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

[A Living God]

Profit means shit all.

Revenue is the more important figure.

Why is revenue so important? If you own a pub that has a turnover $2 million but doesn't make a profit, how is this helpfully to the club?

 

[Hawkers Hero]

Rididculous statement as Carlton pay 100% of the salary cap, just as Collingwood do, it is only the Kangaroos and Doggies who don't.. It's just apity we paid 110% of the cap a few years ago or else we would never have got oursleves in the shambles we have been in five years.

I honestly cannot believe that the players at your team (prior to Judd) are worth 90% of the cap let alone 100%

And for the record, the Hawks only paid 94% this year due to the number of young kids still on their first or second contract. Its good work by the club to make sure we have room when Franklin, Roughead, Lewis etc all come up for a new contract.

 

[Bloben]

Why is revenue so important? If you own a pub that has a turnover $2 million but doesn't make a profit, how is this helpfully to the club?

A club should make a profit because that way they can stay financially viable, however no club should make over $2-3 million profit. Any increases in revenue from that point should relate directly to an increase in football department expenditure - coaching, development, facilities etc.

Therefore profits don't actually indicate how well a club is going, only that it is viable. Many commercial organisations exist to make profit, football clubs exist to win games of football.

 

[JeffDunne]

I think it's pretty clear why they are recording this result :

- $mil from Dick's suppliers.
- Visy footing the bill for increased staff numbers
- Revenue from the AFL up a whopping $2.8m
- An interest free loan of $1.5m
- The AFL going guarantor to transfer their $5m debt from the NAB
- An $800K increase in income from memberships & reserved seating

 

[Pubo]

Let's compare audit reports.

 

[Bloben]

And this applies to all clubs. I'm suss about anything businessmen and women say. On face value it looks OK. Only auditors would ever know the truth.

My being suss is more on the speed in turn around when I can't really see a reason for such a turn around.

Think about the Chinese Womens Swimming Team. They were never contenders however at one certain world championship they dominated... This would have been different if they had gradually become more and more competitive however such massive change in ability without any reason for it is suspicious.

There may be a very valid reason for your turnaround but I just can't see where it is coming from. If you know please enlighten me

 

[gandaal]

I think it's pretty clear why they are recording this result :

- $mil from Dick's suppliers.
- Visy footing the bill for increased staff numbers
- Revenue from the AFL up a whopping $2.8m
- An interest free loan of $1.5m
- The AFL going guarantor to transfer their $5m debt from the NAB
- An $800K increase in income from memberships & reserved seating

Can't read?

Swann added a special loan from the league was not part of the profit result.

 

[A Living God]

A club should make a profit because that way they can stay financially viable, however no club should make over $2-3 million profit. Any increases in revenue from that point should relate directly to an increase in football department expenditure - coaching, development, facilities etc.

Therefore profits don't actually indicate how well a club is going, only that it is viable. Many commercial organisations exist to make profit, football clubs exist to win games of football.

A clubs should be making a profit, has postive cash flows and an increasing net assest postion to stay finanically healthy.

Profit alone is a better measure than revenue as without knowing where the revenue is coming from and the expenses incurred in generating that revenue.

1. The club owns $10 million worth of shares, annual dividend from the shares is $2 million.
2. The clubs owns $10 million worth of pubs/hotels, revenue generated is $15 million with operating expenses of $13 million.
In which case is the club better off, according to smiddaz123 it is situation 2 becuase it has higher revenue.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think it's pretty clear why they are recording this result :

- $mil from Dick's suppliers.
- Visy footing the bill for increased staff numbers
- Revenue from the AFL up a whopping $2.8m
- An interest free loan of $1.5m
- The AFL going guarantor to transfer their $5m debt from the NAB
- An $800K increase in income from memberships & reserved seating

So much for objectivity JD. An opportunity to either bow out or say 'good on them for turning a profit, regardless of how they go about it', and instead you just fire away from the gallery as usual.

Anything good news about Carlton irks you no end and you seem incapable of realising that it isn't just a matter of Pratt propping the club up but that we are actually putting building blocks in place.

