by westcoastpanther » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:00 pm
by Dutchy » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:55 pm
westcoastpanther wrote:Loan repayments don't affect profits, only the reduction in interest payable
by on the rails » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:50 am
DOC wrote:If I'm reading it right.
We had Pokie turnover of $1.9m and made a profit.
Centrals had Pokie turnover of $4.3 m and made a loss.
North have a Pokie turnover of about $8m and will report a loss.
How can this be so?
by Wedgie » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:24 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by DOC » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:07 am
on the rails wrote:DOC wrote:If I'm reading it right.
We had Pokie turnover of $1.9m and made a profit.
Centrals had Pokie turnover of $4.3 m and made a loss.
North have a Pokie turnover of about $8m and will report a loss.
How can this be so?
Surely that is not correct - South must have taken more than $1.9m through 40 machines, it is one of the best performing venues in SA?
Amazingly for the NAFC, whilst the industry was down across the board on average 5% in gaming revenue, the Northern Tavern was up 6%!
by on the rails » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:18 am
DOC wrote:on the rails wrote:DOC wrote:If I'm reading it right.
We had Pokie turnover of $1.9m and made a profit.
Centrals had Pokie turnover of $4.3 m and made a loss.
North have a Pokie turnover of about $8m and will report a loss.
How can this be so?
Surely that is not correct - South must have taken more than $1.9m through 40 machines, it is one of the best performing venues in SA?
Amazingly for the NAFC, whilst the industry was down across the board on average 5% in gaming revenue, the Northern Tavern was up 6%!
I think I have this wrong. The figure is listed against net poker machine receipts which I guess is the difference between coins in and coins out. I don't know what our turnover was but I think returns are something like 80% so maybe our turnover is around $8m.
Looks like I wasn't reading it right.
by CENTURION » Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:21 am
by Mr Fuller » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:47 pm
by holden78 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:48 am
by on the rails » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:01 am
by SDK » Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:42 pm
by robranisgod » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:08 pm
SDK wrote:Has North owned the site that long ? I would have though Rob Gerard would be liable for that ?????
by o five » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:51 pm
SDK wrote:Has North owned the site that long ? I would have though Rob Gerard would be liable for that ?????
by SDK » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:12 pm
by Mark_Beswick » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:47 pm
by CENTURION » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:58 pm
Mark_Beswick wrote:Rental / leased businesses over a certain value (I think 400k) assume all costs like council, esl, land tax, water etc...
Norths Asset would be well over that value so they would have to pay the $$$ - Unfortuntaely there are a few clubs with tax bills making their clubs life difficult at the moment. Fortunately North can cover this hiccup after some excellent financial decisions over the past 10 years.
by on the rails » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:18 am
by holden78 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:37 am
by Sojourner » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:02 am
holden78 wrote:At the AGM in a few weeks I'd say!
My guess would be a small loss may be on the cards to accommodate the clubroom refurbishment.
These things tend to get worked to reduce tax liablity and set up future financial goals.
I believe we are very solid though or there was no
way the Eagles could have afforded the refurbishment in this particular economic climate.
Taking on a CEO with very little footy background but a solid business CV tells you what is the most important aspect of a SANFL club in 2013.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |