SA Footy

Dutchy wrote:They are learning form Port to hide the truth of your financial position

Booney wrote:

Dutchy wrote:They are learning form Port to hide the truth of your financial position

The truth comes at a cost....

scott wrote:22 games over 23 weeks would be fantastic with a mid-season bye, but can't help but feel the 18 games is here to stay for financial reasons.

Booney wrote:

Dutchy wrote:They are learning form Port to hide the truth of your financial position

The truth comes at a cost....

PatowalongaPirate wrote:BY ANDREW CAPEL

GLENELG Football Club — on its knees and fighting for its SANFL survival two years ago — has taken a major step towards securing its financial future by recording a massive operating profit for 2017.

The Tigers’ surplus of $681,739 smashed their 2016 profit of $14,278.

Prior to that Glenelg had endured four consecutive operating losses totalling more than $1 million.

The result is a tremendous boost to the club, which in 2016 launched a debt demolition campaign, titled “Save The Tigers’’, after revealing it was $3.4 million in debt.

Much of this was due to borrowing $2.4 million from the council in 2002 to build a function centre at its Brighton Road headquarters.

Members and supporters rallied behind the stricken club and last year the Tigers — in the SANFL since 1921 — struck a significant deal with Holdfast Bay Council to have some of the interest on its council loan written off or waived with plans to turn the ground into a major sporting and community hub.

This included knocking down the H.Y. Sparks grandstand, which had its roof blown off in a storm in December, 2016, and having a grass mound with seating on the western side of the ground.

This is due for completion next month.

As part of a financial restructuring at Glenelg, 50 per cent of the function centre floor space has been leased to the ACH Group.

President Nick Chigwidden hailed the Tigers’ strong financial result but warned there was still plenty of hard work ahead for the club, putting the extraordinary financial turnaround down to some one-off payments.

These included an interest saving of $188,685 from council, a $163,025 payroll tax refund and $412,000 from the SANFL Land Investment Fund while the club reduced its expenditure by $166,650.

“From where the club has been this is an outstanding result,’’ Chigwidden said.

“In 12 months we have been able to reduce our liabilities a lot, whether it’s loans to council, the bank or our trading creditors, to get back to a very manageable stage where we can now run the business strategically more than reactionary.

“However we understand that without the continued support of the council and the one-off payments the long term sustainability of the club would be jeopardised so we have to continue to work diligently in all areas of the club to make sure we continue to move forward.’’

JK wrote:Those one off payments total about $80k more than the recorded profit so looks tough to repeat. Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?

Regardless, excellent news, need the Bays (like all clubs) to hang around and be healthy.

johntheclaret wrote:

JK wrote:Those one off payments total about $80k more than the recorded profit so looks tough to repeat. Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?

Regardless, excellent news, need the Bays (like all clubs) to hang around and be healthy.

I thought that. Not sure what the payroll tax is in Aust but here Employer Tax (that’s the only tax the club could get a refund on, not any tax paid by the players), is around 14%. To get a refund of $166k would mean they must have overstated wages by $1.18m

johntheclaret wrote:

JK wrote:Those one off payments total about $80k more than the recorded profit so looks tough to repeat. Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?

Regardless, excellent news, need the Bays (like all clubs) to hang around and be healthy.

I thought that. Not sure what the payroll tax is in Aust but here Employer Tax (that’s the only tax the club could get a refund on, not any tax paid by the players), is around 14%. To get a refund of $166k would mean they must have overstated wages by $1.18m

Jimmy_041 wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:

JK wrote:Those one off payments total about $80k more than the recorded profit so looks tough to repeat. Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?

Regardless, excellent news, need the Bays (like all clubs) to hang around and be healthy.

I thought that. Not sure what the payroll tax is in Aust but here Employer Tax (that’s the only tax the club could get a refund on, not any tax paid by the players), is around 14%. To get a refund of $166k would mean they must have overstated wages by $1.18m

I would have thought GFC was NFP so exempt
https://www.revenuesa.sa.gov.au/taxes-a ... exemptions
I'm going to ask someone who would know

Magellan wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:

JK wrote:Those one off payments total about $80k more than the recorded profit so looks tough to repeat. Also, how'd they manage the Payroll Tax refund?

Regardless, excellent news, need the Bays (like all clubs) to hang around and be healthy.

I thought that. Not sure what the payroll tax is in Aust but here Employer Tax (that’s the only tax the club could get a refund on, not any tax paid by the players), is around 14%. To get a refund of $166k would mean they must have overstated wages by $1.18m

I would have thought GFC was NFP so exempt
https://www.revenuesa.sa.gov.au/taxes-a ... exemptions
I'm going to ask someone who would know

Probably not a 'non-profit organisations having as their sole or dominant purpose a charitable purpose.'

Then again, North Adelaide probably fits the bill as we've been donating victories to other clubs for ages in a seemingly charitable way.

Pseudo wrote:

scott wrote:22 games over 23 weeks would be fantastic with a mid-season bye, but can't help but feel the 18 games is here to stay for financial reasons.

More than financial reasons. With a ten team competition, 18 games means that each team plays the others exactly twice. This irons out any advantage/penalty incurred by one team having to play better-resourced teams of professionals more/less than the other teams. One more reason to kick out the eastern-league rubbish; it removes constraints on the fixturing.

Of course if the sovereign clubs were canny, they'd see four extra games a season as a chance to make money, not spend it...