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

[Darth Tiger]

I counted 178 at that included guys like Mike Mikeleson.
I didnt count the front row and didnt count the few later comers who stood at the back

There were 18 rows (9 either side) of 7 seats so that's 126. Dimma, Newy and the some of the players were sitting to the side and of course the "bridal table" up the front had 10 or so. In any case whatever were the exact number of people there at the AGM, it's ended up that around 200 people have spoken for 50,000 members. Yep the members have spoken  . Not automatically sending out proxy forms with the constitutional brochure kept the total votes to a very low number. Some might argue conveniently so for the Board pushing these changes  .

I have no issues with the amended process - the changes are positive and it is not as if an appointment does not face eventual election scrutiny, it is just that they can be elected unopposed.

If a candidate chooses t oppose then it goes to a members vote - as per constitution.

[RedanTiger]

So why hasn't some of the profit from the last seven years been used to reduce the $4.5 million debt?
The club gets the debt by a succession of loss-making years and when they make a profit it gets spent.

Sorry Redan that is incorrect
The bulk of the debt relates to borrowings made to fund the admin building & pool years ago, the losses had minimal impact on the debt level
Also, making a profit doesn't necessarily equal cash
FWIW last year (2010) without the FTF they paid of $500k of debt on the back of a $2mil profit

OK so after the statement that I was incorrect, I went and had a look at the 2004 report.
We took a loss of $2.194M in 2004 after a loss in 2003 of $882K.
Liabilities went from $6.856M to $8.66M with the main item, Bank Overdraft going from $829K to $3.318M.
Total Assets went down from $8.3M in 2003 to $7.9M in 2004.
Our net assets went from $1.45M in 2013 to -$745K in 2014, which is why the Auditors used the AFL guarantee to excuse us of "Trading while Insolvent".
Figures over the dark years according to the 2004 Financials and current Treasurers report (in $'000)
            Net Assets             Profit/Loss
2003     1,449                     (882)
2004     (745)                  (2.194)
2005     (704)                        41
2006     (183)                      949

My question is: if we incurred a Bank Overdraft to fund buildings (assets) why did our net assets go down in 2004 and continue to be negative for the next two years?
These figures from 2004 raise the question of how our overdraft went from $3M in 2004 to $4.5M in 2010? Is this where the buildings were funded from?
If so, I wouldn't call a third the "bulk" of the debt and on the figures I've quoted I don't think I'm incorrect.   

[Darth Tiger]

cash flow is sufficient enough to fund debt.

Then borrowings made against forward projected revenues.

Refer Bud Fox.

[mightytiges]

I counted 178 at that included guys like Mike Mikeleson.
I didnt count the front row and didnt count the few later comers who stood at the back

There were 18 rows (9 either side) of 7 seats so that's 126. Dimma, Newy and the some of the players were sitting to the side and of course the "bridal table" up the front had 10 or so. In any case whatever were the exact number of people there at the AGM, it's ended up that around 200 people have spoken for 50,000 members. Yep the members have spoken  . Not automatically sending out proxy forms with the constitutional brochure kept the total votes to a very low number. Some might argue conveniently so for the Board pushing these changes  .

I have no issues with the amended process - the changes are positive and it is not as if an appointment does not face eventual election scrutiny, it is just that they can be elected unopposed.

If a candidate chooses t oppose then it goes to a members vote - as per constitution.

Darth, the 3 appointed directors will be on the Board for two terms (6 years) and won't face any election scrutiny at any time during their appointed tenure as director.

[yellowandback]

The changes are unnecessary.

I don't trust Gary March.

The board has been an issue in the past and yet we seemingly advocate less scrutiny?

[Jackstar is back again]

The changes are unnecessary.

I don't trust Gary March.

The board has been an issue in the past and yet we seemingly advocate less scrutiny?

