$250,000 windfall

[Tony Braxton-Hicks]

The Age today reported that Channel 7 has dropped its legal action against the AFL, and the clubs should split the expected savings of $3.5 million. Eddie McGuire said: "We're talking about almost $250,000 of my money that I haven't seen."

So the individual is bigger than the club  - the Collingwood McGuirepies.

We should invest the extra $250,000 in extending our recruiting network by getting Beatson and Jackson working together, and by throwing some extra rookies as well.

http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/clubs-line-up-for-35m-payday/2005/12/01/1133422047112.html

 

[Cutterst]

Don't want to be gooseberry TBH but retirement of some debt would also be an option. We still have $5 million of debt costing $400 - 500,000 per year in interest. Hard to make a profit with that coming off the bottom line. Geez, I am sounding like P Costello uuuuurrrrrkkkk!!!l

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

Agree with you totally Cutter. They say in business it's good to be in debt, but not when you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest.

Clean up the debt first before we start looking into luxuries.

 

[Tony Braxton-Hicks]

Recruiting shouldn't be seen as a luxury. Football is our core business, and to succeed we need the best talent.

 

[Cutterst]

No doubt about our core business of "football" but once you are in the debt mire we are, you must balance controlled on-field progression while preserving the longer-term existence of our Club.

We badly needed the gym, pool and up-dated admin accommodation that has caused our debt and if we can tough out the next 4 - 5 years and get our debt to reasonable levels (say half current levels), we are home clear.

However, if proper, longer term finance had been put in place, we wouldn't have had a short-term overdraft of $2.8 m, the need for an AFL overdraft guarantee and the AFL now monitoring our annual business plan.

Our immediate Past President implemented his facilities up-dating in one great rush and hoped we would be a football force and attract large crowds to our matches. Some hope with Frawley and co.!

 

[yandb]

load up with rookies and use the rest to retire our debt.

our rookies are a good form of investment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cutterst]

Yeah I reckon yb,. With the donatons from PRE, the Coteries and the appeal to members, a top up from the "windfall" would give us the 5 rookies I think we can take.

Whether we get the money this year or next, I still think 5 rookies would be a cheap investment for future years. You only need one to come good and its all worth it!

 

[dcstar]

No doubt about our core business of "football" but once you are in the debt mire we are, you must balance controlled on-field progression while preserving the longer-term existence of our Club.

We badly needed the gym, pool and up-dated admin accommodation that has caused our debt and if we can tough out the next 4 - 5 years and get our debt to reasonable levels (say half current levels), we are home clear.

However, if proper, longer term finance had been put in place, we wouldn't have had a short-term overdraft of $2.8 m, the need for an AFL overdraft guarantee and the AFL now monitoring our annual business plan.

Our immediate Past President implemented his facilities up-dating in one great rush and hoped we would be a football force and attract large crowds to our matches. Some hope with Frawley and co.!

The new office building/pool etc. were planned in the mid 1990's (well before Casey was even a RFC member) as part of the Jack Dyer Foundation "Vision 2000" project, they have little to do with our recent financial losses and the poor financial situation we now find ourselves in. These improvements are essentially being financed by the JDF and our share of the AFL proceeds from the Waverley sale.

The JDF essentially exists because our club has a history of pouring any available resources into the ever hungry maw of everyday activities - people realised that giving our club extra cash in the hope that it would be used wisely for long-term projects was essentially a pointless exercise - and the only way to circumvent this was to create something like the JDF to force the club to use these funds in the manner outlined in the foundation deed.

The people who conceived the JDF were wise enough to realise that - given our history - the only way our club would ever be able to create the necessary infrastructure was to prevent any incumbent administration pissing all our resources down the wall in the chase for short-term success, the last 5 years again has confirmed the wisdom of their concept.

 

[Cutterst]

David, don't want to get into an argument with  you re the funding of our losses because the JD Foundation doesn't seem to be reported on separately in the accounts sent to members!

A note attached to the 2003 Annual report mentioned $2 M being spent on on new player and admin. facilities which was funded by by the JDF, sale of Waverley and loan facilities.

The balance sheet shows property plant etc (assets)  increasing by $1.8 M (in line with the note)and the loans owed (liabilities) increasing by $1 M and accounts payayble (creditors) increase by $1.2 M. Seeing "employee benefits" increased by $1 M and we lost $900,000 for the year, it seems a lot of our capital and operating expenditure was funded by loans and non-payment of accounts.

Whether or not the JDF was the catalyst for planning our new facilities doesn't detract from the observation that we had a Board  not in control both on and off the field during 2003 nand 2004.

 

[dcstar]

.......
Whether or not the JDF was the catalyst for planning our new facilities doesn't detract from the observation that we had a Board not in control both on and off the field during 2003 and 2004.

No argument from me there, the issue is the JDF and/or the building work being responsible for our "debt". As far as I'm concerned it isn't, the losses - and accumulated deficit of Member's Funds - is the sole result of poor management over the recent past. Blaming the new building is erroneous.