Clinton Casey to step down.

[froars]

He won't be missed.
Hardly seen him at all this year - he's never shown up when invited to attend club functions. The MC in the group i'm in said he'd asked a number of times for him to attend and he wouldn't. I supported his ticket last year, only for Miller - but i hope he does go

 

[1980]

Mountain out of a mole hill.

This is a non event.

He should be congratulated for his work over the past 18 months and now hands over a relatively well run organisation which is out of crisis and heading for good times. He obviously has decided that he cannot give enough time to the club. Good on him for making that call.

Obviously he has a business to run - he has work to do.

I only hope is that he continues his sponsorship at the club or hopefully increase it.

And by the way Clinton thanks for going personal guarantor for the ANZ when we were in a financial mess - with out it we would have needed competitive balance funds help which would have meant that we could not have paid 100% of player payments.

Well done Clinton.

Want you mean to say is thanks for getting us into the financial mess that required a guarentee from the ANZ bank. Cause that's what happened

 

[peejay]

Want you mean to say is thanks for getting us into the financial mess that required a guarentee from the ANZ bank. Cause that's what happened

Maybe so but don't underestimate what it means to put your personal name against a $1.7m advance.

 

[1980]

Have comed down a tad since i first heard the news .

In answer to the question , no , of course i wouldn`t . It is just dissappointing that he fought so hard to keep his job and 9 months later it looks as though he will snatch it

I ( and a lot of others on this board ) backed Clinton Casey to the hilt last year during the election which was run on the platform of

"We`ve turned the club around , the plan is in place , we need the stability now and we are in for the long haul".......

just a bit bemused

When all the fighting was going on last year, I posted that I suspected that Casey had done a deal with Miller to get his support to win the election, and then would step down for Miller. Miller has always wanted to be more than a footy manager, which is why he fell out with the Roos.

Maybe he didnt do a deal with Miller, but one of the other new guys. Either way, its politics from a president that proved over 5 years he was good at politics, but not at running a footy club.

 

[Terry Tan]

In all seriousness, I would LOVE to see Caroline Wilson run for the job. She has the smarts, is richmond thru and thru, and would shake these knobs currently on the board up some more and actually hold them accountable.

The chick has got balls!!!!

Good call.

It's about time we got someone who loves the club and has got the smarts. Casey was just there for the accolades and the back slapping. I never really liked him and without Millers support last year he would have bitten the dust. Apparently he didn't even barrack for the Tigers.

As long as they don't get any more Alan Bond types.

 

[1980]

Maybe so but don't underestimate what it means to put your personal name against a $1.7m advance.

Dont undersetimate how half as$ed you need to be to cause a $1.7m loss in the first place

 

[Infamy]

Only he is talking of leaving - the board stability would still be there. If he lost the election last year the whole board would have been replaced.


Big diff.

Bingo
Had Clinton stepped down last year we'd have Schwab in charge

 

[peejay]

Dont undersetimate how half as$ed you need to be to cause a $1.7m loss in the first place

Well we lost lots of money because amongst other things our spending to member ratio was one of the poorest in the league. We cannot lower the spending to much - its very lean now.

We just don't have enough members - we need to get to 33 000 to make a diff. Anyone who posts here regularly should hang their head in shame if they are not a member. 28 000 odd coming off a spoon is ok but 28 000 odd genrally is a disgrace to this club.

 

[1980]

Well we lost lots of money because amongst other things our spending to member ratio was one of the poorest in the league. We cannot lower the spending to much - its very lean now.

We just don't have enough members - we need to get to 33 000 to make a diff. Anyone who posts here regularly should hang their head in shame if they are not a member. 28 000 odd coming off a spoon is ok but 28 000 odd genrally is a disgrace to this club.

Add to that that our inflow from corporate sponsors was at an alltime low, and that we outsourced a cash cow to Craig Kelly. Casey made a series of errors. You cant just blame supporters for mismanagement

 

[Terry Tan]

In the end the old CEO was made the scapegoat and sacked.

 

[itsintheblood]

In the end the old CEO was made the scapegoat and sacked.

No he wasnt. He was totally schyte at football and business planning.

 

[tigertime]

Casey is staying. All the wannabe's who tried putting the knife into him, it just shows you only come out to whack a person when they are down.

You have been caught out again.

