Carlton's colossal $2.94 Million profit- take that doubters!

[frankc]

I thought we were talking about the surrounding land and the grandstand? Ok, tell me how HFC acquired these as an asset when they originally belonged to the AFL? Did HFC purchase the land and buildings?

The HFC purchased the oval and two-third of the space in the buildings (the remaining Grandstand) for $1 from Mirvac (who purchased the entire waverly park site originally from the AFL). The reason for the nominal amount is that Hawthorn wanted to fit the buildings out.

The oval and buildings are an asset of the club which can be sold, used and borrowings, sub-let etc etc in any way the club deems fit. It is not a leasehold, but a freehold.

There is no creative accounting here to make the HFC's balance sheet look good. It is a bona fide transaction not subject to any end unless the club itself decides the sell the oval and/or buildings. Also their is no significant debt attached, the club has over 90% equity in this asset (i.e. the secured debt over the asset represents less than 10% of its book value).

 

[mediumsizered]

To any side 3 years without finals is an eternity. To Carlton it is accepted. You have a losing culture. Talk all you want about history but Carlton is defined by its recent history. That history involves cheating to win or losing. I would love to see Carlton successful again and for a real rivalry to exist between our clubs. But I fear your acceptance of failure will prevent this. Unless this changes all we have is the same rivalry that a 15 year old boy has with his 10 year old brother - plenty of competetive hatred but, in the end, no contest.

What a nice, convenient little comment. Carlton are defined by their history dating back more than 140 years, just as all the other teams are defined by their entire histories. Is Australia as a country defined by its recent history or by its history since first settlement in 1788?

Yes we have been extremely unsuccessful for the last 6 seasons, but those 6 seasons don't even go close to defining our history, they are an unfortunate era, similar to unsuccessful eras enjoyed in the past by all of the original VFL clubs.

 

[The Fireman]

What a nice, convenient little comment. Carlton are defined by their history dating back more than 140 years, just as all the other teams are defined by their entire histories. Is Australia as a country defined by its recent history or by its history since first settlement in 1788?

Yes we have been extremely unsuccessful for the last 6 seasons, but those 6 seasons don't even go close to defining our history, they are an unfortunate era, similar to unsuccessful eras enjoyed in the past by all of the original VFL clubs.

The history of a Country or organization etc is defined by by certain attributes , unfortunately for Carlton the attribute of dishonesty is a hard one to shake, it's the one attribute that people find hard to forget. Including the throwing of games even by innuendo will stick as people remember the Carlton cheer quad cheering opposition goals.
For EG. Homer Simpson once called the French "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" Comical I know but something that will stick despite the sands of time.

 

[memberforever]

The HFC purchased the oval and two-third of the space in the buildings (the remaining Grandstand) for $1 from Mirvac (who purchased the entire waverly park site originally from the AFL). The reason for the nominal amount is that Hawthorn wanted to fit the buildings out.

The oval and buildings are an asset of the club which can be sold, used and borrowings, sub-let etc etc in any way the club deems fit. It is not a leasehold, but a freehold.

There is no creative accounting here to make the HFC's balance sheet look good. It is a bona fide transaction not subject to any end unless the club itself decides the sell the oval and/or buildings. Also their is no significant debt attached, the club has over 90% equity in this asset (i.e. the secured debt over the asset represents less than 10% of its book value).

Thanks for the explanation.

Therefore, the nominal amount of $1 for assets worth millions is either a donation or a hand out?? To me its no different than the government or any other organization "GIVING", just like Carlton was given $2 million by wealthy supporters or the Doggies were given money to develop Whitten Oval.

Thank you Frankc , you have backed up what I have been saying all along in this thread.

 

[Crow-mo]

Yes it is champ. Take alook at the balance sheet and we have positive net assets of $6.8 million, all due to the funds we have received and turned into assets.

jesus, talk about not understanding the point.

the right to use the asset is not the same as the right to dispose of it, and thereby realise it's worth. I wouldn't expect someone like you to know WHAT the difference is, but at least you could show the brains to understand that there IS a difference.

 

[frankc]

Thanks for the explanation.

