News North records another profit

[StiffArm]

...........says the person who summed up my view of the NMFC 2019 financial report with.................

I was responding to a pattern of posting over many threads, not an individual post.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I was responding to a pattern of posting over many threads, not an individual post.

Many thanks on your internet psychoanalysis. I'll add you to my growing portfolio of stalkers.

Do you have any views remotely related to the thread topic?

 

[StiffArm]

Many thanks on your internet psychoanalysis. I'll add you to my growing portfolio of stalkers.

Do you have any views remotely related to the thread topic?

Yeah not at all bothered by the report. Basically there was a movement of assets from cash into facilities, and increased football department spend accounted for the drop in profit.

As to portfolio of stalkers, I am glad that at least you have a high opinion of yourself.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yeah not at all bothered by the report.

Bit of a waste of time posting, wasn't it?

 

[StiffArm]

Bit of a waste of time posting, wasn't it?

It was, but deliciously rich of you to make that claim

 

[Snake_Baker]

You're boring and pointless.

Au revoir.

 

[Mav]

You're boring and pointless.

Au revoir.

And there it is, the typical response when shown up.

Why didn’t you respond to my view of your report summary? You know, the one where you wrongly claim a drop in revenue. Oh that’s right, you ignore posts that point out you are wrong.

You don’t have a growing list of stalkers, you have a continually growing list of people that are sick of your constant s**t.

You have single handily ruined this board.

 

[ArchKing Carey]

Good result. Profit figures only are useful if there hasn't been investment.
Club continues to invest with close to a 10% increase revenue.
We also had to pay for two senior coaches in this years and possibly next year's results.
Grow revenue by 10% each year is a good thing

 

[year of the roo]

Wouldn't a chunk of Scott's contract still be pending?

Yeah fair point, I hadn't considered that. Even if Brad actually wanted a lump sum payout (doubtful) I doubt we would have been in a position to provide it. So safe to assume he's still on the payroll this year.

 

[Tas]

So the cost of getting rid of Brad and all the other underperforming staff was $1,069,676, that was a significant factor in the drop in profitability.

Interesting that KangaTech is losing money, our share of the loss was $166,262 in 2018 and $153,049 in 2019. This was the Dilena/Saunders lovechild. I am all for the club to diversify and have non-football related revenue, however, it being a financial drain rather than a source of revenue is not what was intended. I think our diversified investments should be arms-length to employees and board members.

It is interesting how we are reporting revenue and expenditure this year, last year financial report had Revenue from operating activities as $39,717,822 and listed the operating expenses in the Statement of Profit or Loss statement. After reaching profit from operating activities it then listed non-operating activities, which included the redevelopment fundraising of $1,381,691 and other non-operating expenses to then get to the net profit. This year we just show the net result, ie the revenue for 2018 was $40,999,930. This makes it harder for the layman to determine how well was the place run as a football club when there is other s**t going on like fundraising and expenditure for building or upgrading facilities.

That $44,606,593 revenue in 2019 includes $1,392,768 for redevelopment fundraising, so in terms of operating revenue we only generated $43,213,825 and last year was $39,717,822 for a growth of $3,496,003. We aren't fundraising for any redevelopments this year, so it shouldn't be seen as a negative that the revenue drops by that amount for 2020.

This has been a consistent criticism I have had with accountants in the AFL industry who provide statements that are harder for people to read or understand than they need to be. They should make it easy for members to look at the financial report statements and be able to determine if the day-to-day operation of the club is going well without needing an accounting qualification. This is meant to be an informative document for stakeholders and if they can't understand what you are providing then it is a communication problem.

We received $1,392,768 in fundraising for the AFLW/VFL facility improvements in 2019 and $1,381,691 in 2018 for a total of $2,774,459 in funding for something that is outside of the normal operation of the club. We spent $1,270,028 in purchases of property, plant and equipment in 2018 and a further $5,602,321 in 2019 for a total of $6,872,349 over the last two years. There was likely some asset purchases that were not related to the redevelopment, but for the most part the shortfall between the money spent and the fundraising ($4,097,890) was funded through normal operating revenue. This type of information, particularly the precise values on what the redevelopment cost should have been more readily available and easier to read. Those facilities are completed now and we have no reason to expect that type of financial drain in 2020.

It is also worth noting that we didn't repay any debt in 2019 (not that we have much of note) and increased our longer term loan facility by $200k. We also saw our cash reserves drop down to $46,899 which might see us get another article in The Age from that clueless Mark Hawthorne that we are broke. :stern look

Generally we have been well run, my major criticism is the narrow focus in Wyndham, the growth there is not substantial enough to ignore other markets and is putting us at a competitive disadvantage with clubs who have a broader Melbourne-wide development program, we are losing ground to clubs we had been well ahead of for decades to have the smallest market share of any Melbourne club. This needs urgent attention, especially given it is a foregone conclusion we will lose the Tasmanian market sooner or later.

 

[Tas]

Wouldn't a chunk of Scott's contract still be pending?

