to infer that MHFC is deliberately selling young players to to generate income. AFAIK the players who have left the club for overseas all had release clauses in their contracts such that if the criteria in the clause were triggered then the player could move overseas if he wished to do so. With footballers having such a short career span these days it is only natural that if a player has the chance to go to Europe then he is likely to take it. I regard the transfer fees received by MHFC as 'windfall income' rather than an income stream.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Melburnian

Melburnian

Posted
Posted

Interesting how people have rubbished the 'breaking even' objective, but that we have knocked back a total of four offers from investors wanting to take a share in, or take over, MHFC. So suddenly our sustainability objective becomes attractive to outsiders.

Good to know that Sidwell & Co. have no intention of relinquishing control. We're here to stay.

It wouldn't be because it's cheap and thinking that these owners have failed?

Also do you think new owners would continue on with the philosophy of buying young and selling to generate income and sacrifice success?

Sorry but I'm not convinced investors are flocking because of the way the club is run! It's a cheaper license and one that looks obtainable due to failure!

Whilst I definitely don't support South Melbourne taking over, I'm not against new ownership who believe they can obtain excellence and make this club a success. I know there are some big names looking at the possibility of obtaining ownership. First of all I don't think anyone can come in and just 'buy a licence' to operate a team in the A-League. AFAIK the licences are approved by and issued by FFA and can be revoked if FFA so desires.

Secondly, IMO you are quite wrong to infer that MHFC is deliberately selling young players to to generate income. AFAIK the players who have left the club for overseas all had release clauses in their contracts such that if the criteria in the clause were triggered then the player could move overseas if he wished to do so. With footballers having such a short career span these days it is only natural that if a player has the chance to go to Europe then he is likely to take it. I regard the transfer fees received by MHFC as 'windfall income' rather than an income stream.

Ok.

If we didn't sell these players we would have run at a loss therefore making the club unsustainable?

Is that correct?

Not breaking even, low attendance, low membership base etc etc?

Why cry out we broke even and our business model is sustainable and something revolutional when the basic fact is we broke even due to windfalls from selling our assets.

Take away that, what is this fabulous business model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
belaguttman

belaguttman

Posted
Posted

Melburnian there are several ways to be sustainable, sell your club to a rich patron who can lose $million a year but it's sustainable because it's pocket change, run at a loss and count on the largesse of the banks (the way that most clubs run) or have an ongoing boom bust cycle of good years followed by belt tightening or alternatively the way that our club is running. It's easy for us to criticise as it isn't our money but if we were asked to stump up a couple of hundred thousand every year then we might also reconsider our strategy. our problem is that we are trying to trade profitably when many other clubs aren't, or have deeper pockets or special assistance from FFA at a time when we started the season with an unbalanced squad made worse by selling our complete forst choice back 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Melburnian

Melburnian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Melburnian there are several ways to be sustainable, sell your club to a rich patron who can lose $million a year but it's sustainable because it's pocket change, run at a loss and count on the largesse of the banks (the way that most clubs run) or have an ongoing boom bust cycle of good years followed by belt tightening or alternatively the way that our club is running. It's easy for us to criticise as it isn't our money but if we were asked to stump up a couple of hundred thousand every year then we might also reconsider our strategy. our problem is that we are trying to trade profitably when many other clubs aren't, or have deeper pockets or special assistance from FFA at a time when we started the season with an unbalanced squad made worse by selling our complete forst choice back 4.

I understand there are several ways to be sustainable, but growth of key areas seems to me to be the best and I believe it is the area where the club have neglected and where the club have failed.

There needs to be more emphasis in growing the club. Not sacrificing success on the field to balance the books. This will knock on deaths doors despite what the club say.

This year, make no mistake, the club has gone backwards and the brand has suffered. The blame is solely on the board and management at the club.

No it's not my money, but as I have stated several times Bella, the people who initially invested into the license either didn't think long term about what was required and just wanted the ego trip of telling people they own a football club. I don't care if that statement seems fair or not, I cannot understand after 3 years has the emphasis been to close the wallet. Surely pre planning your business model would have shown what is required.

Let's deal with facts, we had 6,500 members. Not sustainable.

Average crowd of 7,500 or so? Not sustainable.

We finished second last. Not sustainable.

Melburnian, I'm not seeking to distort the facts at all. IMO it is fairly clear that without the windfall income MHFC would have made a loss, as it appears all the other clubs also did.

Not saying you were mate, actually just pointing out, the model is flawed. Where is the focus in the key areas?

How is this club going to average 10,000 people attending games and a membership base of a mere 9,000 people?

From what I can gather, these people running the club do not have the slightest clue. These were YEAR ONE GOALS!

All I am saying is I would welcome people with a better understanding on what is required. I have heard about the overseas interest in the club, but keep an eye out for prominent MELBOURNE business men who may be tempted. I would welcome these guys over the ones currently stuffing it up.

Edited by Melburnian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...