We have to pay $200,000 next year to him like we did for Woewodin. Also the directors and auditors are disputing the payment's catergory in the clubs books. If the auditors have there way, this years profit should be loss. The directors classify the payment for next year as it due next year.

I'll let you green pens explain

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dees...8175414015.html

We have to pay $200,000 next year to him like we did for Woewodin. Also the directors and auditors are disputing the payment's catergory in the clubs books. If the auditors have there way, this years profit should be loss. The directors classify the payment for next year as it due next year.

I'll let you green pens explain

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dees...8175414015.html

I don't see the Woewodin analogy. Although if the deal is only for 1 year it isn't too bad. I think at 28 every year his market value goes down.

I think that the frustrating thing at MFC is, because of a number of factors (including AFL / AFLPA agreement that clubs must pay 92.5% of cap), they end up paying players above market value and arguably their worth. I guess bonuses for performance address this but players Johnstone get a contract on performance that he did not consistently deliver. To put this is perspective he is probably the highest pay midfielder at Brisbane this year, yet he is probably expecting not to be tagged as he is probably no. 4 or 5 (behind Black, Power, Lappin and maybe Rischitelli )

Travis has been replaced by a draftee who's payment is in the order of $50,000 per annum. When you add the $200,000 we are paying for Travis the total payment to have that player on the books is $250,000. Travis was on significantly more than this so the club has saved money.

I'll let the auditors argue over the accounting treatment, it means diddly squat. If the profit goes down by $200,000 this year it will go up by $200,000 next year. Do you really care?

Travis has been replaced by a draftee who's payment is in the order of $50,000 per annum. When you add the $200,000 we are paying for Travis the total payment to have that player on the books is $250,000. Travis was on significantly more than this so the club has saved money.

I'll let the auditors argue over the accounting treatment, it means diddly squat. If the profit goes down by $200,000 this year it will go up by $200,000 next year. Do you really care?

My personal preference is to write off the loss this year for the reason you've already stated. In terms of football I'm hopefully going to enjoy watching Grimes play over the next 10 or 12 years, just like I enjoyed watching Bell play last season.

while this doesn't comply with accounting standards, hence the dispute from EY, it makes sense to write it off next year I think...

i'm surprised it's taken this long for an article to pop up... i noticed the qualified audit report when the annual report was released...

I thought we knew we were paying some his salary for 08 after the trade.

This is just an accounting dispute. No new info.

I thought we knew we were paying some his salary for 08 after the trade.

This is just an accounting dispute. No new info.

exactly we knew this already...must be the slowest news day of the year for that to get a run

Bit of a storm in a tea cup isnt it. My lay appreciation of costs are you cant account for them til they are incurred..As such it would be an 08 item.. .. Doenst matter really in long run. Just another chance to stick the boot into the Dees !!

Issues like this usually come up when a club is trying to bring payments forward because there is room in one years salary cap and they want to free up space in the next years salary cap. I thought that we were well under the salary cap for next year; if we aren't, we bloody well should be. It really is a non event.

If payments to players are made in the year they are earnt, not in the year the contract is signed, then the club should be able to say that Travis' payment for next year goes in next years salary cap.

I know that this sort of thing is grist for the mill to us pedants, seriously, who cares.

Travis has been replaced by a draftee who's payment is in the order of $50,000 per annum. When you add the $200,000 we are paying for Travis the total payment to have that player on the books is $250,000. Travis was on significantly more than this so the club has saved money.

I'll let the auditors argue over the accounting treatment, it means diddly squat. If the profit goes down by $200,000 this year it will go up by $200,000 next year. Do you really care?

Agree. Next

Travis = $600,000 = Fact

I'll let the auditors argue over the accounting treatment, it means diddly squat. If the profit goes down by $200,000 this year it will go up by $200,000 next year. Do you really care?

Precisely.

If Johnstone is the new Woewodin then he'll probably be playing in the QFL in a couple of years time.

Woewodin was moved due to his massive 600K+ a year contract. Trappper was moved because the club could not rebuild arouind his style of play. Trapper will be of more use to the lions than Woey was to the pies. Woey was used as blind hope for magpie fans. Trapper will actually give something to the Lions fans.

Even though we pay for him this year, it is something that needs to be done for this list to develop.

Why in the world do we have EY as our auditors? Geez no wonder we've got no money. Not even clubs with money like Essendon waste their money on Big Four auditors

Travis has been replaced by a draftee who's payment is in the order of $50,000 per annum. When you add the $200,000 we are paying for Travis the total payment to have that player on the books is $250,000. Travis was on significantly more than this so the club has saved money.

I'll let the auditors argue over the accounting treatment, it means diddly squat. If the profit goes down by $200,000 this year it will go up by $200,000 next year. Do you really care?

Yes- i agree

If Johnstone is the new Woewodin then he'll probably be playing in the QFL in a couple of years time.

or Chelsea.