RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Is that with or without depreciation?I noticed a number of clubs posting healthy profits. Is this partly down to introducing the soft cap on football department spending?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is that with or without depreciation?I noticed a number of clubs posting healthy profits. Is this partly down to introducing the soft cap on football department spending?
Depends what you define transparency as
Do we get advised what revenues are and categories of them? Yes. We know what we earn for our various consumer revenue activities
Do we know for each? No. Do we need to know? Id like to know, nit sure if i need to know
For the rah rah bigfooty comparison, yeah we "need" it, but the club shouldnt be making disclosure decisions based upon a dick measuring contest
Id like to know, but im not losing sleep on it
In April 2006 the AFL produced their 2005 Club Financial Review - Survey Results Media Briefing 11 April 2006. They put up a 13 slide Power Point presentation. They stopped it after this but kept the beriefing going every year for 4 or 5 years in late March and early April once the annual report was made.
They produced these 2 slide of the 13 of the statistical average club. They bench marked clubs against these in some of the other slides. The copy they put on the website removed the individual clubs names from bar graphs and charts.
The AFL would still be doing this exercise, probably having broader categories as the clubs have been diversifying their activities and just keeping the info to itself and the clubs.
View attachment 439224
View attachment 439226
That's an interesting take. And if your mind is not trained on penises than you could potentially also make a case that an enfranchised member-base might be interested in a time-series standardised-breakdown to assess the performance of the board / administration, for instance
Surely the corp act and asic are better authorities on corporate governance and disclosure than the afl?
Melbourne guilty of not tanking
The joint asada investigation of essendon
The self reporting illicit drug policy
Depreciation is a normal accounting expense and should be reported as a normal expense as it appropriately meets the matching principle.Is this report still accessible? I tried to google it...
In terms of reporting of depreciation, from a material sense rather than appropriate accounting treatment, is there a case that the operating profit sans depreciation is the perhaps the more relevant figure in terms of public assessment given the clubs probably only meet a fraction of the investment costs despite the asset sitting on their books? i.e. chances are when there is an upgrade in x years time it will probably involve a combination of 3 levels of government covering the investment costs
As an example, if, say, Brisbane get this $70m "the Reserve" off the ground, you could imagine that the buildings will sit on their balance sheet and be expended over the life of the lease, and yet the club itself won't kick in a dime. So, in addition to presumably a lease payment on the land to the local government, they would have a big 7 digit depreciation figure also on their expenses
I am genuinely interested on your take, and also correct me if my understanding is wrong.
I noticed a number of clubs posting healthy profits. Is this partly down to introducing the soft cap on football department spending?
The legal structure of the clubs differs, e.g the Eagles were originally listed on the ASX & that company structure still holds the legal entity, albeit owned by the WAFC.
The AFL could mandate minimum standards in the interests of footy fans.
This is the original URL as I found a post where I linked it.Is this report still accessible? I tried to google it....
Surely the corp act and asic are better authorities on corporate governance and disclosure than the afl?
The AFL wouldn't need to override any of that.
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2017-11-20/2017-financial-result
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Essendon/Club HQ/EFC - Annual Report 2017 - Digital 2.pdf
$4m in donations from wealthy supporters for further capital works at Tullamarine, a big part of this good result.
As a general comment, I think all of EFC's financial results for the past few years should have an asterix.
Not because they're in any way inaccurate, just that they need to be examined more closely because with the substances saga, the Tullamarine move, and this year the hype about being 'back' there has been a bit of a rollercoaster and thus the results have had a more significant than usual degree of one off/unusual items in them meaning that the headline results don't give as clear a picture as might be found at other clubs.
This isn't just an Essendon thing, most clubs go through similar unusual periods, but they're usually just for a year or two and can generally be pretty easily picked out (big boost in grant money, big increase in spending on new facilities, etc). It's just that in Essendon's case, it's gone on longer and been more pervasive than is the norm.
That said, I think that overall they've come through the past few years in excellent condition off field. You just have to look closer to figure out all the details.
Of course not
But the afl has shown no inclination towards tranparency on his own governance requirements, for everything from gambling and illicit drugs or PEDs. Why you think they will want to go above and beyond on financial reporting? Any bar they set would be well below that of asic
This is the original URL as I found a post where I linked it.
http://afl.com.au/cp2/c2/webi/article/240699al.ppt
I used Web archive but nothing came up. I don't have any copy of a word document or pdf of this document but I think there was the equivalent. You could always use web archieve to look at the AFL website on the date or just after it was released 11 April 2006.
In April 2006 the AFL produced their 2005 Club Financial Review - Survey Results Media Briefing 11 April 2006. They put up a 13 slide Power Point presentation. They stopped it after this but kept the beriefing going every year for 4 or 5 years in late March and early April once the annual report was made.
They produced these 2 slide of the 13 of the statistical average club. They bench marked clubs against these in some of the other slides. The copy they put on the website removed the individual clubs names from bar graphs and charts.
The AFL would still be doing this exercise, probably having broader categories as the clubs have been diversifying their activities and just keeping the info to itself and the clubs.
View attachment 439224
View attachment 439226
I'm assuming that's why it hasnt happened.
One day the CEO might wake up and decide that accountability and transparency should be a thing.
The legal structure of the clubs differ, e.g the Eagles were originally listed on the ASX & that company structure still holds the legal entity, albeit owned by the WAFC.
The AFL could mandate minimum standards in the interests of footy fans.
It'd be nice if they did, but really, it just isn't going to happen.
Also, it's wouldn't be 'minimum standards'...Standards are forced on the clubs anyway by the government regulators. The sort of thing you're describing would be additional reporting requirements, which would presumably come with an additional cost, and for all that we might like transparency, the AFL isn't going to impose additional costs on clubs just so a very small number of fans can compare results more easily/accurately.
The info is all there, the amount of work for what I'm suggesting is minimal, cost irrelevant.
By the time you dig it out, change your software to generate it, verify it, get it audited, etc etc.
Amount doesn't really matter....$1000 per club is a lot considering there aren't that many who care enough for it to matter.
I'd like it to happen, but I also recognise I'm part of a very small minority on this.