Analysis Richmond Tigers record $500,000 profit

[TigerImposter]

Thanks.That makes sense to why the JDF was categorized on its own and why i couldn't identify the FTF

 

[Infamy]

I'm going off memory, so grain of salt, but I believe the FTF monies went direct to the club - I think under the sponsorship and marketing line item

Also the funds will not match the years pledged. Many of the larger donations were pledged to be delivered over a number of years, which is why some were confused when the annual reports were saying one figure, but the media statements another.

The JDF is a seperate beast, as it's been created so it's a part of the Aust Sports Foundation arrangements, which means the donations are tax deductible

Not sure that's right. At the dinner for the first FTF they were saying that donations over a certain size would be 50% tax deductable as some of the funds would be going into the JDF for infrastructure works.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not sure that's right. At the dinner for the first FTF they were saying that donations over a certain size would be 50% tax deductable as some of the funds would be going into the JDF for infrastructure works.

Without knowing the details of the dinner, that sounds like they split some of the funds off to the JDF

The JDF is a seperate fund because it has to be to access the ASF arrangements

 

[Infamy]

Without knowing the details of the dinner, that sounds like they split some of the funds off to the JDF

The JDF is a seperate fund because it has to be to access the ASF arrangements

Yep, so it would be pretty difficult to isolate where it all went on the balance sheet, especially given we don't have a public total of how much is in the JDF.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yep, so it would be pretty difficult to isolate where it all went on the balance sheet, especially given we don't have a public total of how much is in the JDF.

Actually the FTF numbers were recorded at the time, so they were pretty transparent (I remember we had a long thread on it and rfco had to get involved because people were trying to reconcile the balance sheet amounts against the $6m

I forget where, but the annual FTF contributions were announced

On your situation, just my speculation, but I believe the money's that went to the JDF would not have been included in the FTF $6m

 

[TigerImposter]

Actually the FTF numbers were recorded at the time, so they were pretty transparent (I remember we had a long thread on it and rfco had to get involved because people were trying to reconcile the balance sheet amounts against the $6m

I forget where, but the annual FTF contributions were announced

On your situation, just my speculation, but I believe the money's that went to the JDF would not have been included in the FTF $6m

The debt was 6mil in around 2011 ,but are you aware if we had to pay interest on it?As this amount would have been well over $6mil if this was the case.
As we are all uncertain with the actual figures this would be hard to know.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The debt was 6mil in around 2011 ,but are you aware if we had to pay interest on it?As this amount would have been well over $6mil if this was the case.
As we are all uncertain with the actual figures this would be hard to know.

I'm on the run, so don't have access to the digits, so bar with me because all of this is off memory

At the time of the FTF we had a debt of around $5-6m, and it was debt with interest, unlike Carlton we didn't get interest free loans from the afl.

The club was reducing the debt, but slowly

Then FTF came along, BUT it was not all about debt. Off memory, $3-4m was earmarked for debt reduction, some to the foot Dept, and some elsewhere. Sorry I can't remember the full details, but the key is only half was roughly for debt.

The key was the math. Our revenues were already improving, and combined with the membership growth and reduction in interest payments we didn't need the FTF to eliminate the debt. What it did was break its back into a small enough piece that our day to day operations could mop up the rest.

Still remember some were freaking out because even with close to $6m in contributions, we still had debt. As we now know, that was busted soon after anyway.

On the certainty of the figures, I can tell you they are good. I still remember breaking them down at the time on multiple occasions, as this was a huge issue on all boards back then. Unfortunately I'm ****ed if I can remember where the details are now

 

[DrMike]

Then FTF came along, BUT it was not all about debt. Off memory, $3-4m was earmarked for debt reduction, some to the foot Dept, and some elsewhere. Sorry I can't remember the full details, but the key is only half was roughly for debt.

PRO
VFL

 

[Ned_Flanders]

PRO
VFL

Thanks dude!!

 

[Infamy]

PRO
VFL

Also prepayment of salary cap

 

[DrMike]

Thanks dude!!

tl;dr

 

[TigerImposter]

I'm on the run, so don't have access to the digits, so bar with me because all of this is off memory

At the time of the FTF we had a debt of around $5-6m, and it was debt with interest, unlike Carlton we didn't get interest free loans from the afl.

The club was reducing the debt, but slowly

Then FTF came along, BUT it was not all about debt. Off memory, $3-4m was earmarked for debt reduction, some to the foot Dept, and some elsewhere. Sorry I can't remember the full details, but the key is only half was roughly for debt.

The key was the math. Our revenues were already improving, and combined with the membership growth and reduction in interest payments we didn't need the FTF to eliminate the debt. What it did was break its back into a small enough piece that our day to day operations could mop up the rest.

Still remember some were freaking out because even with close to $6m in contributions, we still had debt. As we now know, that was busted soon after anyway.

On the certainty of the figures, I can tell you they are good. I still remember breaking them down at the time on multiple occasions, as this was a huge issue on all boards back then. Unfortunately I'm stuffed if I can remember where the details are now

thanks for that. Agree as i thought, that our loan had interest back then

 

[theflea]

PRO
VFL

Ability to pay 100% of the cap.

 

[Lsta062]

Did I miss something?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...sses-mount-for-afl-clubs-20160206-gmnb1h.html

How come it states here that Richmond had a profit/loss result of -3.91 million in 2014, meaning that we had a loss of 3.91 million? Is that a mistake? I ask this because I recall Richmond profiting in 2014. I do not recall Richmond having the biggest loss of any Victorian club in 2014.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Did I miss something?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...sses-mount-for-afl-clubs-20160206-gmnb1h.html

How come it states here that Richmond had a profit/loss result of -3.91 million in 2014, meaning that we had a loss of 3.91 million? Is that a mistake? I ask this because I recall Richmond profiting in 2014. I do not recall Richmond having the biggest loss of any Victorian club in 2014.

