SA Footy

Attended the SAFC AGM last night.
Club reported a 179k profit for 2011; an excellent result in a very difficult trading environment. The club also repaid a significant amount on the principle of its debt. A very pleasing result.

blueandwhite wrote:Attended the SAFC AGM last night.
Club reported a 179k profit for 2011; an excellent result in a very difficult trading environment. The club also repaid a significant amount on the principle of its debt. A very pleasing result.

It's great to see 1 club is doing well.

Lets hope the other 8 are there in 2012...?

Just maybe, there are a couple/few clubs in trouble for 2012...?

blueandwhite wrote:Attended the SAFC AGM last night.
Club reported a 179k profit for 2011; an excellent result in a very difficult trading environment. The club also repaid a significant amount on the principle of its debt. A very pleasing result.

Fair effort. Good work by the SAFC. If only the bloods management could learn from this

CDFC made a loss .

CDFC made a loss

did you ask or tell yourself?

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

southee wrote: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.

Wedgie wrote:

southee wrote: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.

Just the word on the streets .....don't know what to believe

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.

on the rails wrote: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.

Fairy nuff.
Hopefully those wanker media naysayers dont be as selective in their articles as they were 2 years ago.
They were very quiet this year.

on the rails wrote: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)

redandblack wrote:

on the rails wrote: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.

redandblack wrote:

on the rails wrote: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)

Same with repaying loans or debt. It won't affect the reported profit. It will just show up as less cash in the bank and less of a bank loan.

Except for the interesting saved on the lower borrowings.

Hondo wrote:

redandblack wrote:

on the rails wrote: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) [/

Except for the interesting saved on the lower borrowings.

interesting!!!!

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

Southee is correct - at least in North's case he is on the money.

blueandwhite wrote: 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?

on the rails wrote:

blueandwhite wrote: 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.

It was the government before I believe. Mr Olsen.

South should never complain (not saying they are) but they have had a great help from local and state Governments .

had a feeling it was the libs