News Financial Status Of All AFL Clubs

[alex_is_on_fire]

I'll just continue to go to my CPA and let him concentrate on those sorts of things.

 

[MattyB_76]

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.

I like your example. It shows that the net position is the same with Example A or B (ignoring the "time cost of money").

But Fages is not hiding anything by saying losses under Trigg without this expense were $400k. He's not hiding that fact, and that's the number people will compare 2015 with.

In reality, the cost of this license should be spread over the previous 25 years and all future years the club is in operation. But that's completely impractical. So you pay it once, explain that it's included in the expense that year, and move on.

 

[Mattrox]

You back now? Any chance you are going to dissprove my points or are you just gonna come up with stupid s**t like that?
You got your ass handed to you.

Nice melt. Related to Amstaff.

You made up a conspiracy theory based on no evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

You got shown for the baseless shitstirrer you are. Making crap up and when you get shown this you melt.

No one needs evidence to refute a claim made based on pure supposition. All it needs is an "I reckon your claim is full of s**t".

And yet you beat that dead donkey. Nice one.

 

[Cleric]

Nice melt. Related to Amstaff.

You made up a conspiracy theory based on no evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

You got shown for the baseless shitstirrer you are. Making crap up and when you get shown this you melt.

No one needs evidence to refute a claim made based on pure supposition. All it needs is an "I reckon your claim is full of s**t".

And yet you beat that dead donkey. Nice one.

So you bring nothing but ignorance? No information, no facts, just saying "i dont think so"
Lol, your irrelvent to the thread.

 

[headache1]

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.

No, I accept those things, as that is the information we have been provided with. What I don't accept, is that it's Fagan being sneaky in an attempt to make himself look better. We don't know it was his doing in the first place, and unless that radio interview lays out exactly what the reasons are for doing what we have, we don't know why it was done. Could it be to make our financial statements going forward look better than they actually are? Maybe. Could it be to do with avoiding paying more money into the AFL equalisation fund than we have to? Maybe. Could it be a combination of both? Maybe. I don't know how the disequal funding system that the AFL has in place works, but maybe posting a huge loss in single year gives us access to a bit more of that? What you're saying might be the 100% factual truth, but we don't know that it is based on what we've got to go on. If you can show me otherwise, then I'll accept that it's Fagan being sneaky.

As a side note, do you really want us doing the same thing that the Power are in terms of their finances? There's every chance that Keith is sitting there scratching his head saying "*, why didn't we think of that?".

 

[Mattrox]

So you bring nothing but ignorance? No information, no facts, just saying "i dont think so"
Lol, your irrelvent to the thread.

So is your supposition.

Why not ask a simple question rather than make assumptions of sneakyness?

 

[MattyB_76]

Stop saying Fagin is being sneaky. He announced it at the AGM. He gave 2 sets of numbers. It's completely legal. Explain how it's sneaky? Explain where he's hidden anything?

 

[rocket18]

Cleric, it isn't hard to work out why you have put people offside.

You have called Fagan sneaky for doing something that seems like a regular practice.

You then went on to say "well porrt didn't do it" - you seriously saying we should take a financial lead from Poort. By bringing Poort into the discusion as the bastions of financial leadship showed where you were with your "opinion".

 

[Allefgib]

Stop the bs please or you'll be thread banned.

 

[ManInTheArena]

I've had a look at the financial statements, I'm a Chartered Accountant by background (plus IT and Industrial Relations) and CEO who needs to issue reports every year.

From note 13 in the financial statements:

"(i) In March 2014, the Company committed to support the development of football in South Australia through a Game Development Grant payable to the SANFL over the next 15 years. The liability for these future payments is recognized [sic] at its net present value."

They've recognised the SANFL payments as a liability which is congruent with the Standards.

As per Statement of Accounting Concepts (SAC) 4:

Definition of Liabilities

"Liabilities" are the future sacrifices of economic benefits that the entity is presently obliged to make to other entities as a result of past transactions or other past events.

Criteria for Recognition of Liabilities

A liability should be recognised in the statement of financial position when and only when:
(a) it is probable that the future sacrifice of economic benefits will be required; and
(b) the amount of the liability can be measured reliably.

The AFC would have failed the audit if they didn't recognise the Game Development Grant as a liability.

This required a credit to a liability account and a debit to the statement of comprehensive income hence the $8m loss.

