That would be an argument for amortising the purchase over multiple years. As opposed to giving one particularly s**t year, getting nothing from the afl and then booming in subsequent years and paying afl tax (or not get funding).
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
News Financial Status Of All AFL Clubs
- Thread starter Bicks
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That would be an argument for amortising the purchase over multiple years. As opposed to giving one particularly s**t year, getting nothing from the afl and then booming in subsequent years and paying afl tax (or not get funding).
Deaneus!
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
Even your yawns are a fail.
Deaneus!
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
Yawn. Admit you were wrong.
Not wrong in the slightest. Why didnt PAP put their full licence payment into this years loss?
Arguing with someone who most likely listens to One Direction isnt something I could be bothered with, especially those that use the word "fail".
Deaneus!
We Await Silent Tristero's Empire
You are totally wrong;
PAP probably couldn't afford too but who cares what they do;
If I listen to One Direction it's because I stole it from your CD rack.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 32,674
- 18,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
Did we pay the full $8,000,000 licence fee last year?
If so, this financial year we should be rolling in it. With thst payment removed from the books and add the extra money from the Adelaide Oval - we could make close to $10,000,000.
Or have I misunderstood what they did.
If so, this financial year we should be rolling in it. With thst payment removed from the books and add the extra money from the Adelaide Oval - we could make close to $10,000,000.
Or have I misunderstood what they did.
Thats because its not the way its normally done. If we paid the 8 million to the SANFL last year in full then we would put that in the loss for last year. But we didnt. We havent paid the 8 million yet. So why claim the full 8 million in this financial year then. Its pretty bloody obvious why, unless your a pretty dumb person.You are wrong. Move along.
Especially asking why we are NOT doing the same as the PAPs.....
- Jul 25, 2010
- 32,674
- 18,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
So, how and when do we pay that $7,000,000
A book loss is one thing but we tangibly have to pay it sometime. Where did that money go?
No we didnt pay 8 million to the SANFL last year. We dont have 8 million to give them. And we certainly wouldnt borrow it from a bank and pay interest on it. We have to pay it off at 400k per year. The Crows brought forward a huge chunk of that onto the books for last year, even though we didnt pay it. They did it so the books would look better over the next few years.
So somebody completely dissects and disproves your argument, you respond with "yawn", and then accuse THEM of being childish? Wow.
And just how did they disprove my argument?
Everything I said is right.
You could try and be a man and show me how I am wrong yourself if you want.
Point 1 - We claimed 8 mill loss from licence fee payments to the SANFL in 2014.
Point 2 - We didnt pay the SANFL 8 million for licence fee in 2014.
Point 3 - Moving the loss to last year means that for the next 20 years we will have 400k extra in profit for the books, when we actually dont.
Point 4 - This makes Triggs last year look really bad and will make Fages look better.
Point 5 - None of this has been disproven by anyone.
Point 6 - The flog thought that the 8 million was a loss the "Dumbass" Trigg had actually done.
So you can step up if you want.
The crux of it is that you can glean sweet * all from the data that is provided in that article. As deanus has pointed out, Fagan was at the club for 1 month during last years financial year. We have a former Banker as our President, so one could assume, rightly or wrongly, it's highly likely that this was his doing, and put in place before Fagan even arrived. Despite our claims of him being useless as a President, it would stand to reason that his many years as a finance professional have prepared him to deal with our books. Now as far as I can see, deanus is not agreeing, or disagreeing with what you're saying in financial terms, just pointing out that what you're saying is unproven at this point in time with the data that has been provided to the public domain, and disagreeing with your inference that this is Fagan being "sneaky".
Now, I can only assume that you responded in the matter that you did, because you know you have zero evidence to back up what you're saying, but instead of saying that, have decided to deflect and get into a s**t fight instead.
So all that writing from you but not one disproval of any of my points.
I have put forward my evidence, and you have put forward nothing other than "Chapman is a banker and knows what he is doing".
What I have said is correct.
There are no points to disprove at this point in time, because your points are made based on your opinion, rather than any evidence that is available. Which is what deanus was pointing out to you, but you've instead chosen to make an argument out of it. If you can actually prove what you're saying with evidence, instead of just saying "What I have said is correct", then they might be valid points. But you can't, so they're not.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 32,674
- 18,767
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Golden State Warriors NBA Champions
Does that mean we just ignore that $400,000 or we write it off as a liability twice?
My opinion? Damm we have some naïve supporters on here.
We posted an 8 million dollar loss - NOT MY OPINION, FACT. Do you want a link or do you accept this.
Fages said on the radio that we brought forward 8 million dollars of licence repayments. - NOT MY OPINION, FACT. Do you want a link or do you accept this?
