Mariners Financial Crisis in the Daily Tele

[dibo]

Come off it. Ausgrid are going to be well on top of carbon planning, and if hummel, masterfoods or anyone else is going to see 'crippling' effects of the carbon price then I'm a pink budgie.

A distraction, sure, but so are interest rate movements, wage negotiations, Euro crisis - these companies can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[midfielder]

Not so much "armageddon", but the "some" transitional costs are what we are able to measure. In the majority of instances these costs are crippling and have not been factored into the current business model. And yes they will be distracted from sponsorships and even contra deals in some cases. They are all part of the carbon footprint.

Gotta say that is a long long long bow you have there....

To say the mining / carbon taxes are going to have a direct effect on who is willing to invest or sponsor a football team is a big ask....

People sponsor teams to get business, that will not change... the challenge for both the FFA, the A-League clubs and more specifically for the Mariners management is to package our product to get the best return... and there is still heaps our own club could do IMO...

The second it will chase away people willing to invest in our club .... HHHHHHHHMMMMMmmmm cough cough most who invest in a football club understand they loose money ..... this will not change...

Our position is different because we have an asset that has a current valuation of 36 million in the COE ... and a loss making football team... but they have different ownership structures... adding to this mix;- is the amount given to the COE in the name of the football club by local and Commonwealth Governments....

When managenment made the decision to spin the COE off into a seperate trust I hoped they knew what they were doing... I still hope so ...

I see the issue in fairly simple terms... first what is the amount owing that decides the next move ... second I don't see how if the Football Club wishes to raise money in the future how the COE and the Football team can remain seperate...

 

[Nathan Byrn]

Gotta say that is a long long long bow you have there....

To say the mining / carbon taxes are going to have a direct effect on who is willing to invest or sponsor a football team is a big ask....

People sponsor teams to get business, that will not change... the challenge for both the FFA, the A-League clubs and more specifically for the Mariners management is to package our product to get the best return... and there is still heaps our own club could do IMO...

The second it will chase away people willing to invest in our club .... HHHHHHHHMMMMMmmmm cough cough most who invest in a football club understand they loose money ..... this will not change...

Our position is different because we have an asset that has a current valuation of 36 million in the COE ... and a loss making football team... but they have different ownership structures... adding to this mix;- is the amount given to the COE in the name of the football club by local and Commonwealth Governments....

When managenment made the decision to spin the COE off into a seperate trust I hoped they knew what they were doing... I still hope so ...

I see the issue in fairly simple terms... first what is the amount owing that decides the next move ... second I don't see how if the Football Club wishes to raise money in the future how the COE and the Football team can remain seperate...

Is there anyone willing to pay 36 million for Tuggerah at the moment?
Any further comments I make about this I will do via PM. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion, some opinions are more educated than others.

 

[midfielder]

Is there anyone willing to pay 36 million for Tuggerah at the moment?
Any further comments I make about this I will do via PM. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion, some opinions are more educated than others.

Back of stamp estimate ...

22 Acres of land,
1 club house, with a licence to sell booze, and a few pokies..
10 million in spending from the commonwealth government.
1 million in spending [ I am told this, have no proof] from Wyong council...

Future revenue stream signed and agreed to date with Soccer5 ...

Not sure if that adds up to 36 million but it sure as hell is worth something

 

[style_cafe]

Does the Wyong RSL Club on-site form part of the COE?

If it does will it be re-named "The Mariner`s Club" (or similar)

To have our own licenced premisis would be a huge boost to our finances.

However, I`m not sure it is.One would think that a Mariner`s membership would include club membership as well if this was the case.

 

[Muppet]

Does the Wyong RSL Club on-site form part of the COE?

If it does will it be re-named "The Mariner`s Club" (or similar)

To have our own licenced premisis would be a huge boost to our finances.

However, I`m not sure it is.One would think that a Mariner`s membership would include club membership as well if this was the case.

