Tigers plan to be top Victorian club (Age)

[WilliamPowell]

The loans are a legacy of the Casey presidency where we tried to spend our way to success spending money we didn't have on Spud's footy department so we could pay 100% of the salary cap basically  . The redevelopment was mostly funded by the Local, State and Federal Governments plus a $1m or so from the Club itself.

In part yes it is a leagacy of the Casey regime but the club certainly borrowed to pay for the pool and offices that were built back in what was it? 2002-2003? Also, like all AFL clubs they've been running a overdraft for years. Previous Financial Statements of the Club show this  

The loan repayments are an expense. It's an weekly/monthly/annual cost. The actual total amount owing on the loan is a liability. The amount owning  depends on whether the loan repayments exceed the interest charges or not.

Actual loan repayments are not an expense. Loan repayments are generally deemed (under accting standards) to be be repayments of principal of the outstanding liability.

The club is more than likely running on Commercial Bills arrangement with their bank. Most AFL clubs operate this way and reading the Clubs Full Accounts for 2009 - that's how I read it. These are short term borrowings that can have maturity dates at anywhere from 10 days to a couple of years

All interest (which is an expense) would be charged separately. Any principal repayments made would be made on top of the interest charged. E.g if the Club had a 60 day bill of say $500k falling due (maturing) next week that they intended to retire (repay) it they would be charged the interest (say 9,000) on top of the principal. They would then be required to hand over to the bank $509k in total.

Thus endeth my free Accounting 101 lesson for today  

[mightytiges]

In part yes it is a leagacy of the Casey regime but the club certainly borrowed to pay for the pool and offices that were built back in what was it? 2002-2003? Also, like all AFL clubs they've been running a overdraft for years. Previous Financial Statements of the Club show this  

The club made a combined $3.5m loss from 2003-4. I don't recall a $4m or so overdraft before then. From memory the AFL had to basically go guarantor for us.

Actual loan repayments are not an expense. Loan repayments are generally deemed (under accting standards) to be be repayments of principal of the outstanding liability.

The club is more than likely running on Commercial Bills arrangement with their bank. Most AFL clubs operate this way and reading the Clubs Full Accounts for 2009 - that's how I read it. These are short term borrowings that can have maturity dates at anywhere from 10 days to a couple of years

All interest (which is an expense) would be charged separately. Any principal repayments made would be made on top of the interest charged. E.g if the Club had a 60 day bill of say $500k falling due (maturing) next week that they intended to retire (repay) it they would be charged the interest (say 9,000) on top of the principal. They would then be required to hand over to the bank $509k in total.

Thus endeth my free Accounting 101 lesson for today  

Ta for the correction and clarification WP. I wasnt sure what torch meant and obviously gave a poor layman's explanation in terms of a mortgage rather than a commerical bill . Shows I'm not an accountant lol .

[WilliamPowell]

The club made a combined $3.5m loss from 2003-4. I don't recall a $4m or so overdraft before then. From memory the AFL had to basically go guarantor for us.

From the Balance sheet Oct 2002 - "Interest Bearng Liabilities" = $600k - the start of the funding for the pool etc.... 

[TigerTimeII]

we have a much bigger support base than what many think
if we start producing some bs membership packs like say the hawks and bombers do, we can easily reach 75k
most importantly, we will pass 55 - 60k easy just if we start winning games.
we have 30plus k again this yr, after 30 yrs of bs we still have healthy numbers


we cant achieve anything unless we have clear goals and ambitions, well done to benny gale for finally giving us some targets to aim 4

if we fall shaort and reach 2 finals and get to 60k members , its still a win

[Penelope]

3 or 5 game memberships are not a bad idea at all. While some people who now buy a full membership may drop down to one of these cheaper ones, i would imagine there are a lot of people who are not prepared to fork out the full amount because they only attend a small number of games who may find these type of membership packages appealing.

[TigerTimeII]

3 or 5 game memberships are not a bad idea at all. While some people who now buy a full membership may drop down to one of these cheaper ones, i would imagine there are a lot of people who are not prepared to fork out the full amount because they only attend a small number of games who may find these type of membership packages appealing.

exactly and the hawks and bombers memb figures are soewhat distorted as they have these kind of packs

we will conquer and reign supreme once again , i feel  it

[HD]

I like the plan, would love to see it come to fruition, but I think it would impress (or appease) more people if the RFC would step it out for us. They say in 5 years they want no debt, 75K members and 3 finals series to be played in - well I would like to see, year-to-year, how they are going to work towards that and what their short-term targets are to achieve this.

