PDA

View Full Version : Onya Clinton!


sandeano
5 Jan 2004, 09:45
From today's AGE

Casey's $1.3m boost to Tigers

By Jake Niall
January 5, 2004


Richmond's financial position has been shored up through the intervention of president Clinton Casey, who has backed the club to the tune of $1.3 million.

Casey has provided security of $1.3 million - giving the club's bank a hold over that amount - to ensure the Tigers are able to extend their bank overdraft in 2004.

Casey's commitment of his personal wealth enabled Richmond to raise its overdraft, effectively a short-term loan, from $500,000 to $1.8 million.

The Tigers lost $882,000 in 2003 after a terrible year in which they finished 13th and were hit hard by diminished gaming revenues.

Like other clubs, the Tigers have cash-flow difficulties at this time of year, before their membership and match-related income starts to flow in, and they rely on an overdraft facility to make ends meet.


To have the overdraft boosted to $1.8 million required someone - Casey, in this instance - to "put up" either $1.3 million in cash or a property worth more than $2 million to the ANZ Bank, Richmond's banker.

Casey, who owns one of Australia's biggest aged-care companies and has a stake in residential golf developments, is providing the bank with security for the club to borrow against; his position is unsecured.

The Tigers were also keen to avoid receiving AFL assistance - such as an advance on their annual dividend or the more drastic option of emergency funding - to ensure they remained independent and in control of their own destiny.

"We chose not to go to the AFL," said Casey of the overdraft. "We feel that the club is heading in the right direction. We've made investments that don't turn around overnight.

"We want to be independent, we don't want to be beholden. We can stand on our own two feet."

The club pays 100 per cent of the salary cap, for instance, a choice that is not available to the AFL-backed Bulldogs and Kangaroos. The club's primary difficulty is cash flow, given that it has no significant debt, besides the overdraft.

Casey, one of the wealthiest presidents in the AFL, yesterday confirmed he had "supported" the club financially, but would not make details public. "That's information that's within the club."

Casey is believed to be the first Richmond director to risk a substantial amount of his own wealth since former long-time board member Gary Krause loaned the club about $400,000 in the late 1980s.

Casey's financial support, while significant, is less drastic than that offered by some past presidents, notably Melbourne's Joseph Gutnick, who plunged millions of his own into club coffers during his presidency.

Casey also revealed that the Tigers had trimmed more than a million dollars from administration and football costs for 2004 to ensure that the club makes a profit, regardless of on-field results.

The Tigers have shed staff and further reduced costs by outsourcing some commercial operations to sports management company Elite Sports Properties.

In their report, Richmond's auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, expressed concern that the club might not continue "as a going concern if debt facilities are not extended or other support provided". The required "other support", it turns out, has come from Casey in 2004.

Three members of Casey's board, including football directors Tony Jewell and Peter Welsh, face challenges at this month's election. Casey said he was supporting Jewell, Welsh and fellow director Gary March in the poll.

tiger of old
5 Jan 2004, 10:06
good on ya case.positive sign for the club.putting his money where his mouth is.he must be confident in the grand plan!im glad to be a casey:D

cheers!

Captain Blood
5 Jan 2004, 12:07
One disturbing thing though is the loss that was reported in the paper is actually nearly twice that much. Heard this from a very reliable source. (i know we all say this, but my source is VERY reliable)

rioli17
5 Jan 2004, 15:51
Originally posted by Captain Blood
One disturbing thing though is the loss that was reported in the paper is actually nearly twice that much. Heard this from a very reliable source. (i know we all say this, but my source is VERY reliable)

No offence but your boofhead source is full of crap...If your familiar with the function of auditiors then the financial statements that have been documented are correct weight.

Any variance from this would have the auditor in the gun. Not impossible...refer to Enron...but highly unlikely as all the reasons for downturn in revenue appeared to be plausible.

Tell your source to bury his head up the clack it came from!

Captain Blood
6 Jan 2004, 11:07
Originally posted by rioli17
No offence but your boofhead source is full of crap...If your familiar with the function of auditiors then the financial statements that have been documented are correct weight.

Any variance from this would have the auditor in the gun. Not impossible...refer to Enron...but highly unlikely as all the reasons for downturn in revenue appeared to be plausible.

Tell your source to bury his head up the clack it came from!

Are you really that nieve.
It happens all the time. Brisbane''s loss when they won their second flag was repoted at $800K where in fact it was known within certain circles to be closer to twice that much. Don't always believe what you read in the papers son

itsintheblood
6 Jan 2004, 13:05
All I can say is good on you Clinton Casey but it worries the hell outta me that the president is forced to put up his own cash to prop up the club. It's loose change for Casey and he probably had the $1.3mil in his cars' ashtray but this year really is crunch time for not only Casey himself, but for Frawley, Crocker, Brittain, Hutchison, and that blonde haired guy who sits in the box with Frawley holding a board and chewing gum like a cow!!! (does anyone know who that guy is??)

Anything less than a finals appearance this year will be unacceptable for all concerned. It's time to put some results on the board and stop the crap about planning and youth policies that we've been fed for the last 20 years. I've been a member for 25 years and will continue to support the club for as long as I can but to clearly be the most underachieving VIC club over recent history is something that is difficult to cop. If Frawley is to go this year, the club MUST land a Kevin Sheedy or equivalent in order to achieve some success.

LC_15
6 Jan 2004, 13:13
Originally posted by Captain Blood
Are you really that nieve.
It happens all the time. Brisbane''s loss when they won their second flag was repoted at $800K where in fact it was known within certain circles to be closer to twice that much. Don't always believe what you read in the papers son

Where was their loss? Im sorry...but as a publicly listed organisation with Members, All financial records for the year have to be revealed. Specifics such as contracts with players can be hidden under TPP. But you cant hide losses when you have to have open books that have to be published.

And as for "certain circles", if you know, then most of the planet should know. Dont claim you know something because your mate said so.

Rumours, that how these stupid things always start. Because someone apparently knows someone in the "know".

LC

Captain Blood
6 Jan 2004, 14:19
Originally posted by LC_15
Where was their loss? Im sorry...but as a publicly listed organisation with Members, All financial records for the year have to be revealed. Specifics such as contracts with players can be hidden under TPP. But you cant hide losses when you have to have open books that have to be published.

And as for "certain circles", if you know, then most of the planet should know. Dont claim you know something because your mate said so.

Rumours, that how these stupid things always start. Because someone apparently knows someone in the "know".

LC
I give up

rioli17
6 Jan 2004, 15:24
Originally posted by Captain Blood
Are you really that nieve.
It happens all the time. Brisbane''s loss when they won their second flag was repoted at $800K where in fact it was known within certain circles to be closer to twice that much. Don't always believe what you read in the papers son

I think you should be asking yourself how naive you are my friend, you obviously have no understunding of what an audit is which is mandatory for any Australian company , an accounting practise to prevent exactly what you are saying ...

Maybe you should be the one to bury the head back up the clacker