I've wondered this too. From what I remember from the original agreement, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, the COE purchased the land and RSL and then leased the RSL component back to the Wyong RSL so it is a seperate enitity. Having said that I am sure that we would receive some sort of revenue in terms of leasing of the space.

I would LOVE to see Wyong RSL rebranded to the CCM club. The revenue would be very well received I am sure. That would be a massive coup and a big stick it up ya to the so called glamor clubs in the comp. Our own team, our own COE and our own licenced club = massive.

 

[kevrenor]

Two relevant articles today

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/soccer/financial-lifeline-for-a-league-club-central-coast-mariners-could-move-a-step-close/story-e6frey4r-1226202906777

http://www.smh.com.au/business/private-owners-can-roar-about-success-20111122-1nsvh.html

 

[pjennings]

The disappointing thing for me is that while the club might have big plans, some of the smaller things aren't being done. For instance, with a cash flow problem, you should be trying to sell merchandise as easily as possible but the online shop is still not up and running.

I don't know whether this is fault of the club or toed up with the FFA/Optus websites, but i would suggest it is costing the club real money now that they control their own jersey sales. I haven't bought merchandise this year, but I'm sure that when I do a lot of people will be getting Mariners emblazoned Christmas presents.

 

[Muppet]

Two relevant articles today

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/soccer/financial-lifeline-for-a-league-club-central-coast-mariners-could-move-a-step-close/story-e6frey4r-1226202906777

http://www.smh.com.au/business/private-owners-can-roar-about-success-20111122-1nsvh.html

A few things that I could possibly draw out of these articles.

1. We seem to be edging closer to a deal with another investor (hopefully)
2. The stumbling block is Turnball's inability to give up control.
3. The current structure is a mess which is making it difficult get a new owner.
4. The FFA would only fund us as far as the end of the season by the sounds of it.
5. The investment from McCabe has been non existent in that he appears to have not injected enough money into the club.

Also why the hell is Belinda Neal a Director on the Board? Would that position not best be served by having a supporter/member in the position to provide a decent conduit between the club and supporters?

 

[bikinigirl]

4. The FFA would only fund us as far as the end of the season by the sounds of it.

. and the ACL? ... that would be a bit embarrassing for the ffa - letting a team dissolve at the start of a champions league campaign

. i am in no way suggesting this may happen ... just reading the words on the page so to speak

 

[Wombat]

The disappointing thing for me is that while the club might have big plans, some of the smaller things aren't being done. For instance, with a cash flow problem, you should be trying to sell merchandise as easily as possible but the online shop is still not up and running.

I don't know whether this is fault of the club or toed up with the FFA/Optus websites, but i would suggest it is costing the club real money now that they control their own jersey sales. I haven't bought merchandise this year, but I'm sure that when I do a lot of people will be getting Mariners emblazoned Christmas presents.

It's only a small thing but it is part of the problem. At one game (I think maybe Fold coast) a friend wanted to buy a jersey for him and his kid but was told he would have to come back after the game to pick it up.....WTF....take the sale when it's available folks....that's two shirts he didn't buy and still hasn't.
4 games in and I still don't have the new jersey and am still unsure where to get one. Appalling marketing!

Some very interesting comments so far about the viability of owning a sporting club in Aus.

 

[Bladesman]

Intersting report on the Barcelona ownership model here - Barça - Fan ownership and the future of football - http://www.uk.coop/barca.

However given the financial woes they have had with unpaid tax bills, unpaid player, big debts...........hold on a minute could be perfect for us .

The challenge with this model does seem to be thet it would be perfect model for Julia Gillard to be the president of the club as they make massive promises to get votes and be elected and then either change or commit the club to massive debt to deliver. There is always going to be that danger when it is not you money you are playing with.

 

[dibo]

What utter bollocks - the same logic could apply to publicly listed companies.

 

[MrCelery]

The point made about hybrid models of ownership in the SMH article is a good one. There is no reason why you can't have a community ownership in partnership with a private ownership. It would definitely cushion a club should the private owners pull out. To me there is a big risk of that with an out-of-town owner that has no real emotional ties with the region.

