Resource 2015 Annual Reporting Season. -now complete.

[Kwality]

DO you have a point?

Terminology, its hardly mainstream.

 

[The_Wookie]

Terminology, its hardly mainstream.

So? Its the term used in almost every club and league annual report.

for example

 

[theflea]

As an aside, I heard that the blues had a high cost with player injury payments this year. Can some one explain what they mean(apart from medical costs and how they interact into the TPP. Thanks.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

As an aside, I heard that the blues had a high cost with player injury payments this year. Can some one explain what they mean(apart from medical costs and how they interact into the TPP. Thanks.

A lot of players in the bottom tier of a list get a per game payment. Initial budgets may have this quite low, but with a bunch of injuries these players get activated to play more than expected.

This is compounded if the guys they are replacing were on contracts that don't have per game payments, and rather are more seasonal contracts

 

[bigleague]

Given the NRL clubs have put their hands up for 130% of their salary cap. I expect a similar push from the clubs who sat back last time and watched the players and new clubs get money thrown at them.

Note: this would push the base club distributions out to about 13 million (without additional assistance) at the start of the new deal.

Story in the paper this morning saying eddie wants 150% of the cap.

 

[Kwality]

So? Its the term used in almost every club and league annual report.

for example

Lots of comprehensive income, no comprehensive loss?

 

[bigleague]

Lots of comprehensive income, no comprehensive loss?

because it wasn't a loss.

 

[The_Wookie]

Lots of comprehensive income, no comprehensive loss?

You have to make a loss first. Last one was in 2011 (21 million)

 

[theflea]

A lot of players in the bottom tier of a list get a per game payment. Initial budgets may have this quite low, but with a bunch of injuries these players get activated to play more than expected.

This is compounded if the guys they are replacing were on contracts that don't have per game payments, and rather are more seasonal contracts

Yeah I get that, its more about this application with regards to the TPP. So if a club budgets for a certain number of match payments but these are doubled, but then, the team is basically full on its TPP. What if they go over? I'm pretty sure there is no penalty for this, but wanted clarify.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yeah I get that, its more about this application with regards to the TPP. So if a club budgets for a certain number of match payments but these are doubled, but then, the team is basically full on its TPP. What if they go over? I'm pretty sure there is no penalty for this, but wanted clarify.

You do get a penalty, and a number of clubs have copped it in the past

You only get a four to five figure fine though instead of a six to seven figure one

 

[Kwality]

because it wasn't a loss.

Are you suggesting Wookie failed to offer an example of a comprehensive loss - I didnt comprehensive income for good reason.

 

[Muggs]

Terminology, its hardly mainstream.

It's been main stream since 2007 when Australian accounting standards adopted a "comprehensive income statement".

This is actually a reporting requirement, so is very much main stream now days.

 

[The_Wookie]

Profit announced
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2015-12-10/profit-announced

North Melbourne has recorded a net operating profit of $529,507 for the financial year ending October 31, 2015. It’s the club’s seventh profit in the past eight years.

Managing director and CEO Carl Dilena paid tribute to North’s loyal supporters and hardworking staff for the achievement.

“We still operate in a challenging economic environment, so this outcome is a credit to the tireless efforts of our staff and the unwavering commitment of our amazing members and supporters,” Dilena said.

North managed to continue to invest heavily in its football operations while reducing its once crippling debt of close to $8 million, to just $1.65 million.

“Our decision to properly resource our football department in recent years has paid dividends with two successive preliminary finals appearances,” Dilena added.

“We must continue to invest in this area if we are going to reach the ultimate goal of competing for, and winning, our fifth premiership.

“However, we must also eradicate our debt, which is one of the key strategic aims of the current Board under James Brayshaw.”

Dilena said other factors contributing to the club’s financial position included another membership record and its increasing presence and support in Tasmania.

“We broke through another membership milestone with a fantastic tally of 41,490 but I strongly feel we can grow even more substantially in the coming years,” Dilena said.

“We must set our sights on 50,000 members and then keep pushing. It is critical we retain our current members and continue to attract new ones in order to give our team every opportunity to succeed on the field.

“We must continue to grow our Tasmania membership base through meaningful relationships with the local community and through more engagement with school clinics, visits and outstanding football content on match-days.

