4 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Maybe we should spend it on new desks for everyone!!

Or a memorial plaque for Patrick Swayze

50 minutes ago, Return to Glory said:

Or a memorial plaque for Patrick Swayze

PJ reminds me of the Swayze in Roadhouse the way he just came in and cleaned up the place.

2 hours ago, Biffen said:

Maybe we should spend it on new desks for everyone!!

Or blazers!

Has it been mentioned, we made a profit; filth didn't !! 

From the finance report

TOTAL NON CURRENT LIABILITIES 4,724,772 (2016) 5,209,703 (2015).   So our debt is still $4.7 m.

The revenue generated from membership related areas is about $8m or ($200 per member) and sponsorship a similar amount - $8m.  So if we increased our membership by 10K and Sponsorship matched that, we would be out of debt.

I remember PJ saying that the debt was in relation to the purchase of the Bentleigh Club and was considered a healthy debt, if there is such a thing. Or am I making this up?

6 hours ago, stinga said:

From the finance report

TOTAL NON CURRENT LIABILITIES 4,724,772 (2016) 5,209,703 (2015).   So our debt is still $4.7 m.

The revenue generated from membership related areas is about $8m or ($200 per member) and sponsorship a similar amount - $8m.  So if we increased our membership by 10K and Sponsorship matched that, we would be out of debt.

We'd probably just spend more on Footy Dept before paying down loans. Some debt that we can service is fine, we don't need to be totally debt free but it sounds nice.

51 minutes ago, Tough Kent said:

I remember PJ saying that the debt was in relation to the purchase of the Bentleigh Club and was considered a healthy debt, if there is such a thing. Or am I making this up?

No, you are not making it up TK.

In general terms, the domestic equivalent is:  good debt - a loan to buy assets eg car, house.  Bad debt:  a loan to pay every day living expenses.

The  $4.7m is an 'operating facility' which can be drawn down at any time, so it sits somewhere between the 'good' and 'bad' debt.  But what makes it a 'good' debt is the assets the club holds.  Our Total Liabilities were: $12.6m and our Total Assets were: $17.4m so we are well and truly in the black.  The Assets includes $8.7m for Land, presumably the Bentleigh Club premises.  Interestingly, the land has not been been revalued in the last year and given what has happened to Bentleigh real estate in the last year it would be worth a lot more than $8.7.  So, yes the $4.7 is healthy debt.

On the subject of debt.  As long as debt is in line with assets it is a good thing, especially in the low interest rate environment of recent years.  I wouldn't be in any hurry to pay down the $4.7, unless I had spare cash earning close to zero interest. 

On my reading we are in a really stable financial position and have the potential to become a really solid club.  Not only has PJ turned us around he is creating a sustainable financial foundation for us to be really strong again, in our right, independent of handouts. 

 

 

20 hours ago, billy2803 said:

I'm actually amazed that some people haven't asked to scrap the NT deal completely, now that it seems we are making a profit each year...

Apart from the financial gains I doubt we get much out of these games compared to what Hawthorn and North get from their Tasmanian games, yet dropping them could involve walking away from a significant sponsor. Do we want to do that just when we are building some solid relationships?

1 hour ago, Tough Kent said:

I remember PJ saying that the debt was in relation to the purchase of the Bentleigh Club and was considered a healthy debt, if there is such a thing. 

Of course there is healthy debt. When governments borrow to build schools, roads, and telecommunications systems and many other things the debt is creative because it enables people to be educated and a workforce trained and an economy to function. Those things are paid for over many years because many generations benefit from their creation.

The problem is that conservatives who want every activity to be an opportunity for their mates to make a profit have created a stink around government debt. 

It all depends on what the debt is for...like your mortgage (if you're lucky enough to have one) puts a roof over your head.

PJ means the Bentleigh Club is a constructive asset for the club generating income and forming a base for members, hence it is healthy as long as it continu

56 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

Apart from the financial gains I doubt we get much out of these games compared to what Hawthorn and North get from their Tasmanian games, yet dropping them could involve walking away from a significant sponsor. Do we want to do that just when we are building some solid relationships?

It's an interesting topic, one that I know gets raised on here time and time again.

To be honest, I'm neither here nor there with regards to the NT sponsorship/arrangement.  I'm absolutely supportive of any entity giving good money to our club, and there is no doubt that in our financial dark times that this source of income has been a blessing.  The argument is about it being at the cost of infield performances for not only that week, but the following week too.  Realistically, we have been a poor team for the past decade, and using the NT experiment as a reason for us losing games is an excuse rather than a reason.

Is it something that we should continue long term?  Who knows.  But at this stage, while we are making a profit, we are still along way from being a powerful club that can afford to knock back good dollars.  If we come out and win 3 particular games this year, both the NT games and the 1 after one of them (we have a bye after the Alice game), then we will likely hear noting of the agreement.

If we can start playing a consistent, high quality brand of footy, I'm sure the local communities will really get behind us, and we may find that the interest in our team grows substantially, which will likely see an increase in revenue.  But, if we are playing that level of footy, I'm sure playing those 2 games at the MCG will be just as financially beneficial.

There would be something pretty special about us being able to take our next premiership cup on a road trip to some of the communities in Central and Northern Australia.

Great result - not wanting to pour salt in the sugar bowl but I wonder how much of our profit is due to our investment in pokies machines?

On 25/11/2016 at 8:18 AM, pitmaster said:

Of course there is healthy debt. When governments borrow to build schools, roads, and telecommunications systems and many other things the debt is creative because it enables people to be educated and a workforce trained and an economy to function. Those things are paid for over many years because many generations benefit from their creation.

The problem is that conservatives who want every activity to be an opportunity for their mates to make a profit have created a stink around government debt. 

It all depends on what the debt is for...like your mortgage (if you're lucky enough to have one) puts a roof over your head.

PJ means the Bentleigh Club is a constructive asset for the club generating income and forming a base for members, hence it is healthy as long as it continu

The Bentleigh Club is also sitting on a prime piece of land, the value of which is increasing as I type this

On 24/11/2016 at 5:43 PM, Biffen said:

Maybe we should spend it on new desks for everyone!!

But that would take money away from the budget for the blazers.

This thread got me thinking

Do attendances matter or more correctly is it only attendance by general admission attendees that matter?

The club and the MCC get membership fees irrespective of whether we attend. Corporate boxes are rented by the year so again no difference.

No wonder no one wants to play an interstate team ........... the revenue must be almost nil.

On the other hand if you are a team where memberships outnumber available seats ( Geelong and the Crows spring to mind) you can increase your revenue by the sale of season reserved seats. Collingwood and Essendon seem to be able to do this at the MCG by creating an artificial shortage by means of nominating part of the ground as their "supporter area."

Interested in hearing peoples thoughts on how we might grow the revenue base as we enter what should be a period of relative success (fingers crossed of course).