News Financial Results (moved discussion on TPP/veterans/rookies from post #107)

[Periphery]

Not to be rude but heard on SEN about an addition error in the balance sheet supplied. Error occurs in both 2013 and 2012 seasons where adding up liabilities gives a total about 4 million dollars less.

You can find it on page 13 of the annual report (page 2 of financials). Although I am no accountant so maybe there's an explanation.

I am not an accountant so if I am wrong on this someone who is qualified please correct me:

I think that is a typo and not a mistake adding up the current liabilities.

Current liabilities
Trade and other payables 4,421,559
Other current liabilities 524,440
Short-term borrowings 4,568,588
Employee Benefits 4,568,588
Total current liabilities 10,039,134

If you add up the current liabilities but exclude the Employee benefits you get 9,514,587 which creates a difference of 524,547 which is the exact amount listed in Note 17 on page 28 as the Current Employee Benefits. Basically I think someone has mistakenly copied over the right number for both of those years after all the calculations are done and not noticed.

For 2013 it should be:

Current liabilities
Trade and other payables 4,421,559
Other current liabilities 524,440
Short-term borrowings 4,568,588
Employee Benefits 524,547
Total current liabilities 10,039,134

 

[Crankyhawk]

I am not an accountant so if I am wrong on this someone who is qualified please correct me:

I think that is a typo and not a mistake adding up the current liabilities.

If you add up the current liabilities but exclude the Employee benefits you get 9,514,587 which creates a difference of 524,547 which is the exact amount listed in Note 17 on page 28 as the Current Employee Benefits. Basically I think someone has mistakenly copied over the right number for both of those years after all the calculations are done and not noticed.

For 2013 it should be:

Thanks for that, makes more sense now.

 

[Kildonan]

Good work Periphery. Have you missed your calling?

 

[Nutsngum]

I don't know how to add value to the discussion, nor how to quote other posters

Go back to your own forum. Getting sick of this immature sniping.

 

[Defacto]

The drop in members from 40+ k in 2010 ( a club record I believe) to the position we see in 2013 is somewhat linked to performance, however I would say that the failure of the board to engage the fan base during that period is also to blame. And for that the board must be held accountable, in the same manner coaches and players are held accountable for their performances.

The board have failed the club by being unable to captivate, engage and encourage members to renew by providing a level of service to the members that leaves most uninspired, and therefore unwilling to depart with there hard earned for something they feel disengaged from. I am predicting that the numbers will again fall this year, with more of the "bandwagon" members dropping off that had previously jumped on during the glory years.

The role of the board is to ensure these members continue to renew through good times and bad, and when the next glory period returns and the member base again swells to record levels, work just as hard to retain the new level of support. They have failed us all.

I agree

Those blaming "soft" fans need to tell the club, as they accept like the rest of us that they are largely responsible. They accept that they have not managed the media well, they accept that they have not engaged supports/community adequately and they sure as s**t have not provided their members with an acceptable level of service.

The worrying thing for me, isn't the fact we've lost members or we haven't attracted enough sponsorship or our onfield results have been poor. The problem is we can't even run and keep a friggin budget. Spending spiralled out of control and there really wasn't anything to see for it, especially from the commercial side of the business. I suspect we've carrying personnel for a while that really weren't contributing.

That a side, I know the club recognises the problems they face and have taken responsibility for it. They're working hard to fix it and get us back on track.

I think they're on the right track and finally are doing some good things but I'm still worried, easy to talk the talk. This board needs to demonstrate that they can turn it around and post a profit. Until that happens and the bleeding stops there rightfully should be question marks above their head

 

[Defacto]

Oh, not to mention the bloody Bubble, which basically came down to "rack off members, this doesn't concern you." I remember the 2010 AGM, there were a LOT of die-hard members that were VERY ticked off that year, and all they got from Roo up the front was, "I want to tell the players - we know what we stand for, and we'll stick fat". In other words, "Bugger you, members, we are sticking with ourselves." Now, I don't think that's entirely what Roo is about, but I think that's what he was encouraged to think and feel, and be, during the Bubble days.

Look to that for your 10,000 members gone, Mr Summers.

I remember that as well. 2011 AGM after the 2010 season. Go back and read some of the fans questions and the clubs responses and you can see why we're here today

They just didn't get it

 

[Nutsngum]

Lets look on the positive side.

The club is being WAY more outspoken now and updating the members on important stuff before it hits the media for the most part. They are being more proactive with memberships, still not enough but its a progress, they're selling more and more appealing merchandise including selling old guernseys and clothes etc..

Although dim at the moment, the future looks like it will improve steadily by the time we hit our next flag window in a few years.

 

[sammm]

Lets look on the positive side.

The club is being WAY more outspoken now and updating the members on important stuff before it hits the media for the most part. They are being more proactive with memberships, still not enough but its a progress, they're selling more and more appealing merchandise including selling old guernseys and clothes etc..

Although dim at the moment, the future looks like it will improve steadily by the time we hit our next flag window in a few years.

I know that at the moment the saints are better in the media and letting supporters know what's happening. Lets just hope that it doesn't fizzle out.

 

[Baldur]

A bounce of the ball and a toe poke less and we would have made a profit. Success is winning flags, that is what builds the long term membership base. Playing in grand finals helps the short term balance sheet but it is winning them that improves it in the long term.