Must be Christmas, me agreeing with Yellow and Black

[WilliamPowell]

OK so after the statement that I was incorrect, I went and had a look at the 2004 report.
We took a loss of $2.194M in 2004 after a loss in 2003 of $882K.
Liabilities went from $6.856M to $8.66M with the main item, Bank Overdraft going from $829K to $3.318M.
Total Assets went down from $8.3M in 2003 to $7.9M in 2004.
Our net assets went from $1.45M in 2013 to -$745K in 2014, which is why the Auditors used the AFL guarantee to excuse us of "Trading while Insolvent".
Figures over the dark years according to the 2004 Financials and current Treasurers report (in $'000)
            Net Assets             Profit/Loss
2003     1,449                     (882)
2004     (745)                  (2.194)
2005     (704)                        41
2006     (183)                      949

My question is: if we incurred a Bank Overdraft to fund buildings (assets) why did our net assets go down in 2004 and continue to be negative for the next two years?
These figures from 2004 raise the question of how our overdraft went from $3M in 2004 to $4.5M in 2010? Is this where the buildings were funded from?
If so, I wouldn't call a third the "bulk" of the debt and on the figures I've quoted I don't think I'm incorrect.

BTW & FWIW the clubs debt is not an oversraft but a commmercial bill arrangement that is used to fund it operation. 

Also when I talk about the "Building" I am not talking about the new builing just finsiihed this year I am talking about the Admin building that the Leon Daphne board started. And it was funded by the JDF & a bank loan.

I can only find the 2003 report but while total assets may have gone down in 2004 I'd would want to know each category

Reason I'd want to do that is:

The bulk building/pool were completed between 2002-2003 I think for memory. Annual report from 2003 shows cash having decreased by $470k and Interest bearing liabilities (C/Bill facilities) increase by over $1mil. It also shows that fixed assets had increased by $1.7mil (total jump in assets from of $1.5mil)

Net assets or equity go down becasue of the losses but that is not the sole determination of your debt levels. Investment can increase debt levels and I believe that over a number of years our debt has increased in part because the club has not been able to generate enough cash as opposed to profit to reduce the debt. I also wouldn't be surpised if the Club has had to borrow to fund that "white elephant" the Wantrina Club over time. I am sure there were some building works out there a few years back as well

If you look at this years gross profit there is an entry for the write back the onerous lease provision (= increase in profit of $520k) for the Wantrina Club. This impacts on profit but generates no cash so can assit with any debt reduction.

As I said profit does not equal cash.   

[gerkin greg]

Have a kit-kat WP 

[RedanTiger]

1) BTW & FWIW the clubs debt is not an oversraft but a commmercial bill arrangement that is used to fund it operation. 

2) Also when I talk about the "Building" I am not talking about the new builing just finsiihed this year I am talking about the Admin building that the Leon Daphne board started. And it was funded by the JDF & a bank loan.

I can only find the 2003 report but while total assets may have gone down in 2004 I'd would want to know each category

Reason I'd want to do that is:

3) The bulk building/pool were completed between 2002-2003 I think for memory. Annual report from 2003 shows cash having decreased by $470k and Interest bearing liabilities (C/Bill facilities) increase by over $1mil. It also shows that fixed assets had increased by $1.7mil (total jump in assets from of $1.5mil)

Net assets or equity go down becasue of the losses but that is not the sole determination of your debt levels. Investment can increase debt levels and I believe that over a number of years our debt has increased in part because the club has not been able to generate enough cash as opposed to profit to reduce the debt. I also wouldn't be surpised if the Club has had to borrow to fund that "white elephant" the Wantrina Club over time. I am sure there were some building works out there a few years back as well

If you look at this years gross profit there is an entry for the write back the onerous lease provision (= increase in profit of $520k) for the Wantrina Club. This impacts on profit but generates no cash so can assit with any debt reduction.

As I said profit does not equal cash.

1) The item is listed as a Bank Overdraft in the 2004 report that I used. This was used to fund operations since there was a loss of $3M over 2003-4.

2) Agreed, but by 2003 the "overdraft" was $829K. The profit/loss in the period (Daphne/Casey) leading up to 2005 would be best described as "variable".

3) If the Admin/Pool building was completed in 2003 then the increase in Interest Bearing Liabilities of $2.5M in 2004 was NOT related to this but to covering Operating Losses as I have said. However in the 2007 President's Report it states "The Club has now repaid its debt in relation to the construction of the administration and swimming pool building at Punt Road. This repayment has been funded through donations to the Jack Dyer Foundation, and distributions from the AFL relating to the sale of Waverley Park."

I agree with the general premise that raising debt to finance assets is not necessarily a "bad thing" however I have put forward an argument that the large debt solidified in 2004 was a result of paying for Operating Losses rather than Asset building and I think the figures bear this out.

[WilliamPowell]

Have a kit-kat WP 

Will do gerks this exhausted accountant is officially on holdiays 

1) The item is listed as a Bank Overdraft in the 2004 report that I used. This was used to fund operations since there was a loss of $3M over 2003-4.