The Dibo v True Believer discussion suggests an either\or scenario. It does not have to be that black and white does it? Even if the community share return provides funds for a marquee player each year, or just pays the electricity bills, it is:
. a nice little earner on top of private funds
. a good symbolic way to strengthen community ties, ie. "I'm a proud owner of a bit of the Mariners."
. it would ensure that any private investor knows that they have to engage with the local football community if they became a joint owner

 

[dibo]

That's a supporters' trust taking a stake rather than a full community ownership model. it's not a lot like the packers or barca. it shares more with a publicly listed company than anything else, but there are good reasons why a publicly listed company would be an exceptionally bad idea for an a-league club in establishment phase (as we still are), like far greater public reporting and transparency of our accounts.

A trust could certainly work, and could raise some capital. I'd contribute and I'm sure there'd be plenty of others.

 

[adz]

The Dibo v True Believer discussion suggests an either\or scenario. It does not have to be that black and white does it? Even if the community share return provides funds for a marquee player each year, or just pays the electricity bills, it is:
. a nice little earner on top of private funds
. a good symbolic way to strengthen community ties, ie. "I'm a proud owner of a bit of the Mariners."
. it would ensure that any private investor knows that they have to engage with the local football community if they became a joint owner

To me, this is what memberships are for. If anyone thinks that the difference between 3,500 and 35,000 members is some sort of share offer or voting rights, I think they are a little off the mark. Happy to be proven wrong, though

The supporters trust is an interesting idea. Seems to me that the club is only after the big fish, some bazillionaire that can pump millions of dollars into the club just for fun, and isn't at all interested in the supporters/community. A quick 5 minutes of research dug up the Newcastle United Supporters Trust. One of their goals is to "achieve stakeholder representation on the board of the football club".

 

[Bladesman]

What utter bollocks - the same logic could apply to publicly listed companies.

There's logic and reality, a football club president who gets voted in by buying big name plays, runs the club into massive debt but has success on the field so the supporters love him and vote him in again same principle of the $900 for your vote concept. A CEO running a public company would have to do a lot more in the delivery and fical responsiblity stakes to reamin.

Logically comunisamn and capitalism should both be fantatic things but in a world where realit is different then the results arn't what the logic states.

 

[dibo]

If you want to talk politics, head on over to the 'Other Stuff' section and we can take swings at each other there.

Membership based organisations (incorporated associations or many companies limited by guarantee) tend to have an annual subscription and are usually non-profit, whereas equity based organisations (companies in which one can buy a stake, be it privately or through publicly listed shares) tend to be for-profit and pay dividends. Subscriptions are sunk, equity can be withdrawn.

While members and shareholders do have differences, if poor decisions are made financially, the member faces higher subscriptions and the shareholder faces lower dividends and share values.

The crucial point is that either way, the chairman is dealing with other people's money, has fiduciary responsibilities and has to answer to the people at the AGM. Either way, a chairman driving a company into the ground gets voted out, so your 'logic and reality' stuff is bollocks.

 

[Nathan Byrn]

If you want to talk politics, head on over to the 'Other Stuff' section and we can take swings at each other there.

Membership based organisations (incorporated associations or many companies limited by guarantee) tend to have an annual subscription and are usually non-profit, whereas equity based organisations (companies in which one can buy a stake, be it privately or through publicly listed shares) tend to be for-profit and pay dividends. Subscriptions are sunk, equity can be withdrawn.

While members and shareholders do have differences, if poor decisions are made financially, the member faces higher subscriptions and the shareholder faces lower dividends and share values.

The crucial point is that either way, the chairman is dealing with other people's money, has fiduciary responsibilities and has to answer to the people at the AGM. Either way, a chairman driving a company into the ground gets voted out, so your 'logic and reality' stuff is bollocks.

Depends on the set up. Case in point the CCF a few years back.

 

[dibo]

Whether members do the deed is another story. QANTAS gave their CEO a massive payrise the other day. Go figure.