One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: WilliamPowell on November 24, 2010, 04:23:44 PM
-
Just downloaded the Financial Reports for 2010 of the RFC site
Still reviewing the numbers but they are good
Net Profit = $2,846,065 (2009: $1,590,755) this includes any funding received for the redevelopment
Profit relating to Operations = $759,142 Profit (2009: $244,245 loss) - this is a very good number. Put simply this is what we made on our own
Caro's Favourite topic our debt: Interest Bearing Liabilities $4,500,000 (2009: 4,912,625) - yes it's gone down ;D
Total Revenues excluding Govt grants: $31,548,552 (2009: 29,979,779) - another good number but still needs to increase in coming years
As I said I am just go through numbers at the minute but on as read so far they are good numbers
Well done RFC :thumbsup
-
thats gotta be better than rattling a can :gotigers
-
Philip Anderson would've snagged us a $4mil profit and we still wouldn't have known how
-
Philip Anderson would've snagged us a $4mil profit and we still wouldn't have known how
I reckon he could have made $6m without blinking
-
that's super news on the operating profit, to be in the black in a year that we came 15th relfects a STRONG business model and augers well for when we begin to make some genuine onfield progress :thumbsup
-
aint that the truth bo
thats bloody fantastic news. I've been highly critical of our fiscal management for a very long time. To see us turn a healthy profit (on our own) in a period of:
development
bottoming out (no short cuts) and
an increased footy department spend (by a huge % mind you)
shows that management are right on top of the business.
Nice to see the debt come down a little as well finally ;D, now that we seem to have streamed our business model into a profitable unit, the next step is to grow our revenue streams in a big way. Obviously onfield success will help enormously but importantly it looks as though our house is genuinely in order and will be able to handle it
:gotigers
-
Can somebody please help me.
Cash & cash Equivalent in 2009 = $14,559,983 Now we have Cash & Cash Equivalent in 2010 = 7,735,074
Difference = -$6,824,909
Yet our
Property, Plant & Equipment 2009 = $4,917,664 Now we have Property, Plant & Equipments 2010 = $13,188,955
Difference = +$8,271,291
So our physical real cash position has come down, yet the value of our property & equipment has theoretically gone up. Why the big difference?
-
Richmond Financial Result
richmondfc.com.au
Wed 24 Nov, 2010
Richmond Football Club has announced an operating profit of $759,142 for the financial year ending October 31, 2010.
The net profit for the financial year was $2.85 million. This figure includes $1.9 million of government grants attributable to the redevelopment of the Punt Road Oval.
The Club has now announced six consecutive net profits. The Club also has a net asset position of $13.3 million.
"We are delighted with the final result given the difficult economic conditions throughout 2010 and the poor on-field performance of our team in the early part of the season," Richmond president Gary March said.
"The board and management of the Club have set some ambitious targets for the next three to four years and this result gives us something to build upon. This result is a credit to the management and staff of the Club.
"The board remains conscious of the significant level of debt the Club is carrying, so while this figure is pleasing, there are significant issues that need to be addressed to allow us to reach our future goals. That will be a key focus of the board and senior management in 2011.
"I would like to again thank our members and supporters for the wonderful support they provide the Club. They are the cornerstone upon which great clubs are built and that support clearly played an important role in us delivering this off-field result."
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/105618/default.aspx
-
Can somebody please help me.
Cash & cash Equivalent in 2009 = $14,559,983 Now we have Cash & Cash Equivalent in 2010 = 7,735,074
Difference = -$6,824,909
Yet our
Property, Plant & Equipment 2009 = $4,917,664 Now we have Property, Plant & Equipments 2010 = $13,188,955
Difference = +$8,271,291
So our physical real cash position has come down, yet the value of our property & equipment has theoretically gone up. Why the big difference?
Because we are using the CASH to pay for the redevelopment. One asset goes down (cash) because it is being used to pay for the construction of the new buildings (Property)
-
WP - would any profit be thrown on the debt do you think?
???
-
WP - would any profit be thrown on the debt do you think?
???
torch - any monies received for the redevelopment (govt grants) can only be used for the redevelopment - nothing else
The debt can only be repaid via cash because they are in effect loans from the bank (commercial bills).
