West Adelaide Financial Situation

by Big Phil Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:50 pm

Released by the Bloods this afternoon...

RADIO REPORT CLARIFICATION

Last weekend there was a report on radio suggesting that the West Adelaide Football Club was in serious financial trouble. This is totally incorrect.

The reality is that the Club owns its clubrooms and the land it occupies. This is a significant asset and underpins the Club's financial position.

Over the past 3 years, we have reduced expenditure significantly (in the vicinity of $450,000 plus) and have taken steps to improve revenue streams by leasing the first floor area to Billiards and Snooker SA.

We have also streamlined the Function Centre operation to return a small profit in 2016 and improved Gaming performance, which is showing a slight increase in trading in 2016 compared with 2015.

Our only non-current liability is to the Westies Wolfpack Unit Trust, a group of passionate Board members and supporters who have a long-term commitment to our club.

As with other clubs, we do suffer seasonal cash flow difficulties and this can become significant towards the end of the year. However, we have always and will continue to meet our commitments.

Our budget, showing a profit for 2017, has been recently submitted to the SANFL, who have reviewed and accepted it.

The Club will continue to work to improve its performance, but the steps we have already taken have meant there is no current threat to the financial viability of the West Adelaide Football Club and we are extremely confident of our future.

John Kantilaftas - CEO

by Chambo Off To Work We Go Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:28 pm

This raises an interesting question.

Is it mandatory that all clubs must submit their budget to the sanfl for approval?

by Lee Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:40 pm

Yes it is, Chambo.

The SANFL go through them line by line and won't accept anything that can't be justified.

Clubs must also report their trading results frequently.

by Flag No.10 Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:11 pm

Lee wrote:
The SANFL go through them line by line and won't accept anything that can't be justified.

If only you were talking about Rucci's articles.

by RODH2 Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:17 pm

Flag No.10 wrote:
Lee wrote:
The SANFL go through them line by line and won't accept anything that can't be justified.

If only you were talking about Rucci's articles.

Hobby horse of mine, but the media are into sensationalism instead of facts........ It's (the media) disposable tho' . Evil or Very Mad

by Brucetiki Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:27 pm

The media - well News Corp media (and, even more to the point - Mr. Rucci) motto: 'Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story'. Even the Crows snub News Corp these days.

And they wonder why their readership has flatlined in the past 5 years.

by Lee Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:33 pm

Flag No.10 wrote:
Lee wrote:
The SANFL go through them line by line and won't accept anything that can't be justified.

If only you were talking about Rucci's articles.

Yes. as far as I know Mr Rucci had not spoken to West to ask their side of this story.

by blacky Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:25 pm

So is their a chance that mr rucci will apologize
Don't think he is a fan of the SANFL

by oldfella Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:42 pm

I believe at the threat of legal action that the club should demand that ruchi be made to read an agreed statement of correction and fact at the start of the next program and at least once during that program.

Not that he is likely to come to westies i further call the management to ban ruchi from west adelaide football club premises and surrounds and until such time as he formally ( verbal on air or in writing) apologises be banned from all communication with any club official or player (stuff any pressure from sanfl by the way)

This is not a freedom of press or freedom of speech issue rather very poor journalism that could have impacted the clubs business position

by Lee Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:10 pm

Once again, Michelangelo ignores basic journalistic practice and gets it wrong.

by bayman Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:09 pm

for many years he seems to be a law unto himself

by mickyj Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:24 am

Lee wrote:Once again, Michelangelo ignores basic journalistic practice and gets it wrong.

cant argue with that

by Chambo Off To Work We Go Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:00 am

Lee wrote:Yes it is, Chambo.

The SANFL go through them line by line and won't accept anything that can't be justified.

Clubs must also report their trading results frequently.

What happens if there is something that they don't like?

I would have thought that the Board of any club has the mandate to conduct its own business in the interests of the club.
The directors would have that fiducial responsibility.

If the sanfl were to start meddling in a club's finances, then the waters get pretty murky.
Does the sanfl often get actively involved either at their own behest or that of a club?

I don't really understand what framework exists between a club and sanfl in the terms of the affiliation beyond football matters.

Would be interested to know Lee if you are able to explain.

by Brucetiki Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:48 am

oldfella wrote:I believe at the threat of legal action that the club should demand that ruchi be made to read an agreed statement of correction and fact at the start of the next program and at least once during that program.

Not that he is likely to come to westies i further call the management to ban ruchi from west adelaide football club premises and surrounds and until such time as he formally ( verbal on air or in writing) apologises be banned from all communication with any club official or player (stuff any pressure from sanfl by the way)

This is not a freedom of press or freedom of speech issue rather very poor journalism that could have impacted the clubs business position

Perhaps take a leaf from the Crows book and don't release any exclusive press releases to them. While the Crows give their stuff to The Age (which would be pointless for Westies), Westies could perhaps give theirs to InDaily.

by Lee Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:58 am

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:
Lee wrote:Yes it is, Chambo.

The SANFL go through them line by line and won't accept anything that can't be justified.

Clubs must also report their trading results frequently.

What happens if there is something that they don't like?

I would have thought that the Board of any club has the mandate to conduct its own business in the interests of the club.
The directors would have that fiducial responsibility.

If the sanfl were to start meddling in a club's finances, then the waters get pretty murky.
Does the sanfl often get actively involved either at their own behest or that of a club?

I don't really understand what framework exists between a club and sanfl in the terms of the affiliation beyond football matters.