How do you explain the new sponsorships we will have in 08? Charity? No, we turned our operations around and look like a viable club again. Perish the thought huh?

 

[JeffDunne]

Can't read?

Yes I can. Maybe you should try it sometime.

I wasn't talking just the P&L, I was talking about the entire financial report.

 

[JeffDunne]

So much for objectivity JD. An opportunity to either bow out or say 'good on them for turning a profit, regardless of how they go about it', and instead you just fire away from the gallery as usual.

I did?

My god you lot are paranoid.

Anything good news about Carlton irks you no end and you seem incapable of realising that it isn't just a matter of Pratt propping the club up but that we are actually putting building blocks in place.

LOL.

Yeah, Dick's had nothing to do with the result.

How do you explain the new sponsorships we will have in 08? Charity? No, we turned our operations around and look like a viable club again. Perish the thought huh?

I've said plenty of times before ODN that I'm wrapped Dick's finally helping to clean up the mess he created.

Don't kid yourself though that any of this would have happened without him. The board you were left with would have been an unworkable rabble if Elliott hadn't convinced Dick to step in.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yes I can. Maybe you should try it sometime.

I wasn't talking just the P&L, I was talking about the entire financial report.

This thread was about the profit JD and you replied that it is pretty obvious why we are recording this result. The result is a $2.94m profit.

Perhaps you should be a little clearer in exactly what it is you are saying?

 

[Bloben]

A clubs should be making a profit, has postive cash flows and an increasing net assest postion to stay finanically healthy.

Profit alone is a better measure than revenue as without knowing where the revenue is coming from and the expenses incurred in generating that revenue.

1. The club owns $10 million worth of shares, annual dividend from the shares is $2 million.
2. The clubs owns $10 million worth of pubs/hotels, revenue generated is $15 million with operating expenses of $13 million.
In which case is the club better off, according to smiddaz123 it is situation 1 becuase it has higher revenue.

I see your point but think you meant situation 2 as it makes $15M revenue but the same $2M as option 1.

Clubs do invest to generate income that they can use on their football department and there is no difference between the 2 points above as they would generate the same income (although they are some good shares ).

Total turn around of the entire football club is different though. My point is making extra profit from investments in pubs and co is great but should be spent directly on footballing activities. Therefore an overall profit for the football club, not the investment, is not as important as how much the club spends on its footballing department.

 

[RoK]

A club should make a profit because that way they can stay financially viable, however no club should make over $2-3 million profit. Any increases in revenue from that point should relate directly to an increase in football department expenditure - coaching, development, facilities etc.

Therefore profits don't actually indicate how well a club is going, only that it is viable. Many commercial organisations exist to make profit, football clubs exist to win games of football.

A few years ago a CEO from The Bombers was on MMM talking with Eddie and Eddie asked whets more important to you profit or flags and he said you have to be alive to win a flag so profit.Eddie agreed with him and said a viable club is the most important thing.The CEO from Ess then went on to say that Fitzroy & University could not win any more flags.

So if West Coast or The Pies dont win another flag for 50 years one thing is for sure they will still be around

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I did?

My god you lot are paranoid.

Of course you did.

Yeah, Dick's had nothing to do with the result.

What are you reading? Dick has something to do with the result, in fact he has a lot to do with the result. It is not just a matter of opening his wallet though. He has stated repeatedly he was going to put a business plan in place, a bit of structure in place, to enable the club to flourish long after he is gone. He has been true to his word. Our debt is still there but it is the building blocks that are growing the business. Revenue streams increased, right people on board, new sponsors, more work on the brand. It is not that simplistic as just being bailed out.

I've said plenty of times before ODN that I'm wrapped Dick's finally helping to clean up the mess he created.

Don't kid yourself though that any of this would have happened without him. The board you were left with would have been an unworkable rabble if Elliott hadn't convinced Dick to step in.

Not disputing that. Pratt is held in high regard by the club and the business world (despite recent events). He is the glue the Carlton community needed and he has the business contacts to bring new business in and to bring the disillusioned back. It is his reputation that has done this, not his money.

