$4 Million Debt and growing

[Qsaint]

Norths Debt according to Vlad

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/kangaroos-given-30day-deadline/2007/10/31/1193618974547.html?page=2

Now if North made a loss again this year after been given 1.4 million CBF and 1.2 million from the GC, surely the position of the club is becoming insolvent

Hard decisions to be made in the next 30 days

[1jasonoz]

Norths Debt according to Vlad

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/kangaroos-given-30day-deadline/2007/10/31/1193618974547.html?page=2

Now if North made a loss again this year after been given 1.4 million CBF and 1.2 million from the GC, surely the position of the club is becoming insolvent

Hard decisions to be made in the next 30 days

A CW article!!

Our debt was about $4.8 million last year actually!

Oh and we are going to make a profit this year.

[Hearts to hearts]

He would say that. And she would report that.

The man is a lying bully.

[FlyingCrow]

If North Melbourne was a company it would be wound up and sold off to pay creditors.

[shintemaster]

If North Melbourne was a company it would be wound up and sold off to pay creditors.

You must be a hot shot businessman. If a company has $4M dollars debt and are wound up, how much of that do you think gets paid to creditors?

[relapse]

You must be a hot shot businessman. If a company has $4M dollars debt and are wound up, how much of that do you think gets paid to creditors?

Depends on the amount of assets that the business owns etc, you would be surprised that when some businesses go bankrupt and when assets and stock are sold (especially if some own property) that the creditors receive 100 cents in the dollar, it doesnt happen all the time but it does happen infequently.

[AngelEyes]

Debt isn't a problem if:

- As AFL clubs grow revenue etc - interest payments are being met and the debt is not increasing as it becomes less a proportion of the club's revenue. Effectively, the debt and its "stress" has been reduced.

- If the interest payments are being met and aren't effecting the function of the club's operations.

Where are the Roos?

[Qsaint]

A CW article!!

Our debt was about $4.8 million last year actually!

Oh and we are going to make a profit this year.

Haven't seen the 'Profit' and if your 4.8 million in debt your pretty well stuffed

[1jasonoz]

Haven't seen the 'Profit' and if your 4.8 million in debt your pretty well stuffed

1/ Our financial year finsihed midnight last night, what are you expecting them us to have the accountants on standby from midnight last night to rush out our yearly financial report by 8am this morning or something?

2/ Why are we pretty well stuffed if our debt was $4.8 million- what basis are you stating that on?

3/ Oh and its still an article by CW, or USC as she likes to be called!

[A Living God]

Does anybody have links to North Melbourne's 2005 and 2006 end of year reports?

[Qsaint]

1/ Our financial year finsihed midnight last night, what are you expecting them us to have the accountants on standby from midnight last night to rush out our yearly financial report by 8am this morning or something?

2/ Why are we pretty well stuffed if our debt was $4.8 million- what basis are you stating that on?

3/ Oh and its still an article by CW, or USC as she likes to be called!
1. God forbid someone knowing the ball park before official release

3. The same is reported in News

And Q 2 your smarter than that

[The Zebra]

1. God forbid someone knowing the ball park before official release



The outgoing chairman said yesterday that we will make a profit this year.

[A Living God]

The outgoing chairman said yesterday that we will make a profit this year.
Will it be a real profit were revenue exceeds expenses or will it be carlton-esque profit were in fact they made a signifacant lost but received substantial one of cash injections in the form of an AFL loan and supporter donations?

[Smyth94]

Debt isn't a problem if:

- As AFL clubs grow revenue etc - interest payments are being met and the debt is not increasing as it becomes less a proportion of the club's revenue. Effectively, the debt and its "stress" has been reduced.

- If the interest payments are being met and aren't effecting the function of the club's operations.

Where are the Roos?

Most companies are leveraged on debt - the simple reason is it's cheaper. Interest payments are tax deductible etc and like you said, Debt isn't a problem unless interest payments are not being met.

[FlyingCrow]

You must be a hot shot businessman. If a company has $4M dollars debt and are wound up, how much of that do you think gets paid to creditors?
Lucky to get 10c in the dollar.

[Hawkk]

Haven't seen the 'Profit' and if your 4.8 million in debt your pretty well stuffed

Rubbish, Hawthorn were in an almost identical situation 11 years ago - 4.1 million dollars, yet were able to clear the decks over a 2 year period.