No, I assume it was part of the $1m review, otherwise if there was a significant expense relating to a future period it would need to be accounted for as a liability in the financial report.

 

[Snake_Baker]

No, I assume it was part of the $1m review, otherwise if there was a significant expense relating to a future period it would need to be accounted for as a liability in the financial report.

Hang on a minute, if Brad's contract payout was dependent upon 2020 employment, and he became employed post October 31 (which I assume is that cap date for this report), then how does that work out?

Am I missing something?

 

[Tas]

Hang on a minute, if Brad's contract payout was dependent upon 2020 employment, and he became employed post October 31 (which I assume is that cap date for this report), then how does that work out?

Am I missing something?

If there was a cost associated to the 2020 period as a result of his termination then it should have appeared in Note 18.

NOTE 18 – EVENTS AFTER THE BALANCE SHEET DATE No matters or circumstances have arisen since the end of the financial year which significantly affected or may significantly affect the operations of the Company, the results of those operations, or the state of affairs of the Company in future financial years.

The triggering event was his termination which was in the 2019 year, he is no longer an employee and wouldn't be an employee in 2020. I assume he had conceded he would not coach in 2020 before the end of our financial period, which is October 31st. He hadn't even been in any senior coaching interviews, I am guessing the agreement was made and the payment made before the end of our financial period, otherwise it should have been noted that it would impact 2020 in the notes.

I could be wrong, but our review was a sham, there is no way it would have cost us more than $1m to basically sack a handful of people.

It is worth noting that the AFL will include Scott's termination payment in our 2020 soft cap regardless which year he was paid out in, the AFL have these types of rules to prevent manipulation of the cap system.

 

[Firestarter]

If there was a cost associated to the 2020 period as a result of his termination then it should have appeared in Note 18.



The triggering event was his termination which was in the 2019 year, he is no longer an employee and wouldn't be an employee in 2020. I assume he had conceded he would not coach in 2020 before the end of our financial period, which is October 31st. He hadn't even been in any senior coaching interviews, I am guessing the agreement was made and the payment made before the end of our financial period, otherwise it should have been noted that it would impact 2020 in the notes.

I could be wrong, but our review was a sham, there is no way it would have cost us more than $1m to basically sack a handful of people.

It is worth noting that the AFL will include Scott's termination payment in our 2020 soft cap regardless which year he was paid out in, the AFL have these types of rules to prevent manipulation of the cap system.

And they also have the gumption to ignore it when they feel like it.

 

[BTRAIN2]

Yep.

AFLW memberships paid for all of this.

View attachment 817967

Honestly, this attitude is crumbling and Boomers (or older) ain't happy. It's funny, people like you whinge that in this day and age everything has to be so politically correct and you "can't say anything anymore". Yet, a new generation comes along with ideas of not shaming someone for the sexuality or oppressing a person based on the gender, and then suddenly, hang on, said boomer (or older) whinges about it!!
You're dying out old mate, suck it up.
Question - If something like say, having an AFLW league brings more opportunity and happiness to a group of people whether it be players, supporters or whoever involved, why wouldn't you behind it.
I know, because you can't handle that you're not living in the "good old days" when we could "call a spade a spade". It's ironic, people are calling a spade a spade more now instead of fearfully quivering at the thought of change. Pathetic

 

[The Warlord]

We NEED to raise our revenue.

THIS is the only key.

Hmmmmm, does anyone know of a huge group of people, I'm talking a percentage of the population big, and a fair old slice of that, who by and large AREN'T into footy, that we could attract to the club and get spending and thus raise our revenues?

Anyone, Bueller?

 

[big_e]

We NEED to raise our revenue.

THIS is the only key.

Hmmmmm, does anyone know of a huge group of people, I'm talking a percentage of the population big, and a fair old slice of that, who by and large AREN'T into footy, that we could attract to the club and get spending and thus raise our revenues?

Anyone, Bueller?

I'm led to believe they are in Tasmania.

In all seriouslyness, though, that is only one way of increasing revenue, and going into virgin territory is hard work, and it doesn't always pay off.
It's certainly harder than generating additional revenue from existing members.

 

[The Warlord]

I'm led to believe they are in Tasmania.

In all seriouslyness, though, that is only one way of increasing revenue, and going into virgin territory is hard work, and it doesn't always pay off.
It's certainly harder than generating additional revenue from existing members.

What if I told you there were millions of people living in Victoria, in Melbourne, who could be swayed into the NMFC?

 

[big_e]

So the cost of getting rid of Brad and all the other underperforming staff was $1,069,676, that was a significant factor in the drop in profitability.

Interesting that KangaTech is losing money, our share of the loss was $166,262 in 2018 and $153,049 in 2019. This was the Dilena/Saunders lovechild. I am all for the club to diversify and have non-football related revenue, however, it being a financial drain rather than a source of revenue is not what was intended. I think our diversified investments should be arms-length to employees and board members.