2) Agreed, but by 2003 the "overdraft" was $829K. The profit/loss in the period (Daphne/Casey) leading up to 2005 would be best described as "variable".

3) If the Admin/Pool building was completed in 2003 then the increase in Interest Bearing Liabilities of $2.5M in 2004 was NOT related to this but to covering Operating Losses as I have said. However in the 2007 President's Report it states "The Club has now repaid its debt in relation to the construction of the administration and swimming pool building at Punt Road. This repayment has been funded through donations to the Jack Dyer Foundation, and distributions from the AFL relating to the sale of Waverley Park."

I agree with the general premise that raising debt to finance assets is not necessarily a "bad thing" however I have put forward an argument that the large debt solidified in 2004 was a result of paying for Operating Losses rather than Asset building and I think the figures bear this out.

I take on board you points 

Most important thing is they are finally making inroiads into the debt

[RedanTiger]

Agreed.

Holidays.      

[Judge Roughneck]

2.    To vote on the proposed changes to the Club’s Constitution

Not 100% sure what this is about but I think it may have something to do with this

"Richmond amends election bylaws

richmondfc.com.au 7:22 AM Sun 23 Oct, 2011

At its October 2011 meeting, the board of the Richmond Football Club resolved to change the Election Bylaws. 

Among other things, the changes:

1.    Recognise the role of the Nominations Committee which Committee was established by the board in 2011.  Such committees are widely regarded as ‘best practice’ in corporate governance.  The current members of the Nominations Committee are Emmett Dunne, Michael Green, Maurice O'Shannassy and Henrietta Rothschild.

In the context of board elections, the Nominations Committee will -
•    interview candidates;
•    answer questions that the candidate has concerning the role of director;
•    assess the candidate’s qualifications as set out on the candidate’s CV and in light of the director skills matrix which has been set by the board;
•    inform the candidate about the requirements of the role including:
- the legal requirements of all gaming and liquor licensing authorities, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Club’s directors and officers indemnity insurer;
- the time commitment expected and the schedule of meetings for the board and the committees of the board;
- all relevant policies of the board including corporate governance principles addressing conflicts of interest and duty such as involvement with sponsors;
- and may make recommendations to the board concerning the candidates.

2.    Provide for an increase in the number of words in the candidate's statement to members.

3.    Clarify the duties of the Returning Officer.

Full details:
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/125564/default.aspx

Perhaps Mr RFC_O can confirm?

Anyone more info on this?

[WilliamPowell]

2.    To vote on the proposed changes to the Club’s Constitution

Not 100% sure what this is about but I think it may have something to do with this

"Richmond amends election bylaws

richmondfc.com.au 7:22 AM Sun 23 Oct, 2011

At its October 2011 meeting, the board of the Richmond Football Club resolved to change the Election Bylaws. 

Among other things, the changes:

1.    Recognise the role of the Nominations Committee which Committee was established by the board in 2011.  Such committees are widely regarded as ‘best practice’ in corporate governance.  The current members of the Nominations Committee are Emmett Dunne, Michael Green, Maurice O'Shannassy and Henrietta Rothschild.

In the context of board elections, the Nominations Committee will -
•    interview candidates;
•    answer questions that the candidate has concerning the role of director;
•    assess the candidate’s qualifications as set out on the candidate’s CV and in light of the director skills matrix which has been set by the board;
•    inform the candidate about the requirements of the role including:
- the legal requirements of all gaming and liquor licensing authorities, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Club’s directors and officers indemnity insurer;
- the time commitment expected and the schedule of meetings for the board and the committees of the board;
- all relevant policies of the board including corporate governance principles addressing conflicts of interest and duty such as involvement with sponsors;
- and may make recommendations to the board concerning the candidates.

2.    Provide for an increase in the number of words in the candidate's statement to members.

3.    Clarify the duties of the Returning Officer.

Full details:
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/125564/default.aspx

Perhaps Mr RFC_O can confirm?

Anyone more info on this?

It was nearly 3 years ago and you ask now

Well documented at the time that all the changes went through. Nominations committee, board appointed directors etc. all went through. On the night 4 people voted against it everyone else voted in favour

So what's your point of dragging it up now 

[Chuck17]

LMAO

[Judge Roughneck]

Has Henriette Rothschild ever been on the boars of directors?