Geelong and Carlton have also cleared huge debts in a realitively short period of time...even the Saints have been able to clear a significant debt in a short amount of time.

Nothing is inevitable.

[Ryz]

Rubbish, Hawthorn were in an almost identical situation 11 years ago - 4.1 million dollars, yet were able to clear the decks over a 2 year period.

Geelong and Carlton have also cleared huge debts in a realitively short period of time...even the Saints have been able to clear a significant debt in a short amount of time.

Nothing is inevitable.


Exactly.


I dont see why people think we dont deserve the right to get our shit together.

[Doctor Jolly]

Would I be correct in assuming that North goes to the markets (banks) to borrow the money? And in so, ask the AFL to go guarantor on that debt ?

Or does the AFL act as the lender in this case ?

[CatmanForever]

Exactly.


I dont see why people think we dont deserve the right to get our shit together.

You have been trying to get it together for the last 5 years and you still haven't. All the impassioned pleas for Roos supporters to sign up has produced a modest result. Those other Clubs mentioned Carlton & Geelong had either rich benefactors to help out or were able to get a sizable increase in memberships to help out.

North I believe is not really in that position.


As for the profit, how much of a profit would you have if the AFL stopped propping your club up with the $1.4m per year?

[Qsaint]

Rubbish, Hawthorn were in an almost identical situation 11 years ago - 4.1 million dollars, yet were able to clear the decks over a 2 year period.

Geelong and Carlton have also cleared huge debts in a realitively short period of time...even the Saints have been able to clear a significant debt in a short amount of time.

Nothing is inevitable.


ALL four clubs have much greater revenue streams than North

ST Kilda cleared it by profits at the dome, the Cats at Kadinia park, Carlton selling there home games and Hawthorn by tasmania.

North do not have a deal like that unless they play say 6 to 8 games on the GC and still break even elsewhere. That is their problem

[Qsaint]

Will it be a real profit were revenue exceeds expenses or will it be carlton-esque profit were in fact they made a signifacant lost but received substantial one of cash injections in the form of an AFL loan and supporter donations?


Thats the point and I find it interesting the AFL was talking to North about accounting procedures which usually means a Carlton like fiddle.

Was it before of after the CBF investment and did it include the loan payments

[Ryz]

You have been trying to get it together for the last 5 years and you still haven't. All the impassioned pleas for Roos supporters to sign up has produced a modest result. Those other Clubs mentioned Carlton & Geelong had either rich benefactors to help out or were able to get a sizable increase in memberships to help out.

North I believe is not really in that position.


As for the profit, how much of a profit would you have if the AFL stopped propping your club up with the $1.4m per year?


What do you think would have happened if Carlton didn't recieve their loan from the AFL?


Where does it stop with clubs posting losses before the AFL intervenes and pushes a club to death, merger or relocation? 1 year, 5 years 10 years?


If your issue is with us being bailed out, where is the microscope on other clubs that recieve financial assitance?


If people are so headstrong on this we might as well disband all teams, start again and keep the strong ones ala A-League style.

[The Zebra]

Will it be a real profit were revenue exceeds expenses or will it be carlton-esque profit were in fact they made a signifacant lost but received substantial one of cash injections in the form of an AFL loan and supporter donations?

Duff only said that it will be a profit and didn't go into detail, but their have certainly been no AFL loans and I very much dobt we would have seen any massive supporter donations. I wish, but it wouldn't happen.

So if we have made a profit, it will be a proper profit.

Duff projected a $1 million profit earlier in the year, but membership fell about 4,000 short of what was budgeted for (for a variety of reasons), and if we reject this 30 day deadline and have a call to arms, I have doubt membership would be at least 3,000 above the 2006 figure of 25,000 - which would suggest that million dollar profit would be back on track in 2008.

Assuming Duff is correct n this - but he is a conservative and afraid of making any statements that can be brought back on him in any way - plus he is about as pro-gold coast as you get on the NMFC board - so I would thik he is teling the truth.




Thats the point and I find it interesting the AFL was talking to North about accounting procedures which usually means a Carlton like fiddle.

