AGM 2011 - now Wed Dec 21st not Dec 14th

[mightytiges]

Interesting question by Charles Macek in regards to revenue this year that won't be there in 2012, and how the club reported the money from the Darwin games in advance and now has to repay the AFL.

We'll find out this time next year if the Club is right. Wasn't it also mentioned tonight something about the Club and $500k going towards the Wantirna Club onerous lease/payment?

[Jackstar is back again]

whats of interest, why did the club accept the entire money for the 3 year period for the Darwin games when they have only played the one game, just to have to give it back to the AFL,although report the all money in 2011 figures.
Interesting to say they least.

[mightytiges]

whats of interest, why did the club accept the entire money for the 3 year period for the Darwin games when they have only played the one game, just to have to give it back to the AFL,although report the all money in 2011 figures.
Interesting to say they least.

Presumably it's an accounting thing. The money presumably was paid upfront b/w Nov 1 2010 - Oct 31 2011 so it gets put in as income in this year's financials. Next year's financials or even the one after that (as it was a 2 game in 3 year deal) should have a minus $500k component.

[The Big Richo]

Gary March must go.

[one-eyed]

All the new boys and our B&F top 5 on stage, didn't take long for us to know Piva Wright is a character! ...... (pic courtesy of RFC twitter)


http://yfrog.com/esnl4xzj

[WilliamPowell]

whats of interest, why did the club accept the entire money for the 3 year period for the Darwin games when they have only played the one game, just to have to give it back to the AFL,although report the all money in 2011 figures.
Interesting to say they least.

Presumably it's an accounting thing. The money presumably was paid upfront b/w Nov 1 2010 - Oct 31 2011 so it gets put in as income in this year's financials. Next year's financials or even the one after that (as it was a 2 game in 3 year deal) should have a minus $500k component.

Correct in part MT

Jack you are reading far to much into it and I don't think you've understood what was said. "Interesting to say the least" = NO - as per accounting standards absolutely YES

Firstly they said they had rec'd the money up front from the AFL (believe this is what happens with all clubs re Darwin) and it been recorded as pre-paid revenue in the balance sheet.

In accounting terms what this means is the amount is not recorded as revenue (in the P&L) this year (acct standards wont allow it) so it's recorded in the Balance sheet only (DR Bank/Cr Pre paid revenue). If we had played the game in Darwin in 2012 it would have been written to profit in 2012 (the year it relates) but because it is sitting in the balance sheet it will have no impact on the P&L in 2012 (that is it wont recude our bottom line by $500k)

Nothing sneaky here - just requirements by Acct standards which the club is bound 

That ends OERs accounting lesson for today and that's hopefully the last one for 2011 

[Jackstar is back again]

All good WP

[Jackstar is back again]

Gary March must go.

He has , overseas

[Penelope]

 

[Dubstep Dookie]

March is ok.

Clearly he has been overseas for some weeks now for important reasons. Its not uncommon across organisations and authorities for this to occur.

Give the guy a break, and save any comments for him in person. 

[Jackstar is back again]

Already have spoken in person .when he isn't overseas on holidays.he is a regular at the middle park hotel.you lead organizations by example.for the vice president to say last night that he was overseas on holidays and business was seen as poor.wouldn't happen at Collingwood

[RedanTiger]

71 proxies rec'd. Of which 69 of them gave their votes to the Chairman who voted the in favour.

2 other proxies rec'd note giving their vote to the chairman 

As soon as I heard 69 proxies in favour I knew it would (sadly) go through

So I gave my proxy to a member to vote against the motion.
There was only ONE more proxy vote against.   .
Anybody care to admit they were the only other proxy vote?

Of the 69 cast by the Chair, they ALL gave him the right to vote as he saw fit (ie FOR the motion.) and not one chose to vote against.   

[WilliamPowell]

Of the 69 cast by the Chair, they ALL gave him the right to vote as he saw fit (ie FOR the motion.) and not one chose to vote against.   

yep that's how it went down Redan

As I said - as soon as I heard the chair had 69 proxies I knew the amendments would go through

[gerkin greg]

I knew as soon as they announced the amendment that it would pass. Not hard for the board to lobby enough members into giving their proxy to the chair

[Jackstar is back again]

whats the real issue here and going by the age of the attendees is that most would have no idea of whats going on
Interesting that 3 people voted against and those 3 people post on this site
I sat down the back and when they requested who voted for, the officials at the front put there hand up and it was like a 'Mexican wave "" to the back of the room,
Like follow the lost sheep.LOL
Charles Macek was the only one that took that to task about the financials.
Seen him on the way out, congratulated him on having enough balls out of the 200 odd attendees