So yes any extra cash we have generated from operating profit can be used to repay the debt. As I posted in my original (first) post the club has reduced it's "Interest Bearing Liabilities (read loans) by $500k from $4.9mil to $4.5 so it is clear that some
I don't really want to bore people with rhe technicalities of accounting ;D but cash and profit in accounting can be 2 very different things.
I got a copy of the "Full Financials" which are much more detailed than what MT has posted because it gives detailed notes on things and I can say IMHO the Club has recorded a very good set of numbers
-
Because we are using the CASH to pay for the redevelopment. One asset goes down (cash) because it is being used to pay for the construction of the new buildings (Property)
I understand that part. But I cant understand why the difference? What is the difference based on?
-
I just want to welcome people to OER's School of Accounting - Class is currently in session ;D
-
I'd like to know how and why buildings on Crown Land is considered an asset since its not owned and cannot be onsold by the lease holder.
-
Because we are using the CASH to pay for the redevelopment. One asset goes down (cash) because it is being used to pay for the construction of the new buildings (Property)
I understand that part. But I cant understand why the difference? What is the difference based on?
It's because assets can either appreciate, or increase in value, or they depreciate. That's where the difference comes in.
-
I'd like to know how and why buildings on Crown Land is considered an asset since its not owned and cannot be onsold by the lease holder.
They can be on sold if you transfer the lease as well, but from an accounting perspective it doesnt matter if you own the land your assets sit on or not.
I wasn't aware the land is crown land. Does anyone know the duration and terms of the lease?
-
So, do we have a lease on the land? Is it transferrable? Would anyone ever want to buy the buildings off us?
Do we classify the old grandstand at Punt Rd as an asset? Hard to understand how that could ever help earn us net revenue. The maintenance cost must be crippling. That is, if anybody ever spends any money maintaing it.
-
So, do we have a lease on the land? Is it transferrable? Would anyone ever want to buy the buildings off us?
Do we classify the old grandstand at Punt Rd as an asset? Hard to understand how that could ever help earn us net revenue. The maintenance cost must be crippling. That is, if anybody ever spends any money maintaing it.
It doesn't matter, it HAS to be included
It will be the same for all clubs
-
It's because assets can either appreciate, or increase in value, or they depreciate. That's where the difference comes in.
Ok. So for accounting purpose we are appreciating the value of our Property, Plant & Equipments 2010.
Is that what you are saying? And we are appreciating at a greater value than the physical cash we are spending on it?
-
I just want to welcome people to OER's School of Accounting - Class is currently in session ;D
Thank you ;D
So many questions... as I said I don't really want to go into or bore people with all the techo accounting things
But I will try and keep it simple :P
First principle in accounting Debits must equal Credits.
As I've said a couple of times cash and profit are 2 separate things
Finally - the Club is bound by LAW to follow accounting standards. Whether we think the standards make any sense is not relevant. Under Corp Law in this country the Club must follow these standards. I've got very annoyed over the years when it has been suggested the club has included JDF donations as revenue to boost its bottom line when legally the club must do it
I wasn't aware the land is crown land. Does anyone know the duration and terms of the lease?
The land is owned by the MElb City Council who lease to the the Richmond Cricket Club who sub lease it the RFC. My understanding is the lease between the Council, Cricket Club & the Footy Club run con-currently until 2022 or somewhere around there.
I'd like to know how and why buildings on Crown Land is considered an asset since its not owned and cannot be onsold by the lease holder.
It can be on sold to the land owner if we were to move as the land owner (Council) would want the the buildings as it is classed a community facility.
Because we are using the CASH to pay for the redevelopment. One asset goes down (cash) because it is being used to pay for the construction of the new buildings (Property)
I understand that part. But I cant understand why the difference? What is the difference based on?
It's because assets can either appreciate, or increase in value, or they depreciate. That's where the difference comes in.
You are sort of right al, assets certainly can depreciate and the Club is legally bound to depreciate all its assets over a period of time. Depreciation is a great example of a expense being incurred but having no affect on cash = a non cash transaction that impacts on profit
As for assets appreciating - this is usually done via a directors revaluation of assets and if this to happen it must be declared in the accounts.
I understand that part. But I cant understand why the difference? What is the difference based on?
Ok. So for accounting purpose we are appreciating the value of our Property, Plant & Equipments 2010.
Is that what you are saying? And we are appreciating at a greater value than the physical cash we are spending on it?