Was it before of after the CBF investment and did it include the loan payments

That bullshit about concern over our compliance with ASD budgetry restraints and spending levels mentioned by Demetriou yesterday was simply a veiled gutless threat about pulling the ASD (CBF). We pay at 92.5% on the cap, we have less football department spending than any other club (less assistants, less recruiters, etc), our coach and ceo would have been the lowest paid in the league in 2007 - what the **** more could we cut?

And forget the CBF. That is irrelevant to our profit. If we are making this a CBF free argument, then wind up North, Bulldogs and Melbourne right now. It is part of an agreement with the AFL for a variety of reasons and for all the threats, they know they cannot pull it for one club only.

And the prfoit would obviously include loan payments if we are talking net, balance sheet profit.

[The Chad]

What do you think would have happened if Carlton didn't recieve their loan from the AFL?


Where does it stop with clubs posting losses before the AFL intervenes and pushes a club to death, merger or relocation? 1 year, 5 years 10 years?


If your issue is with us being bailed out, where is the microscope on other clubs that recieve financial assitance?


If people are so headstrong on this we might as well disband all teams, start again and keep the strong ones ala A-League style.
the afl is a competition of double standards, just look at the inequities everywhere

that's why there's no microscope on carlton and its largely irrelevant to the kangaroos survival.

it's like st. kilda fans gloating about carlton's recent run of wooden spoons - does it get the saints any closer to a flag? attacking carlton's record as a means of defending the kangaroos' won't fly.

[Hawkk]

ALL four clubs have much greater revenue streams than North

ST Kilda cleared it by profits at the dome, the Cats at Kadinia park, Carlton selling there home games and Hawthorn by tasmania.

North do not have a deal like that unless they play say 6 to 8 games on the GC and still break even elsewhere. That is their problem

Hawthorn had cleared its debt by early 1999 - when they were still playing 11 home games a year at Waverley...

Like I said, nothing is inevitable.

[Ryz]

the afl is a competition of double standards, just look at the inequities everywhere

that's why there's no microscope on carlton and its largely irrelevant to the kangaroos survival.

it's like st. kilda fans gloating about carlton's recent run of wooden spoons - does it get the saints any closer to a flag? attacking carlton's record as a means of defending the kangaroos' won't fly.


You've totally missed the point.

[giantroo]

Would I be correct in assuming that North goes to the markets (banks) to borrow the money? And in so, ask the AFL to go guarantor on that debt ?

Or does the AFL act as the lender in this case ?


Does anything get through your thick head or what? Think why we get that money. Think!

[CatmanForever]

What do you think would have happened if Carlton didn't receive their loan from the AFL?


Where does it stop with clubs posting losses before the AFL intervenes and pushes a club to death, merger or relocation? 1 year, 5 years 10 years?


If your issue is with us being bailed out, where is the microscope on other clubs that receive financial assistance?


If people are so headstrong on this we might as well disband all teams, start again and keep the strong ones ala A-League style.

I have nothing against the AFL bailing out clubs, but there comes a time when the bail out has to stop and the ship needs to float or sink. Geelong was in huge debt in 2000 and they grew their membership from 20,000 to 30,0000+ by 2007. Can NM do the same? Carlton had Richard Pratt give the club millions of dollars...do NM have anyone that will do that?


I think the AFL is pushing NM because they know that NM basically have little chance of a recovery in their current situation. It makes sense for NM to relocate. I am not so sure they will be pushing clubs who can actually prove they are or could be financially viable in Victoria even if they do post a debt.

I don't want NM to go, don't get me wrong. It is just that I really can't see any other alternative for them at present.

I agree that other clubs may be a little nervous if the AFL succeed on this one and wonder if they may be next. It is interesting times ahead.

oh and Good luck, I hope you prove me wrong on all counts

[giantroo]

I have nothing against the AFL bailing out clubs, but there comes a time when the bail out has to stop and the ship needs to float or sink. Geelong was in huge debt in 2000 and they grew their membership from 20,000 to 30,0000+ by 2007. Can NM do the same? Carlton had Richard Pratt give the club millions of dollars...do NM have anyone that will do that?


I think the AFL is pushing NM because they know that NM basically have little chance of a recovery in their current situation. It makes sense for NM to relocate. I am not so sure they will be pushing clubs who can actually prove they financially viable in Victoria even if they do post a debt.


