joffaboy wrote:skeptic wrote:End Of An Era wrote:We were debt free when this board took over. After 3 GF's and 2 top 8 finishes we still haven't won a flag and more disastrously are now back into serious debt. So if it is all the same to you, I will not back in this board. They have failed miserably IMHO.
didn't we back the board to spend money on football?
wasn't the consensus that Butters and co got us out of debt by cutting costs and it cost us a premiership with a team that was clearly good enough?
one could argue that spending money = why we made TWO grandfinals
Yup - it was all about spending the money that the Butterss Admin had managed to save.
I was lambasted for having the temerity at the time to question this reckless spending that Westaway vowed would happen.
And what do we get last week? Westaway vowing not to cut spending but rely on an AFL handout to get us out of the s.hit.
Thats right, for the first time in our clubs history, we wil join the likes of Norf and the Bulldogs and Melbourne in getting handouts from the AFL to survive.
Even in the 80's there wew no handouts (there was no AFL admin either but thats another story), in the 90's during SoS no handout. When we made a 2.3 mill loss early under Waldron and Butterss, no handout.
For the first time in our history the Saints had balanced books under Butterss.
The underlying belief that the cost cutting had affected our performance onfield due to poor facitities and poor fitness/conditioning.
Well with all the spending over the past five years we still haven't a flag. All we now have is a 1.5 mill loss.
Now unlike some ignorant know nothings, I do know a 1.5 mill loss could be from a number of issues and a loss may not be as bad as it sounds. To fully examine the financial health of an organisation one needs to examine the Bal Sheet and Cash Flows (or whatever the hell they are now called) to see the reall health.
However the trend under Westaway is very concerning. One thing, Westaway and the board are not liars, they said they would spend like crazy and they have.
This is what the vast majority wanted, and now I hear many whinging we are broke. Well you lot should have thought of it at the time instead of knee jerk getting rid of the board.
The issue of the forecast $1.5M loss should be looked at in a number of ways. As you point out JB, it's not until one looks at the full financial report that any conclusion can be drawn. It is the balance sheet, cash flow and the P&L that reveals the full picture.
But, even within those numbers there are accounting treatments. I do know, for a fact, that asset revaluations have been used in the last decade to suit the story being told at the time. That is not an uncommon accounting trick e.g. a new CEO of a public company will usually write off various amounts to reduce the asset base he works with, implicity blaming his predecessor, and allowing the returns generated off the reduced asset base under his reign to appear relatively superior.
Another accounting "trick" is to use provisions to suit the narrative. Making them will lower the profit number, writing back previous provisions will improve it. And, anybody who doesn't think the accounting and auditing standards don't allow some "flexible" treatment don't know how these matters are handled.
There are other matters that could be in the numbers, or not. Does the $1.5M loss include other non-cash items, such as depreciation on Seaford? Is it an operating figure, a cash figure or a full P&L?
So, the $1.5M forecast loss is meaningless at this point.
But, here is a consideration - are the board attempting to capitalise on an opportunity to increase the payments from the AFL? Are they using the figure to stress to the AFL that the distribution criteria used up to now does not adequately recognise the sustainability issue faced by many clubs? I don't know if they are but it's not hard to argue that would be a smart thing to do.
I don't buy the "handout" label many apply to the payments made by the AFL, apart from some cases e.g. Port getting money from the AFL and simply handing it to Williams to pay him out - that's mismanagement.
I suggest people who are interested find Saintbrat's thread that contains the detailed presentation on the AFL payments to the clubs. Having read it I must say the system has now developed into an impressive, logical and coherent way of handling who gets what.
The presentation clearly lays out the criteria for payments and who gets paid under the different criteria. There is a matrix that summarises those allocations. We get extra payments under most of the criteria. For instance, we are receiving money for developing Seaford as a facility under an infrastructure category AND because we are developing the game in what they term a "Growth Corridor". They term the corridor "Bayside". It is no different to the money being given to GCS and WS to develop the game in the "Growth Corridors" of the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. It's reasonable, not a "handout". Geelong received money to redevelop Skilled. Bigger clubs can get money for "Capital Projects". As an example, Collingwood will receive $1M above the base payment from the AFL in the next few years (can't recall the criteria), Geelong get zero.
We also receive payments under a "Stadia" category - that's the Etihad deal compensation.
I think people need to get away from thinking we are a stand alone business. We're not. The AFL is the "business". We are part of it. The AFL seek to maximise the revenue of the business and then they decide how they will allocate that revenue to sustain and grow the business.
The AFL maximise the revenue by doing things like having blockbusters and fixturing the most viewer friendly games at the best times for TV audiences, to get the biggest TV rights deal. Then, having maximised the revenue, they decide which clubs need to be compensated for not having the opportunity to maximise their own revenue.
The AFL then put a number of things in place to ensure all its parts adhere to fiscal and operational discipline. On one hand they specify the minimum, yes, minimum, amounts the clubs should spend on things such as the football department. And, they retain the right to approve appointments made by the clubs. They approve, or otherwise, major capital projects proposed by the clubs, like Seaford. They operate a draft and salary cap, and allow extra marketing payments according to a budget they set.
The AFL control all the key levers of the business, because they are the business. We, like all the clubs, are part franchise, part shareholder, part department, part charity (do stand alone businesses run raffles and have a whole lot of people working for nothing?). That's the way it is. The alternative is more like the EPL, where only 3 or 4 teams can win the thing.
I don't buy the handout line. And, I'll wait to see what the financial reports say before I even consider criticising the board.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