Would be interested to know Lee if you are able to explain.

They're very good questions, Chambo.

It's a complicated situation, especially if a club seeks help from the SANFL.

by blueandwhite Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:12 am

Lee wrote:
Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:
Lee wrote:Yes it is, Chambo.

The SANFL go through them line by line and won't accept anything that can't be justified.

Clubs must also report their trading results frequently.

What happens if there is something that they don't like?

I would have thought that the Board of any club has the mandate to conduct its own business in the interests of the club.
The directors would have that fiducial responsibility.

If the sanfl were to start meddling in a club's finances, then the waters get pretty murky.
Does the sanfl often get actively involved either at their own behest or that of a club?

I don't really understand what framework exists between a club and sanfl in the terms of the affiliation beyond football matters.

Would be interested to know Lee if you are able to explain.

They're very good questions, Chambo.

It's a complicated situation, especially if a club seeks help from the SANFL.

very interesting.....

by Lee Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:35 am

Without the SANFL's assistance, some clubs would find it difficult, or impossible, to survive.

The SANFL and the clubs work together to address financial problems.

The West Adelaide statement is totally accurate.

by Chambo Off To Work We Go Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:21 am

I have a recollection from a Sturt meeting that October / November are the worst months for cash flow. Not as many people coming to the club after the season. Player payments to complete etc. Same with all clubs.

Perhaps Lee can verify, but I thought the sanfl release a payment to clubs somewhere about now which assists a bit in getting over that hurdle.

Clubs like early membership payments too to help the cash flow.

Short term cash flow blips, don't necessarily mean clubs (or any organisation for that matter) cannot meet their overall commitments.

I think such reports need to be put into a bit pf perspective in the overall financial plan

by Lee Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:03 am

That's correct, Chambo.

The SANFL are always helpful with the timing of payments.

by Chambo Off To Work We Go Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:29 am

I have heard that West have recorded a modest profit for the year.
Would that be correct?

I have also (unofficially) heard that Sturt will announce at tonight's AGM a (more than modest) profit this year which is pleasing given the difficulties circa 3 years ago.

I get the impression that clubs are changing their operational structures to reflect the economic landscape in this post AFL-reserves era. Maybe some of that is collectively coming a bit slowly, but I guess there is no template road map on how to do it.

Of course it is not just about a different nature of returns to clubs after the Crows and Power licences are not in the hands of the SANFL. But also other sources of funding and revenue such as less reliance on pokies etc. The evolving nature of clubs' management structures also seems to be changing the financial landscape too.

Leaner and meaner seems to be the common motto.

Sturt, West and Glenelg have had reasonably well documented difficulties in recent times. The Eagles may have changed their management structure (similar to Sturt's) for other reasons.

What of Norwood, South, North and Centrals? Is it largely business as usual?

Any thoughts on this?

by PhilH Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:33 pm

I am going to sound a word of caution here.

This was the first year of distributions to SANFL clubs from the sale of AAMI Stadium, I understand about $250K per club.

Most SANFL Club profit & loss statements will reflect this, as is correct to do.

However these distribution are for debt reduction or for clubs with no long term debt (Eagles) investment into growing income for years to come. They also have an expiry date.

So when you see a club undergoing a massive improvement this needs to be taken into account.

by PhilH Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:40 pm

That said,

The move to mandate that every SANFL club produces a realistic budget for 2016/17 that results in a $100K surplus before these AAMI Stadium funds are received is a good move forward.

Not easy to adjust to, but for the league & clubs to have a strong future, financial sustainability is critical.

by Flag No.10 Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:35 pm

PhilH wrote:
The move to mandate that every SANFL club produces a realistic budget for 2016/17 that results in a $100K surplus before these AAMI Stadium funds are received is a good move forward.

Shame the same policy wasn't applied to Port Power before $13million was handed over to them.

by mickyj Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:49 pm

heres the report from the Eagles for 2016

EAGLES CLUB

Seven 22 (Port Road) achieved a Net Profit of $488k for 2016 (prior to the distribution of $616k to the Football Club)
Eagles Function Centre (Oval Avenue) realised a loss of $283k for 2016.
The combined result for the Eagles Club was a surplus of 205k (prior to the distribution to the Football Club).
WOODVILLE WEST TORRENS FOOTBALL CLUB

The Woodville West Torrens Football Club realised a surplus of $328k for 2016. This is compared to previous years’ result of a deficit of $74k for 2015, deficit of $507k in 2014 and a deficit of $176k in 2013.
The surplus of $328k includes $250k which is the first payment received from SANFL from the sale of AAMI stadium. Excluding the AAMI Stadium funds results in a surplus of $128k for 2016.
The budget for 2017 has been set to achieve a cash surplus of $120k at the end of the 2017 financial year.
Whilst this target will be challenging we are $96k above budget at the end of the first 2 months. Some of this will be due to timing issues but others are saving achieved which will enhance the year end result.

by bayman Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:58 pm

Flag No.10 wrote:
PhilH wrote:
The move to mandate that every SANFL club produces a realistic budget for 2016/17 that results in a $100K surplus before these AAMI Stadium funds are received is a good move forward.

Shame the same policy wasn't applied to Port Power before $13million was handed over to them.

yeah, i wish i could ''borrow'' $13 million & then have it changed as a gift (not saying Port changed it) just making a point that every debt should be repaid

by Sponsored content

West Adelaide Financial Situation

West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation

Re: West Adelaide Financial Situation