Therefore, the nominal amount of $1 for assets worth millions is either a donation or a hand out?? To me its no different than the government or any other organization "GIVING", just like Carlton was given $2 million by wealthy supporters or the Doggies were given money to develop Whitten Oval.

Thank you Frankc , you have backed up what I have been saying all along in this thread.

You are missing the point, Hawthorn have paid for all the fit out of the training facilities which cost the club circa $1.5 million. They have also spent a further $500k on making the oval 'drought proof'. Therefore, we have recieved no charity whatsover.

Mirvac is a public company and would have profited from this deal to the extent that they did not have to pay for the fit out of the parts of the grandstand Hawthorn acquired, nor did they pay for the drougt proofing of the oval. This was an arrangement the club delibrately sought as it wanted to fit the grandstand out to its own specifics, not let Mirvac do it and pay Mirvac for the privledge.

Therefore Hawthorn effectivelty paid over $2 million for the oval and grandstand. In addition, the club seperately purchased retail space on the ground floor.

Therefore, the HFC has received no charity whatsoever. We acquired Waverly by sound commercial means - and then paid fully for the fit out. Furthermore, the sponsorship deal between the HFC and Mirvac was also impacted in that the true cost of the sponsorship was reduced, so the cost to the club exceeded $2 million.

 

[frankc]

jesus, talk about not understanding the point.

the right to use the asset is not the same as the right to dispose of it, and thereby realise it's worth. I wouldn't expect someone like you to know WHAT the difference is, but at least you could show the brains to understand that there IS a difference.

This is exactly right. The right to use an asset is completely different from the right to dispose of it. For example, a club that has a certain type of lease over an asset is able to record that asset on the balance sheet but only to the extent of the total lease payments it has to make over the lease term, the club does not revalue the asset for growth and simply records the asset at its lease value and then reduces the value each year by the extent of the lease payments already made.

In contrast, owning an asset outright (which gives the right of disposal subject to overriding commerical arrangements), allows the club to record value of the asset at market value thereby enjoyning the benefit.

For example, Hawthorn effectively acquired Waverly for around $2.5 million, however this asset has a value in the books of over $4 million due to growth. If the club had a lease over Waverly, the value would not exceed the extent of the lease payments over the term of the lease. Assuming the lease payments over the lease term totalled $2.5 million and lease payments equalled $500k annually, the value of the leased asset would reduce by $500k each year as lease payments were made.

Comparing the bulldogs arrangements is like comparing apples with oranges and that club does not have the financial strength to own the whitten oval precinct - end of story.

Lastly owning an asset outright provdes opportunities to use the equity in that asset which is not available to the same extent with the lease.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

You are missing the point, Hawthorn have paid for all the fit out of the training facilities which cost the club circa $1.5 million. They have also spent a further $500k on making the oval 'drought proof'. Therefore, we have recieved no charity whatsover.

Mirvac is a public company and would have profited from this deal to the extent that they did not have to pay for the fit out of the parts of the grandstand Hawthorn acquired, nor did they pay for the drougt proofing of the oval. This was an arrangement the club delibrately sought as it wanted to fit the grandstand out to its own specifics, not let Mirvac do it and pay Mirvac for the privledge.

Therefore Hawthorn effectivelty paid over $2 million for the oval and grandstand. In addition, the club seperately purchased retail space on the ground floor.

Therefore, the HFC has received no charity whatsoever. We acquired Waverly by sound commercial means - and then paid fully for the fit out. Furthermore, the sponsorship deal between the HFC and Mirvac was also impacted in that the true cost of the sponsorship was reduced, so the cost to the club exceeded $2 million.

Frank, let it go, these mob do not seem to understand the difference between handouts/donations, and a legitimate purchase.

 

[frankc]

Frank, let it go, these mob do not seem to understand the difference between handouts/donations, and a legitimate purchase.

Agree MM, however I want people to know that Hawthorn has not been subject to any charity nor received any handouts. When we were in the shit in 1996, we didn't have the AFL bail us out, we had to fix the problem ourselves.

 

[augie]

What a nice, convenient little comment. Carlton are defined by their history dating back more than 140 years, just as all the other teams are defined by their entire histories. Is Australia as a country defined by its recent history or by its history since first settlement in 1788?

