Clubs Financials 2010

[Royal City]

That has, in the short term anyway, had no negative impact on the SANFL and the clubs that play in the SANFL.

Keep using the argument? I have said it once. Also, I did not say "on anyone", my comment was very mch directed towards club financial statements for 2010.Not any individual.

My bad.

Not for the first time and I am very confident it wont be the last.

And you will only get to use it once unfortunately for you. Yet again my bad .

Can I ask how can you tell it has had no negative effect "financially" ????? are you using the clubs 2010 financial positions as proof ????

When was the merger approved again ?????

[Booney]

".....in the short term anyway"


You may want to digest that portion of my comment.

[Royal City]

".....in the short term anyway"


You may want to digest that portion of my comment.

acknowledged.

now are you basing this call on 2010 financial reports ,interim financials done since the merger, an overall "vibe" you have or are you simply just guessing again.

can I guess the answer Mr Boon ???

[smithy]

".....in the short term anyway"


You may want to digest that portion of my comment.

[Big Phil]

Good idea from the Roosters...

http://city-north-messenger.whereilive. ... s-revenue/

[topsywaldron]

http://city-north-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/new-gym-to-boost-roosters-revenue/

Surely all taxpayers should get to use the gym for free, after all we did pay for it.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Or at least the people licking the windows of the Grand North at 8am trying to get in should get a discount.

btw Flopsy in our gym we don't have standing on cafe chairs waving at Lance machines on offer so you lot would have a limited range of equipment to use.

[on the rails]

http://city-north-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/new-gym-to-boost-roosters-revenue/

Surely all taxpayers should get to use the gym for free, after all we did pay for it.

Your conveniently forgetting that the NAFC is contributing $1.7 million towards the Oval upgrade so why shouldn't we get a say in how the Gym is utilised and operated and if that involves opening to the public for a fee then so be it. But don't let that get in the way of yet another ill thought out anti-North post!

[doggies4eva]

http://city-north-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/new-gym-to-boost-roosters-revenue/

Surely all taxpayers should get to use the gym for free, after all we did pay for it.

Your conveniently forgetting that the NAFC is contributing $1.7 million towards the Oval upgrade so why shouldn't we get a say in how the Gym is utilised and operated and if that involves opening to the public for a fee then so be it. But don't let that get in the way of yet another ill thought out anti-North post!

I totally agree with this post. All anti-North posts should be well thought out in future. There is plently of material so don't be lazy

[Grahaml]

http://city-north-messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/new-gym-to-boost-roosters-revenue/

Surely all taxpayers should get to use the gym for free, after all we did pay for it.

Your conveniently forgetting that the NAFC is contributing $1.7 million towards the Oval upgrade so why shouldn't we get a say in how the Gym is utilised and operated and if that involves opening to the public for a fee then so be it. But don't let that get in the way of yet another ill thought out anti-North post!

I totally agree with this post. All anti-North posts should be well thought out in future. There is plently of material so don't be lazy

Lol.

[topsywaldron]

But don't let that get in the way of yet another ill thought out anti-North post!

I usually only spend time thinking about my posts for the bigger clubs OTR, like Centrals and Glenelg.

So North contributed 1.7M, what's that about a quarter of the total cost? Given we have North's super profits rammed down out throats on here on a yearly basis I'd have thought they could have afforded more.

God bless Kate Ellis huh?

[Wedgie]

Ha ha Glenelg, good one Topsy!

Back on topic though, has anyone seen a Rucci or Cornes article on last years profits yet? I think not!

[on the rails]

But don't let that get in the way of yet another ill thought out anti-North post!

I usually only spend time thinking about my posts for the bigger clubs OTR, like Centrals and Glenelg.

So North contributed 1.7M, what's that about a quarter of the total cost? Given we have North's super profits rammed down out throats on here on a yearly basis I'd have thought they could have afforded more.

God bless Kate Ellis huh?

You should read previous posts topsy where I noted the following:

"Total Oval / Facility revamp is $3.6 million. Of that amount the council got a Federal grant of $1.75 million, the Prospect Council are paying $250K (not much in the scheme of things seeing as they are the owners of the whole facility) and the NAFC funding the balance which will cost the NAFC $1.6 million."


I will let you do the maths on that one re our percentage contribution? I will be interested as to what the Norwood FC ultimately contribute to any Oval redevolpment as is being talked about presently re your home ground.

I'm sure your club will take whatever funding the Council and the Feds give? Norwood (or any other club) would be fools not too so I can't see your point re the Federal funding re Prospect. Also let it be known it was the Council that applied and secured the grant (with support from the NAFC) which enabled us to commit our "portion".

Typically you just shoot your mouth off again with another sarcastic anti North response.

[Booney]

But don't let that get in the way of yet another ill thought out anti-North post!