 

[IDGAF]

When all the fighting was going on last year, I posted that I suspected that Casey had done a deal with Miller to get his support to win the election, and then would step down for Miller. Miller has always wanted to be more than a footy manager, which is why he fell out with the Roos.

Maybe he didnt do a deal with Miller, but one of the other new guys. Either way, its politics from a president that proved over 5 years he was good at politics, but not at running a footy club.

Fair call

 

[Bojangles17]

Lets put it this way, we are still 2.2 in debt arent we? if we only made a small profit,if not break even, this still suggests what you built is still hanging around our throats.
.

you clearly haven't advanced past "accounting for dummies" cogga, in the RFC profit and loss, I think you'll find repayments amongst the expense items that would have retired much of the debt, yet we still make a profit or break even. If not for the mill stone from 2004 we would have made a massive profit...

Hope that clears it up

 

[IDGAF]

you clearly haven't advanced past "accounting for dummies" cogga, in the RFC profit and loss, I think you'll find repayments amongst the expense items that would have retired much of the debt, yet we still make a profit or break even. If not for the mill stone from 2004 we would have made a massive profit...

Hope that clears it up

Very droll pal

 

[WilliamPowell]

Lets put it this way, we are still 2.2 in debt arent we? if we only made a small profit,if not break even, this still suggests what you built is still hanging around our throats.

No we are not $2.2 million in debt. The balance sheet shows we are (IIRC) $600k in debt

The club lost $2.2 million last year.

If we break even then we remain $600k in debt. If we make a profit our debt reduces by the amount of the profit. Make $100k the debt becomes $500k

Compared to some of the other teams in the AFL (Bulldogs, Roos, Demons to name 3 ) - $600k is paltry - trust me

 

[CoggaRules]

you clearly haven't advanced past "accounting for dummies" cogga, in the RFC profit and loss, I think you'll find repayments amongst the expense items that would have retired much of the debt, yet we still make a profit or break even. If not for the mill stone from 2004 we would have made a massive profit...

Hope that clears it up

correct on the accounting for dummies thing, but if you aint in the game of juggling the tiger books, which in the past has been the sole domain of people like myself at tigerland, since i havent advanced past the dummies part, then can i ask how you can state "would have retired much of the debt"?
I didnt actually see anything official,mirroring such a statement, or any financial reports either, so are you just hoping, or is there hard and fast rules you have to follow before you can make the "we still make a profit or break even" statement, as CC was reported to have made?

 

[CoggaRules]

No we are not $2.2 million in debt. The balance sheet shows we are (IIRC) $600k in debt

The club lost $2.2 million last year.

If we break even then we remain $600k in debt. If we make a profit our debt reduces by the amount of the profit. Make $100k the debt becomes $500k

Compared to some of the other teams in the AFL (Bulldogs, Roos, Demons to name 3 ) - $600k is paltry - trust me

ok, so for the dummies, can we have your take on what the previously reported 2.2mill is and the 600k balance sheet debt is?
Like lets dispense with the accounting lingo, the bottom line is? How much down the hole are we right now?
If its 600k then what was all the 2.2mill hoohaa all about? because as you state, if we made a small profit or break even then if the debt is 600k and the 2.2mill that was being bandied about was the debt, that would suggest we made s%^t loads, and next year we are in the black if we do another 2005? Am i off the track or close?
Why i ask, there is a big difference between s$^$tloads and break even or small profit.

 

[1980]

No we are not $2.2 million in debt. The balance sheet shows we are (IIRC) $600k in debt

The club lost $2.2 million last year.

If we break even then we remain $600k in debt. If we make a profit our debt reduces by the amount of the profit. Make $100k the debt becomes $500k

Compared to some of the other teams in the AFL (Bulldogs, Roos, Demons to name 3 ) - $600k is paltry - trust me

Nothing like an accounting debate about Richmond's books to get WP posting on the board.

There's nothing to say that the board has to use profits to pay down debt. They may choose to increase it. If the bank lets them, they probably will.

And that was the problem to begin with. Casey was increasing debt and not telling the board until the bank called the loan.

 

[WilliamPowell]

ok, so for the dummies, can we have your take on what the previously reported 2.2mill is and the 600k balance sheet debt is?
Like lets dispense with the accounting lingo, the bottom line is? How much down the hole are we right now?
If its 600k then what was all the 2.2mill hoohaa all about? because as you state, if we made a small profit or break even then if the debt is 600k and the 2.2mill that was being bandied about was the debt, that would suggest we made s%^t loads, and next year we are in the black if we do another 2005? Am i off the track or close?
Why i ask, there is a big difference between s$^$tloads and break even or small profit.