Yes we have been extremely unsuccessful for the last 6 seasons, but those 6 seasons don't even go close to defining our history, they are an unfortunate era, similar to unsuccessful eras enjoyed in the past by all of the original VFL clubs.

Australia wasn't settled in 1788 so I don't think you are in a position to give history lessons. Setting that aside Australia today is predominantly defined by its recent history, which I find a bit disturbing but we won't go into that on a footy thread.

Yes all clubs have had unsuccessful periods. But they have generally been a result of financial difficulties. Your club's lack of success comes down to a greedy, cheating culture. You were greedy, cheated and were punished for it. As a club you have never been successful on a level playing field.

And now, after 6 terrible seasons you turn to a saviour who is - you guessed it - greedy and a cheat. Seems to me that you are your recent history.

 

[memberforever]

Frank, let it go, these mob do not seem to understand the difference between handouts/donations, and a legitimate purchase.

Of course we understand that.

What I have been saying in this thread is we are talking about football clubs not commercial businesses that pay dividends to shareholders. Non profit organizations are happy to receive money from membership, TV rights, hand-outs, donations sponsorships, merchandise sales, investments, interest from the bank. It really doesn't matter what you call it, its all revenue. At the end of the day as long as a club can pay its expenses from revenues received, it doesn't matter. Of course, the more you can have as a surplus for future lean years the better.

So get over it, the doggies managed to raise $26 million dollars for a wonderful facility that can be used for not only the club but also the community. The club will receive rental income from sub-leasing to the tune of $700,000 plus.

So, not sure why Hawthorn supporters have to put down all clubs that are building something better than what they have and making more profit or a large profit like Carlton. HFC may have acquired Waverly through some deal with Mirvac, but at the end of the day, the AFL created that by selling Waverly and facilitating HFC to be out there.

 

[bzparkes]

Say goodbye to that profit when Judd's salary gets taken into account next year

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Say goodbye to that profit when Judd's salary gets taken into account next year

We still have to keep it under the existing cap so isn't an issue. If we were paying under 100% before and are now at 100% then yes, that affects profit, but then we had Whitnall, Kouta and Lappin retire this year.

When you consider the record sponsorship by Hyundai for 2008 and Visy giving major sponsorship type dollars just for shorts sponsorship, then our profit can only grow. Our biggest loss will come from fundraising as we will not have a big corporate turnout at Raheen to help with cash flow next year.

 

[frankc]

Of course we understand that.

What I have been saying in this thread is we are talking about football clubs not commercial businesses that pay dividends to shareholders. Non profit organizations are happy to receive money from membership, TV rights, hand-outs, donations sponsorships, merchandise sales, investments, interest from the bank. It really doesn't matter what you call it, its all revenue. At the end of the day as long as a club can pay its expenses from revenues received, it doesn't matter. Of course, the more you can have as a surplus for future lean years the better.

So get over it, the doggies managed to raise $26 million dollars for a wonderful facility that can be used for not only the club but also the community. The club will receive rental income from sub-leasing to the tune of $700,000 plus.

So, not sure why Hawthorn supporters have to put down all clubs that are building something better than what they have and making more profit or a large profit like Carlton. HFC may have acquired Waverly through some deal with Mirvac, but at the end of the day, the AFL created that by selling Waverly and facilitating HFC to be out there.

I'm not putting down any club. The AFL did not facilitate any deal and actually removed us from Waverly when we didn't want to go. Our acquisition of Waverly as our head quarters has nothing to do with the AFL, it was a deal the HFC negotiated with Mirvac.

If you think the source of revenue doesn't matter, or the fact that football is a commercial business your are very much mistaken. If this wasn't the case, why did South go to Sydney, Fitzroy to Brisbane and the Kangaroos are under the pump? If football wasn't a commercial business such things would not happen.

What happens once the Gold Coast drama is resolved - where is the AFL to look next? The answer is western sydney.

Who will they target to go to Western Sydney? Is it a club which as built a recurring revenue stream, has sound sponsorship agreements and an appropriate stadium deal? or will they target a club that financially can't cut it? The answer is obvious.