It would seem a less "pie in the sky" sort of hope if they could say "We plan to achieve blah, blah this year which will keep us on target to be $0 debt in 5 years. We are going to market this and this with an aim to achieve 35K members this year which will keep us on target for 75K in 5 years"

That sort of outlining gives people short-term focus that we can evaluate the running success, and overall probability, of this plan giving members, supporters, affiliates and the general public a gauge on our progress during our "transformation" year and years to follow.

Maybe they've done that, we won't know until the plan is released to members and we can pore over it thoroughly.

[wayne]

Last year a half game membership would have been a good idea 

[one-eyed]

You should have heard Rita whateverhernameis this arvo on SEN go to town on us over this. Calling us a rabble club with delusions of grandeur and living in fantasyland  .

[big tone]

Start winning games and playing a good brand of footy and the rest will take care of itself! Pretty simple. Money, members ect....
We are a footy club after all with really passionate supporters.
Not really sure of what i think of Benny's plan but would prefer to let the footy do the talking for awhile. There's been to much crap fed to us over the last 5 years.
Time to put up or shut up!!!!

[tony_montana]

2012 is the end of hardwicks 3 year deal.

The media will drag it out and rehash it in the preseason before season 2012 and put him square under the microscope. They like pulling the strings and mounting the pressure on their target coaches for the year, makes them feel good as to how much of a stir they can create - Scumbags.

This really shouldn't have gotten out at this stage. It's great they are setting goals as an organisation but like hadynd88 mentioned, what are the small parameters and KPI's we will be working towards short term that will indicate whether we are ahead behind or par for the course in terms of fulflling the ultimate goal? It's these small parameters that truly show how serious someone is about their goals. Otherwise its just talk.

btw great post hadynd88 obviously take goal setting seriously. 

[mightytiges]

I like the plan, would love to see it come to fruition, but I think it would impress (or appease) more people if the RFC would step it out for us. They say in 5 years they want no debt, 75K members and 3 finals series to be played in - well I would like to see, year-to-year, how they are going to work towards that and what their short-term targets are to achieve this.

It would seem a less "pie in the sky" sort of hope if they could say "We plan to achieve blah, blah this year which will keep us on target to be $0 debt in 5 years. We are going to market this and this with an aim to achieve 35K members this year which will keep us on target for 75K in 5 years"

That sort of outlining gives people short-term focus that we can evaluate the running success, and overall probability, of this plan giving members, supporters, affiliates and the general public a gauge on our progress during our "transformation" year and years to follow.

Maybe they've done that, we won't know until the plan is released to members and we can pore over it thoroughly.

Saw this on BF. We would need to average annually 10% membership growth for the next 5 years to reach 75k

2009: 47,000 incl. non-ticketed
2010: +10% = 51,700
2011: +10% = 56,870
2012: +10% = 62,557
2013: +10% = 68,812
2014: +10% = 75,693

Of course we are below last year's figure already by about 4-5000. Success on-field is what is needed to really boost membership.

As far as the debt, we're unlikely to touch it until all the redevelopment is finished and we can tick it off as fully funded. If the plan is 3 finals within 5 years then the debt won't start being paid off until we see those finals appearances and the increased revenue they generate in terms of membership, crowds, mechandise, sponsors (winning gives you prime time tv spots), etc.
2010: -
2011: $4m
2012: $3.5m  
2013: $3m  
2014: $2m  
2015: $0

As far as finals go IMO the plan has us a year ahead of "schedule". By 2012 our 2009 draftees such as Griffiths and Astbury who we need for team balance and structure up forward will still only be in their 3rd year. They may click but they also could be a year away from a breakout year. 2013 would give them another year (their 4th) and the core of the team will be more mature (Cotch for instance will be 22, Lids 25).
2010: 15th-16th
2011: 13th-14th (club may want 11th-12th)
2012: 11th (club may want 8th = finals)
2013: 6th ........ IMO clubs have breakout years so there's a jump into the finals.
2014: Top 4
2015: Top 4 and a genuine challenger

So 2010 and 2011 we are still dipping into the draft big time and turning over our list. Pick 4 or 6 in 2010 and a top 10 in 2011. After Hardwick's second year he would have effectively turned over the list from when he started.

Of course with clubs that are rebuilding transforming, the rebuild is not always linear. Some clubs have a step backward year before genuinely challenging for a flag - Geelong in 2006, St Kilda 2007, Bulldogs 2007?. The Hawks were the exception.