 

[Dopey BJ]

Couldn't agree more, everyone keeps saying how brilliant Hawthorn have been selling memberships, they wouldn't be anywhere near that figure if it wasn't for the exceptional success of the 80's.
All the kids that started to barrack for them then are now buying memberships.

 

[Nutsngum]

Considering our time in the 80's is remembered more for partying then football it stands to reason why we lack the members we should have.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Considering our time in the last five years is remembered more for partying then football it stands to reason why we lack the members we should have.

Corrected.

 

[Defacto]

Considering our time in the 80's is remembered more for partying then football it stands to reason why we lack the members we should have.

i'm not very good on the saints history but didnt we lose a number of our zoned players to other clubs, especially hawthorn? if we kept them i wonder if things would have turned out differently

examples: leigh matthews, peter knights etc.

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Yes you're right Defacto - the zones were changed and Hawthorn took much of ours and yes things would have been very different personnel wise..................however the club itself was pretty amateurish back then with the club admin and saints disco..........could have been a factor in preventing success....

 

[Nutsngum]

i'm not very good on the saints history but didnt we lose a number of our zoned players to other clubs, especially hawthorn? if we kept them i wonder if things would have turned out differently

examples: leigh matthews, peter knights etc.

Yep. Pretty much why all pre AFL flags are effectively worthless in my eyes due to the fact they were won in an unequal and unfair competition.

Zoning was always a terrible idea and the competition is far far far better without it.

 

[Q TRAIN]

Couldn't agree more, everyone keeps saying how brilliant Hawthorn have been selling memberships, they wouldn't be anywhere near that figure if it wasn't for the exceptional success of the 80's.
All the kids that started to barrack for them then are now buying memberships.

Im jealous of the Hawks success but I don't rate their supporters highly in the passion stakes. In the 80's and early 90's The Hawks made 92 grand finals in a row, won 87 of them and should've been three times a bigger powerhouse than Collingwood.
But they ended up having 3 ordinary yrs and nearly merged with Melbourne . The Hawks have a shipload of bandwagon supporters. All those kids will drop off quicker than a pr0n stars knickers once the going gets tuff again.

( I may have exaggerated a tad with the 92 grand finals in a row. I think it was 7 wich is still a great effort )

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yep. Pretty much why all pre AFL flags are effectively worthless in my eyes due to the fact they were won in an unequal and unfair competition.

Zoning was always a terrible idea and the competition is far far far better without it.

I sort of go along with the idea that for example , Geelong should get first dibs on players from around geelong. The massive problems were always how do divvy up the whole of Victoria ( Australia ) with 11 inner Melbourne suburbs.

 

[Persevering Saint]

I note that the decision to start playing in Tassie again, is mainly in HOBART, and NOT Launceston. I wonder if this is a clever strategic move. AFLers have assumed that Tassie needs one AFL affiliate team for the whole state, and hence the Hawks have already won the battle. But I remember that apparently there's a bit of a rivalry between Hobart and Launceston, so actually TWO affiliate teams might mean we're in with a sniff. If we can become the Hobart affiliate, leaving Hawks as the Launceston affiliate, that might create a useful rivalry down the line.

Here's hoping we get it, and not the flipping Kangas.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I note that the decision to start playing in Tassie again, is mainly in HOBART, and NOT Launceston. I wonder if this is a clever strategic move. AFLers have assumed that Tassie needs one AFL affiliate team for the whole state, and hence the Hawks have already won the battle. But I remember that apparently there's a bit of a rivalry between Hobart and Launceston, so actually TWO affiliate teams might mean we're in with a sniff. If we can become the Hobart affiliate, leaving Hawks as the Launceston affiliate, that might create a useful rivalry down the line.

Here's hoping we get it, and not the flipping Kangas.

Good thinking, lets see if we can get Cascade on board as a sponsor.
( Those Launceston losers only drink Boags ).

 

[cartwright]

A bounce of the ball and a toe poke less and we would have made a profit. Success is winning flags, that is what builds the long term membership base. Playing in grand finals helps the short term balance sheet but it is winning them that improves it in the long term.

This certainly helps. I also feel moving away from Moorabbin has not been well received.

 

[Persevering Saint]

I note that the decision to start playing in Tassie again, is mainly in HOBART, and NOT Launceston. I wonder if this is a clever strategic move. AFLers have assumed that Tassie needs one AFL affiliate team for the whole state, and hence the Hawks have already won the battle. But I remember that apparently there's a bit of a rivalry between Hobart and Launceston, so actually TWO affiliate teams might mean we're in with a sniff. If we can become the Hobart affiliate, leaving Hawks as the Launceston affiliate, that might create a useful rivalry down the line.

Here's hoping we get it, and not the flipping Kangas.

Actually, we should ask our resident expert, Tassie Saint, although I can't find his name to tag... (mods?)

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

If you know anyone looking for LED lights, send the club your details. The club gets a sling for every customer they refer to LEDified and certainly have some good deals in the mix.

 

[sammm]

If you know anyone looking for LED lights, send the club your details. The club gets a sling for every customer they refer to LEDified and certainly have some good deals in the mix.

actually, I am. I will call the club.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk

 

[God Save Max King]

Didn't know where else to post this, but this is pretty damning, via http://hurlingpeoplenow.tumblr.com/post/97704478292/2013-afl-club-revenue-by-source-mostly-sourced

 

[Half Back Pocket]

Other = Sponsorship?

The good clubs have $20m in Sponsorship. We have $6m