I have always said that the Bulldogs have taken the intiative, they have read the landsacpe well and have put in place a strategy which will hopefully save it from relocation. This is a far cry from the kangaroos who have been largely reactive and appear to have been blind from what has appeared obvious to all.

 

[memberforever]

I'm not putting down any club. The AFL did not facilitate any deal and actually removed us from Waverly when we didn't want to go. Our acquisition of Waverly as our head quarters has nothing to do with the AFL, it was a deal the HFC negotiated with Mirvac.

If you think the source of revenue doesn't matter, or the fact that football is a commercial business your are very much mistaken. If this wasn't the case, why did South go to Sydney, Fitzroy to Brisbane and the Kangaroos are under the pump? If football wasn't a commercial business such things would not happen.

What happens once the Gold Coast drama is resolved - where is the AFL to look next? The answer is western sydney.

Who will they target to go to Western Sydney? Is it a club which as built a recurring revenue stream, has sound sponsorship agreements and an appropriate stadium deal? or will they target a club that financially can't cut it? The answer is obvious.

I have always said that the Bulldogs have taken the intiative, they have read the landsacpe well and have put in place a strategy which will hopefully save it from relocation. This is a far cry from the kangaroos who have been largely reactive and appear to have been blind from what has appeared obvious to all.

FrankC, I think we pretty much agree, its just my point is not getting across about the type of revenue and thanks for clarifying Waverley.

Yes your right, South, Fitzroy and now North have not had the recurring revenue stream. All I was saying is, doesn't matter where you get it from, as long as you do. Hopefully we can keep the revenue stream flowing and building up our supporter base, is one way. We hit 28k members last year and targetting 32k this, but if members don't renew, like the North ,members, we could also be in trouble. The clubs strategy is to build up the Dogs as the community club and reach out to the people in Melbournes West. Now we need some on field success so that they will stay on board or come on board.

 

[XXX KINGS]

LOL at all the moral crusaders in this thread

Let's take Dick Pratt and those evil Carlton supporters down rarararararara!!!

I am OUTRAGED

 

[The Donners]

What is the significance of this?

Well, it could be argued that it diminishes the "full-use" of an asset if there is a charge on it, depending of course on the nature of the charge over the particular asset.

 

[memberforever]

either way, read back what was said and you'll find the answer more than once laid out for you.

so you don't know the answer? According to the bulldogs financials, we now have a net asset value of $6 million, all due to funds coming in and spent on assets.

 

[RoK]

Say goodbye to that profit when Judd's salary gets taken into account next year

WELL SAID KID NOW GO BACK TO BED

 

[Bluez]

There are two types of people in this world...Carlton supporters, and those that wish the were.





sp: lets see how many take this bait folks.

 

[Magnificence]

The history of a Country or organization etc is defined by by certain attributes , unfortunately for Carlton the attribute of dishonesty is a hard one to shake, it's the one attribute that people find hard to forget. Including the throwing of games even by innuendo will stick as people remember the Carlton cheer quad cheering opposition goals.
For EG. Homer Simpson once called the French "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" Comical I know but something that will stick despite the sands of time.

I would think the most noteable attribute would be success...

 

[bourbons]

Holy crap this is still going

 

[Baby Blue]

LOL at all the moral crusaders in this thread

Let's take Dick Pratt and those evil Carlton supporters down rarararararara!!!

I am OUTRAGED

Yes these moral crusaders lose any sense of morality when it involved their club but when its Carlton then only the highest standards of behaviour will do- tall poppy syndrome anyone?

Even if Dick goes, we've got the NAB guy on board now- we'll be rolling in cash for years to come.

 

[Pie eyed]

Is this thread still going.........oh my....how boring is the off-season.

 

[FuManchu]

Yes these moral crusaders lose any sense of morality when it involved their club but when its Carlton then only the highest standards of behaviour will do- tall poppy syndrome anyone?

Even if Dick goes, we've got the NAB guy on board now- we'll be rolling in cash for years to come.

I think you may be assuming the NAB bloke will get the board to agree to bankroll carlton and if they dont, what is he going to do? Embezzle funds for carlton?

I still think Rodney Adler is your best bet. Its in keeping with all things Carlton.