SANFL Club Finances

[Psyber]

Secondly, the club has recorded a loss for the 2014 year of approximately $443,000. This is a significant sum comprised of both a blowout in expenses and a below budget income performance. Losses incurred over the last two years have eroded reserves built up over the previous five years. The Club’s balance sheet remains very strong, but the assets are illiquid and do not assist the tight trading conditions experienced this year.

How can anyone blow their expenditure in the current economy? Its the one thing you can control.

Ask the state government - they should be able to explain how the technique works...

[Rik E Boy]

Mal, she must have been a savvy-blanced woman.

Well played.

regards,

REB

[bays2011]

Sure clubs need to make decisions that bring onfield improvement, but even as an outsider looking at a club like the Bays, once the club started embracing the Snouts and everyday supporter their fortunes appeared to soar.

And they then went and undid all that good work achieved under the Metcalf regime when never consulting members on the clubs decision to support AFL reserves in our comp.
Only an "information" night telling us what they'd done and then answering minimal questions showing nil respect to those who tip money into the club year after year.

Totally agree. I will never be a member of the GFC again. Members were treated disgracefully.

[topsywaldron]

And still better than saying publically that admitting the two reserves teams would 'reduce the competition to the status of parklands football within five years' and then voting for their inclusion.

[SDK]

Redlegs had a surplus of $170,000.

[Jim05]

Redlegs had a surplus of $170,000.

Im no financial expert but it appears the figure quoted is only due to money coming from a trust account. I may be wrong but appears we would of made a loss without this. Someone may be able to correct me

[gobloods]

Yes that would appear to be the case. However, the distribution pf $208,005 from a Trust to the Football Club means that that club was entitled to receive a distribution of profits from somewhere in the club operations. There are 3 such Trusts mentioned in the Auditor's Report for both clubs, two of which would appear to relate to operations on the NE Road. Might be a good question for the AGM?

[dedja]

Had a quick look at the statements and on the face of it, they look fine to me.

It is a usual practice to separate football operations (football club) from gaming/licenced operations, hence the different entities.

The gaming/licenced entity (entities) are the profit makers, while pure football operations usually operate as a loss.

To balance the books, funds are usually transferred from gaming/licenced to football.

As long as each entity is operating within the law this is a perfectly acceptable and prudent way to run the overall club.

Another way to look at it is to consider the profit/loss and balance sheet of all the entities, you get the same financial result.

I would note the use Trusts presumably associated with the Redlegs Club. Nothing wrong with that except there is no financial accountability from these Trusts to members.

Another comment would be that they are not very detailed financial reports, with just a Profit & Loss statement, no Balance Sheet nor any explanatory comments. As it appears the club has not issued their annual report I'd expect the extra details would be contained within that.

Because of the lack of financial detail, it is not possible to understand the true position of the entities.

In Norwood's case, if I was a member I wouldn't be happy with the level of financial reporting and accountability (if not expanded in an annual report) and would be asking for details on the following:

Norwood Football Club Inc
income:

$208,500 trust distribution - It's assumed that it's coming from the North East Rd and The Parade Trusts, which should be gaming/licenced operations. The thing to note is that there wasn't a distribution in 2013.

$500,000 Distribution Licenced Club - this should be directly attributable to the $5000,000 Donation expense from the Redlegs Club


Redlegs Club Inc
Expenses:

$500,000 Donation - as above, transfer to the Football Club (consistent with 2013)

$308,570 Management Fee - not obvious where this is going, presumably to the Trusts (581 & 583 North East Rd, 137 The Parade) which are associated with the Redlegs Club


Trusts

Explanation of what they are, do and how they operate.

Financial Reports

Request more details, including a Balance Sheet and explanatory comments.

[topsywaldron]

I would note the use Trusts presumably associated with the Redlegs Club. Nothing wrong with that except there is no financial accountability from these Trusts to members.

A man with less experience in the world of SANFL finances than your excellent strategic self Dedja might think that this lack of accountability might be used as a mechanism to manipulate their figures.

Obviously not though.

[dedja]

I'm not going to around in circles again with you. Stick to the facts and everything will be cool.

I don't really see any issues with the information in the P&L. You still need to account for funds leaving the entities, even if they end up in Trusts, so the financial trail is still there.

[topsywaldron]

Turn on your messaging so I can send a little love letter back to you too.

[gobloods]

Agree with Dejs'a analysis. I understand that the P & L's for each of the 2 clubs were emailed to members. The Balance Sheets are in hard copy only and apparently available at the club. Not sure why they too could not have been emailed.

Doubt, however, that they will answer the perennially intriguing question of just what these Trusts do and what is their association or exposure to the NFC entities. I can also only presume that these Trusts fall outside of the mandatory reporting of the 2 main entities.

If I were a member I think I might be persistent in asking questions at the AGM until I understood just what my club was doing and why. I doubt there is any mischief, but lack of transparency is fertile ground for conspiracies to take hold.

[dedja]

Agreed.

Another thing to add, the Independent auditor is William Buck, who happen to be a club sponsor.

Not suggesting any impropriety at all, but probably not very smart IMO.

[teaoby]

According to the email I got the financials can be requested as of today to be emailed out?

[teaoby]

Also Dedja, the $308,000 management fee is to the highlander mob who run the day to day side of the Nor East facility. I believe that it was an arrangement so that Norwood could move its pokies to that address without them holding up the club in court for years and years.

not sure when it ends but i think at last years AGM they said it was the end of 2016?

[dedja]

cheers

[holden78]

Turn on your messaging so I can send a little love letter back to you too.

Get a room at the ATO already you two

[DOC]

SOUTH Adelaide’s front office will be headed by Wayne Peters after he was yesterday revealed as the club’s new chief executive.

Peters, a long-time Panthers supporter, has a background in commercial enterprise and a wealth of experience in the service, hospitality and retail sectors.

“This appointment will provide the club with strong leadership and a stable management team to

ensure our improved on-field performance continues,’’ Panthers chairman Andrew Luckhurst-Smith said.

“Wayne will bring a renewed focus on club services and the fantastic member facilities available at Hickinbotham Oval.’’

[darley16]

This is odd, the previous CEO was the wife of a major sponsor, now another "in-house" sponsor related appointment, why? Is the club not looking elsewhere for the best possible candidate, not prepared to pay enough to attract the right person, it all seems a little wierd.

[westcoastpanther]

This is odd, the previous CEO was the wife of a major sponsor, now another "in-house" sponsor related appointment, why? Is the club not looking elsewhere for the best possible candidate, not prepared to pay enough to attract the right person, it all seems a little wierd.

It's now a watered down position that doesn't need an outstanding candidate to do the role. I think they are giving it to qualified supporters of the club who can easily fulfill the requirements at a cheaper rate, to save money at a guess.

Neil Sharpe has the half of the old position that I'm most concerned about, we don't want to lose him