Club announce $1.65M loss

[Dannyz 2,749]

Annual accounts have been released.
 

Puts an end to a grim year for the club. 
 

https://resources.melbournefc.com.au/aflc-melb/document/2024/11/22/8b9ff1d8-7937-4b5c-ac7d-a19869da7ae9/Annual-Financial-Report-2024.pdf

[Cranky Franky 2,058]

Interesting. The first pageof the statement reports a $1.7m operating profit ??????

[Adam The God 30,243]

So net legal costs with a $1.65mill operating loss come to $925,680. Seems like a sub $1mill operating loss might have been very avoidable...

[BDA 22,752]

Payout to Gus of $3.1m and legal fees of $900k put a huge dent in the results. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,215]

Legal costs and paying out Brayshaw turned it from a 1.6m profit to a 1.6m loss?

[rpfc 28,410]

Slightly misleading (or more than that) with Angus’ payout having to be written off this FY.

It would be about a fifth of the $3.1m this year?

Keeping us in the black in real terms.

[Diamond_Jim 12,580]

Strange thing with the Gus write down is that it will increase profit in the out years as we forced to operate under a reduced salary cap.

A nice financial up but terrible from a team structuring viewpoint

[Dr. Gonzo 24,215]

I'm surprised we couldn't amortise Gus's salary over the years of his contract. Maybe we decided to eat it all this year? Or would it not have been an option?

[rpfc 28,410]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm surprised we couldn't amortise Gus's salary over the years of his contract. Maybe we decided to eat it all this year? Or would it not have been an option?

I think that the ‘accounting’ side, and the ‘real FY payment’ side, and the ‘amorphous AFL rules that will be reversed in 2 years time’ are confusing the issue here.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,791]

5 hours ago, BDA said:

Payout to Gus of $3.1m and legal fees of $900k put a huge dent in the results. 

So Collingwood pole-axing Gus won them a premiership and put us into negative finances.

And people wonder why I hate that club so much.

[Leopold Bloom 347]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Legal costs and paying out Brayshaw turned it from a 1.6m profit to a 1.6m loss?

Is there no insurance cover for a situation like Brayshaw’s?

[drysdale demon 4,832]

2 hours ago, Leopold Bloom said:

Is there no insurance cover for a situation like Brayshaw’s?

None at all.

[picket fence 17,157]

I am ASTOUNDED that if your number one primary job still doesn't cater for workplace injuries sustained during your time at work, this must be addressed surely?? I reckon the Afl and that piece of !#$* should be sued! The AFL failed in their duty of care to protect  and so did that !@#$.

[george_on_the_outer 7,590]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm surprised we couldn't amortise Gus's salary over the years of his contract. Maybe we decided to eat it all this year? Or would it not have been an option?

Exactly.  Makes things look better on the books in coming years, but why would a total payment be made today, when his salary would have been paid over the next 4-5 years?

Perhaps he accepted a lesser amount to get the money upfront?

It is still ridiculous for the club to claim it is an "abnormal" amount.

[Ouch! 2,262]

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Exactly.  Makes things look better on the books in coming years, but why would a total payment be made today, when his salary would have been paid over the next 4-5 years?

I'm confused, does it though?  If Brayshaw's payout means that we have the full TPP available for the rest of the players, it's not going to look better in coming years, it will just look normal again? 

[rpfc 28,410]

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

I'm confused, does it though?  If Brayshaw's payout means that we have the full TPP available for the rest of the players, it's not going to look better in coming years, it will just look normal again? 

 

13 hours ago, rpfc said:

I think that the ‘accounting’ side, and the ‘real FY payment’ side, and the ‘amorphous AFL rules that will be reversed in 2 years time’ are confusing the issue here.

[george_on_the_outer 7,590]

Just now, Ouch! said:

I'm confused, does it though?  If Brayshaw's payout means that we have the full TPP available for the rest of the players, it's not going to look better in coming years, it will just look normal again? 

TPP is separate to Financial statements. The AFL have already told us what we have to carry in the TPP.  If all the financial liability is brought to account this year as a big loss, then in subsequent years the financials will look better than if amortised.

[Fritta and Turner 4,407]

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Exactly.  Makes things look better on the books in coming years, but why would a total payment be made today, when his salary would have been paid over the next 4-5 years?

Perhaps he accepted a lesser amount to get the money upfront?

It is still ridiculous for the club to claim it is an "abnormal" amount.

The cat sat on my head at 3.00am so to get back to sleep I read the mfc financial report.  I think somewhere in there is a note that stated that the full Brayshaw payment was included in this statement as per Australian Accounting Standards. (sounds a tad Monty Python).