Tigers Record $2,846,065 Profit for 2010

[WilliamPowell]

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 

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 

[Carvels Ring]

thats gotta be better than rattling a can

[Yorka]

Philip Anderson would've snagged us a $4mil profit and we still wouldn't have known how

[Chuck17]

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

[bojangles17]

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

[tony_montana]

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  , 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

 

[TigerTimTam]

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?

[one-eyed]

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

[WilliamPowell]

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)

[torch]

WP - would any profit be thrown on the debt do you think?

 ???

[WilliamPowell]

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  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

[TigerTimTam]

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?

 

[10 FLAGS]

I just want to welcome people to OER's School of Accounting - Class is currently in session 

[10 FLAGS]

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.

[Penelope]

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.