2011 club financials.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Good on South. And good on North. $250000 is probably the amount of free piss and lunches Prospect councillors get a year.

[Jim05]

Good on South. And good on North. $250000 is probably the amount of free piss and lunches Prospect councillors get a year.

Spot on. The greedy bastards probably spent that on their Christmas breakup. Pitiful effort by the council

[HOORAY PUNT]

I wouldn't think Sturt would scoff at a quarter of a milllion from the council.

[southee]

they did fund a part of it, along with the taxpayer and the very ,very generous ratepayers of Prospect Council.

The Prospect Council tipped in $250,000 out of the total $3.6 million allocated / spent. The remainder was funded by the NAFC ($1.7 million) and a Federal Govt. grant made up the rest! Very very generous is not the term I would have used - I think the rate payers got off lightly!

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

Token rents like that are very, very common. Nothing to do with Rann.

I thought it was Dean Brown that helped us out there??? I could be wrong.

Dean Brown was another great South man

[Sojourner]

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

Who was the Premier when legislation was rushed through the SA Parliament to permit North Adelaide to have Poker Machines in a shopping mall? Had they sat on their hands and not given North Adelaide "special assistance" its not even remotely assured that North would still be here today.

[smac]

they did fund a part of it, along with the taxpayer and the very ,very generous ratepayers of Prospect Council.

The Prospect Council tipped in $250,000 out of the total $3.6 million allocated / spent. The remainder was funded by the NAFC ($1.7 million) and a Federal Govt. grant made up the rest! Very very generous is not the term I would have used - I think the rate payers got off lightly!

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

How many councils tip in that amount though? It's a terrific result for North. I couldn't get footpath fixed in the 7 years I lived in that council!

A few clubs are on peppercorn leases, I believe.

[dedja]

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

Who was the Premier when legislation was rushed through the SA Parliament to permit North Adelaide to have Poker Machines in a shopping mall? Had they sat on their hands and not given North Adelaide "special assistance" its not even remotely assured that North would still be here today.

This could get interesting ...

[The Sleeping Giant]

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

Who was the Premier when legislation was rushed through the SA Parliament to permit North Adelaide to have Poker Machines in a shopping mall? Had they sat on their hands and not given North Adelaide "special assistance" its not even remotely assured that North would still be here today.

This could get interesting ...

Not really. We would have survived, but we wanted to prosper.

[robranisgod]

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

Who was the Premier when legislation was rushed through the SA Parliament to permit North Adelaide to have Poker Machines in a shopping mall? Had they sat on their hands and not given North Adelaide "special assistance" its not even remotely assured that North would still be here today.

This could get interesting ...

Not really. We would have survived, but we wanted to prosper.

And remember who was the hypocrite who tried to bring North Adelaide down and in turn would have brought Woodville West Torrens, Norwood and Sturt down as well.

[Wedgie]

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

Who was the Premier when legislation was rushed through the SA Parliament to permit North Adelaide to have Poker Machines in a shopping mall? Had they sat on their hands and not given North Adelaide "special assistance" its not even remotely assured that North would still be here today.

No assistance was given, but public pressure from a very well organised rally of over 2000 people got things rolling nicely!
When the going gets tough some supporters roll over or beg where others get off their arse and do something about it.

[robranisgod]

BTW - We won't mention South being gifted a 99 year / $1 dollar per annum lease on Noarlunga shall we or have we forgotten about "Go Panthers" Mr Rann now he is not the Premier?

Who was the Premier when legislation was rushed through the SA Parliament to permit North Adelaide to have Poker Machines in a shopping mall? Had they sat on their hands and not given North Adelaide "special assistance" its not even remotely assured that North would still be here today.

No assistance was given, but public pressure from a very well organised rally of over 2000 people got things rolling nicely!
When the going gets tough some supporters roll over or beg where others get off their arse and do something about it.

And Mr Hypocrite said the 2000 people marching were only doing it because they were getting a voucher to the pokies. He didn't see the old people on the side of the road crying because they thought that they would lose their football club.

[devilsadvocate]

North did fund the redevelopment of the Prospect Oval during the last 12 months to the tune of $1.75 million (along with having to service existing loans) so it would be absurd to show a profit based on that alone.

That's a capital item, otr, and shouldn't affect the profit (barring 'creative' accounting, of course)

they did fund a part of it, along with the taxpayer and the very ,very generous ratepayers of Prospect Council.

Red and Black,
stand by for a hail of abuse for using the terms "North" and "Creative Accounting" in the same post.

Great to see there is someone posting some truth on here. Well said b&w.

I'm a prospect ratepayer. You're welcome NAFC...

[devilsadvocate]

I think every club did make a loss except south and eagles

Where'd you get that from? North's financials dont come out for another month.
And even if we did make a loss it would only be to fund new projects or pay off debt a lot earlier than needed to keep the Tax department off our back. We could show million dollar profit every year if there was a benefit in doing so.

How does repaying debt keep the ATO off your back? Absolutely no linke between the 2. If anything, high debts reduce your taxable income, so the reverse is true.

[Wedgie]

I think every club did make a loss except south and eagles

Where'd you get that from? North's financials dont come out for another month.
And even if we did make a loss it would only be to fund new projects or pay off debt a lot earlier than needed to keep the Tax department off our back. We could show million dollar profit every year if there was a benefit in doing so.