It is interesting how we are reporting revenue and expenditure this year, last year financial report had Revenue from operating activities as $39,717,822 and listed the operating expenses in the Statement of Profit or Loss statement. After reaching profit from operating activities it then listed non-operating activities, which included the redevelopment fundraising of $1,381,691 and other non-operating expenses to then get to the net profit. This year we just show the net result, ie the revenue for 2018 was $40,999,930. This makes it harder for the layman to determine how well was the place run as a football club when there is other s**t going on like fundraising and expenditure for building or upgrading facilities.

That $44,606,593 revenue in 2019 includes $1,392,768 for redevelopment fundraising, so in terms of operating revenue we only generated $43,213,825 and last year was $39,717,822 for a growth of $3,496,003. We aren't fundraising for any redevelopments this year, so it shouldn't be seen as a negative that the revenue drops by that amount for 2020.

This has been a consistent criticism I have had with accountants in the AFL industry who provide statements that are harder for people to read or understand than they need to be. They should make it easy for members to look at the financial report statements and be able to determine if the day-to-day operation of the club is going well without needing an accounting qualification. This is meant to be an informative document for stakeholders and if they can't understand what you are providing then it is a communication problem.

We received $1,392,768 in fundraising for the AFLW/VFL facility improvements in 2019 and $1,381,691 in 2018 for a total of $2,774,459 in funding for something that is outside of the normal operation of the club. We spent $1,270,028 in purchases of property, plant and equipment in 2018 and a further $5,602,321 in 2019 for a total of $6,872,349 over the last two years. There was likely some asset purchases that were not related to the redevelopment, but for the most part the shortfall between the money spent and the fundraising ($4,097,890) was funded through normal operating revenue. This type of information, particularly the precise values on what the redevelopment cost should have been more readily available and easier to read. Those facilities are completed now and we have no reason to expect that type of financial drain in 2020.

It is also worth noting that we didn't repay any debt in 2019 (not that we have much of note) and increased our longer term loan facility by $200k. We also saw our cash reserves drop down to $46,899 which might see us get another article in The Age from that clueless Mark Hawthorne that we are broke. :stern look

Generally we have been well run, my major criticism is the narrow focus in Wyndham, the growth there is not substantial enough to ignore other markets and is putting us at a competitive disadvantage with clubs who have a broader Melbourne-wide development program, we are losing ground to clubs we had been well ahead of for decades to have the smallest market share of any Melbourne club. This needs urgent attention, especially given it is a foregone conclusion we will lose the Tasmanian market sooner or later.

Can't find who said it but I remember reading someone say recently that modern financial statements are designed to deceive rather than inform most readers. Partly by putting everything into one big line item like "revenue" but also even by the terminology and excessive use of notes demanded by modern accounting standards. Compare the 2019 financials with the 1977 P & L, for instance.

 

[big_e]

What if I told you there were millions of people living in Victoria, in Melbourne, who could be swayed into the NMFC?

Tasmania was a joke, obvs.

I'm assuming you mean the migrant community we are reaching out to via The Huddle (which I endorse, by the way). It's just bloody hard work to get them into footy first, and then to pay for a membership and all the accoutrements that go with it. Compared to addressing issues like membership churn, getting people to upgrade to the next membership level, etc. None of which is easy, of course, but it's much harder trying to get someone to buy the first time than it is to get them to buy a second, third, fourth, twentieth time.

 

[The Warlord]

Tasmania was a joke, obvs.

I'm assuming you mean the migrant community we are reaching out to via The Huddle (which I endorse, by the way). It's just bloody hard work to get them into footy first, and then to pay for a membership and all the accoutrements that go with it. Compared to addressing issues like membership churn, getting people to upgrade to the next membership level, etc. None of which is easy, of course, but it's much harder trying to get someone to buy the first time than it is to get them to buy a second, third, fourth, twentieth time.

 

[The Warlord]

Chicks mate, there's fully heaps of them, and they even have cash now from having jobs which was the start of the decline of society imo when that happened.

 

[The Warlord]

Oh but after one year having a women's team hasn't brought in millions!

Its a joke, a bloody joke, imposed by cultural Marxists!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Honestly, this attitude is crumbling and Boomers (or older) ain't happy. It's funny, people like you whinge that in this day and age everything has to be so politically correct and you "can't say anything anymore". Yet, a new generation comes along with ideas of not shaming someone for the sexuality or oppressing a person based on the gender, and then suddenly, hang on, said boomer (or older) whinges about it!!
You're dying out old mate, suck it up.
Question - If something like say, having an AFLW league brings more opportunity and happiness to a group of people whether it be players, supporters or whoever involved, why wouldn't you behind it.
I know, because you can't handle that you're not living in the "good old days" when we could "call a spade a spade". It's ironic, people are calling a spade a spade more now instead of fearfully quivering at the thought of change. Pathetic

Just utilise the ignore function mate, and save us both time.

 

[krakouers]

Did anyone also notice how low are cash reserves were?...

NOTE 6 – CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS Cash at bank and on hand $46,899
Total cash and cash equivalents $46,899

Edit: Appologies InTheBack, thanks