 

[JeffDunne]

It is his reputation that has done this, not his money.

Yeah . . . right.

I don't disagree with what you say in regards to it not being a straight handout, but Dick has put in $1.3m in cash, has several high paid staff at Carlton on the Visy payroll and most of the donations are sponsorships are from people that have valuable contracts with Visy. I believe Visy themselves are to be a sponsor too.


Dick is smart. He knows he can buy talent. But Dick is also loyal and that will be his undoing at Carlton.

 

[DynamoUltra]

This part was interesting;

As at 31 October 2007 the Carlton Football Club Limited has a current asset deficiency of $7,647,079 and a net asset deficiency of $4,587,505. These factors give rise to significant uncertainty about the ability of the company to continue to operate as a going concern.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This part was interesting;

Standard letter put out the last few years, indicating our assets and revenue don't meet our debt ... yet. It improved quite a lot though. People wonder how we can trade while technically insolvent and it is the AFL underwriting of 16 clubs and potential for future earnings that do it.

The job is not done, we have only been turning it around for one year. We will almost be free next year but probably guaranteed to be debt free and bringing in massive revenue after 2009. It is not a quick fix which flies in the face of those who say Pratt's involvement is all about his money. He could have paid our debt out and walked away but he knows the debt would return unless he taught us how to maintain it.

 

[DynamoUltra]

And how much of that came from the Tasmanian Government? And IIRC most of the fundraising money went straight into the football department.

(And could you please give me a link to those revenue figures out of curiosity. Thanks)

And how much of your profit comes from your sponsors? Seriously, that was a very ordinary statement on your behalf, considering every club has sponsors whose sponsorship dollars contribute to the revenue of the club.

 

[FuManchu]

Rididculous statement as Carlton pay 100% of the salary cap, just as Collingwood do, it is only the Kangaroos and Doggies who don't.. It's just apity we paid 110% of the cap a few years ago or else we would never have got oursleves in the shambles we have been in five years.

you paid that lot 100% of the cap????

your joking me

This is a bigger fraud than Pratt's efforts

 

[AlecDuncan]

People wonder how we can trade while technically insolvent and it is the AFL underwriting of 16 clubs and potential for future earnings that do it.

We're not "technically insolvent" until we fail to make our interest payments on time. A business isn't prevented from trading just because its debt is bigger than its assets. That might prevent it from borrowing money, but that's another issue. As long as the company can pay its bills when they're due it's solvent.

 

[FuManchu]

Yeah . . . right.

I don't disagree with what you say in regards to it not being a straight handout, but Dick has put in $1.3m in cash, has several high paid staff at Carlton on the Visy payroll and most of the donations are sponsorships are from people that have valuable contracts with Visy. I believe Visy themselves are to be a sponsor too.


Dick is smart. He knows he can buy talent. But Dick is also loyal and that will be his undoing at Carlton.

In other words, there is a false profit at Carlton in that if Dick were to cark it tomorrow and jeannie decided that the club was beneath her (as she is a highly strung person who has a personal assistant who travels with her, to clean any toilet Jeannie is about to use), then carlton would be back in the land of reality and having to pay for admin staff off it's own payroll, not Visy's.

 

[mjonc]

In other words, there is a false profit at Carlton in that if Dick were to cark it tomorrow and jeannie decided that the club was beneath her (as she is a highly strung person who has a personal assistant who travels with her, to clean any toilet Jeannie is about to use), then carlton would be back in the land of reality and having to pay for admin staff off it's own payroll, not Visy's.

You might be surpised who takes over from Dick come the end of the year when he stand down

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

We're not "technically insolvent" until we fail to make our interest payments on time. A business isn't prevented from trading just because its debt is bigger than its assets. That might prevent it from borrowing money, but that's another issue. As long as the company can pay its bills when they're due it's solvent.

Sorry, I was more referring to a couple of years ago, when I think we were deferring these payments.

 

[royals1922]

Is that $3m part of the money the $36,000,000 man took from the Australian public.