If we are only paying 400k a year to the SANFL for repayments, and we haven't paid them 8 million at all, then why the hell would you do. The point posted is this isn't normal, that's why PAP haven't done it. So they have done something not normal, but not illegal either as its creative accounting, that has the side benefit of been able to show less loss in the years after, which happens to coincide with the 'new management' of Fages, Roo etc. This is just a coincidence you think? God help me.
MattyB_76
Club Legend
Pretty basic corporate accounting. I am not an accountant, but here's a simplified explanation (and feel to correct me if I'm wrong, proper accountants).
As the article points out, there are 2 sides to "the accounts", Profit and Loss Statement (P&L) and Balance Sheet (BL), which is assets and liabilities (there's a 3rd, Cash Flow statement, but that doesn't matter for this discussion).
When an entity makes revenue, or expenses that don't have an asset associated with them, it's just shows on the P&L**. (** not completely true, but for the sake of simplification.)
But, when the entity buys a new car for instance, it reduces it's 'asset' of cash, increases it's asset of 'car', and then each year creates an expense of 'depreciation'. The value of asset 'car' decreases by the amount of depreciation each year. Depreciation is the cost of holding onto an asset that loses value, and spreads that cost out over the years of usage you get from that asset.
What has happened with the AFC and the license costs is, the club has created an extra expense this year of 8million dollars, which it has paid to itself. At the same time, we've created an 8million dollar asset. It's a pre-payment for the license, but we've prepaid ourselves. It's all just shifting paper around.
From then on it becomes a financing expense (paying the SANFL out of the asset, not revenue/cash), not a Footy Operations expense.
I think the main reason for doing this is to put all the expenses in the year before "equalisation payments" occur. The same thing was discussed for paying out Sando's contract. Pay it out last year, include in last years expenses, and we have a lower Footy Operations expense for the year.
Remember, the equalisation tax is on money spent, not money earned.
As the article points out, there are 2 sides to "the accounts", Profit and Loss Statement (P&L) and Balance Sheet (BL), which is assets and liabilities (there's a 3rd, Cash Flow statement, but that doesn't matter for this discussion).
When an entity makes revenue, or expenses that don't have an asset associated with them, it's just shows on the P&L**. (** not completely true, but for the sake of simplification.)
But, when the entity buys a new car for instance, it reduces it's 'asset' of cash, increases it's asset of 'car', and then each year creates an expense of 'depreciation'. The value of asset 'car' decreases by the amount of depreciation each year. Depreciation is the cost of holding onto an asset that loses value, and spreads that cost out over the years of usage you get from that asset.
What has happened with the AFC and the license costs is, the club has created an extra expense this year of 8million dollars, which it has paid to itself. At the same time, we've created an 8million dollar asset. It's a pre-payment for the license, but we've prepaid ourselves. It's all just shifting paper around.
From then on it becomes a financing expense (paying the SANFL out of the asset, not revenue/cash), not a Footy Operations expense.
I think the main reason for doing this is to put all the expenses in the year before "equalisation payments" occur. The same thing was discussed for paying out Sando's contract. Pay it out last year, include in last years expenses, and we have a lower Footy Operations expense for the year.
Remember, the equalisation tax is on money spent, not money earned.
No we actually pay 400k a year, as agreed by the SANFL. Think of it in a five year block.
Say we owe 500k over 5 years, paying at 100k a year. We earn 110 k a year in income.
What the crows put on paper, but wont be actually doing.
Year 1 Income 110k, loss 500k. = loss of 390K
Year 2 Income 110k, no loss = profit 110k
Year 3 Income 110k, no loss = profit 110k
Year 4 Income 110k, no loss = profit 110k
Year 5 Income 110k, no loss = profit 110k.
Total profit = 50k
What normally happens, and what we will ACTUALLY DO.
Year 1 Income 110k, loss 100k = Profit 10k
Year 2 Income 110k, loss 100K = Profit 10k
Year 3 Income 110k, loss 100k = Profit 10k
Year 4 Income 110k, loss 100k = Profit 10K
Year 5 Income 110k, loss 100k = Profit 10k
Total profit = 50k
So when Fages comes in at year 2, you can see the benefit he has by bringing the loss forward. He will look like a financial god, when its just creative accounting.
MattyB_76
Club Legend
And as for being sneaky ... this happens in million different businesses around the world every year, and is completely legal. In the business world tt doesn't avoid tax, it just moves it into different years.
In the case of the AFL and equalisation payments, 2014 was essentially a tax free year, where smart organisations should have moved as many expenses as they could into 2014 year.
In the case of the AFL and equalisation payments, 2014 was essentially a tax free year, where smart organisations should have moved as many expenses as they could into 2014 year.