But do realise, that during our times of the 90's, the club was never pushing the members. People are blaming the members for all the problems but infact the board should be held responsible.

First, we should never hve gone out of Victoria to play home games. We should never have changed our name. This whole think about getting national exposure is crap. Collingwood still has its name, yet they have a good supporter base in Perth and Brisbane.

Why did we have to change our name from NM to the kangaroos? I reckon more thn 5k dropped off because of it.

There is some talk that JB may become Chairman. Some thing he cn now do after leaving radio commitments. Archer going on board also could add dimension. His not even on the board yet nd he already has a plan. That's what you call a board member willing to do their job. We may even get Pagan if he accepts the job.

Give us the 2 years to prove and you will see it turn around

[The Zebra]

I have nothing against the AFL bailing out clubs, but there comes a time when the bail out has to stop and the ship needs to float or sink. Geelong was in huge debt in 2000 and they grew their membership from 20,000 to 30,0000+ by 2007. Can NM do the same? Carlton had Richard Pratt give the club millions of dollars...do NM have anyone that will do that?

Done properly, North can absolutely grow their membership to 30,000.
We were 25,000 in 2006. With the threat of the death of the club, 30,000 is more than acheivable.


I think the AFL is pushing NM because they know that NM basically have little chance of a recovery in their current situation. It makes sense for NM to relocate. I am not so sure they will be pushing clubs who can actually prove they financially viable in Victoria even if they do post a debt.

The operations of North Melbourne and the economic 'drain' it has on the competition is of no significance at all to the AFL. They got $780 million in the latest TV deal, they will get $1 billion in the next one. That is only TV rights and does not take in to account all other revunue streams. The $1.4 million they give to North and a couple of other clubs is nothing to them and is easily sustainable. North are not bleeding money they are just off the mark.

This is all about choosing the easiest process for the expansion they see is essenital. The thought of starting a new team gives them a massive headache. If every club was profitable, they would be leaning heavily on the club with the smallest profit and putting forward the same arguments.

Read the Gold Coast mayor and their advirsory chief's opinions on this today - what North is, is a list. Nothing more. This will be a Gold Coast team and North melbourne will be dead - if not straight away - within a few years. Southport will assume a heavy role, and the only thin that will remain are colours. Why should North lie down and make expansion easier for the competition? We support North melbourne, not the AFL

If they want to kill us, let them publcally rip the minute funding they provide from our jaws. Let the public se kids crying at the death of a club that has been around for 138 years.

Let the AFL's much protected public image take the biggest batterying it has ever received as the kill a club that easily sustainable with a small amount of assitance - all for the sake of making their jobs easier.

[evo]

Haven't seen the 'Profit' and if your 4.8 million in debt your pretty well stuffed
Not necessarily.

2 years ago Richmond had a $4.5m debt.

We've been been fighting back and have started to retire some of it after reporting a $1m profit recently.And without a sugar daddy.

It's a hard row to hoe for the Rooboys but it's not unfeasable.The key is to continue with intelligent fiscal managment,and strive for a 30k membership.

Whether they can achieve that before Vlad lowers the guilotine,remains to be seen.

I'm glad the Roos are not giving up,as yet.

[Qsaint]

Hawthorn had cleared its debt by early 1999 - when they were still playing 11 home games a year at Waverley...

Like I said, nothing is inevitable.

That wasn't the AFL deal where they gave $Mil to stKilda and Hawthorn to move to Waverley and the $Mil's to leave to MCG and Dome

Only the stronger AFL clubs can trade themselves out of debt

[Hawkk]

That wasn't the AFL deal where they gave $Mil to stKilda and Hawthorn to move to Waverley and the $Mil's to leave to MCG and Dome

Only the stronger AFL clubs can trade themselves out of debt

No, we got ourselves out of debt in February 1999 - 10 months before the Waverley compensation money, we went from 11,000 to 32,000 members in the space of 3 years...which is where most of the $$$ came from and where alot of North's cash needs to come from.

The Hawks were/are a strong club :thumbsu:

[Qsaint]

Not necessarily.

2 years ago Richmond had a $4.5m debt.

We've been been fighting back and have started to retire some of it after reporting a $1m profit recently.And without a sugar daddy.

It's a hard row to hoe for the Rooboys but it's not unfeasable.The key is to continue with intelligent fiscal managment,and strive for a 30k membership.

