Tigers get a land-tax windfall from pokies venue [updated]

[WilliamPowell]

Provision for Wartirna Club onerous lease
                           $
2008          (1,540,000)
2009              160,000
2010              160,000

Thanks MT

So what this means is that in 2008 applying the required Acct Std the club wrote off $1.54mil as a provn against estimated future loss against the lease over the remaining life of the lease. Then in 2009 & 2010 again appyling the required std (which they must do every year) they have written back to profit 2 lots of $160K as they have reviewed lease and the performance of the Wantirna club and assessed that they are less likely to make the original esitmate of the losses

And before anyone starts jumping up and down and saying they are making up numbers. I can assure they are not. They are following the required laws pertaining to Acctg Stds & Corp Law with regard to long term debt 

 

[mightytiges]

I found this on the VCAT site dated "THURSDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2011"

RETAIL TENANCIES LIST

Decision

Ground Floor (for collection) - Senior Member E. Riegler
9:30 AM R203/2010 Richmond Football Club Ltd v Verraty Pty Ltd

--------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone know what came out of this VCAT decision? Did the Club show it was paying land tax unneccessarily and win its case?

[one-eyed]

Tigers get a land-tax windfall from pokies venue

by: Herald Sun
From:Herald Sun
November 19, 2011


RICHMOND Football Club has had a win, but not on the field. A tribunal has ordered the landlord of its eastern suburbs pokies venue to repay the Tigers $125,000 in land taxes that the club had mistakenly paid over several years.

Richmond took Verraty Pty Ltd to VCAT after a dispute arising from the renegotiation of the Wantirna Club lease in 2004.

Verraty's owner is Mario Abbotto, who donated more than $5000 to the footy club's Jack Dyer Foundation in 2002.
 
VCAT was told that Richmond paid $714,000 rent in the first year of the original lease, with payments to increase 4 per cent a year over 10 years.

Last year the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation allowed the Wantirna Club to increase its number of poker machines by 10 to 87.
 
It was reported that pokies players lost $30 million at Tiger venues in Wantirna and Richmond from 2006-09.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/tigers-get-a-land-tax-windfall/story-fn7x8me2-1226199366090

[one-eyed]

Here's the full judgement from VCAT:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2104.html

[cub]

As a business you wouldn't of even written this off? That was if you knew about it to begin with I presume.
So as good as extra cash. NICE

[mightytiges]

It just shows you need to have your legal wits about you or a solicitor who knows the land/lease laws inside out and any recent changes to them before heading into or varying a lease agreement.

If I am reading it right, the Club won its case because when it varied the original 1998 lease in 2004 (most importantly extending the lease from 2010 to 2018), it legally meant the original lease became void and as this "new" varied lease was done after the new Retail Lease laws were enacted in 2003 we no longer had to pay land-tax. On top of that the original lease prevented any rent reductions which is not allowed under the Retail Lease Act 2003 and that also made the original lease void. The only way Verraty could have claimed the original lease was still in effect was if they had put it in writing that the varied lease was still the original lease. They didn't so the old lease and the condition for the Club to pay land-tax post-2004 was considered void and the Club won the case  .

[10 FLAGS]

It just shows you need to have your legal wits about you or a solicitor who knows the land/lease laws inside out and any recent changes to them before heading into or varying a lease agreement.

If I am reading it right, the Club won its case because when it varied the original 1998 lease in 2004 (most importantly extending the lease from 2010 to 2018), it legally meant the original lease became void and as this "new" varied lease was done after the new Retail Lease laws were enacted in 2003 we no longer had to pay land-tax. On top of that the original lease prevented any rent reductions which is not allowed under the Retail Lease Act 2003 and that also made the original lease void. The only way Verraty could have claimed the original lease was still in effect was if they had put it in writing that the varied lease was still the original lease. They didn't so the old lease and the condition for the Club to pay land-tax post-2004 was considered void and the Club won the case  .

Wantirna Club hasnt been a success IMHO and if it wasnt a valid lease or was voided by incorrect terms in the original agreement why do we have to continue with it going forward?

[mightytiges]

It just shows you need to have your legal wits about you or a solicitor who knows the land/lease laws inside out and any recent changes to them before heading into or varying a lease agreement.

If I am reading it right, the Club won its case because when it varied the original 1998 lease in 2004 (most importantly extending the lease from 2010 to 2018), it legally meant the original lease became void and as this "new" varied lease was done after the new Retail Lease laws were enacted in 2003 we no longer had to pay land-tax. On top of that the original lease prevented any rent reductions which is not allowed under the Retail Lease Act 2003 and that also made the original lease void. The only way Verraty could have claimed the original lease was still in effect was if they had put it in writing that the varied lease was still the original lease. They didn't so the old lease and the condition for the Club to pay land-tax post-2004 was considered void and the Club won the case  .

Wantirna Club hasnt been a success IMHO and if it wasnt a valid lease or was voided by incorrect terms in the original agreement why do we have to continue with it going forward?

Because Ramps there's still a lease agreement in place up until 2018. This VCAT decision was just about determining whether the 2004 renegotiation of the terms of the lease superceded the original 1998 lease and made the original lease and any conflicts with the Retail Lease Act 2003 such as paying land-tax void. The judgement found it did. Apart from that the current lease is still in place and will be up until at least 2018.

[WilliamPowell]

Nice kick start for 2012's bottom line 

[10 FLAGS]

They should put it on the roulette wheel at Crown. 50% chance of doubling up quick smart.

[Penelope]

48.65% chance of doubling your money, ramps.

[10 FLAGS]

48.65% chance of doubling your money, ramps.

 

[The Big Richo]

Pokies are great.