No
The other key document that needs to be considered here is the Statement of Cash Flow as that shows where all the money has come from and where it has gone
But what you need to remember is that Cash is made of two components the Cash held for the re-development and cash held for normal trading. The Balance sheet combines the 2 amounts to give one figure (under acctg standards that is all the club as to do).
We would have paid from the redvelopment cash account the costs associated with the buildings and the buildings would be recored at their "fair value" which is usually the cost.
All other payments come from our trade account. The Cash Flow clearly shows that from normal opertaing (trading) activities we have generated an increase in our cash levels by nearly $600k
On top of that we have rec'd another $1.6mil in grants.
Simply in the course of the year we generated $2.214 in cash and paid out $9.038 in cash resulting in a net decrease in cash held of $6.824 mil
-
The land is owned by the MElb City Council who lease to the the Richmond Cricket Club who sub lease it the RFC. My understanding is the lease between the Council, Cricket Club & the Footy Club run con-currently until 2022 or somewhere around there.
With the statements about the Cricket Club moving from Punt Road Oval it will be interesting how this plays out.
Would think that the lease would be re-negotiated to be between the Council and the footy club.
Hope the club are across all the details since it has the potential to get messy ie prime location, redeveloped, other prospective tenants/users.
Edited to correct quote
-
The land is owned by the MElb City Council who lease to the the Richmond Cricket Club who sub lease it the RFC. My understanding is the lease between the Council, Cricket Club & the Footy Club run con-currently until 2022 or somewhere around there.
With the statements about the Cricket Club moving from Punt Road Oval it will be interesting how this plays out.
Would think that the lease would be re-negotiated to be between the Council and the footy club.
Hope the club are across all the details since it has the potential to get messy ie prime location, redeveloped, other prospective tenants/users.
Edited to correct quote
Becomes a mute point IMHO the RFC owns 51% of the Richmond Cricket Club, therefore indirectly controls the lease
-
Well done all involved at the RFC :clapping. A great result given we were 0-9 and compared to Fitzroy.
The Cash Flow clearly shows that from normal opertaing (trading) activities we have generated an increase in our cash levels by nearly $600k
WP, did that figure include the $800k we received for the improved stadium deal with the MCG (ie. 8 home games x $100k) ? IIRC the deal was signed for the 2009 season onwards but wasn't signed off by the Government until after Oct 31 last year and so that extra money from the 2009 season was to be included in the 2010 budget along with the $800k from the 2010 season. I'm asking as that first $800k (from the 2009 season) is a one-off. Also does it say in the full financials that that one-off payment was in part used to reduce our debt by $500k?
-
WP, did that figure include the $800k we received for the improved stadium deal with the MCG (ie. 8 home games x $100k) ? IIRC the deal was signed for the 2009 season onwards but wasn't signed off by the Government until after Oct 31 last year and so that extra money from the 2009 season was to be included in the 2010 budget along with the $800k from the 2010 season. I'm asking as that first $800k (from the 2009 season) is a one-off. Also does it say in the full financials that that one-off payment was in part used to reduce our debt by $500k?
RE: 800K - I would assume it did MT - the reports don't say. It would be included in one of the categories listed in the Cash flow "receipts from footy operations"
I have finished reading the full financials yet its 31 pages - will finish it over the weekend.
From what I've read so far no it doesn't say what the one off payment was used for, nor should it. It's just like the monies received in the past regarding the sale of Waverley - we don't know what that went to.
-
WP, did that figure include the $800k we received for the improved stadium deal with the MCG (ie. 8 home games x $100k) ? IIRC the deal was signed for the 2009 season onwards but wasn't signed off by the Government until after Oct 31 last year and so that extra money from the 2009 season was to be included in the 2010 budget along with the $800k from the 2010 season. I'm asking as that first $800k (from the 2009 season) is a one-off. Also does it say in the full financials that that one-off payment was in part used to reduce our debt by $500k?
RE: 800K - I would assume it did MT - the reports don't say. It would be included in one of the categories listed in the Cash flow "receipts from footy operations"
I have finished reading the full financials yet its 31 pages - will finish it over the weekend.
From what I've read so far no it doesn't say what the one off payment was used for, nor should it. It's just like the monies received in the past regarding the sale of Waverley - we don't know what that went to.
Ta WP.