Whether they can achieve that before Vlad lowers the guilotine,remains to be seen.

I'm glad the Roos are not giving up,as yet.

Richmond are at the MCG, under there deal you make money and I could be slightly wrong after 20,000 people, you also get games against other strong Melb teams there. The Kangas play at the dome and don't see a cent till after 30K and make a loss if they don't. Richmond also have at least 10,000 more members

Norths Position can't be really compared to Richmond St Kilda or Geelong who have large numbers of non member supporters

[Qsaint]

No, we got ourselves out of debt in February 1999 - 10 months before the Waverley compensation money, we went from 11,000 to 32,000 members in the space of 3 years...which is where most of the $$$ came from and where alot of North's cash needs to come from.

The Hawks were/are a strong club :thumbsu:

Not saying you are not and thats the hard comparison to North, where are they going to get 8000 odd members?

[Hawkk]

Not saying you are not and thats the hard comparison to North, where are they going to get 8000 odd members?

This is the crux of the matter and why this relocation talk could be the knife wound that saves the club. As a result of the SOS campaigns for St Kilda and Richmond or even the Operation Payback campaign for the Hawks, clubs have found latent support that have been able to tap further into as a result of the crisis.

If North have latent support, its going to come out now – which will save them in the long run, if they don’t they were screwed anyway.

At least that way, the fate of the club is in the hands of the supporters…a much, much better situation to be in then if it was in the hands of the shareholders. As a supporter I would accept relocating/merger if I knew that all other avenues had been exhausted, but if not, your always left with the 'what if' scenerio...what if we tried harder to tap into our supporter group etc.

[evo]

Qsaint;
Richmond's draws aren't particularly good from a money making standpoint.

We play home games at TD, and next season are getting no Friday night games at all.

Yes, our draw is slightly better than the Roos,but then again we don't get the SPD, or the $400k the Roos get from playing games up at the GC.

Thats $1.6m, or whatever,right there.

We do have a bigger latent following,like the Saints but believe me mate,we haven't been doing it easy.The belt is tight.

I reckon the North board's offer of 8 Games/season after 2010 was more than generous.Vlad is being a stubborn prick,hell bent on following this ridiculous ideology of expansion into the GC no matter the sense of it.

It's a bloody money pit that the AFL will be throwing money at for years to come.Money that teams like the Saints and Richmond could do with.It's doomed to fail in my view,and a savage waste of 'our' money if you want to look at it from a purely selfish standpoint.

[VanBerlo=God]

north is dead

unfortunately they haven't been financially well off, structured, or any other 2 bit argument you can throw in.
They did not mount driving membership and revenue campaigns off the back of their 90's success.

The individuals who run the club failed for 10 years to keep the club afloat.
Whats left at Arden St? A few pieces of gym equipment, some weights, a burnt out social club, some of the poorest and lowest quality anything you will find in an AFL club.

North pride themselves on being the battlers of the AFL, this time they are fighting a battle that they cannot win. 30k members will not save them, it will barely sustain them. They will still be $4m in debt in 3-4 years to come.

Only option of survival is to move to SEQld. Bringing James Brayshaw, by all accounts is a washed up dickwash, and Archer, who cannot be up to scratch on anything to do with business, is a PR campaign waiting to bite them in the arse.
Brayshaw - washed up ex. SA cricket player, wanker on the radio, poor telecaster and public speaker, one can only guess at his business ventures :rolleyes: is this the guy you want leading your PR campaign, holding the 3yr old kids with their kangaroos saying 'SHOW US THE MONEY!!!!!!!'??

Move or slow death, if its up to the members, you better decide, because the chance to voice your opinion will quickly slip away.

[MarkT]

If North Melbourne was a company it would be wound up and sold off to pay creditors.Even if it had a licence worth $20m?

[A Living God]

Even if it had a licence worth $20m?
Its the only assest of signifacant value the clubs owns. Its probably worth more than the club itself. If it was a business it would be wanting about a 15% return on it investemnt, 15% of 20 million is 3 million. The value of the licence would make it even more likely that the club would be liquated.

[Qsaint]

Even if it had a licence worth $20m?

Just like the Carlton stands on land they don't own?