Nah, that can't be right.

I went to the Club site to check and they seem to have removed all annual reports except last year's, which is weird.

On the revenue side, though, we really aren't dazzling.

$46.7m vs Melbourne's $44.5, Bulldogs $41.3

6th on the table of Victorian clubs. Gotta do something about that, I'd have thought. Getting another $3m a year from the AFL after the TV $ kicks in would help, I guess, but is far from assured.

What are the stable options (racehorses!), though, in terms of cash-generating assets we should be looking to buy or invest in? We don't have enough to be borrowing large on something too illiquid. I don't like the idea of going too hard on equities, and I'd really rather we didn't double down on pokies. I know we control those venues so we have some influence over their conduct, but I'd much rather we weren't sponsored by a betting agency, either.

Clearly, we should redevelop Punt Road and sell apartments overlooking the ground so we can all live there and watch training. That would be ace.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Yeah, not sure about that. The club definitely announced a profit for 2014...

"The Richmond Football Club has reported an operating profit of $1,329,530 for the year ended October 31, 2014."

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2014-11-18/richmond-records-decade-of-profits

Trying to open the pdf of the financial report but can't seem to get it to download at work. Might mention something in there possibly.

 

[telsor]

Did I miss something?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...sses-mount-for-afl-clubs-20160206-gmnb1h.html

How come it states here that Richmond had a profit/loss result of -3.91 million in 2014, meaning that we had a loss of 3.91 million? Is that a mistake? I ask this because I recall Richmond profiting in 2014. I do not recall Richmond having the biggest loss of any Victorian club in 2014.

$1.3m profit in 2014, down from $3.3m in 2013...No idea which stretch of their anal sphincter they got a $3.91m loss from.

http://footyindustry.com/files/2014 Reports/AFL/Richmond 2014 Annual Report.pdf

 

[Groupie_]

Benny Gale has been double dipping

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Benny Gale has been double dipping

The move into the chinese market hasn't paid.Just ask Dusty.

 

[telsor]

Nah, that can't be right.

I went to the Club site to check and they seem to have removed all annual reports except last year's, which is weird.

On the revenue side, though, we really aren't dazzling.

$46.7m vs Melbourne's $44.5, Bulldogs $41.3

6th on the table of Victorian clubs. Gotta do something about that, I'd have thought. Getting another $3m a year from the AFL after the TV $ kicks in would help, I guess, but is far from assured.

Revenue is a pretty dodgy way of measuring, especially when pokies are considered.

e.g.
Carlton had revenue of $54M
However 'member venue revenue' (AKA pokie venues) was $18.1M while 'member venue expenses' was $15.8M.

Take that out and only count the net revenue (after all, the rest doesn't really add much to the football club) and their adjusted revenue would be $38.3M (Richmond would probably be lower as well, but doesn't break it up clearly enough to do the same equation).

Just as a broader view...The club went so far this year as to issue a clarification statement about the annual report this year...

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2015-12-01/richmond-business-performance-rock-solid

“The way different clubs report results can create confusion but the bottom line for Richmond supporters is that the true operating performance of our club is rock solid,” Richmond CEO Brendon Gale said.

“Richmond includes depreciation and amortisation costs when announcing its operating profit because - in our opinion - we think it provides an accurate reflection of the performance of the business. Other clubs choose not to include those costs when reporting their operating profit.

“By way of example, Collingwood reported an operating surplus of $1.88 million, before depreciation and amortisation. If Richmond had accounted for its result the same way, we would report an operating surplus of $1.9 million as opposed to $459K.

“There is no right or wrong way, we just thought it was worth clarifying the difference for our fans and to give them a level of comfort that the board is delivering our fans a very sound business.”

 

[Groupie_]

Revenue is a pretty dodgy way of measuring, especially when pokies are considered.

e.g.
Carlton had revenue of $54M
However 'member venue revenue' (AKA pokie venues) was $18.1M while 'member venue expenses' was $15.8M.

Take that out and only count the net revenue (after all, the rest doesn't really add much to the football club) and their adjusted revenue would be $38.3M (Richmond would probably be lower as well, but doesn't break it up clearly enough to do the same equation).

Just as a broader view...The club went so far this year as to issue a clarification statement about the annual report this year...

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2015-12-01/richmond-business-performance-rock-solid

lol Magpoos, delusional muppets covering s**t up again

 

[telsor]

lol Magpoos, delusional muppets covering s**t up again

As Benny said, there is no right way...Really it's more important to be consistent to allow comparison year to year. It'd be nice if all clubs reported the same way, but we have what we have.

To be honest, Richmond is one of the worst in terms of clarity in it's reporting.

 

[theflea]

Pretty sure they got the '-' in the wrong place here.

RFC_Official?

 

[Lsta062]

Thanks for the clarification guys. I thought it was bizarre that I saw a minus

Pretty sure they got the '-' in the wrong place here.

RFC_Official?

I don't remember a $3.91 million profit either. It seems that the entire number is wrong as well as the "-"

 

[UpTheGuts]

The numbers are clearly wrong, but the challenge remains:

How should Richmond deploy its now considerable (if not huge) cash balance and borrowing capacity to enhance its annual revenues and therefore its ability to fund other areas of the business/ Club?

I reckon we should buy the Royal Hotel. We were founded there after all.