“We have delivered the state an outstanding fixture at Blundstone Arena with the first ever Friday night game against Richmond and big clashes against Sydney and Melbourne.”

Key facts 2014/15
- Net operating profit of $529,507 (2014: $423,074)
- Football Department expenditure increased by $1.7m (9%)
- Reduction of debt by $400k to $1.65m
- Revenue more than $37M (increase of $3.1m on 2014)
- Revenue from pokies/gambling $0

 

[incubi]

Dogs have announced a proit of $388k with revenue of $41,321,293 which is up approx $3.8m on last year
Full financial report is linked to at:
http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2015-12-11/dogs-report-profit

 

[Papa G]

So North, Dogs and Melbourne all declare profits. Amazing. Truly amazing.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Dogs have announced a proit of $388k with revenue of $41,321,293 which is up approx $3.8m on last year
Full financial report is linked to at:
http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2015-12-11/dogs-report-profit

Aren't the dogs doing some of land development in the western suburbs somewhere?

 

[Gigantor]

Dogs have announced a proit of $388k with revenue of $41,321,293 which is up approx $3.8m on last year
Full financial report is linked to at:
http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2015-12-11/dogs-report-profit

Total revenue of over $41m looks pretty decent in my eyes - that's no longer looking like a side struggling to earn some coin.
Whereabouts are the other small Vic clubs?
Are we at a point where it's only the giants who might be under, say, $35m in annual revenue?

 

[The_Wookie]

Total revenue of over $41m looks pretty decent in my eyes - that's no longer looking like a side struggling to earn some coin.
Whereabouts are the other small Vic clubs?
Are we at a point where it's only the giants who might be under, say, $35m in annual revenue?

Saints are at 32m. Giants will make it to 35...if the AFL chips in another 20.

 

[Gigantor]

Saints are at 32m. Giants will make it to 35...if the AFL chips in another 20.

Don't exaggerate - the figure would be closer to $17 mill

 

[The_Wookie]

Don't exaggerate - the figure would be closer to $17 mill

Dont be so defensive.

I actually understated it. The Giants got to 32.43 million last year. That figure included 20.55m in AFL payments and a further 2.45 million in Government grants. barring a miracle, they wont make 35 million withut 25 million from the league this year.

GWS membership and merchandise income was only 1.13 million combined in 2014. Sponsorship income is relatively ok at 7.81million.

 

[Gigantor]

Dont be so defensive.

I actually understated it. The Giants got to 32.43 million last year. That figure included 20.55m in AFL payments and a further 2.45 million in Government grants. barring a miracle, they wont make 35 million withut 25 million from the league this year.

GWS membership and merchandise income was only 1.13 million combined in 2014. Sponsorship income is relatively ok at 7.81million.

Half of those AFL payments are the normal dividend.
the so-called Government grant is basically sponsorship from the ACT government, no different to Tassie's sponsorship of Hawthorn

 

[The_Wookie]

Half of those AFL payments are the normal dividend.
the so-called Government grant is basically sponsorship from the ACT government, no different to Tassie's sponsorship of Hawthorn

FFS. I never said they werent the normal AFL dividend, I said GWS wouldnt get to 35 million unless the AFL chipped in 25 million, regardless of source. The Government grant ISNT the canberra sponsorship either, its grants for the training facility development.

 

[The_Wookie]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/we...5/news-story/75884d2382e13b70f778e966e2ac6754

WESTERN Bulldogs president Peter Gordon has gifted the club $1 million from his own pocket.

Club accounts unveiled on Friday reveal a $1 million loan from Gordon to the club in 2013 has since been “re-donated” back to the Bulldogs.

The club announced a profit of $388,000 for the 2015 season.

Football department spending rose by $2.5 million but club debt remains at $9.75 million.

 

[Rob]

So North, Dogs and Melbourne all declare profits. Amazing. Truly amazing.

Well, not really. Even the Suns made a profit last year.

You can spend as much as you like as long as the league makes up the difference.

 

[bombersfan4000]

Well, not really. Even the Suns made a profit last year.

You can spend as much as you like as long as the league makes up the difference.

Then claim you made a profit