[MarkT]

If it was a business it would be wanting about a 15% return on it investemnt, 15% of 20 million is 3 million.If it was a business it woudln;t exist and nmot would many clubs - perhaps none. I am a social club member of my club but if it wasn't Collingwood and it was a business or even a privately owned club I wouldn't be a member.

The purpose of the licence for the club is to allow it to compete not to make money. That said, it generate a lot of money and is a significant asset for an operating football club.The value of the licence would make it even more likely that the club would be liquated.No it wouldn’t because it only has value as long as they use it. It can’t be sold.

[MarkT]

Just like the Carlton stands on land they don't own?Maybe a bit like that when Carlton used that land properly. Since their former president took them to his employers joint Carlton’s asset has depreciated significantly.

Point re North is they have the licence and it is what can get them out of the hole. It doesn’t just generate revenue it actually means they are a stakeholder in a large amount of AFL wealth and revenue generation. Just far they want to push that I don’t know.

[Qsaint]

Maybe a bit like that when Carlton used that land properly. Since their former president took them to his employers joint Carlton’s asset has depreciated significantly.

Point re North is they have the licence and it is what can get them out of the hole. It doesn’t just generate revenue it actually means they are a stakeholder in a large amount of AFL wealth and revenue generation. Just far they want to push that I don’t know.

The license is not a shareholding like many intangibles it has an asset valuation, but just the same it aint worth anything

[FlyingCrow]

Is the licence treated as an asset?


Port and Crows Licence is actually owned by the SANFL. Port and Crows technically bought it off the SANFL.

[Pres]

Ridiculous thread. Bulldogs $4.2 mill in debt at the end of 2005.

What's your point? Throw out the Dogs and Demons as well?

[catters05]

Haven't seen the 'Profit' and if your 4.8 million in debt your pretty well stuffed

Geelong was worse off once.

[choppy]

No, we got ourselves out of debt in February 1999 - 10 months before the Waverley compensation money, we went from 11,000 to 32,000 members in the space of 3 years...which is where most of the $$$ came from and where alot of North's cash needs to come from.

The Hawks were/are a strong club :thumbsu:

Thats absolute garbage. The only reason you paid out your debt was when you got the 3.8 million handout from the AFL, ive still got the AFL reports to proove it. When the AFL stopped pumping 1 million a year in your profits dropped from 1million to nothing.

[Mickdog]

He would say that. And she would report that.

The man is a lying bully.

How so? Prove that he is lying about the figures please. *Waits for a statement made from the club that is obviously bias*

[Hawkk]

Thats absolute garbage. The only reason you paid out your debt was when you got the 3.8 million handout from the AFL, ive still got the AFL reports to proove it. When the AFL stopped pumping 1 million a year in your profits dropped from 1million to nothing.

Your obviously talking about the Waverley compensation fund which was hardly a handout...when you are forced to relocate 30km away from a stadium you have a 30 year lease over, lose a dream stadium deal and 6-7,000 members, $800k a year for 5 years is hardly going to solve everything is it :rolleyes:

Like I said, we were out of debt in February 1999. We received our first installment of the Waverley Compensation in 2000 which lasted through until 2004 (4,000,000 over 5 years)

Since then we posted a 1,200,000 profit last year that was watered down to 400,000 because of a write off, this year the Hawks will post a $2.8 million profit clean.

[mediumsizered]

I have nothing against the AFL bailing out clubs, but there comes a time when the bail out has to stop and the ship needs to float or sink. Geelong was in huge debt in 2000 and they grew their membership from 20,000 to 30,0000+ by 2007. Can NM do the same? Carlton had Richard Pratt give the club millions of dollars...do NM have anyone that will do that?



That is something I have been wondering about during this whole debate. Does Allen Aylett contribute significant amounts to the club? He is quite a wealthy man. How about another ex-player, Ken Dean, who I understand is quite wealthy these days? I know Monty Millson used to be a significant contributor during the 70s & 80s, as were the Mantellos & Bob Ansett. I know things went pear-shaped for Ansett, so I wouldn't think he would be in a great position to make significant contributions to the club.

Who are the wealthy Kangaroos supporters nowadays & are they contributing funds to the club? Are they using their business contacts to attract funds to the club? I would be interested to hear from Kangaroos/North Melbourne supporters who are in the know.