Fagan would have had * all input into it. The only reason I have any input into our end of year reports is because I'm a Chartered Accountant and I sticky beak.

 

[headache1]

Thanks Hemi, that should stop idiots such as myself arguing about things we don't entirely understand.

 

[johnnypanther]

Hemi - can I ask how you got a copy of the financial statements and is it the detailed set or the minimum version?

 

[little graham]

Why are we paying the SANFL eight million in advance, considering they don't need the money?

 

[mistylake]

I've had a look at the financial statements, I'm a Chartered Accountant by background (plus IT and Industrial Relations) and CEO who needs to issue reports every year.

From note 13 in the financial statements:

"(i) In March 2014, the Company committed to support the development of football in South Australia through a Game Development Grant payable to the SANFL over the next 15 years. The liability for these future payments is recognized [sic] at its net present value."

They've recognised the SANFL payments as a liability which is congruent with the Standards.

As per Statement of Accounting Concepts (SAC) 4:

Definition of Liabilities

"Liabilities" are the future sacrifices of economic benefits that the entity is presently obliged to make to other entities as a result of past transactions or other past events.

Criteria for Recognition of Liabilities

A liability should be recognised in the statement of financial position when and only when:
(a) it is probable that the future sacrifice of economic benefits will be required; and
(b) the amount of the liability can be measured reliably.

The AFC would have failed the audit if they didn't recognise the Game Development Grant as a liability.

This required a credit to a liability account and a debit to the statement of comprehensive income hence the $8m loss.

Fagan would have had **** all input into it. The only reason I have any input into our end of year reports is because I'm a Chartered Accountant and I sticky beak.

The voice of reason. Thank you.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What about if a player is contracted until 2016. Do we need to count his 2016 contract payments as a liability this year?

 

[1970crow]

What about if a player is contracted until 2016. Do we need to count his 2016 contract payments as a liability this year?

If we were being consistent we would. Did we not start talking about the license purchase though. Now it's some kind of development grant. Are they the same thing?

 

[ManInTheArena]

Hemi - can I ask how you got a copy of the financial statements and is it the detailed set or the minimum version?

ASIC and yes it was the full version. As a member you have the right to ask for the full version from the AFC for free. I bought it from ASIC because I couldn't be assed.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Why are we paying the SANFL eight million in advance, considering they don't need the money?

We're not paying in advance, the liability is being recognised now for future payments.

 

[ManInTheArena]

What about if a player is contracted until 2016. Do we need to count his 2016 contract payments as a liability this year?

Interesting question. Employment contracts (wages) in general are not liabilities because they can be terminated. Leave entitlements that are vesting (paid out at termination of contract) like annual leave, long services leave and in some instances sick leave are recorded as liabilities.

I've never dealt with an employment contract where it is paid out in full if either party terminate and I think the answer is right there. It's not paid out by the club if the employee leaves employment. It is only if the club terminate the contract.

 

[Mike Smyth]

There are 11 clubs with higher net assets than us. Would have been interesting to see our asset position before the disaster that was the Trigg reign. Is this because of the white elephant that is the Westpac centre?

wtf GWS have more net assets than us. How does that work?

 

[1970crow]

There are 11 clubs with higher net assets than us. Would have been interesting to see our asset position before the disaster that was the Trigg reign. Is this because of the white elephant that is the Westpac centre?

wtf GWS have more net assets than us. How does that work?

Recognising the full value of these future grants would have beefed up our liability value significantly.

 

[Mattrox]

There are 11 clubs with higher net assets than us. Would have been interesting to see our asset position before the disaster that was the Trigg reign. Is this because of the white elephant that is the Westpac centre?

wtf GWS have more net assets than us. How does that work?

Land in Sydney is more expensive? And they own it?

 

[Mike Smyth]

Recognising the full value of these future grants would have beefed up our liability value significantly.

Would love to know what our net asset position would be excluding the grants.

 

[ManInTheArena]

About $16m.

 

[ManInTheArena]

There are 11 clubs with higher net assets than us. Would have been interesting to see our asset position before the disaster that was the Trigg reign. Is this because of the white elephant that is the Westpac centre?

$5m in liabilities is in relation to the Westpac Centre.

You could argue for a devaluation of the Westpac Centre asset too now... It's probably in there at cost.