I usually only spend time thinking about my posts for the bigger clubs OTR, like Centrals and Glenelg.

So North contributed 1.7M, what's that about a quarter of the total cost? Given we have North's super profits rammed down out throats on here on a yearly basis I'd have thought they could have afforded more.

God bless Kate Ellis huh?

You should read previous posts topsy where I noted the following:

"Total Oval / Facility revamp is $3.6 million. Of that amount the council got a Federal grant of $1.75 million, the Prospect Council are paying $250K (not much in the scheme of things seeing as they are the owners of the whole facility) and the NAFC funding the balance which will cost the NAFC $1.6 million."


I will let you do the maths on that one re our percentage contribution? I will be interested as to what the Norwood FC ultimately contribute to any Oval redevolpment as is being talked about presently re your home ground.

I'm sure your club will take whatever funding the Council and the Feds give? Norwood (or any other club) would be fools not too so I can't see your point re the Federal funding re Prospect. Also let it be known it was the Council that applied and secured the grant (with support from the NAFC) which enabled us to commit our "portion".

Typically you just shoot your mouth off again with another sarcastic anti North response.

Its ok mate, Royal City does it to Port, Punky for Glenelg.....etc etc.

[on the rails]

Maybe but topsy is in the main just a DH because surely he cannot be serious with some of his "fishing" trips?

[o five]

But don't let that get in the way of yet another ill thought out anti-North post!

I usually only spend time thinking about my posts for the bigger clubs OTR, like Centrals and Glenelg.

So North contributed 1.7M, what's that about a quarter of the total cost? Given we have North's super profits rammed down out throats on here on a yearly basis I'd have thought they could have afforded more.

God bless Kate Ellis huh?

Sour grapes maybe,

[topsywaldron]

Maybe but topsy is in the main just a DH because surely he cannot be serious with some of his "fishing" trips?

Maybe, but generally I do it without resorting to schoolyard abuse. Maybe that's how they did it in the cheer squads in the seventies?

Back on topic though, I'm pretty sure you've had a go at South for their sweet deals with the Government before. All I'm pointing out is that North have recorded vast profits for the last few years and that the taxpayer shouldn't be propping up a marginal seat with a taxpayer funded gym.

A relatively on topic and fair point I would have thought.

[Wedgie]

Maybe but topsy is in the main just a DH because surely he cannot be serious with some of his "fishing" trips?

Maybe, but generally I do it without resorting to schoolyard abuse. Maybe that's how they did it in the cheer squads in the seventies?

Back on topic though, I'm pretty sure you've had a go at South for their sweet deals with the Government before. All I'm pointing out is that North have recorded vast profits for the last few years and that the taxpayer shouldn't be propping up a marginal seat with a taxpayer funded gym.

A relatively on topic and fair point I would have thought.

Not a bad point but if anything the onus should be on the council since they own the land. I'm sure if they gave more ownership/control to North then North would be only too happy to spend even more money on assets on what is currently council land.

I don't care how rich I was, I doubt I'd spend a cent on upgrading assets located on other people's land. Granted a footy club is different as they're expected to put back into the community to some degree.

I suppose another point would be look at the tens of millions of dollars more that the government has put into soccer than football and the way soccer is going backwards at the minute one could argue that money could be better spent elsewhere. Don't blame me though, I voted Liberal.

[once_were_warriors]

Maybe but topsy is in the main just a DH because surely he cannot be serious with some of his "fishing" trips?

Maybe, but generally I do it without resorting to schoolyard abuse. Maybe that's how they did it in the cheer squads in the seventies?

Back on topic though, I'm pretty sure you've had a go at South for their sweet deals with the Government before. All I'm pointing out is that North have recorded vast profits for the last few years and that the taxpayer shouldn't be propping up a marginal seat with a taxpayer funded gym.

A relatively on topic and fair point I would have thought.

Not a bad point but if anything the onus should be on the council since they own the land. I'm sure if they gave more ownership/control to North then North would be only too happy to spend even more money on assets on what is currently council land.

I don't care how rich I was, I doubt I'd spend a cent on upgrading assets located on other people's land. Granted a footy club is different as they're expected to put back into the community to some degree.

I suppose another point would be look at the tens of millions of dollars more that the government has put into soccer than football and the way soccer is going backwards at the minute one could argue that money could be better spent elsewhere. Don't blame me though, I voted Liberal.

hehe and how much did Hindmarsh blow out by when it was built?

Don't blame me though , I voted independent.

[Barto]

Ha ha Glenelg, good one Topsy!

Back on topic though, has anyone seen a Rucci or Cornes article on last years profits yet? I think not!

I'd love to hear Rucci's retraction about Sturt's financial position. Has he written it yet?