In simple terms - the balance sheet (assets (what you own) against liabilities (what you owe)) determines whether you are in debt or not. Currently the Clubs Balance sheets says that our liabilities are greater than our assets so we have a debt. If our assets were greater than the liabilities we would be what they call in the black - not in debt and they call that equity or net assets.

As I said currently the difference is about $600K. We are not $2.2 million in debt.

The $2.2 million loss in 2004: just because you make a loss doesn't mean that is the size of your debt. The RFC made a loss in 2004 because it spent more than it earnt. When the $2.2 million loss was offset against the net assets ($1.6 million) at the end of 2004 we went into debt. $1.6 less $2.2 = ($600K)

In 2005 the club has budgetd to break even or record a small profit. When this achieved it will again taken against our current debt and either it will reduce or remain the same.

Bottomline is our debt is currently around $600K

 

[WilliamPowell]

Nothing like an accounting debate about Richmond's books to get WP posting on the board.

There's nothing to say that the board has to use profits to pay down debt. They may choose to increase it. If the bank lets them, they probably will.

And that was the problem to begin with. Casey was increasing debt and not telling the board until the bank called the loan.

Good to see you too 1980

Nothing like a CC debate to get your fingers a tapping on the old keyboard mate

But you're right I love the old accounting debates and especially the corporation law ones to they are my speciality

 

[sante]

Is Miller staying on???

 

[CoggaRules]

In simple terms - the balance sheet (assets (what you own) against liabilities (what you owe)) determines whether you are in debt or not. Currently the Clubs Balance sheets says that our liabilities are greater than our assets so we have a debt. If our assets were greater than the liabilities we would be what they call in the black - not in debt and they call that equity or net assets.

As I said currently the difference is about $600K. We are not $2.2 million in debt.

The $2.2 million loss in 2004: just because you make a loss doesn't mean that is the size of your debt. The RFC made a loss in 2004 because it spent more than it earnt. When the $2.2 million loss was offset against the net assets ($1.6 million) at the end of 2004 we went into debt. $1.6 less $2.2 = ($600K)

In 2005 the club has budgetd to break even or record a small profit. When this achieved it will again taken against our current debt and either it will reduce or remain the same.

Bottomline is our debt is currently around $600K

so you balance everything against the assets?
ok, so we are ok then.
Pheeeew, thought we might have had to have a fire sale at Punt rd if the AFL didnt back us. Its ok, we could have gone up the road to the burnley st oval for training, erecting tents for the hired gym equipment so the players could work out. As long as the assets vs loss was only 600k no problemo? LOL

but seriously, so all the hoohaa was centerd around arresting the loss factor of 2.2 mill and not the debt? So did we actually make anything this year? Or are we patting people on the back for not making a loss? LOL

 

[WilliamPowell]

but seriously, so all the hoohaa was centerd around arresting the loss factor of 2.2 mill and not the debt? So did we actually make anything this year? Or are we patting people on the back for not making a loss? LOL

yeah the hoohaa was about the loss - the media never mentioned about the debt. Just like the media gets all excited when clubs make profits but forget to mention that doesn't mean a club is out of debt.

Recently I heard the St Kilda Prez on SEN and they asked him how much profit the Saints would make this year he said something along the lines of $1 million. He then went on to say that after they achieve that result they would finally be able to pay off their remaining debt.

Finally, the Clubs financial year finishes 31/10/05 so we will not have a final profit result until sometime in November.

That endeth me lessons folks

 

[Bojangles17]

The $2.2 million loss in 2004: just because you make a loss doesn't mean that is the size of your debt. The RFC made a loss in 2004 because it spent more than it earnt. When the $2.2 million loss was offset against the net assets ($1.6 million) at the end of 2004 we went into debt. $1.6 less $2.2 = ($600K)

In 2005 the club has budgetd to break even or record a small profit. When this achieved it will again taken against our current debt and either it will reduce or remain the same.

Bottomline is our debt is currently around $600K

thank you WP, for restoring some semblance of common sense, we now have two resident "experts" on this list

Weaver.................draft guru
William powell........."The Treasurer"

now we know who to call