How does repaying debt keep the ATO off your back? Absolutely no linke between the 2. If anything, high debts reduce your taxable income, so the reverse is true.

If you show a certain profit every year you are deemed a business and not a sporting institute and lose out on a variety of benefits. It's a quite obvious link.

[devilsadvocate]

I think every club did make a loss except south and eagles

Where'd you get that from? North's financials dont come out for another month.
And even if we did make a loss it would only be to fund new projects or pay off debt a lot earlier than needed to keep the Tax department off our back. We could show million dollar profit every year if there was a benefit in doing so.

How does repaying debt keep the ATO off your back? Absolutely no linke between the 2. If anything, high debts reduce your taxable income, so the reverse is true.

If you show a certain profit every year you are deemed a business and not a sporting institute and lose out on a variety of benefits. It's a quite obvious link.

Which is exactly why I put the last sentence in there. Go back and read your post.

[Hondo]

I think the confusion is coming from saying that paying off debts reduces your profit. It doesn't. Repaying debts only shows in our cash flow statement but no-one focusses on that too much.

The best way to not show a profit is to be what makes you tax exempt in the first place. Ie a not for profit organisation. So for a footy club the trick is to spend it on the footy department and the footy club. I am not saying we don't do that BTW.

[Country Cousin]

I think every club did make a loss except south and eagles

Where'd you get that from? North's financials dont come out for another month.
And even if we did make a loss it would only be to fund new projects or pay off debt a lot earlier than needed to keep the Tax department off our back. We could show million dollar profit every year if there was a benefit in doing so.

How does repaying debt keep the ATO off your back? Absolutely no linke between the 2. If anything, high debts reduce your taxable income, so the reverse is true.

If you show a certain profit every year you are deemed a business and not a sporting institute and lose out on a variety of benefits. It's a quite obvious link.

With respect Wedgie, it's rather more complex than that. All SANFL clubs, along with the vast majority of other sporting clubs in S.A. are incorporated under The Associations Incorporation Act. In order to gain incorporation a club's Articles of Association must contain certain mandatory clauses, that spell out what will be done with any operating surpluses generated by its activities. So long as clubs stay within the provisions of the Act, the ATO has tended to leave them alone. There are nearly identical acts in all states. These are State legislations, whereas the ATO is a Federal body. The ATO has tried several times in recent years to claim that the enormous profits of NSW Leagues Clubs (Which are many times larger than any of ours) should be subject to Federal income tax. They have had limited success so far, with their main target being the separately incorporated gaming facilities, who's connection with a sporting club is dubious.(eg South Sydney Junior League Club) Because of the legal complexities of this issue, it seems that the ATO will continue to seek a breakthrough against the big players in NSW, hoping to get a ruling that can then be applied more widely. So long as SANFL clubs watch what they do and stay within the provisions of the State Act under which they are incorporated there is little likelihood of attracting the attention of the ATO at this stage.

[redandblack]

That's correct, CC.

Making consistent profits has nothing to do with losing tax exemption.

[blueandwhite]

North did fund the redevelopment of the Prospect Oval during the last 12 months to the tune of $1.75 million (along with having to service existing loans) so it would be absurd to show a profit based on that alone.

That's a capital item, otr, and shouldn't affect the profit (barring 'creative' accounting, of course)

they did fund a part of it, along with the taxpayer and the very ,very generous ratepayers of Prospect Council.

Red and Black,
stand by for a hail of abuse for using the terms "North" and "Creative Accounting" in the same post.

Great to see there is someone posting some truth on here. Well said b&w.

I'm a prospect ratepayer. You're welcome NAFC...

Just adding to that, as a Prospect ratepayer who assisted financially in the building of the new facility , when SA played North towards the end of last season I was refused admittance by a security guard when I atempted in vain to peruse the new facility.
Part of the spin spun to Prospect ratepayers is that the facility is available to all ratepayers. Go figure.


Also for those having a crack at the SAFC for obtaining a 99 yr pepercorn lease for Hickinbotham oval well try this on for size.
South does its own maintenance and pays its own water bill at Noarlunga- $50k/year for the water.
South is in the process of paying off a multi million dollar debt for all of the improvements at Hickinbotham.
Does NAFC own the land at Prospect? or have they for 100 yrs paid a peppercorn rent for the oval to the Prospect Oval?
Who pays for all the upkeep and maintenance on the Oval, is it NAFC or the council?
Who pays the water bill at Prospect, the footy club or the Council??


So before throwing rocks at South have a look in your own back yard first and have a good look at the run youve had for a hundred years!

[The Sleeping Giant]

Omg. So what if you're a rate payer. The $2 you contributed doesn't give you the right to go inside many council funded buildings without permission. When the gym is available, I'm sure you will be able to enter for a fee.

North lease Prospect oval, and I remember a fee of $10000 a year but can't be certain. If the new facilities didn't go ahead, North would have been forced to go elsewhere. Being a lover of the SANFL, I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

If you dig around, you will more than likely find the council has wasted plenty of money on more trivial things. The council have a nice new facility, for the sum of $250000.