The only problem I have with the $800k included in the normal operational monies is because it is a one-off anomoly and so it isn't income we can rely on going forth (even though legally it doesn't have to be separated). Compare that to the grant money which is given as a separated figure from the operational revenue figure. Take off next year $800k plus another $300k from the Royal Oak moving out of our hands and that's on paper 1.1 million quid off this year's total revenue :-\.
-
The only problem I have with the $800k included in the normal operational monies is because it is a one-off anomoly and so it isn't income we can rely on going forth (even though legally it doesn't have to be separated). Compare that to the grant money which is given as a separated figure from the operational revenue figure. Take off next year $800k plus another $300k from the Royal Oak moving out of our hands and that's on paper 1.1 million quid off this year's total revenue :-\.
True MT but factor in the $1 to $1.1 million they are going to get from the Darwin & Cairns games that wasn't there this year and you've squared it away - you start even once more :thumbsup
PS: sorry for the delay we've had no internet at home since lunch time yesterday - bloody Telstra Bigpond :banghead
-
additional stadium monies isnt ONE off. it's an increased rate ea year from now on ::)
-
additional stadium monies isnt ONE off. it's an increased rate ea year from now on ::)
Correct bj17 but what MT was talking about was the fact we got 2 years worth of the new stadium deal money in 2010 (2009 & 2010).
So although we keeping receiving it we will get less next year compared to what we received from it this year
-
PS: sorry for the delay we've had no internet at home since lunch time yesterday - bloody Telstra Bigpond :banghead
Sorry to hear this. Thankyou for your time. I think thanks to you I have a better understanding of what is happening.
-
additional stadium monies isnt ONE off. it's an increased rate ea year from now on ::)
Correct bj17 but what MT was talking about was the fact we got 2 years worth of the new stadium deal money in 2010 (2009 & 2010).
So although we keeping receiving it we will get less next year compared to what we received from it this year
Precisely WP :thumbsup
The only problem I have with the $800k included in the normal operational monies is because it is a one-off anomoly and so it isn't income we can rely on going forth (even though legally it doesn't have to be separated). Compare that to the grant money which is given as a separated figure from the operational revenue figure. Take off next year $800k plus another $300k from the Royal Oak moving out of our hands and that's on paper 1.1 million quid off this year's total revenue :-\.
True MT but factor in the $1 to $1.1 million they are going to get from the Darwin & Cairns games that wasn't there this year and you've squared it away - you start even once more :thumbsup
PS: sorry for the delay we've had no internet at home since lunch time yesterday - bloody Telstra Bigpond :banghead
Ta WP. I forgot for the moment about the monies from the two interstate 'home' games. Although this means we are at least in the short-term reliant on playing home games interstate as a source of income to maintain our current total revenue levels rather than it being 'extra' cash :-\. The job now for the Board is to build up our revenue base so in the long-term we aren't reliant on these games and we can play almost all of our home games at the 'G. If we can wipe out our debt owing in the next 12 months as planned then that'll save roughly $300k or so in no longer having to make repayments. The idea of a Future Fund is obviously part of increasing our revenue base as well.
-
That is why they have taken on the interstate games in the first place.
-
A poster on BF has put together a table of each club's financial status (revenue, assets, liabilities, etc) based on 2010 annual reports:
http://www.worldofwookie.com/docs/afl%20financials%202011.xlsx (http://www.worldofwookie.com/docs/afl%20financials%202011.xlsx)
-
Good that someone has gone to the trouble.
Our membership figure is wrong in the table. We had 42,311 members in 2010.
-
Good that someone has gone to the trouble.
Our membership figure is wrong in the table. We had 42,311 members in 2010.
Looks like our ticketed membership which we used to separate until this year.
-
Good that someone has gone to the trouble.
Our membership figure is wrong in the table. We had 42,311 members in 2010.
Looks like our ticketed membership which we used to separate until this year.
Yep they have only included the ticketed members which appear in the AFL's audit. The club has been smart this year connecting 3 games to the Tiger Insider or whatever it is called now so they are now included. Look out for the Herald-Sun story in early July from a slack journo stating our membership this year has rocketed up by 30% because he/she doesn't realise what has happened. It'll look good in the paper that we've jumped from 36k in 2010 up to around the 50k mark this year.
-
slack journo's at the HUN? Surely you jest MT?
-
slack journo's at the HUN? Surely you jest MT?
Shame on me lol.
-
the bottom line is we are still 4.5 mil in debt. a figure that has hardly moved in how many yrs now.